Free Meds - is it legal?

RickWhite · Oct 22, 2010

A lot of "caregivers" are supposedly offering up to a free oz per month to patients who sign up with them.

This is justified by the claim that you can grow a lot more so it is only fair to give them free product. The problem I have with this is how law enforcement might interpret this.

After all, what you are essentially saying is that you will make your money selling what you grow on the black market so you ought to give the patient their cut of the action.

I'm pretty sure an offer for free meds could be seen by law enforcement as asking a patient to conspire with you to manufacture for illegal purposes with the free meds being their cut.

And there is a snowball's chance in hell anyone is going to believe the free meds are strictly for philanthropic reasons.

As a caregiver, I could certainly offer such a deal, but I'm afraid this is a public declaration of guilt. After all, growing only what your patients consume and destroying overage is what the law really requires.

Clearly, if you are not collecting compensation from your patient, you are receiving it elsewhere. And we all know the "elsewhere" part is illegal. So, how can you offer this and not fear prosecution?

I would think even the patient could be charged with conspiracy to manufacture and traffic. After all, the patient knows what you are doing and is helping you do it. Plus, they are getting an obvious piece of the action.

I'm just wondering how people can offer this deal and not worry about getting busted.

906breeder · Oct 22, 2010

I dont believe you fully understand the law and what it implements..

I am a caregiver and do not give away a free ounce a month...I give them a free 2.5 ounces every single cycle. The michigan caregiver deal and reason for 5 patient limit is because its not meant to be a employment opportunity. Your suppose to be providing medication to people who are not capable of doing it themselves. Extra plants is suppose to make this easier to care for more paitients with mothers,clones,veg and bloom...clearly we as caregivers are supposed to maintain a normal job like the rest of the world.

I would hope any overages would be sold for a reasonable price to paitents or other caregivers in need. Why would one even participate in any black market activity if your doing it legal??? Why waste your time with the limits and money investment into it, the scrunity, and all the bullshit....I used to do 100 plants a pop every run illegal as all hell and made a killing.....but then got married calmed down and I don't want to take any risks anymore, but i do want to get high and I can grow some damn good weed. Turns out I can help out a few other people in need as well and it will help me out as well as I would be able to increase my amount of mothers therby having new flavors to pick from, also it allows you to bud more plants, veg more plants,take more clones, and have more finished product...the whole time staying wll within my limits and feelinmg good about it as well.

Blackmarket is why dicks around here try to charge 500 a zip for fresh off the branch poorly grown named strains....i just laugh as I break out a new jar of Sour Cream thats been curing for 6 weeks and watch the smoke drift

rzza · Oct 22, 2010

i like your outlook on the program. i can agree for the most part.

i think by blackmarket he meant the legal side of it. (selling to other patients and caregivers)

blackmarket doesnt require the sale to be illegal, it only means no taxes were paid.

RickWhite · Oct 23, 2010

906breeder said:
I dont believe you fully understand the law and what it implements..

I am a caregiver and do not give away a free ounce a month...I give them a free 2.5 ounces every single cycle. The michigan caregiver deal and reason for 5 patient limit is because its not meant to be a employment opportunity. Your suppose to be providing medication to people who are not capable of doing it themselves. Extra plants is suppose to make this easier to care for more paitients with mothers,clones,veg and bloom...clearly we as caregivers are supposed to maintain a normal job like the rest of the world.

I would hope any overages would be sold for a reasonable price to paitents or other caregivers in need. Why would one even participate in any black market activity if your doing it legal??? Why waste your time with the limits and money investment into it, the scrunity, and all the bullshit....I used to do 100 plants a pop every run illegal as all hell and made a killing.....but then got married calmed down and I don't want to take any risks anymore, but i do want to get high and I can grow some damn good weed. Turns out I can help out a few other people in need as well and it will help me out as well as I would be able to increase my amount of mothers therby having new flavors to pick from, also it allows you to bud more plants, veg more plants,take more clones, and have more finished product...the whole time staying wll within my limits and feelinmg good about it as well.

