Ok, so it comes down to the use of 'a' or 'their'. Given that the section is discussing the registry connection between patient and caregiver, do you believe the court will use the 'a' to mean any patient, or the patient to which the caregiver is associated though the registry? If it is to any patient, what is to stop a caregiver from servicing 100 'a' patients? Why is a registry connection needed at all, especially if it limited a caregiver to just servicing 5 patients? The answer is compensation. That is what requires a registry connection.
The argument that transferring marijuana is part of 'medical use' has also been explored. McQueen did that in the COA. Part of that argument concerned the difference between 'transfer' and 'sale'. Again, it came down to compensation. Transfer was covered under the Act as medical use. Sale was not. This was confirmed in several non-binding district court cases, most notably in Barry Co. In that case, criminal charges were dismissed because the transfer of an amount of cannabis (2.5 oz or less) was an amount both transferring and receiving patient were allowed to possess, and the transfer SPECIFICALLY did not involve compensation. The lack of compensation was the main reason the charges were dismissed (see transcript).
The analogy that selling a patient cannabis and calling it 'assisting with medical use' is the same as selling someone gasoline (a product) and claiming it is 'assisting' the patient in the use of their car. Compare that to the old days when we had self serve and full serve gas- while the full serve (they pump) cost more than self serve (you pump), if you were handicapped the attendant would pump your gas for you at the self serve pump. This is 'assisting' the handicapped customer to purchase gas at the self serve price (there was no compensation for the 'assistance').
I really believe the court is not going to buy the 'a' vs 'their' argument as somehow giving people extra benefits for not participating in the registry over those that do (who are limited to 5 patients). To do so would encourage people not to register their patients/caregivers and quite frankly would be against public policy. I also don't think that the 'transfer is medical use' argument will fly either if compensation is involved.
If I were a betting man, my money would be on the following: Compensation is limited to transfers between a caregiver and their 5 registered patients. Transfer as medical use between those legally allowed to possess (patients) without any direct or indirect compensation on a compassionate basis only. By that I mean if you are a patient and have medication, and the elderly patient on chemo next door is barfing their brains out and is out of meds, you will be able out of the kindness of your nature give them a little to get through the episode, expecting nothing in return. I believe that commercial sales of cannabis between non-registry associated patients, caregivers, or counter people will not be allowed.
In any event I think the 'a' vs 'their' and 'medical use' arguments will be settled one way or the other when they rule. I for one think that once it is settled, either way, patients will be safer because they know what is expected of them, they will clearly know the rules. And it will quiet the folks on the net that come up with wild legal theories, present them as fact, and encourage patients and caregivers to engage in activity that might result in those patients and caregivers having to fight for their freedom in court at great emotional and financial expense.
Dr. Bob
