GregS
Well-Known Member
Only to point out that there is a legal alternative to your point that genetics cannot be legally procured, at least in Michigan.
Immaculate Conception Rule/Law
- Thread starter woodsmantoker
- Start date
woodsmantoker
Well-Known Member
Your point is, someone already has them...
woodsmantoker
Well-Known Member
I'm sitting next to two attorneys who are calling your bluff.
woodsmantoker
Well-Known Member
Where's the mulberry bush
GregS
Well-Known Member
...and we Michigan residents can legally acquire them. B*B's convoluted mention of jumping through registry hoops would work, as would sec. 8 compliance. Sec 8 goes to work before the ink is dry on the necessary documents.
GregS
Well-Known Member
I am seven feet tall and awful good looking. So goes the interwebs.
GregS
Well-Known Member
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
I would join you brother.
woodsmantoker
Well-Known Member
^right on!
woodsmantoker
Well-Known Member
Greg, talk is cheap we can both agree yes? (Unless your a lawyer, doc, etc and charge to talk). Its simple. If your correct, you can prove it so, correct?
Pull an Irwin, and PROVE IT.
Pull an Irwin, and PROVE IT.
GregS
Well-Known Member
I can read plenty well, and have the gray matter to understand. If you can refute my comments with facts, staying away from lies, speculation, and hyperbole, by all means do. I will support my position doing just that. Otherwise we all sound like B*B.
I had not expected to have to post this again. But because you asked:
(posted here with credit to the author, Greg Schmid, Attorney at Law)
DEFENDANTS ASSERTION OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
MEDICAL PURPOSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS
What You Need To Prove; How and When to Prove It.
Citation of the law: Cite as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
Statutory authority to assert defense and presumption: Section 8(a) authorizes assertion of the affirmative defense,
and crates a presumption of validity of the defense where a showing is made as to its elements. Patient and a patient's
primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving
marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows the elements of the defense. Generally, in
asserting affirmative defenses, defendant has the burden of going forward, with proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
At trial, where the defense has been asserted, and the threshold showing has been made by defendant, the prosecutor must
show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the legally excusing elements of the defense do not exist.
Statutory authority to bring a motion to dismiss, and mandatory dismissal:
Section 8(b) establishes the statutory authority for a motion to dismiss. A person may assert the medical purpose for
using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the
person shows the specified elements of the defense. The showing must prove the elements by a preponderance of the
evidence, and where this showing is made the dismissal is mandatory.
Standing and Scope of the Affirmative defense:
The affirmative defense is available to the following people:
Any patient who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section; or
Any patient's primary caregiver who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant
to this section.
The defense applies to the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of
marihuana or paraphernalia, in these proceedings:
Any prosecution involving marihuana [Section 8(a)]
Any disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau [Section 8©1]; or
Forfeiture of any interest in or right to property. [Section 8©2]
Disqualifications: Section 8(a) provides that the defendant cannot assert the affirmative defense if possessing or engaging
in the use of marijuana was in violation of Section 7(b) of the Act. Section 7(b) lists certain disqualifying criteria that
apply to the Section 8 affirmative defense and to the Acts other more prophylactic immunities for registry participants.
The defense may not be asserted for any of the following:
Smoking marijuana in any public place;
Smoking marijuana on any form of public transportation;
Any use by a person who has no serious or debilitating medical condition;
Any conduct where being under the influence would constitute negligence or professional malpractice per se;
Operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under
the influence of marihuana.