Blackmarket is why dicks around here try to charge 500 a zip for fresh off the branch poorly grown named strains....i just laugh as I break out a new jar of Sour Cream thats been curing for 6 weeks and watch the smoke drift

Dude, a little reading comprehension. We are saying the same thing.

Whether or not any "sales" are legal is currently a subject of debate. Most likely, the courts will soon rule that no sales are legal. The law allows CG to Be "compensated for costs." Selling to other CG or even patients not registered to you is a gray area that is quickly fading to black. Oakland County has made their position clear.

Again, the question is whether or not giving away meds implies that you are being compensated elsewhere, and that elsewhere is of questionable legality. Although, one guy did point out that it is reasonable to offer a loss leader to sign patients and build a reputation. Although, even that is questionable since the law technically might not even allow a CG compensation for his time. I find that stupid and outrageous, but the letter of the law seems to imply that.

The strictest interpretation is that a CG can pass along his costs, but not make a profit or even get paid for his time.

In this case, it is nearly impossible to argue that free give away offers are not designed with profit in mind. While it may be reasonable to grow on behalf of a sick family member without getting paid for your time, no court will believe that you are growing for a stranger without any benefit to your self.

906breeder · Oct 23, 2010

I apologize that you were unable to recieve a full understanding from my post. Reading comprehension does seem to be the issue. What I am saying is that you my friend sound like one of "those". It is not impossible to argue that free weed is designed for profit. Are you really that big of an asshole that this is the only reason your trying to be a caregiver? Your a grower dude, not a caregiver. My advice to you would be go back to the blackmarket...you should be concerned with things like this.

Dont ever put you and I in the same category of thinking...never. I do this for non-profit for real. I do the absolute best I can and clean too. Follow the law to the fucking T and do whatever I can for my paitents. The plants ALL BELONG TO THEM!! Those are not YOUR plants...you have agreed by law to aid and assist with their MMJ- not worry about your greedy pockets...who would this be an admission of guilt to??? If your in it for the duckets than stay far away from the applications so you dont fuck it up for us trying to help for real.

Just like any small business you are allowed to be compensated for expenses...tell me this included over 50$ a zip MAX and your a goddamn LIAR.

Stoner Smurf · Oct 24, 2010

I just don't follow this train of logic... It's okay for a farmer to make a living, pay his/her mortgage, and feed their family if they grow corn or beans, but if they grow pot they're suppose to do it for free or at cost? Why is that? Please explain I am all ears. Are farmers who refuse to give free crops to the hungry and homeless just worried about filling their "greedy pockets"?

IMO people like you are almost as bad as anti-drug crusaders. Anti-drug crusaders want medical marijuana to just disappear, your kind just want to destroy it. You don't allow growers to make money and all of a sudden you will have all the educated and highly intelligent growers either quit growing all together or start moving their meds on the black market. Either way know who suffers? The patients. You will have a bunch of amateurs with closet grows providing meds to people who are truly sick and deserve the highest quality meds. If you are really producing top notch meds, it's a full time job doing so. The more money growers can make the more intelligent people are attracted to the business and we all reap the rewards in the shape of new strains, new technology, new growing techniques, etc.

For the record I am not talking about legality, we're talking morality. And there is nothing wrong with getting a good pay for providing a good service. For better or worse with live in a Capitalistic society. In capitalism when you have the knowledge and means to produce a good that not everyone can make you get to sell that good for a profit. If you don't like it go move to a communist country or a commune, and then you can give all your shit away for free.

906breeder · Oct 24, 2010

I honestly cannot believe that my post recieved this response...you are entitled t your opinion and like you mentioned your profit as well. I disagree with you thinking all of the good growers would quit leaving the closet punks. I must argue that it would seem more feesible for the shit growers to phase out. And the percentage of profit is the issue, not the profit itself. What I do is my prefrence, but of course you are entitled to reap benefits from your hard work. But you really think its worth upwards of 500$ an ounce?

