Link to read the exact wording of new laws passed Friday ?

abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
-- A person is not in the vehicle unless he or she is either the registered qualifying patient to whom the plants belong or the person designated through the registration process as the primary caregiver for the registered qualifying patient.

> this may say that both patient and CG can be together in vehicle along with plants, only if the plants are designated on the registry as patients (on card). patient may have to have a "yes, can possess plants" stamped on their mmj card. otherwise nobody can be in a vehicle while plants are on board. / possibly reading too far into this... and what if the plants are in a locked case, or in the trunk? then passengers should be allowed in vehicle, just not so sure.


23 (1) THE VEHICLE IS BEING USED TEMPORARILY TO TRANSPORT LIVING
24 MARIHUANA PLANTS FROM 1 LOCATION TO ANOTHER WITH THE INTENT TO
25 PERMANENTLY RETAIN THOSE PLANTS AT THE SECOND LOCATION.
26 (2) AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT INSIDE THE VEHICLE UNLESS HE OR SHE
27 IS EITHER THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM THE LIVING
4
H02589'11 (S-3) CJC
1 MARIHUANA PLANTS BELONG OR THE INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATED THROUGH THE
2 DEPARTMENTAL REGISTRATION PROCESS AS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE
REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT. 3
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
abe supercro said:
-- A person is not in the vehicle unless he or she is either the registered qualifying patient to whom the plants belong or the person designated through the registration process as the primary caregiver for the registered qualifying patient.

> this may say that both patient and CG can be together in vehicle along with plants, only if the plants are designated on the registry as patients (on card). patient may have to have a "yes, can possess plants" stamped on their mmj card. otherwise nobody can be in a vehicle while plants are on board. / possibly reading too far into this... and what if the plants are in a locked case, or in the trunk? then passengers should be allowed in vehicle, just not so sure.
Click to expand...
I think we are over thinking this. We don't give our plants rides in the country. We take them from point a to point b. This is not a group effort. I would say there is little to no reason anyone other than the owner of the plants should be in the car with the plants. THIS IS EASILY DONE, JUST DO IT THIS WAY. Why even take the risk and have to justify why Auntie June has to be in the back seat as you pick up your clones or move your plants. Just put them in the car, move them, and THEN go back and get her.

Dr. Bob
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
why didn't they use the word "and" instead or "or" regarding CG and patient occupying greenhouse? one little word.
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
abe supercro said:
why didn't they use the word "and" instead or "or" regarding CG and patient occupying greenhouse? one little word.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation. Guess the same could be said about 'a', 'their' vs 'any' patient in another thread on p2p.

Looking at the overall construction, what is the benefit to anyone of saying either the caregiver OR the patient but not both could access the greenhouse. The caregiver has to be there, the self growing patient has to be there. That could be one explanation of why the OR is there, to deal with caregivers and a self growing patient (who technically isn't a caregiver). But why would the law limit it to these people vs a caregiver and the patients they were growing for? Especially in the situation where a patient named a caregiver, but retained the plants in his/her own greenhouse with the caregiver coming to the plants.

Considering the other sections of the law as amended (look at the section about transporting plants- who can be in the car?) it seems quite clear that the intention is that access be restricted to caregivers and the patients they are growing for. I don't think that is a leap of logic to make that conclusion. Who has access to plants? The answer is caregivers or patients. My interpretation would be that a patient could come in without the caregiver and visit their plants. I don't think both being there at once is a violation.

Good question, and I think an and/or would have been better. But I think the courts will look at it as an 'and/or'. See what McM has to say.

Dr. Bob
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of parsing words within the letter of the law. I believe this fuels a service industry that is truly a disservice to the community they over charge for an unnecessary and unwanted disservice :bigjoint: I think I know what the meaning of "is" is thank you ;-)
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
this is what I'm trippin on.. all along I've been under the impression that only the person named on the card for possession of plant material was thee only person allowed behind the locked door, guess that was my misconception. so all of the caregivers patients can frolic in CG's grow? And in a CG grn hse too? easy
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
I'm not a fan of parsing words within the letter of the law. I believe this fuels a service industry that is truly a disservice to the community they over charge for an unnecessary and unwanted disservice :bigjoint: I think I know what the meaning of "is" is thank you ;-)
Click to expand...
lol... I did originally reply that we were over thinking this, but the question was asked again so I took a shot.

Bottom line, patient and caregiver get visitation rights and I think the courts will look at it the same way. But check with your lawyer to be sure.

Dr. Bob
 
buckaroo bonzai

buckaroo bonzai

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
I'm not a fan of parsing words within the letter of the law. :bigjoint: I think I know what the meaning of "is" is thank you ;-)
Click to expand...
Wait a minute---bill Clinton said that...you forgot to quote him-

i believe he said..."it depends on what your definition of 'is' ....is-- "

just thought I'd point that out
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
I might be wrong on this point.

Reading over a couple of things, I am left with the impression that only two people can access the plants.

If a patient grows themselves, they may obviously access the plants. This is specifically mentioned.
If a patient designates the caregiver to possess the plants, the CAREGIVER may access the plants.

This leads me to believe, as they see it, only people that have 'allowed to possess plants' on their cards can access the plants. If a patient designated a caregiver to have the plants, the patient could not access them.

The reasoning behind this might be if a patient visited the plants, he would also visit the caregivers other plants. If the patient visited the plants, without the caregiver, they would actually be in a position to possess those plants under Blysma. Hence the rub.

To have a patient possess the plants, but have a caregiver, how would the caregiver access the plants? (he wouldn't have 'may possess plants' on his card)

Dr. Bob
 
ozzrokk

ozzrokk

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob said:
I might be wrong on this point.

Reading over a couple of things, I am left with the impression that only two people can access the plants.

If a patient grows themselves, they may obviously access the plants. This is specifically mentioned.
If a patient designates the caregiver to possess the plants, the CAREGIVER may access the plants.

This leads me to believe, as they see it, only people that have 'allowed to possess plants' on their cards can access the plants. If a patient designated a caregiver to have the plants, the patient could not access them.

The reasoning behind this might be if a patient visited the plants, he would also visit the caregivers other plants. If the patient visited the plants, without the caregiver, they would actually be in a position to possess those plants under Blysma. Hence the rub.

To have a patient possess the plants, but have a caregiver, how would the caregiver access the plants? (he wouldn't have 'may possess plants' on his card)

Dr. Bob
Click to expand...


I agree that is what it is saying. Again making it more restrigtive but I digress........ You would think the patient that grows his own and has a caregiver that the caregiver would be able to HELP the patient as that is one of the reasons a caregiver is there to HELP the Patient but again I digress.......

The reason you may need someone else in the car when moving clones,plants,etc would be in a situation where the patient cannot drive and does not have a caregiver....... Just another unthought of situation.
 
ozzrokk

ozzrokk

Well-Known Member
herbgarden said:
This is when we need a attorney here..Someone with legal knowledge..
Click to expand...

IMO a lawyer here wouldnt necessarily do any good as the way I see it most lawyers, even the ones on our side, won't chime in with the real legal reading because they do not want to give the free advice. I also believe it does no good for the fact that one lawyers opinion , in my opinion, is just that. And it won't help you in court to tell the judge " but your honor.... my lawyer said it was legal......." If you get what I mean...... But yes it would be nice to hear their take on these situations.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top