Any use or possession in a school bus;
Any use or possession on the grounds of any preschool, primary, or secondary school;
Any use or possession in any correctional facility;
Elements of the Affirmative Defense (3 prongs):
1. The Gatekeepers Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
has stated that
in the physician's professional opinion
after having completed a full assessment of
the patient's medical history and
patient's current medical condition
which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
from the medical use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
not more than was reasonably necessary
to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
for the purpose of treating or alleviating
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
were engaged in the
acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
Methods of Proving the Elements of the Defense at Evidentiary Hearing
Proving the Physicians statement: On the Cheap. It is essential that this defense be presentable without live testimony from the doctor. The court will likely make defendant prove the physician is licensed, and so a certified record should be obtained early to avoid an MRE 902 emergency. Technically the patient can prove that the physician statement was made without hearsay objection, as the fact that the statement was made is the operative fact in question. As the law does not allow a Judge to second guess the physician[s professional opinion in this regard, so the defendant need only prove the statement was made, not whether it was reasonable. However, prosecutor will argue that defendant needs also to prove that the statement was a considered one, and that may not be so easy. The prosecutor will argue that the statute provides the statement must be made after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and patient's current medical condition, and that must being the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship. The defendant can testify on personal knowledge that he was there and observed the complete assessment taking place, and can establish the bona fide relationship, but will the showing be of sufficient weight to pass the preponderance test? Who is a patient to judge what constitutes a full assessment by a doctor? The Patient can testify that the doctor said he completed the full assessment, but if the question of whether that full assessment really took place is in issue, then such testimony would be hearsay because is would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted that the full assessment was made. Three solutions present themselves. MRE 803(6) Hearsay exception for regularly kept business records could get written medical reports into evidence to prove the complete assessment occurred, and even the bona fide relationship. This would merely require compliance with MCL 902(11), and the assumption that the doctor wrote it all down. [See MRE 902(11)] Certified records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted business activity that would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a w r i t t e n d e c l a r a t i o n u n d e r o a t h b y i t s c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a li f i e d p e r s o n certifying that .the record is contemporaneous to the complete assessment, in the course of regular activity, and according to regular practice. Counsel should obtain this affidavit early, as prior notice of the declaration is a condition to self authentication. Of course, if seems obvious but that MRE
803(4) would apply. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment o r m e d i c a l d i a g n o s i s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t r e a t m e n t. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment. However, counsel may be confronted with the argument that the rule admits patient statements made to aid in diagnosis, not those of the Doctor made to express the completeness of the doctors assessment. Counsel may simply wish to argue that the element should be interpreted to mean that the statement made language includes the statement that the doctor made a full assessment of the history and current condition. That is, that he has stated, that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship, the patient is likely . In this interpretation, the patients testimony would be admissible to establish the entire element, and sound something like this, He stated he had made a full assessment of my medical history and current condition, and that he had formed a professional opinion , which was that I was likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana to (treat or alleviate) my (serious medical condition or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof).
The documents I present in the thread https://www.rollitup.org/michigan-patients/694887-new-activist-funding-plan.html are intended to firmly establish two of the three elements required in proving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the courtroom standard to be met.
Then there is this, from the Michigan Supreme Court Opinion in State v Bylsma. It is reiterated in the SC decisions in State v King, State v Kolanek, and State v Koon.
[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless
of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.
Maybe your two lawyer buddies can chime in here.
I had not expected to have to post this again. But because you asked:
(posted here with credit to the author, Greg Schmid, Attorney at Law)
DEFENDANTS ASSERTION OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
MEDICAL PURPOSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS
What You Need To Prove; How and When to Prove It.
Citation of the law: Cite as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
Statutory authority to assert defense and presumption: Section 8(a) authorizes assertion of the affirmative defense,
and crates a presumption of validity of the defense where a showing is made as to its elements. Patient and a patient's
primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving
marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows the elements of the defense. Generally, in
asserting affirmative defenses, defendant has the burden of going forward, with proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
At trial, where the defense has been asserted, and the threshold showing has been made by defendant, the prosecutor must
show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the legally excusing elements of the defense do not exist.
Statutory authority to bring a motion to dismiss, and mandatory dismissal:
Section 8(b) establishes the statutory authority for a motion to dismiss. A person may assert the medical purpose for
using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the
person shows the specified elements of the defense. The showing must prove the elements by a preponderance of the
evidence, and where this showing is made the dismissal is mandatory.
Standing and Scope of the Affirmative defense:
The affirmative defense is available to the following people:
Any patient who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section; or
Any patient's primary caregiver who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant
to this section.