I am arguing for the paitents here, in saying that BY LAW you are simply caring for THIER PLANTS. You feel like being able to grow 12 more plants for a person allows you to make over 400% profit off of the paitent? Make some money if you need to, but for the love of god, why keep the blackmarket prices rolling?

I really am astonished you say that people like me are as bad as the anti-drug crusaders. I truly am offended. If it makes you feel any better, people like you get bitch slapped here in the 906. Thank-you for the discussion. Good day.

peilo · Oct 24, 2010

Maybe I should scan in my $400 a month electric bill, or any other of my large receipts totaling in to the thousands, nutes where almost $300 by themselves last time, and that's the low end Fox Farm. It isn't cheap and its very time consuming to grow. A caregiver is a demanding job when you grow commercially and perpetual there are a lot of responsibilities and jobs you have to have done and on a schedule. The moral of the story it's a lot of work, and we deserve to make a living. We benefit, our patients benefit.

My patients get a free oz a month and maybe buy an extra 1/2 for $150-200 but all my overages go to other legal registered caregivers, patients or the dispensary only.

RickWhite · Oct 25, 2010

906breeder said:
I honestly cannot believe that my post recieved this response...you are entitled t your opinion and like you mentioned your profit as well. I disagree with you thinking all of the good growers would quit leaving the closet punks. I must argue that it would seem more feesible for the shit growers to phase out. And the percentage of profit is the issue, not the profit itself. What I do is my prefrence, but of course you are entitled to reap benefits from your hard work. But you really think its worth upwards of 500$ an ounce?

I am arguing for the paitents here, in saying that BY LAW you are simply caring for THIER PLANTS. You feel like being able to grow 12 more plants for a person allows you to make over 400% profit off of the paitent? Make some money if you need to, but for the love of god, why keep the blackmarket prices rolling?

I really am astonished you say that people like me are as bad as the anti-drug crusaders. I truly am offended. If it makes you feel any better, people like you get bitch slapped here in the 906. Thank-you for the discussion. Good day.

Excuse me you lying sack of shit, but what other charities do you give money to and volunteer your time?

It's so laughable to hear that since MMJ became legal, all of the sudden everyone is rushing to help others while receiving nothing in return. You not only post what is obviously a load of bullshit calling me out, but you even have a Bible passage at the bottom of our page. Is that just to throw off the cops or do you think pretending to have faith will cancel out your dishonesty?

You really think the cops will believe your weak bullshit? You offer "free meds" as a way of bribing patients to let you use their patient status so that you can grow weed to sell on the black market. Or, you give it all to them and expect them to sell it for you. You really think everyone is as dumb as you are and is buying your bullshit?

That is a joke and you are a lying sack of shit who is to stupid to know you are a few weeks away from a conspiracy charge. Do me a favor and just shut the fuck up and get the hell out of my thread. Fucking 906; come on down to the 313 bitch.

ayr0n · Oct 27, 2010

honestly if you're concerned about it that much you could just set up an agreement with your patients where they pay lets say 3/4 of the price for each o , so basically they'd be buying 4 o's and getting one free. Regardless of how you do it, i'm going to assume it's not illegal to give it to a patient for free, that almost seems more legal than selling it to them...

RickWhite · Oct 29, 2010

The law allows a CG to be "compensated for costs." There are different definitions of what constitutes "costs." I doubt including labor and making a small profit is going to draw much attention from Johnny law. But, when a person goes on line and seeks out strangers to sign with them it is clearly going to be perceived as a bribe.

What the grower is essentially saying is that if you allow them to grow 12 plants in your name so they can sell the product on the black market, they will give you an oz of product as payment. I guarantee that is how the cops will see it and if they catch you doing it they will charge both patient and caregiver with conspiracy to manufacture / distribute.

