Can A Caregiver Provide Marijuana To Twenty Patients Legally?

[Restorium2]

Michigan honors out of state MMJ cards.  How does an out of state patient legally acquire meds in our state?

It only works for 'carry' right now unless you want to go the section 8 in court with an attorney and your 'out of state' doctor. 

[bobandtorey]

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.

I agree you can service more if you want to be in Court and have the $$ to fight a Sec 8 

[bobandtorey]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/23775-people-v-provost/

[phaquetoo]

Say, for the sake of argument, an individual is appointed caregiver by twenty registered patients, only five with whom s/he has filed paperwork with LARA. Is it then possible to make a living from the small cottage industry that the law permits? Is it possible to then earn enough to defend cases? How about putting an attorney on retainer at a monthly fee? My understanding is that a hundred bucks or two a month are typical.

you can legaly be a cg/pt with 5 pt's who are also c.g's and all have 5 pt's with all of them being a c.g to 5 pt's, you legaly can get your meds to your pt/cg and you can legaly get it from your c.g but you cant get it to your own c.g!  when you get your pt/cg 2.5 oz's he can now act as a c.g to his pt's and transfer to them and so on and so on, this is not in a store, it is just you being a pt with a c.g and being a c.g to your pt's,

 

Im a pt, I have a c.g, Now I have a pt, and I am her c.g.........all of your pt's dont have to be a c.g also, but if you had one or two that were, they could count on their c.g's to get them something different from what they grow from their c.g!  It can legaly be transported and exchanged between a c.g to a pt that is registered to them. and on and on and on,

 

Dont tell me it is ilegaly I am a pt, my c.g has my grow right, I am a c.g I have my pt's grow rites, and my c.g has been taking good care of me while my grow is down, and it enables me to take care of my pt also, me as a pt/cg can have 12 plants, and 2.5 for my pt, my pt can have 2.5 for her, and I can have another 2.5 from my c.g, so in my situation I can legaly have 2.5 for me, 2.5 for my pt, and my pt can have 2.5 in her possesion, that means we can have 12 plants and 7.5 oz's in this house, with her 2.5 being in a diff room from mine!

 

If you can follow that you can put alot of people in your pt chain than 5, and this is a plan to take care of all and as far as money is involved, all would have to be on the same price scale and be willing to trade!

 

Peace

[GregS]

Hee hee.

 

Yep. Daisy chains have been in the works for years, Jim. I am aware that some have been put together. As long as everybody keeps their numbers ducky, it works.

[GregS]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/23775-people-v-provost/

The law has evolved some since then. As zap said yesterday, the case we just covered a few posts back was resolved with the prosecutor choosing not to charge the defendant with cannabis crimes other than transport. It could have been pressed further to bring up the recent district court rulings finding that law unconstitutional. I wonder why he did not choose that option.

Edited January 29, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Got it. A friend paid two hundred dollars and took the misdemeanor hit because it was the least costly option.

[trichcycler]

wait, I though that "illegal transport" was a made up nothing, not a law, not an offense. why not take a plea for yelling at the birds instead?

[YesMichigan]

wait, I though that "illegal transport" was a made up nothing, not a law, not an offense. why not take a plea for yelling at the birds instead?

 

Because it is still an option as a law. If you don't want to argue that it is unconstitutional then they can use it as a "lesser charge" I would say.

 

The "illegal transport" case happened in trial court, Prosecutor isn't going to take it to Appeals (more than likely) because they and other Prosecutors still want it in their quiver and will lose it when the COA ratifies the decision. My guess at least.

[GregS]

wait, I though that "illegal transport" was a made up nothing, not a law, not an offense. why not take a plea for yelling at the birds instead?

It is PA 460 of 2013, and indeed a law. The point is that it is in the traffic code does not square with the MMMA, which supersedes. Police and the courts can act on that law to haul us in. We haven't made enough noise about it to take it down. Yet. Recall that some district court judges have ruled it unconstitutional. http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48181-somebody-gets-it-illegal-transport-law-is-illegal/

 

It is unconstitutional, but short of being fortunate to have a district court judge that will dismiss, the most cost effective option is to take it and move along. It suks, leaving your wallet a lot lighter and your record with a misdemeanor. To appeal it would cost you lots more, even when you win. Precedent has not been set. That will require a ruling by the appropriate court (someone help me out. Is that a circuit court, or the Court of Appeals?).

Edited January 30, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

It is PA 460 of 2013, and indeed a law. The point is that it is in the traffic code does not square with the MMMA, which supersedes. Police and the courts can act on that law to haul us in. We haven't made enough noise about it to take it down. Yet. Recall that some district court judges have ruled it unconstitutional. http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48181-somebody-gets-it-illegal-transport-law-is-illegal/

 

It is unconstitutional, but short of being fortunate to have a district court judge that will dismiss, the most cost effective option is to take it and move along. It suks, leaving your wallet a lot lighter and your record with a misdemeanor. To appeal it would cost you lots more, even when you win. Precedent has not been set. That will require a ruling by the appropriate court (someone help me out. Is that a circuit court, or the Court of Appeals?).

once again, cash and lawyers between the people and justice sadly.

 

thank you for that link to the law.

[bobandtorey]

It would require a ruling from the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, to have precedential effect.

Yes and thats why we could have never Won our case

[trichcycler]

yep, that's why

[GregS]

Why is that Redden? Why could you not have won?

[bobandtorey]

Thanks for asking my name is Bob and some call me Mr. Redden 

 

1. Short answer is Oakland County

 

2, Long answer is some people just don't know how the Court system even works until they are there for five years the way i tell people is when someone is inn a high court ( presidential ) effects in-witch means the ones after you will be treated the same as that person the Courts have to follow what the other court said at first i thought it would help others 

 

But the High Courts and some Lawyers where not ready for that because the Courts need to make more money on the Law to keep things going

 

Hope that helps

 

Peace 

 

Mr.Redden

Edited January 31, 2015 by bobandtorey