Jump to content

Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers


hollywood420

Recommended Posts

Didn't The Supreme Court just rule that the intent of the law overrides the language of the Law? Surely the drafters of the Law or the voters of Michigan, never intended to force patients to buy from the black market, over a legal grower.

We voted to be able to grow Our Own or have someone do it for us. Dispensaries and such were never Part of the equation.

 

We are supposed to be able to grow as much as we need. Free the Weed

Edited by beourbud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ain't so kd. The law is explicit in its definition of a primary caregiver per sec. 3(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

 

There is no stipulation that a caregiver be solely assigned through the registry, but can also be afforded the Affirmative Defense if that person is not registered as a patient's caregiver but is nonetheless assigned by mutual agreement.

Care to  explain this because at the moment the only person the patient can acquire medicine without the other party risking a felony charge is assigning a caregiver through the registry and good luck with affirmative Defense that's going to cost a person not registered within the program a good chunk of cash  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't The Supreme Court just rule that the intent of the law overrides the language of the Law? Surely the drafters of the Law or the voters of Michigan, never intended to force patients to buy from the black market, over a legal grower.

i suggest you read the opinion.

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/14-15-Term-Opinions/149290-Opinion.pdf

 

heres a fun quote from the majority

We recognize the apparent inequity of holding one individual responsible for another’s wrongdoing; however, the plain language of the statute does not allow for another reading.

thats the michigan supreme court saying that the actions of someone else can implicate you in a felony crime for being merely present. isnt that the definition of absurd result?

 

prosecutors are going to be charging family members with crimes as soon as they can now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Im a pt, I have a c.g, my lady is a pt and im her c.g!  I can get meds from my c.g and once the meds are in my possesion I can than let my lady have meds from me!    My c.g is getting meds to me for my meds and use once I am in possesion I can give meds to my pt!

 

My c.g didnt break the law and neither did I!  Now if leo were to come to my home and see im not growing at this time and ask how im getting meds for my pt what do you think im gonna say?  oh piggy I got them from my c.g!  That would be retarded and I defy any one to arrest me for supplying my pt, If I was not allowed to do that than why do I have a pt card with a c.g on the back and I have a c.g card with my pt on the back?

 

go for it!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

besides, ^^ I believe cg's don't have to be growers at all, and are offered solid protections for acquiring medical cannabis, not for themselves necessarily, but for their patients. Just how does this compute along with stacked cg's, ....I have no clue. I don't stack (anymore), but am not be opposed to it either.  When I assisted a new patient in growing their own meds they would have a patient also, like their wife for example, so that I could maintain their plants, and they could legally grow for their patients, a win win for all.  They would still need meds for themselves, and also for their patient(s) until their meds were finished growing. No plot, no scheme, who cares.  Does the law demand  a registered caregiver must grow for their patient? I don't think so,.....so how would that work in a compliant perfect world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

besides, ^^ I believe cg's don't have to be growers at all, and are offered solid protections for acquiring medical cannabis, not for themselves necessarily, but for their patients. Just how does this compute along with stacked cg's, ....I have no clue. I don't stack (anymore), but am not be opposed to it either.  When I assisted a new patient in growing their own meds they would have a patient also, like their wife for example, so that I could maintain their plants, and they could legally grow for their patients, a win win for all.  They would still need meds for themselves, and also for their patient(s) until their meds were finished growing. No plot, no scheme, who cares.  Does the law demand  a registered caregiver must grow for their patient? I don't think so,.....so how would that work in a compliant perfect world

Well for one thing a pt can purchase from any one, it is the person supplying it that needs to be worried or connected to said pt.  There is nothing against the law about a pt having a c.g and also being a c.g to another pt, if it was against the law I would not have been doing it for the last 4ys, they simply would not give me a c.g card as I already have a c.g!

 

In a perfect world there would still be c.g's with the same amount of grow privlelages we have now and usable supply and despenses open for a pt who cant or dont have a c.g or grow!

 

I have no problem with despenses as long as they dont take away home grows, and that is not selfish, like said a pt can go any where and ligaly get it ,,,,,,even in an alley and im not saying I want them to do that but we cant give up what we already  have/had and judges should not be changing laws the legislature makes laws and judges are to interpet laws not change them!

 

The supreme court ruling for gays should not have happened, that is judges changing laws, I have nothing against gays, I have a big problem with judges changing laws!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to  explain this because at the moment the only person the patient can acquire medicine without the other party risking a felony charge is assigning a caregiver through the registry and good luck with affirmative Defense that's going to cost a person not registered within the program a good chunk of cash  .

No one is suggesting that the AD is not more costly if it comes up. The caveat that it can be has been brought up time and again. It remains, however, for the parties involved to make an informed decision. Some are more risk averse than others. Then too, some places are more lenient than others. Genessee County is pretty well known for taking a liberal approach to the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Im a pt, I have a c.g, my lady is a pt and im her c.g!  I can get meds from my c.g and once the meds are in my possesion I can than let my lady have meds from me!    My c.g is getting meds to me for my meds and use once I am in possesion I can give meds to my pt!

 

My c.g didnt break the law and neither did I!  Now if leo were to come to my home and see im not growing at this time and ask how im getting meds for my pt what do you think im gonna say?  oh piggy I got them from my c.g!  That would be retarded and I defy any one to arrest me for supplying my pt, If I was not allowed to do that than why do I have a pt card with a c.g on the back and I have a c.g card with my pt on the back?

 

go for it!