Anyway, from what I hear it doesn't matter because I have heard from about a dozen patients that the guys who offer free meds have all ripped them off by stringing them along and selling all their meds, leaving them high and dry.

People have to remember, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. I hate to see people get ripped off but when people get involved with shady deals and untrustworthy people they ought to know what they are getting themselves into.

Find a good, honest, reputable CG who offers good, fair prices if you don't like getting ripped off.

skirulz · Nov 16, 2010

This is a specious argument Rick. You're making all sorts of unsupported assumptions.

Who says a CG needs to grow 12 plants for a patient? I have 3 patients, I give out free medicine, and I don't have anywhere near 36 plants growing.

Just because the law says we can, doesn't mean we are. I find these broad brush accusations very offensive.

talk2sampson · Nov 16, 2010

There is a limit for a reason. The state right now is giving you the option to work it out with your patients for payment argmnts. Until the law is reformed a little, there is alot of "gray" area.

skirulz · Nov 17, 2010

talk2sampson said:
There is a limit for a reason. The state right now is giving you the option to work it out with your patients for payment argmnts. Until the law is reformed a little, there is alot of "gray" area.

Not to be too contrarian, but I disagree that these areas are really "gray". People who don't want patients and caregivers to freely transfer medicine amongst themselves often like to claim there are "gray" areas and that the law is poorly written, but if you read the law in a liberal manner (which is how voter initiated ballot measures are meant to be interpreted) it's quite clear that any "transfer", "delivery", "transport" for the purposes of medical use is considered protected from arrest and/or conviction as long as the quantities transferred meet the limits of the law.

talk2sampson · Nov 17, 2010

i understand what your saying, but not everyone is a liberal hippy. that is why the law needs to be reformed and when it does then and only then will we really know what is good and whats not.

RickWhite · Nov 17, 2010

skirulz said:
Not to be too contrarian, but I disagree that these areas are really "gray". People who don't want patients and caregivers to freely transfer medicine amongst themselves often like to claim there are "gray" areas and that the law is poorly written, but if you read the law in a liberal manner (which is how voter initiated ballot measures are meant to be interpreted) it's quite clear that any "transfer", "delivery", "transport" for the purposes of medical use is considered protected from arrest and/or conviction as long as the quantities transferred meet the limits of the law.

That's a lot of nonsense. First, I voted for the MMMA and it said nothing about what type of guidelines would be implemented aside from medical necessity. To be honest, I didn't fully understand what they meant by "registered and unregistered."

The gray are comes from the fact that there is one well defined section (4) and one that seems to contradict it (section

. Section 8 is quite general in providing an affirmative defense. The fact however, is that nothing in the law says you can sell MJ under any circumstances. It only says a CG can transfer MJ to his patient and receive compensation for costs. It also says such "compensation" SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE an illegal sale.

I believe what will ultimately bear out is that the affirmative defense will fly as long as the conduct described is substantially the same as that in section 4.

The problem is that the women who drafted the legislation has been a pro-legalization advocate since law school and never practiced law.

We will know soon.

skirulz · Nov 17, 2010

talk2sampson said:
i understand what your saying, but not everyone is a liberal hippy. that is why the law needs to be reformed and when it does then and only then will we really know what is good and whats not.

huh?

I wasn't using "liberal" in the political sense, but in the legal sense.

Big difference.

And the law doesn't need reform, it's quite clear if you look at it without prejudice towards people who use marijuana.

skirulz · Nov 17, 2010

RickWhite said:
That's a lot of nonsense. First, I voted for the MMMA and it said nothing about what type of guidelines would be implemented aside from medical necessity. To be honest, I didn't fully understand what they meant by "registered and unregistered."

The gray are comes from the fact that there is one well defined section (4) and one that seems to contradict it (section . Section 8 is quite general in providing an affirmative defense. The fact however, is that nothing in the law says you can sell MJ under any circumstances. It only says a CG can transfer MJ to his patient and receive compensation for costs. It also says such "compensation" SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE an illegal sale.

