Can A Caregiver Provide Marijuana To Twenty Patients Legally?

[trichcycler]

or 13 even, in the same day ?

I didn't think so, after reading the lara pages, and seeing this on this site; http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/page/articles/caregivers/caregiver-standards


All MMMA listed caregivers will be required to comply with the following guidelines:

1) Caregivers agree to follow all applicable state and local laws, regulations and ordinances;
•Each caregiver can only assist five patients with their medical use of marijuana.
 
but then I hear some smart posters claiming "yes" you can sell to more than five patients within our Act. With nobody but me challenging this claim I
have to wonder now who is misguided, and what advice is solid.

Edited January 28, 2015 by grassmatch

[imiubu]

[trichcycler]

that's cuz you been here longer than others.

This subject came up yesterday in another thread. Posters were eager to respond with the information I suspected to be incorrect. Instead of doing it in that thread, I thought it fair to give it a thread of its own. sorry it grabbed your attention, and forced a reply  but I am genuinely interested in finding advice that is not designed to get patients in trouble. Understand only one of those bits is correct. Someone may be inadvertently handing patients incorrect information?  be nice to weed that out right?

[imiubu]

  I will bow out.

[trichcycler]

you have nothing to add?   what was the jist of the past posting conclusions at least? 

[imiubu]

1) Caregivers agree to follow all applicable state and local laws, regulations and ordinances;
•Each caregiver can only assist five patients with their medical use of marijuana.
 

 

I don't see how it can be any more clear than that ^^

[trichcycler]

this is what I obviously believed, just like you. Until just recently. I wondered how someone could see this otherwise, and advise. I wish to hear from those posters, and hopefully someone with legal knowledge to clear up any misunderstandings before some patient gets burned. I've heard some say , everything is defensible, but that's not good advice for the common patient in our program
who wish to supply the masses imo.

thank you for sharing your opinion

[Natesilver]

Sure, if the transfers meet the requirements of sec 8. Have you read the sec 8 portion of the law GM? I understand where your confusion is coming from, most people are just aware of sec 4. But there's a whole lot more! Do you need a link to the law so you can read it?

[Natesilver]

Sec 8 is part of the law, and the law trumps any wording you may receive in a simple letter from LARA, or anything on their website.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Natesilver

[phaquetoo]

or 13 even, in the same day ?

 

I didn't think so, after reading the lara pages, and seeing this on this site; http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/page/articles/caregivers/caregiver-standards

 

 

All MMMA listed caregivers will be required to comply with the following guidelines:

 

1) Caregivers agree to follow all applicable state and local laws, regulations and ordinances;

•Each caregiver can only assist five patients with their medical use of marijuana.

 

but then I hear some smart posters claiming "yes" you can sell to more than five patients within our Act. With nobody but me challenging this claim I

have to wonder now who is misguided, and what advice is solid.

gm I know you know how to read!  do you just like to see a page full of your own post no matter how silly and stupid they are?

 

Peace

[bobandtorey]

what advice is solid ? None 

 

  I wouldn't open one just now but may someday in another life time but even some Lawyers have set up for people to sign up and pay them  to have the Lawyer tell them how to start-up a store front   

[imiubu]

Don't hold back phaq... say how you really feel! lol

 

Ya know I'm just yanking your chain!

peas buddy

[YesMichigan]

Section 333.26424

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer nor is this legal advice. We should all know the registration process and its importance for a proper c.g. / pt transfer. Section 4 (e) does read as a classic "loophole" because it uses the non-specific "A registered primary caregiver" and "a registered qualifying patient" instead of "The registered primary c.g." and "The registered qualifying patient". It is splitting hairs and I sure wouldn't want to be feigning glib while arguing it, guarantee a prosecutor would use that type of wording loophole on a  patient though.

[Highlander]

From the MI Supreme Court in People vs. McQueen:

 

"§ 4 immunity does not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process."

 

There really is no longer a debate on this topic.  The Supreme Court ruled, and now it sticks.

 

Also worthwhile to note in the McQueen Ruling:

 

"8(a) only applies “as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana . . . .”

 

The Supreme court said that Section 8 didn't apply to McQueen because he wasn't be prosecuted.  The local prosecutor filed to have the business closed as a public nuisance.

[phaquetoo]

Don't hold back phaq... say how you really feel! lol

 

Ya know I'm just yanking your chain!

peas buddy

He is to smart to be asking stupid questions!

Peace

[Highlander]

Section 333.26424

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer nor is this legal advice. We should all know the registration process and its importance for a proper c.g. / pt transfer. Section 4 (e) does read as a classic "loophole" because it uses the non-specific "A registered primary caregiver" and "a registered qualifying patient" instead of "The registered primary c.g." and "The registered qualifying patient". It is splitting hairs and I sure wouldn't want to be feigning glib while arguing it, guarantee a prosecutor would use that type of wording loophole on a  patient though.

