Can Caregiver Grow In Patient's Home?

[Indigro]

Thank you t, imiubu, and resto. Until this point i understood that if the patient assigned plant counts to me, i was in possession, but we both had access to the grow area where the plants would reside. I was not even aware that this was in dispute, or that it was an issue w/in actual court cases.

[t-pain]

it shouldnt have been in court, thats for sure. its such a stupid little nonsense technicality. but whatever, its the law yeah?

[Highlander]

In such matters, we go straight to the mouth of the horse; in this case, the COA in a 2010 opinion:

 

Because a qualified patient who has designated a primary caregiver to cultivate marijuana for him or her may not him- or herself have possession of any marijuana plants, the primary caregiver is the only individual permitted to be in possession of the qualifying patient’s marijuana plants under this circumstance. Accordingly, this means that each set of 12 plants permitted under the MMMA to address the purported medical needs of a particular qualifying patient must be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one individual, either the qualifying patient or the qualifying patient’s primary caregiver;

 

http://www.annarbor.com/20100914_C295809_45_295809C.OPN.pdf

[t-pain]

it was also in the AG's 15 page opinion on the mmma

 

one from 2011: http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10338.htm

 

cant find the original 15 page opinion. somewhere in the archives...

[trichcycler]

now that's what the site is for!

 

Since 2008 we've allowed two people in the grow room and nobody every cared to talk about it, just thought it was legal.....geesh, what a curious over site, sad

[Highlander]

now that's what the site is for!

 

Since 2008 we've allowed two people in the grow room and nobody every cared to talk about it, just thought it was legal.....geesh, what a curious over site, sad

 

Myself, I'd keep the word, "we" out of any cannabis discussion regarding growing.  "We" seems to indicate at least two people.  No room for two people in a grow room under the current state of the law, as defined by the COA.

[trichcycler]

what??/

 

I wasn't referring to me actually, or we, but "us" as in "forum members" "here" even in this thread, specifically one of our very own leaders, she had a misunderstanding. I did too, but it never mattered to me, never had a cg, never been asked, never invited patients over. Nobody That knows imi , or posts with her, knew she had a misunderstanding of law in all these years? really? nobody told her? She could have been in big trouble potentially, and so could many of "us", the ones that also had he same misunderstanding. We, as a forum, need to work harder to keep Komorn from earning legal fees from the same people supporting his forum... right???lol..

 

maybe we could have a refresher thread, of simple misunderstandings. there are more I suspect

[Restorium2]

All you had to do was ask. There are many around here that keep things straight. 

[trichcycler]

All you had to do was ask. There are many around here that keep things straight.

ask what, resto?

 

 

 

 

I didn't even ever consider it because, as stated above, here ya go case you missed it......

 

 

misunderstanding. I did too, but it never mattered to me, never had a cg, never been asked, never invited patients over.

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by grassmatch

[Restorium2]

ask what, resto?

Box on the form for responsibility. What the thread is about. Handled.

[trichcycler]

Box on the form for responsibility. What the thread is about. Handled.

are you speaking to me when you said "all you have to do is ask" ?

 

because I didn't have a question, except why the many around here didn't know that imi was putting herself at risk, unless they didn't know, like I said.

[Restorium2]

are you speaking to me when you said "all you have to do is ask" ?

 

because I didn't have a question, except why the many around here didn't know that imi was putting herself at risk, unless they didn't know, like I said.

All anybody has to do is ask. There are many here that can and will answer the questions correctly. 

[trichcycler]

yep, imi thanks you for that reminder I'm sure. I figured many here knew here, and she would have mentioned this misunderstanding privately to at least one of those many maybe. seems like a weird misunderstanding for our members to still have. She is not alone as stated. This thread already made lots of patients/growers legal I bet and more to come

[Highlander]

what??/

 

I wasn't referring to me actually, or we, but "us" as in "forum members" "here" even in this thread, specifically one of our very own leaders, she had a misunderstanding. I did too, but it never mattered to me, never had a cg, never been asked, never invited patients over. Nobody That knows imi , or posts with her, knew she had a misunderstanding of law in all these years? really? nobody told her? She could have been in big trouble potentially, and so could many of "us", the ones that also had he same misunderstanding. We, as a forum, need to work harder to keep Komorn from earning legal fees from the same people supporting his forum... right???lol..

 

maybe we could have a refresher thread, of simple misunderstandings. there are more I suspect

 

Fair enough, but we've seen a lot of posts where folks say stuff like "we provide the best meds," "we this" "we that" and "we another thing."  I think probably some folks  want to say "we" because it makes them seem bigger and better. 

[trichcycler]

I used to see that often, not so much any more. "We tested dispensaries" "We grow the best" "We deliver" :our patients" etc maybe goes to show more people than we know may share the same misunderstanding as we're discussing.

 

I'll admit that EVERY grower I know personally has more than on person in their garden as a habit. Growing is hard work, especially for the very ill. Husbands/wives bf/gf, cg/patient, dads and sons etc. I think this is more prevalent than we like to admit,= while we keep it in the wink wink file maybe. Nonetheless there are many who have the same very real misunderstanding(I did) and aren't trying to get away with anything.

[zachw]

[t-pain]

what??/

 

I wasn't referring to me actually, or we, but "us" as in "forum members" "here" even in this thread, specifically one of our very own leaders, she had a misunderstanding. I did too, but it never mattered to me, never had a cg, never been asked, never invited patients over. Nobody That knows imi , or posts with her, knew she had a misunderstanding of law in all these years? really? nobody told her? She could have been in big trouble potentially, and so could many of "us", the ones that also had he same misunderstanding. We, as a forum, need to work harder to keep Komorn from earning legal fees from the same people supporting his forum... right???lol..