I believe what will ultimately bear out is that the affirmative defense will fly as long as the conduct described is substantially the same as that in section 4.

The problem is that the women who drafted the legislation has been a pro-legalization advocate since law school and never practiced law.

We will know soon.

Actually, section 8 is pretty straightforward as well. There are three criteria that one must meet in order to compel a judge to dismiss charges. 1-Doctor says he/she thinks it can help 2-The Defendant wasn't over the 2.5 oz limit, and/or had more than the legal limit in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply 3-the Defendant was in possession of marijuana for the purposes of medical use.

I'm not arguing that sale of a controlled substance is legal, and I don't think anyone is, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I'm saying that any cardholder, whether or not they are assigned to one another, can exchange compensation/donation for medicine and are protected from arrest and/or prosecution as long as they're within the quantity limits defined by the law and it is for medical use.

I really don't care if you voted for the act or not, the fact that you feel you have to mention that is kinda suspicious. However, if you didn't understand the ballot language maybe you shouldn't have voted for it, as it is evident that that lack of understanding has turned into a lack of understanding of the law, how it is intended to be interpreted, and the ultimate spirit behind it - which is to make sure people who will benefit from marijuana as medicine can get it when they need it. Your understanding of the law is not keeping with that spirit, IMO.

RickWhite · Nov 19, 2010

skirulz said:
Actually, section 8 is pretty straightforward as well. There are three criteria that one must meet in order to compel a judge to dismiss charges. 1-Doctor says he/she thinks it can help 2-The Defendant wasn't over the 2.5 oz limit, and/or had more than the legal limit in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply 3-the Defendant was in possession of marijuana for the purposes of medical use.

I'm not arguing that sale of a controlled substance is legal, and I don't think anyone is, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I'm saying that any cardholder, whether or not they are assigned to one another, can exchange compensation/donation for medicine and are protected from arrest and/or prosecution as long as they're within the quantity limits defined by the law and it is for medical use.

I really don't care if you voted for the act or not, the fact that you feel you have to mention that is kinda suspicious. However, if you didn't understand the ballot language maybe you shouldn't have voted for it, as it is evident that that lack of understanding has turned into a lack of understanding of the law, how it is intended to be interpreted, and the ultimate spirit behind it - which is to make sure people who will benefit from marijuana as medicine can get it when they need it. Your understanding of the law is not keeping with that spirit, IMO.

The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Section 8 does not protect anyone from arrest or prosecution at all. In fact, it is only relevant after arrest and prosecution. That is what an affirmative defense is. If you going to be a wise ass, know what you are talking about first.

What must be proven for a Section 8 defense is close to what you have stated but I don't believe there is even a 2.5oz limit. IIRC, the language is more vague which could be a problem if it is decided that the more specific section 4 must also be satisfied. In any case, the Judge isn't going to ask you what transfers are allowed. Section 4 specifically allows only CG to patient transfers.

The Ferndale prelims have just concluded and soon we will know if the Judge binds the defendants over for trial. Until then, the two sections completely contradict each other and anything over and above the specific conduct in Section 4 is a gray area.

As far as the ballot is concerned. If you had actually voted, you would have seen that the ballot said next to nothing about the specifics of the law.

Really, what you need to do is stop trying to play Mr high school lawyer and wait to see how the courts interpret the law. And please, learn what an affirmative defense is before acting like you know the law.

skirulz · Nov 19, 2010

RickWhite said:
The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Section 8 does not protect anyone from arrest or prosecution at all. In fact, it is only relevant after arrest and prosecution. That is what an affirmative defense is. If you going to be a wise ass, know what you are talking about first.

What must be proven for a Section 8 defense is close to what you have stated but I don't believe there is even a 2.5oz limit. IIRC, the language is more vague which could be a problem if it is decided that the more specific section 4 must also be satisfied. In any case, the Judge isn't going to ask you what transfers are allowed. Section 4 specifically allows only CG to patient transfers.

