stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
Caregiver transfers?
Whats the popular opinion of C2C?
- Thread starter stumpjumper
- Start date
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
It was given serious consideration as a potential modification when these bills came out a couple of years ago, c2c might have avoided the 'stigma' of p2p in the eyes of the lawmakers, but it went no where. There was also the issue of a self growing patient not having the same access to transfers that caregivers had.
The other obvious issues is that it runs into the same problems you see with p2p, there is no clear provision in the Act allowing it.
Dr. Bob
The other obvious issues is that it runs into the same problems you see with p2p, there is no clear provision in the Act allowing it.
Dr. Bob
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
like any farmer, caregivers have slow periods where they must still provide for their patients.
CG to CG is essential.
CG to CG is essential.
stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
Yeah I thought the COA ruled ruled c2c was ok and it didn't ge any farther than that yet.. the emphasis was on p2p.
I definitely agree that c2c is a necessity..
I definitely agree that c2c is a necessity..
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Sad but true, "Caregivers" will never be able to afford "support" per the actions of these same law makers. "Caregivers" are individuals with families, financial responsibilities and full time jobs (72 plants and 5 patients to care for 24/7/365). Kind of the old rich/powerful catch 22 
buckaroo bonzai
Well-Known Member
legal in A2ypsi flint kazoo Lansing Detroitjackson macomb co warren......
nowhere else tho....
as far as I can tell--
based on the amount of clubs farmers markets dispensaries delivery services Craigslist backpage and CCs everywhere
havent been up north yet--
tomcatjones
Active Member
using the common language i always use to read the law...cg2cg works and is necessary of course. as is p2p... BUT
what is confusing to me is the prosecutors for the state in the CoA case have argued p2p doesn't exist but cg2cg does and i'm not sure how they can interpret one to e true but not the other.
cg2 ANY patient is more dependable than cg2cg using the act.
what is confusing to me is the prosecutors for the state in the CoA case have argued p2p doesn't exist but cg2cg does and i'm not sure how they can interpret one to e true but not the other.
cg2 ANY patient is more dependable than cg2cg using the act.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
NO they did NOT. They did not address it. It is the same as the issue of the bona fide dr/pt relationship in the hydroworld case.
As you may recall, in that example, people dropped off filled out applications and money, no medical records, never saw the doctor, and got signed certifications in the mail so to say. They basically bought a signature on the form.
Those signatures were accepted as proof of a bona fide relationship, not because of any clever legal argument, but because the prosecution NEVER CHALLENGED THEM and the court had no choice but to accept them. Had they been challenged on the basis of even a basic concept of the bona fide dr/pt relationship, much less based upon the published board standards, the ruling would have more than likely been VERY different. Had they been real patients rather than cops and the actual target of the prosecution, you can bet your boots the prosecution would have been all over that.
Like that case, the question of c2c was never brought up. So the court neither examined it nor ruled on it. Had it been, c2c for compensation would more than likely have been viewed the same way they viewed p2p with compensation. A sale and not covered under medical use (transfer only, no compensation). But we won't know until the question is asked. Is there anyone here that wants to be the test case for that one?
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Not legal. Tolerated by the local authorities. Please note the distinction. The local or the state can shut them down at any time.
That said, I am in full agreement they are needed and helpful, but McQueen will settle if they are supported in the Act. Currently it is questionable. It is a study on risk assessment.
Dr. Bob
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
Here I am, another beautiful UP morning with my coffee and joint and wondering, when oh when am I going to have enough +rep spread
around before I am able to give abe supercro +rep again?
I am going to go do some work and wait to see who all doesn't "like" his post.
This is kinda an important point of the way Michigan is, and the way larger operations would change it.
Do the caregivers hands get tied so they must be in grey area to pull it off, at some point over a 2-3 month period?
If the state truly doesn't want to overhaul the process, then CG to CG is a "NO BRAINER".
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
The term "legal" seems to be used too loosely within these threads as there are just to many types of laws to transgress.
Let me specify Michigan criminal law here as many seem to assume all are. In order for the local LEO authorities to charge you with a crime a "criminal code" must be broken, cited and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you act in self-defense all criminal murder codes are off the table due to the Affirmative Defense protections provided under this law. Being a MJ patient within this state affords you an affirmative defense to corresponding criminal codes regardless of all the games our law makers would like to play. I do believe the SC cleared up some of this BS earlier this year.
My point: Transgression of LARA standards IS NOT A CRIME. As an MJ patient you have an Affirmative Defense to corresponding criminal offenses. One has nothing to do with the other.
mancelonaman
Member
Are hair stylists at risk for cutting womens hair without authorization from their husband. The law states a woman must have permission from husband to cut hair, in michigan.
Hopefully the p2p and c2c questions well seem just as ridiculous in time regardless of what the intent of the law says.
Hopefully the p2p and c2c questions well seem just as ridiculous in time regardless of what the intent of the law says.
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
C2C is fine. the CoA Abstained from ANY ruling that may effect any CG relationships. Doesn't mean some dumbass cop wont want to arrest for it, or some dumbass drs will tell you its a GREY area, it is a Protected Action under the Definition of not ONLY Medical Use, but also in the line, "CAN ACQUIRE FROM ANY REASONABLE SOURCE".
Some idiots Like Drs and AGs just DO NOT Understand they can not CHERRY PICK the law.
Some idiots Like Drs and AGs just DO NOT Understand they can not CHERRY PICK the law.
tomcatjones
Active Member
intent is the key word. and severability!! (mentioned 10 times for a reason)
inconsistent has the rood meaning.. against the intent!
intent means everything in this law.
- http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/...1-HCB-4851.pdf
I believe this is a link to the latest full version of the act. I'm having a hard time finding the line you describe. However your dead on about the definition of medical use.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Tim,
I am really getting tired of explaining things for you, please find an older, more educated friend to make the meaning clear.
How, my friend, do you fail to understand the issue is not acquiring medication, it is selling it for money. Yes, we all know you can acquire from any source as a patient, or caregiver for that matter, the rub comes with the person committing the crime of distribution. Only caregivers can transfer for compensation to their registered patients. You have VAST knowledge of the law and can easily see where it clearly says that. There is no such CLEAR and SPECIFIC language that says that about ANY other transfer anywhere in the Act. There are 'suggestions' that could be interpreted as such, but no clear language. This issue is before the court. They will let us know what they think.
Dr. Bob
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Could the corner drug dealer not float the defense that such a transaction is actually legal with an MJ patient whom would then be the one with possession? Exactly what criminal code has been broken here? The transaction in this manner is no longer criminally illegal correct?
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Exactly, that is why Tim and the likes have trouble understanding these things. They try and seize on one sentence or in some cases one word and expand on that until, in their minds, it justifies what ever they have an inclination to do. Or in his case, the latest story he hears.
Little update on Tim, after having his tail handed to him here, he headed over to another board with the same tired lines. Just as I predicted.
Dr. Bob
bowlfullofbliss
Well-Known Member
I'm all about c2c, and p2p, and people to people (another p2p!). Its not worth filling up jails for, I mean come the heck on. Time for the public to pull up their panties and get over themselves.
Access for everyone, not just if you have a piece of plastic in your wallet, and a half crooked doctor who signed our forms.
Sorry, but thats how it is, IMO.
Access for everyone, not just if you have a piece of plastic in your wallet, and a half crooked doctor who signed our forms.
Sorry, but thats how it is, IMO.