 

I wouldn't want to argue that either.  Too many people wanted "a" to be "any," but there is a huge difference between those two little words.  Here's what the SC said about that, also in McQueen.

 

"The definite article in § 4(d) refers to the qualifying patient who is asserting § 4 immunity, not to any qualifying patient involved in a transaction. While the introductory language of § 4(d) refers to “a” qualifying patient, that indefinite article simply means that any qualifying patient may claim § 4(d) immunity, as long as the marijuana-related conduct is related to alleviating “the” patient’s medical condition."

[Natesilver]

From the MI Supreme Court in People vs. McQueen:

 

"§ 4 immunity does not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process."

 

There really is no longer a debate on this topic. The Supreme Court ruled, and now it sticks.

 

Also worthwhile to note in the McQueen Ruling:

 

"8(a) only applies “as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana . . . .”

 

The Supreme court said that Section 8 didn't apply to McQueen because he wasn't be prosecuted. The local prosecutor filed to have the business closed as a public nuisance.

No one posited a non-registry connected transfer was covered by sec 4. You are stating common knowledge here. Because it was a civil case they could not assert sec 8 for the protected actions they performed.

[trichcycler]

He is to smart to be asking stupid questions!

Peace

 

 

sorry you couldn't tell that I wasn't asking the questions for myself silly, but for those in this thread that believe a cg can sell to more than five patients. You could direct your statements to those who actually believe it to be true, rather than those asking them "why" maybe, just a thought man...

[trichcycler]

gm I know you know how to read!  do you just like to see a page full of your own post no matter how silly and stupid they are?

 

Peace

Greg and Nate from that referred thread are smart fellas, and they believe a cg can legally transfer to more than five patients. its not about "my posts" but their position rather. I am genuinely interested in this stance and have never seen it covered here, that is why I asked (them) to respond in a thread of its own.

 

I didn't see you post of the silliness of greg or nates posts in the other thread, or anyone else for that matter, concerning the subject, so I guessed others may hold the same position.  geesh

comprehende?

[Natesilver]

Greg and Nate from that referred thread are smart fellas, and they believe a cg can legally transfer to more than five patients. its not about "my posts" but their position rather. I am genuinely interested in this stance and have never seen it covered here, that is why I asked (them) to respond in a thread of its own.

 

I didn't see you post of the silliness of greg or nates posts in the other thread, or anyone else for that matter, concerning the subject, so I guessed others may hold the same position. geesh

comprehende?

How many times do u need to be told it's covered by sec 8!!! Can you read?!?! Have you read the law???

 

Why are you on a jihad against sec 8?

[Natesilver]

Grassmatch- I am understanding the reasoning behind your sarah palin 2016 bumper sticker more and more, post by post.

[Restorium2]

When in doubt read the ballot language. I've used it as a 'reset' byself. The ballot language said there are protections for the unregistered. And if unregistered who is counting? Can patients actaully be counted if not on a list? So how do you quantify how many you can transfer too? I don't think you can with the unregistered. 

[trichcycler]

How many times do u need to be told it's covered by sec 8!!! Can you read?!?! Have you read the law???

 

Why are you on a jihad against sec 8?

Have you noticed I am not the only one who believes as we are advised to provide to five patients only? no need to take your debate out on me personally man. I wanted to know the validity of your claim is all. I understand exactly now why you claim as you do. Carry on though and thank you for your explanation. Please tell the admins to change their advice on the cg page, as it is inaccurate according to you. Then explain to everyone why/how every sixth patient is denied by the state every time in our registry history? And what happens when we sign the agreement with the state that says we will only provide to five patients-is broken?

 

some of these details will clarify your position for me.

 

peace

[Highlander]

No one posited a non-registry connected transfer was covered by sec 4. You are stating common knowledge here. Because it was a civil case they could not assert sec 8 for the protected actions they performed.

 

Agreed, and I didn't say that anyone posited such a thing.  I wanted people to be clear that the McQueen ruling did not include a Section 8 evaluation and why.  This is especially important, because filing a public nuisance claim against a dispensary operator is Bill Schuette's favorite idea about how to shut down dispensaries.  People should be aware of this.   Maybe most people already knew that.  I wouldn't assume that most people read the entire 33 page McQueen document.  I could be wrong. 

 

Then again, if I posted common knowledge, then it would follow that there would be no need for you to point out that it was common knowledge 

[trichcycler]

Grassmatch- I am understanding the reasoning behind your sarah palin 2016 bumper sticker more and more, post by post.

tell phaq and highlander all about it, I'm not attacking it. I don't care either way. I wanted your reasoning for disagreeing with the cg rules postedon this website, and see this law very differently than others///// and now its turning into a personal attack as I sit and read it?

I haven't had a bumper sticker since high school.