The defense applies to the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of
marihuana or paraphernalia, in these proceedings:
Any prosecution involving marihuana [Section 8(a)]
Any disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau [Section 8©1]; or
Forfeiture of any interest in or right to property. [Section 8©2]
Disqualifications: Section 8(a) provides that the defendant cannot assert the affirmative defense if possessing or engaging
in the use of marijuana was in violation of Section 7(b) of the Act. Section 7(b) lists certain disqualifying criteria that
apply to the Section 8 affirmative defense and to the Acts other more prophylactic immunities for registry participants.
The defense may not be asserted for any of the following:
Smoking marijuana in any public place;
Smoking marijuana on any form of public transportation;
Any use by a person who has no serious or debilitating medical condition;
Any conduct where being under the influence would constitute negligence or professional malpractice per se;
Operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under
the influence of marihuana.
Any use or possession in a school bus;
Any use or possession on the grounds of any preschool, primary, or secondary school;
Any use or possession in any correctional facility;
Elements of the Affirmative Defense (3 prongs):
1. The Gatekeepers Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
has stated that
in the physician's professional opinion
after having completed a full assessment of
the patient's medical history and
patient's current medical condition
which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
from the medical use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
not more than was reasonably necessary
to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
for the purpose of treating or alleviating
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
were engaged in the
acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
Methods of Proving the Elements of the Defense at Evidentiary Hearing
Proving the Physicians statement: On the Cheap. It is essential that this defense be presentable without live testimony from the doctor. The court will likely make defendant prove the physician is licensed, and so a certified record should be obtained early to avoid an MRE 902 emergency. Technically the patient can prove that the physician statement was made without hearsay objection, as the fact that the statement was made is the operative fact in question. As the law does not allow a Judge to second guess the physician[s professional opinion in this regard, so the defendant need only prove the statement was made, not whether it was reasonable. However, prosecutor will argue that defendant needs also to prove that the statement was a considered one, and that may not be so easy. The prosecutor will argue that the statute provides the statement must be made after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and patient's current medical condition, and that must being the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship. The defendant can testify on personal knowledge that he was there and observed the complete assessment taking place, and can establish the bona fide relationship, but will the showing be of sufficient weight to pass the preponderance test? Who is a patient to judge what constitutes a full assessment by a doctor? The Patient can testify that the doctor said he completed the full assessment, but if the question of whether that full assessment really took place is in issue, then such testimony would be hearsay because is would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted that the full assessment was made. Three solutions present themselves. MRE 803(6) Hearsay exception for regularly kept business records could get written medical reports into evidence to prove the complete assessment occurred, and even the bona fide relationship. This would merely require compliance with MCL 902(11), and the assumption that the doctor wrote it all down. [See MRE 902(11)] Certified records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted business activity that would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a w r i t t e n d e c l a r a t i o n u n d e r o a t h b y i t s c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a li f i e d p e r s o n certifying that .the record is contemporaneous to the complete assessment, in the course of regular activity, and according to regular practice. Counsel should obtain this affidavit early, as prior notice of the declaration is a condition to self authentication. Of course, if seems obvious but that MRE
803(4) would apply. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment o r m e d i c a l d i a g n o s i s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t r e a t m e n t. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment. However, counsel may be confronted with the argument that the rule admits patient statements made to aid in diagnosis, not those of the Doctor made to express the completeness of the doctors assessment. Counsel may simply wish to argue that the element should be interpreted to mean that the statement made language includes the statement that the doctor made a full assessment of the history and current condition. That is, that he has stated, that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship, the patient is likely . In this interpretation, the patients testimony would be admissible to establish the entire element, and sound something like this, He stated he had made a full assessment of my medical history and current condition, and that he had formed a professional opinion , which was that I was likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana to (treat or alleviate) my (serious medical condition or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof).
The documents I present in the thread https://www.rollitup.org/michigan-patients/694887-new-activist-funding-plan.html are intended to firmly establish two of the three elements required in proving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the courtroom standard to be met.