The Ferndale prelims have just concluded and soon we will know if the Judge binds the defendants over for trial. Until then, the two sections completely contradict each other and anything over and above the specific conduct in Section 4 is a gray area.

As far as the ballot is concerned. If you had actually voted, you would have seen that the ballot said next to nothing about the specifics of the law.

Really, what you need to do is stop trying to play Mr high school lawyer and wait to see how the courts interpret the law. And please, learn what an affirmative defense is before acting like you know the law.

LMFAO! Look at you being all condescending. I never said Sec 8 protects from arrest, that is section 4. Don't talk to me about reading comprehension. You admitted to not fully understanding fairly straightforward ballot language, misread/misinterpreted what was said earlier, and YOU'RE trying to lecture ME on reading comprehension?

PUHLEEZE.

C'mon, the ballot language was pretty frickin plain english:

PROPOSAL 08-1
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS
The proposed law would:
Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes
No

Anyway, Section 8 protects you from conviction/prosecution IF you can meet the three criteria in the section.

Let's look at section 8, shall we?

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a 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 that:
(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;
(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
(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).

If you can prove these three things in court, it certainly protects you from conviction, and also halts the prosecution (duh). So, I'm right, you're wrong. Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on....

You state sections 4 and 8 contradict each other. That's patently false. Section 4 addresses the guidelines one must meet in order to be protected from arrest. Section 8 describes the requirements one must meet to achieve a dismissal if not in compliance with section 4 and arrest takes place. There is no language in section 4 specifying that caregivers may only provide medicine to their five patients. I challenge you to find such language. If that was the intent of the law, why didn't they just put that one sentence in? I would also like to know which parts of 4 and 8 you think contradict each other. It should be easy to name them since I have posted both.

Just for reference, let's look at section 4:

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient 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 the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.
(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, provided that 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
(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.
(c) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.
(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:
(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and
(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.
(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.
(f) A physician 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 the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a 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 associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.
(g) A person 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 providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.
(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.
(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.
(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.
(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

Well, that was informative. Seems to me the general idea behind this section is that any activity involving marijuana between cardholders and under the weight limit is protected as "medical use" as defined in section 3.

section 3(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

Then there's the kicker in Setion 4:

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

There's also the question of out-of-state visitors.

Section 4(j) says a card from Colorado (i.e.) has the same force of law as a Michigan card. How is a Coloradan supposed to acquire meds here? Assuming, of course, that you aren't encouraging them to break all sorts of other laws by bringing it with them. They cannot register with the state and name a CG, they can possess, but where are they supposed to acquire? Should they just find it on the street? or would it be better for them to contact a caregiver, patient, collective, or dispensary here and arrange to have their medicine waiting when they arrive so they can get on with their visit? These are serious questions and i would appreciate an answer from you or anyone else who is against patients being in control of when and where they get their meds.

Section 4 gives us all sorts of conditions and descritions of protection from arrest, then it tells us the ONLY thing we cannot do as cardholders in section k.

Note it says "Any registered patient/caregiver that sells to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act" and not "Any primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not registered to them as a patient". That CLEARLY implies that all other activity is protected, as long as it is between cardholders.

Hell even AG-Elect Bill Scheutte agrees (and I bet you voted for him-lol):

Not explicitly outlawing pot shops implicitly allows them

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081025/NEWS15/810250341/Is-marijuana-good-medicine&template=fullarticle

Pot shops are literally sprouting up everywhere. One in Lansing is less than 100 feet from a Catholic middle school, and oftentimes those who attend night classes at the pot shop park in the church and school's parking lot.

http://www.billschuette.com/Schuette/2010/07/15/sheriff-prosecutor-attorney-general-candidate-legalizing-marijuana-is-a-bad-idea

There are lots of quotes like this from Scheutte.

Now, who am I or you to disagree with the frickin' AG???

Free Meds - is it legal?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member