Caregiver Grows For Five

[trichcycler]

can this be true ?

 

can a cg legally sell cannabis to more carded people than he grows for?

any precedent ?

pro bono lawyers willing to defend it  ?

 

Highlander posed a very convincing post a week ago, got me thinking. Its been the "only your five" mantra forever, but now....whats changed?

[Kingdiamond]

Your defense would surely depend on location that aint flying in Oakland country for sure.

[Highlander]

can this be true ?

 

can a cg legally sell cannabis to more carded people than he grows for?

any precedent ?

pro bono lawyers willing to defend it  ?

 

Highlander posed a very convincing post a week ago, got me thinking. Its been the "only your five" mantra forever, but now....whats changed?

 

I don't recall posting that, did I?  Or maybe I posted that I felt there is a sound argument for a CG growing for carded patients after 20 days but providing meds as soon as a carded patient and carded CG sign paperwork.

[Wild Bill]

Your defense would surely depend on location that aint flying in Oakland country for sure.

 

Spot on with that! I can't do it here in Ferndale but if I go across the street to Detroit I can open a dispensary.

[trichcycler]

I don't recall posting that, did I?  Or maybe I posted that I felt there is a sound argument for a CG growing for carded patients after 20 days but providing meds as soon as a carded patient and carded CG sign paperwork.

"a very convincing post"....yes you did.lol

 

09 September 2015 - 09:57 PM

 

 

For those who haven't digested this very good legal argument before, with regard to a CG providing meds to a patient from day 1:

 

 

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

 

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility;

 

 

 

The simple fact that the law differentiates between a CG providing meds to a "qualifying patient" (not a registered patient) vs growing 12 plants for a "registered qualifying patient" means something. It is simple and basic statutory interpretation rules. It seems to me that the law allows an already certified CG to provide meds to a "qualifying patient" from day 1, and, once said patient is "registered," the CG can then grow 12 plants on behalf of that patient. It is the basics of statutory interpretation rules. There is a reason why the law states "qualifying patient" in one section vs. "registered qualifying patient" in another. By the basic rules of statutory interpretation, there is/must be a reason for the difference. The only reasonable interpretation is that the law intended that a CG can provide meds to a qualifying patient with a Dr. cert. on day one and, once the patient is "registered," said CG can grow 12 more plants. Why else would the MMMA use the term "qualifying patient" (read the definition) vs. a "registered qualifying patient?"

Edited September 14, 2015 by grassmatch

[pic book]

this novel wedge discovered just in time for a bunch of disps to open?

Edited September 14, 2015 by pic book

[Highlander]

Fair enough.  I didn't intent this (layperson's) legal theory to mean that a CG can grow for five but supply to more, but I suppose if I'm right about it, there would exist a legal argument that a CG could keep a "revolving door" for patients - execute a change form, transfer meds, then execute another change form to disassociate from the patient, then sign a new change form with another patient, and so forth.  Of course, this wouldn't work with a CG who is growing for five patients, because in order to sign that next revolving patient, the CG could only have four patients he is growing for so he can keep the fifth slot open for the revolving door.  I think.

 

I wouldn't suggest that anyone take this as advice, but for the CG who is going to sell to any patient, such a structure might provide another layer of legal arguments. 

 

I'd be interested to hear an attorney's view on this.

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

 

Why does the Act say "qualifying patient" in paragraph (1) but "registered qualifying patient" in paragraph (2), when "qualifying patient" means:

 

(i) "Qualifying patient" or "patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

Under statutory interpretation rules, the use of "registered qualifying patient" in one paragraph vs. "qualifying patient" in another is presumed to be significant - that there is a difference between the two.  So what is the difference, and what is the significance of this?

 

I guess it comes down to what "to whom he or she is connected through the registration process" means.  At a minimum, it would seem that the Change Form was submitted to LARA (the registry).

 

We also have to ask ourselves why paragraph (1) includes "connected through the department's registration process" but paragraph (2) does not?

Edited September 14, 2015 by Highlander

[pic book]

can this be true ?

 

can a cg legally sell cannabis to more carded people than he grows for?

any precedent ?

pro bono lawyers willing to defend it  ?

 

Highlander posed a very convincing post a week ago, got me thinking. Its been the "only your five" mantra forever, but now....whats changed?

gm:  you deserve to be applauded for noticing.

[pic book]

juset watch: some disps will take on this paper shuffle

[Highlander]

this novel wedge discovered just in time for a bunch of disps to open?

 

I wouldn't say "discovered just in time" as I posted this idea as food for thought at least two years ago.  I'm a little surprised that we haven't heard of anyone taking such an angle.  Or maybe this means  that's it's a bad idea?  Although it does seem as if some dispensary or farmers' market seller would have tried this approach already.  Might as well use it as another handful of spaghetti to throw at the wall to see if it sticks if you're out of spaghetti anyway.

[trichcycler]

could start a gofundme for a member who wishes to "set precedence"??

[Highlander]

could start a gofundme for a member who wishes to "set precedence"??

 

If said guy hired a competent attorney, like Mr. Kormorn, and had a solid case, I'd give some money.  One huge problem we've had with MMMA case law, is crappy legal representation on a shaky case, which leads to crappy case law. 