Then there is this, from the Michigan Supreme Court Opinion in State v Bylsma. It is reiterated in the SC decisions in State v King, State v Kolanek, and State v Koon.
[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless
of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.
Maybe your two lawyer buddies can chime in here.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
You miss the part about the two attorneys Greg? Or the fact I know the ones you dropped the names for and they agree with me? And many others on this thread and at the MMMA that you have no clue as to what section 8 does and does not do? Notice folks are finally calling your bluff?
Your cut and paste article was also put up over on the MMMA, the best response was 'we wish it worked that way'.
Looks like you are losing your fan club Greg, folks are realizing you want others to take the risks and you are just there to capitalize on the table rent.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Elements of the Affirmative Defense (3 prongs):
1. The Gatekeepers Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
has stated that
in the physician's professional opinion
after having completed a full assessment of
the patient's medical history and
patient's current medical condition
which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
from the medical use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
not more than was reasonably necessary
to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
for the purpose of treating or alleviating
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
were engaged in the
acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
Prong One has nothing to do with the caregiver. It has to do with a patient being certified by a physician in the course of a bonafide relationship. How does this affect the 'unregistered caregiver' at your farmers market. Not at all other than hauling the patient in to court to prove there was a need and they were a legitimate patient. You'll have to bring in the doc too to prove there was a bonafide relationship. If either the patient or the doctor fail, your 'unregistered caregiver' is sunk.
Prong Two has to do with the amount of marijuana involved. I guess if you sold less than 2.5 ounces you could claim it was a reasonable amount for the patient, subject to cross examination by the prosecutor. Again, it is a reasonable amount FOR THE PATIENT, it has nothing to do with your 'unregistered caregiver' selling it to a random patient. The only reason the primary caregiver is even mentioned is that they may have an additional amount held aside for the patient to resupply them when they run out. Again, if the patient fails, this could well come back on the caregiver.
Prong Three has to do with the patient using the marijuana directly for their own medical condition rather than transferring it elsewhere. Again this is primarily on the patient, unless the 'unregistered caregiver' or 'legal primary caregiver' knowingly gave it to someone that was transferring it to someone else.
Your section 8 'unregistered caregiver' is totally dependant on shifting the blame from themselves to the patient to prove the need. The courts have repeatedly held that a registry connection between 'supplier' and 'patient' must exist for the transaction to be legal, so any attempt to buck that system is an expensive, uphill fight. A specific example of an 'unregistered caregiver' is Green in Barry Co. He was not protected. He has the chance to throw himself on the mercy of the court for helping out his friend, but things look tough for him. Even in a rather clear, cost free, example of compassion such as that one time transaction it is a hard fight. To set up a farmers market based on that premise has a name too. Criminal conspiracy and I am sure the feds are looking at such schemes.
I didn't use business plan or legal strategy for a reason. Scheme implies sliminess and dishonesty. If you think it really is legit, by all means YOU be the test case. We'll cheer you on from the sidelines as we follow your case and sentencing in the papers.
Dr. Bob
1. The Gatekeepers Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
has stated that
in the physician's professional opinion
after having completed a full assessment of
the patient's medical history and
patient's current medical condition
which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
from the medical use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
not more than was reasonably necessary
to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
for the purpose of treating or alleviating
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
were engaged in the
acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
to treat or alleviate
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
Prong One has nothing to do with the caregiver. It has to do with a patient being certified by a physician in the course of a bonafide relationship. How does this affect the 'unregistered caregiver' at your farmers market. Not at all other than hauling the patient in to court to prove there was a need and they were a legitimate patient. You'll have to bring in the doc too to prove there was a bonafide relationship. If either the patient or the doctor fail, your 'unregistered caregiver' is sunk.
Prong Two has to do with the amount of marijuana involved. I guess if you sold less than 2.5 ounces you could claim it was a reasonable amount for the patient, subject to cross examination by the prosecutor. Again, it is a reasonable amount FOR THE PATIENT, it has nothing to do with your 'unregistered caregiver' selling it to a random patient. The only reason the primary caregiver is even mentioned is that they may have an additional amount held aside for the patient to resupply them when they run out. Again, if the patient fails, this could well come back on the caregiver.