 

Peace

 

Phaque is correct.  If you have close ties to the folks you're working with, there is little chance of an issue.

 

The problems arise when someone thinks they can be a "secondary caregiver" to any patient and they decide to sell MMJ to anyone with a card.  LEOs have cards.  So if you sell to a LEO who has a CG card, you're going to be in hot water.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phaque is correct.  If you have close ties to the folks you're working with, there is little chance of an issue.

 

The problems arise when someone thinks they can be a "secondary caregiver" to any patient and they decide to sell MMJ to anyone with a card.  LEOs have cards.  So if you sell to a LEO who has a CG card, you're going to be in hot water.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as they say.

I'm anxious to see the Supreme Court decision in Hartwick/Tuttle. It should address those issues, and determine if an agreement to obtain cannabis by a patient from a caregiver they are not connected with through the registry is, in fact, covered under the AD. IF they find that a card is prima facie proof of a bona fide physician recommendation, it will go a long way toward ensuring our protection. I am optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm anxious to see the Supreme Court decision in Hartwick/Tuttle. It should address those issues, and determine if an agreement to obtain cannabis by a patient from a caregiver they are not connected with through the registry is, in fact, covered under the AD. IF they find that a card is prima facie proof of a bona fide physician recommendation, it will go a long way toward ensuring our protection. I am optimistic.

 

I am also optimistic that a CG can sell to any bona fide patient and be protected from conviction under Section 8.  It seems pretty clear in the law this this should be the case.  I just can't see how  the courts could possibly extend Section 4 protections to a "secondary" caregiver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be a naive optimist, but I'd like to think that, even without any revisions to the MMMA or any new case law, the "powers that be" in Michigan will recognize the existence of the (hopefully) very powerful protections afforded in Section 8.  Greg S has posted his idea of a "Section 8" written and notarized agreement many times.  I think that his idea is sound, if adopted/agreed to by LEOs across the state.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could transfer MMJ between any patient/CG (with a solid and notarized agreement between patient and CG?)  And of course, the courts could still call the participants to task, but maybe the courts could read the writing on our wall and decide not to prosecute folks who transfer cannabis under such an agreement?  because such transfers would be protected under Section 8?  and should/shall be dismissed in the name of "medical use.?"   I'm maybe living in a fantasy world thinking about this, but I hope that county prosecutors get to a point where they realize that they could file charges against the transforer, but that such charges would be dropped at the district court level every time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, the courts could still call the participants to task, but maybe the courts could read the writing on our wall and decide not to prosecute folks who transfer cannabis under such an agreement?  because such transfers would be protected under Section 8?  and should/shall be dismissed in the name of "medical use.?"

you know the answer to this, and zap does too.

 

anyone remember this from a few weeks ago?

 

Even though a St. Clair County judge dropped all of Hency’s charges, her belongings still remain with law enforcement officials.

 

“The prosecutor came out to me and said, ‘Well, I can still beat you in civil court. I can still take your stuff,’” Hency recalled, adding, “I was at a loss. I literally just sat there dumbfounded.”

winning in court and losing in court is what is happening right now to people. you just "hope" the problem will go away?

 

but I hope that county prosecutors get to a point where they realize that they could file charges against the transforer, but that such charges would be dropped at the district court level every time?

sure, that will be in 5 years, maybe. at least 3-7 more supreme court cases.

but in that time jones will have whittled the act down to nothing. SB72 i predict will make felons of at least 30% of patients and caregivers. because sec8 does not protect people for the changes in 7b that sb72 makes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know the answer to this, and zap does too.

 

anyone remember this from a few weeks ago?

 

 

winning in court and losing in court is what is happening right now to people. you just "hope" the problem will go away?

 

I don't "hope the problem will go away."  I hope that enough people win a Section 8 defense, that, in the long run, PAs decide that it isn't worth their time anymore. 

 

Elections might have something to do this this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more sec8 would be "case law" then?

 

ah well i'm not picking on you guys. i'm just tired of seeing the same hope over and over again when reality is right here showing the opposite.

 

we hope for dismissals from the supreme court, but instead we get remands.

we hope for plain readings of the act but instead we get blacks law dictionary definition of possession.

we hope for broad protection of patients and family members, instead we get zero protections and absurd results.

we hope for simple, clear instructions but instead we get vague 'back down to circuit court for another 5 years of nonsense in court for sick patients to die or take a plea deal'

we hope the court of appeals can make a decision that the supreme court does not have to reverse, yet here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They" push, we push back. Some don't have the backbone. Some do. There are those of us who will fight. Hartwick, Tuttle, King, Green, and Ter Beek show clearly that it can be done. Likewise there are those who did not take their matters to the nth conclusion, and took plea deals. They are NO help to the long view. I really don't want to hear about sticking our heads where the sun don't shine because we need to fear the consequence of idiot law enforcement and judges in contradiction to the law we established. 

 

Hope hell. We demand. It is our law. We have all of the sound arguments. They use intimidation, lies, and violence. They are a known quantity. We hafta be smarter than these meatheads, get in their azzes, and not be cowards.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt it premature to claim hartwick and tut took it to the end?

Both have taken their cases to the highest court in the state. That is the end of the road for them. All that remains is that the opinion is released. It will likely require remand to the lower courts, and those courts must abide by the SC's decision, which will be final. Taking the cases back to the lower court is little more than a formality. There may well be some game playing and grandstanding by those lower courts to obtain some kind of conviction, but just as Larry King did, they are, I think, most likely to tell those prosecutors to pound sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...