[trichcycler]

If we had a chunk of cash sitting around awaiting the right case, members could vote the money's appointment.

[phaquetoo]

Im a pt, I have a c.g, I am a c.g and have a pt!

 

If all of my pt's were also c.g's,,,,,,c.g's could legaly get it from their cg's and than supply said c.g's other pt/cg's!

 

more food for thought!

 

Peace

[bobandtorey]

could start a gofundme for a member who wishes to "set precedence"??

 

 

That is already happening with two other cases Clinical Relief and Blue Water

[imiubu]

I believe that "the paper shuffle" mentioned above was presented by GregS a few years ago,

along with said 'contracts' already drawn up.  He was pummeled by members here due to this idea

 

REPEATEDLY.

 

 

Now peeps may be considering it a viable option?  hmmm, imagine that.

 

smdh.

[trichcycler]

That is already happening with two other cases Clinical Relief and Blue Water

what exactly are the charges in those two cases, if you know ?

 

for instance the guy growing 90 plants and selling to 30 people couldn't fairly be privy to my gofundme , set aside for someone

wo is compliant, except for selling to someone not listed as their patient x5

[Greg Rx]

can this be true ?

 

can a cg legally sell cannabis to more carded people than he grows for?

any precedent ?

pro bono lawyers willing to defend it  ?

 

Highlander posed a very convincing post a week ago, got me thinking. Its been the "only your five" mantra forever, but now....whats changed?

 

 

On Planet Green Trees, a couple weeks ago, Michael Kormoran stated that caregiver to caregiver sales were not banned per se as patient to patient sales were. Then some kind of argument he called "minimus". I think it is too bad that dispensaries have driven the rulings versus ordinary caregivers.

[trichcycler]

then, theres this

with no mention of  selling marijuana  outside of the five patient registered with the state and you to grow for, only to those not allowed to use med mj.


(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes

[bobandtorey]

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

 

If someone likes to read here you go 

[trichcycler]

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

 

If someone likes to read here you go

 

how is this related to a compliant cg growing for five of his patients selling to more than those five?

[bobandtorey]

how is this related to a compliant cg growing for five of his patients selling to more than those five?

 

 

Yes i believe so cg to cg ?

[trichcycler]

felony firearms, invalid cards, etc....dunno, sounds more complicated than one cg growing in compliancy for five patients with named cards, while selling to 10 more valid patients

[GregS]

I believe that "the paper shuffle" mentioned above was presented by GregS a few years ago,

along with said 'contracts' already drawn up.  He was pummeled by members here due to this idea

 

REPEATEDLY.

 

 

Now peeps may be considering it a viable option?  hmmm, imagine that.

 

smdh.

Thanks imi. The ruling in Hart/Tut could not have made it more clear that caregivers who are not connected through the registry with a given patient are covered under the AD in selling to that patient so long as the patient has designated that individual as his/her caregiver without benefit of registry. Supplemental evidence, in the form of said agreements, are more authoritative than a card in sec. 8 defenses and spelled out in footnote 77 as sufficient and required to be allowed under the rules of evidence. Those agreements must show evidence of a bona fide Dr./pt relationship and a clear caregiver designation. Possession amounts are more prone to differences in the facts. I have suggested it can be rightly said that a twelve oz supply for a patient who uses an oz a month is an amount not more than necessary to provide an uninterrupted supply for a year, and I cannot feature an effective counter argument. The ruling also states squarely that that type of evidence can eliminate the need for the physician to testify; a definite advantage. It is worth noting that the lion's share and those most vocal who argued against me are gone, and the SC ruling stands as a monument to that.

 

Yes, it seems clear that when two caregivers are exchanging strains of usable marijuana, that the transfer is still for the benefit of "the patient" and disrupts the flawed logic in McQueen that seemingly restricts patient-to-patient transfers. Though it seems obvious to me that the patient-to-patient scenario is better represented as unregistered caregiver-to-patient if the patient is eligible to be a caregiver. Restorium has pointed out many times the error of the patient-to-patient scenario.

 

But I will say this definitively: most cops think it is illegal.

Again, there is the caveat that the potential for expensive and demanding court proceedings must be considered. IF a caregiver is comfortable with that risk, for instance is in a position to earn enough money through sales to patients other than those with whom they are connected to expect to afford that cost, that can be an informed choice. Any patient can be appointed as a caregiver to any other at any time so long as they meet the sec. 3 definition of a caregiver or primary caregiver.

 

Cops add a whole new dimension to dumbassness.

 

Another facet of that idea was to offer representation via collection of fees from caregivers who would, by token of having bought in, and using those evidentiary methods, be afforded representation up to and including a pre-trial hearing to present the elements of the AD. I had thought to approach attorneys to find agreement to provide that. Can the defense, given the ruling, now be called "boilerplate?"

Edited September 21, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Cannabando (ka-neh-ban'-do)

n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes

1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to engage in the use cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.

2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.

3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes: a cannabando bowling champion or a cannabando unit.

v. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements

Edited September 21, 2015 by GregS