Prong Three has to do with the patient using the marijuana directly for their own medical condition rather than transferring it elsewhere. Again this is primarily on the patient, unless the 'unregistered caregiver' or 'legal primary caregiver' knowingly gave it to someone that was transferring it to someone else.
Your section 8 'unregistered caregiver' is totally dependant on shifting the blame from themselves to the patient to prove the need. The courts have repeatedly held that a registry connection between 'supplier' and 'patient' must exist for the transaction to be legal, so any attempt to buck that system is an expensive, uphill fight. A specific example of an 'unregistered caregiver' is Green in Barry Co. He was not protected. He has the chance to throw himself on the mercy of the court for helping out his friend, but things look tough for him. Even in a rather clear, cost free, example of compassion such as that one time transaction it is a hard fight. To set up a farmers market based on that premise has a name too. Criminal conspiracy and I am sure the feds are looking at such schemes.
I didn't use business plan or legal strategy for a reason. Scheme implies sliminess and dishonesty. If you think it really is legit, by all means YOU be the test case. We'll cheer you on from the sidelines as we follow your case and sentencing in the papers.
Dr. Bob
GregS
Well-Known Member
| 8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana. |
Prong 1- A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;
Prong 2- The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and
Prong 3- The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.
(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).
(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:
(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or
(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.
Any patient, by virtue of having the appropriate documentation that is available in the op, can designate anyone who meets the conditions found in the contract to be their caregiver, at any time and for any reasonable duration. Sec. 8 does not delimit the number of caregivers a patient can have or the number of patients a caregiver can engage with.
And how do you explain this Bob, from Bylsma? It appears in other iterations in King, Kolanek, and Koon. Apparently you have either not read or understood them.
[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless
of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.
Your embellishments to these facts are without merit.
GregS
Well-Known Member
Or if you would rather, we can use the text that you are mistakenly trying to use to point out that caregivers are not covered.
1. The Gatekeeper’s Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
• A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
• has stated that
• in the physician's professional opinion
• after having completed a full assessment of
• the patient's medical history and
• patient's current medical condition
• which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
• that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
• from the medical use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
• in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
• not more than was reasonably necessary
• to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
• for the purpose of treating or alleviating
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
• were engaged in the
• acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
1. The Gatekeeper’s Statement [Section 8(a)1]:
• A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
• has stated that
• in the physician's professional opinion
• after having completed a full assessment of
• the patient's medical history and
• patient's current medical condition
• which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
• that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
• from the medical use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [Section 8(a)2]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
• in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
• not more than was reasonably necessary
• to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
• for the purpose of treating or alleviating
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [Section 8(a)3]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
• were engaged in the
• acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Because they are clearly referring to the patient. You just don't get it, caregivers are involved ONLY by virtue of their registry association with a patient. It is not 'caregiver and their primary patient'. If a patient successfully makes a section 8 defense for THEIR use of marijuana, the prosecutor cannot turn on the caregiver, the patient made the case and the caregiver is protected as a result.
Your entire argument is demolished if the prosecutor says 'we are not going after the patient, we will only charge the person that sold marijuana to them outside of the registry'. How are you going to defend yourself (wait it wont be you, you want others to be the test case) if they don't involve the patient? Did you read Green? Did you look at what the SC said about Green in the McQueen Ruling?
You've been shown, repeatedly, why your logic is defective. I can't fix stupid. Nor will I cut and paste where you were demolished over the last couple of months on the boards in your efforts to set up a farmers market and line your pockets with this pet 'scheme' of yours. I've made mistakes of logic in the past. Specifically where it came to caregiver networks. I learned from those discussions and admitted I was wrong. You do not. I am not going to take valuable time to, once again, repeat it.
The board is turning on you because they realize you have no clue about this and are going to get people put in jail. You go run your little cash cow. You get arrested, and you make your case with your little contract. We'll wish you well and follow your case and sentencing.