 

maybe we could have a refresher thread, of simple misunderstandings. there are more I suspect

 

we're all just human, grass.

 

you think we all meet up in some secret cabal or something? inspect each others grows? sit around in a circle and quiz each other on every part of the act?

 

nah.

 

 

my idea was to make a legal guide for mmma patients and caregivers. but i got waylaid and abandoned it. it was on the wiki which has since been completely abandoned. it was designed to have the mmma law mixed with sentences and paragraphs from coa and msc opinions. basically mixing the current law with the case law together, as is done in some other states. i had an idea today to add in the attorney general's opinions in there as well. even when wrong, the ag's opinion can be used as a guideline, since he basically runs the police and prosecutors anyway.

 

maybe the new state marijuana bar of michigan will write something for patients? although last i heard they were still in the infancy of its creation.

[t-pain]

I was not even aware that this was in dispute, or that it was an issue w/in actual court cases.

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/144120%20Opinion.pdf

 

thats another scary thing. no one at the state of michigan will give you legal advice. how do you know whats legal or not legal? you have to read court cases? huh?? its madness.

[Indigro]

Thank again t, and highlander. I guess the source of my understanding, outside of personal negligence in reading, was the very word 'possession'. I believed that to possess was different than to be in the presence of, where possession had a meaning similar to ownership.

 

This seems like another example of altered meanings from what the original law actually read, similar to how 'A caregiver may assist A patient' was arbitrarily changed to a cg may only assist the five patients they are officially connected to through the state registry. I dont really understand why a patient shouldnt be allowed in my grow room where i have possession of the plants. What is the harm here?

 

Technically, then the police shouldnt be allowed to inspect a grow either, or a po, or the city for whatever reason, yet they do this. So if i let a cop in to inspect, i would be breaking the law and they could arrest me for just letting them in the grow? Even if all else was by the book? Crazy. Or a likely oversight by the coa to allow for additional arrests?

[t-pain]

the supreme court said they were going to use the plain definitions of words that were not defined in the mmma.

 

then the supreme court turned around and used blacks law dictionary definition of possession to also mean collective possession. which is moo poo.

 

many people have trouble reading the act. it also doesnt help that a lot of bad info was spread out when the act first started. those green rush guys really got into it before they started getting arrested.

 

police have immunity when dealing with drugs in the course of official duties. they are allowed to possess drugs when taking them back to evidence locker etc.

 

re: letting a cop inspect? its up to you at this point in the game. dont let him in and he gets a warrant and breaks down your door? let him in and he miscounts some plants and gets a warrant and then lies in court (former detective marc ferguson)?

 

i dont have the answer.

 

but i havent seen anyone let a cop in, then gets charged with having an insecure grow because of only letting the cop in. people have been charged with having insecure grows though. e.g. lock on door is unlocked .

 

so in my non legal advice, i am not a lawyer, i wouldnt worry about getting charged by ONLY letting police in to inspect. but you may have violations that you do not know about and letting police inspect opens you up to other charges.....

 

i mean, you'd think people could learn to stay under 12 plants or 72 plants, and then they have 72 plants and a tray of clones... well...

[Highlander]

Thank again t, and highlander. I guess the source of my understanding, outside of personal negligence in reading, was the very word 'possession'. I believed that to possess was different than to be in the presence of, where possession had a meaning similar to ownership.

This seems like another example of altered meanings from what the original law actually read, similar to how 'A caregiver may assist A patient' was arbitrarily changed to a cg may only assist the five patients they are officially connected to through the state registry. I dont really understand why a patient shouldnt be allowed in my grow room where i have possession of the plants. What is the harm here?

Technically, then the police shouldnt be allowed to inspect a grow either, or a po, or the city for whatever reason, yet they do this. So if i let a cop in to inspect, i would be breaking the law and they could arrest me for just letting them in the grow? Even if all else was by the book? Crazy. Or a likely oversight by the coa to allow for additional arrests?

I totally agree that if a patient has a CG but the patient retains the right to grow, the CG should be able to access the grow room and assist. I think the COA ruling that only one person can have access to the plants is a F'Ed up decision. If a patient assigns a CG but retains his own right to grow, the CG should be able to have access to the plants to help the patient. Unfortunately, the COA saw otherwise, so we are stuck with this crappy case law until (hopefully) it is reversed by the Supreme Court in Michigan or until our legislature corrects it.

[t-pain]

its a supreme court decision , highlander.

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/144120%20Opinion.pdf

[imiubu]

Whew, dam glad to have this clarified.

 

I know I was not alone in my confusion.

 

I understood this just as Indigro stated, possession being different than in the presence of.

 

 

 

Only the (1) person assigned possession is legally allowed in the grow.

 

 

 

Great thread.

[Restorium2]

Schuette was all over this right from the start. He knew folks wouldn't follow the strict language of the law and has been playing GOTCHA. Cops come and people just be honest and say that their wife or husband has been entering the rooms and WHAMMO they are caught confessing. Just happened with a caregiver husband and wife grow near me. Get your stories straight and stick with it. 

[imiubu]

pos bill schitty.

 

Was that the 'sticky note' case resto?

 

 

I read the court decisions etc... all the time and a little embarrassed that I was confused on this issue