Dr. Bob
Your entire argument is demolished if the prosecutor says 'we are not going after the patient, we will only charge the person that sold marijuana to them outside of the registry'. How are you going to defend yourself (wait it wont be you, you want others to be the test case) if they don't involve the patient? Did you read Green? Did you look at what the SC said about Green in the McQueen Ruling?
You've been shown, repeatedly, why your logic is defective. I can't fix stupid. Nor will I cut and paste where you were demolished over the last couple of months on the boards in your efforts to set up a farmers market and line your pockets with this pet 'scheme' of yours. I've made mistakes of logic in the past. Specifically where it came to caregiver networks. I learned from those discussions and admitted I was wrong. You do not. I am not going to take valuable time to, once again, repeat it.
The board is turning on you because they realize you have no clue about this and are going to get people put in jail. You go run your little cash cow. You get arrested, and you make your case with your little contract. We'll wish you well and follow your case and sentencing.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Do you see and/OR? Follow the construction greg, section 8 is for patients, and it is the patient that protects the caregiver. It is not for someone calling themselves a 'caregiver' to sell marijuana to any patient. Read your own cut and paste. And don't cut and paste if you don't understand the content of what you are cutting. Just because you see the word 'caregiver' doesn't mean it has ANY relevance to your argument.
Dr. Bob
GregS
Well-Known Member
Sec. 8 could not possibly more plainly state that patients AND their caregivers can use the defense. The documents I have laid out are intended to permit patients to assign caregiver status to as many caregivers as they need, and protect those caregivers.
Will you please respond to the quote from Bylsma?
Will you please respond to the quote from Bylsma?
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Expand the logic of Greg.
An 'unregistered caregiver' sees 100 patients at a farmers market, selling each 2.5 ounces. The 'unregistered caregiver' retains 2.5 ounces for those 100 patients to cover resupply. That is 5000 ounces. So if this is the usual and customary business this 'unregistered caregiver' does each week at the farmers market, that means that each month they need to be able to lay their hands on over 20,000 ounces of meds, and would still be considered, per greg, to be engaging in reasonable activity to cover the 100 patients they service every week. So they point to section 8 and say it is ok for them to have enough plants to cover this 20,000 ounces a month. How many would that be growers? Maybe 2 ounces per plant, 3 month growing period, I would say a minimum of 30,000 plants under cultivation, and according to Greg, section 8 protects this activity.
Too extreme an example? Do we have to figure in 'reasonableness'? Let's say greg's unregistered caregiver only does 1/10 of that at the farmers market, that is 3000 plants needed? Let's say that reduced number gets 1/2 ounce rather than 2.5 ounces a week, that translates out to 600 plants. Let's say greg is SOOOO good that he gets 4 ounces a plant, now we are down to 150 plants.
The entire idea is absurd. Back to the drawing board greg.
Dr. Bob
An 'unregistered caregiver' sees 100 patients at a farmers market, selling each 2.5 ounces. The 'unregistered caregiver' retains 2.5 ounces for those 100 patients to cover resupply. That is 5000 ounces. So if this is the usual and customary business this 'unregistered caregiver' does each week at the farmers market, that means that each month they need to be able to lay their hands on over 20,000 ounces of meds, and would still be considered, per greg, to be engaging in reasonable activity to cover the 100 patients they service every week. So they point to section 8 and say it is ok for them to have enough plants to cover this 20,000 ounces a month. How many would that be growers? Maybe 2 ounces per plant, 3 month growing period, I would say a minimum of 30,000 plants under cultivation, and according to Greg, section 8 protects this activity.
Too extreme an example? Do we have to figure in 'reasonableness'? Let's say greg's unregistered caregiver only does 1/10 of that at the farmers market, that is 3000 plants needed? Let's say that reduced number gets 1/2 ounce rather than 2.5 ounces a week, that translates out to 600 plants. Let's say greg is SOOOO good that he gets 4 ounces a plant, now we are down to 150 plants.
The entire idea is absurd. Back to the drawing board greg.
Dr. Bob