abe supercro
Well-Known Member
precisely why i see most caregivers as patients and pot entially vice-versa.
Wow REALLY? You actually typed that and Stand by it? you are SO Completely WRONG RARE D. You can have a caregiver and easily be your own Plant possessor, The CG can not have 12 plants for you as well. that is the difference.I you have a designated caregiver you are not authorized to posess plants in any way period. If anyone tells you different they are lying.
You are 100% wrong on that. You CAN have a caregiver and still posess and grow your own plants. You are flat out wrong........ It is all about if you designate said caregiver to possess your plants or designate yourself to possess your plants period. You have 2 options one if you want a caregiver or not and then you decide if you want said caregiver to possess your plants. That is 2 seperate choices. I know this because I have it that way, so yes that is exactly how it goes.Are you retarded timmah? Read your fucking card. It says on it in bold letters, authorized to possess plants YES for patients without caregivers, it says NO for patients with caregivers. How do I know this? Cause I have patients and have seen their cards. Now how much of a grey area is that? None at all.
If you are a registered patient with a registered caregiver, you are NOT allowed to posess plants. That is what you are agreeing to in your caregiver agreement. You are authorizing them to posess your 12 plants you are allowed. Your caregiver in turn provides you with medicine from those plants. That's how the law is written, go get your fucking shine box timmah.
Timmah, you're the one spreading the bad info. Either the patient grows the plants themselves, or they designate a caregiver to do so for them. End of story.
this can be interpreted a couple ways by the way it is written. But from what I gather, ozzrock's circumstance would be okay, but timmah's retarded inarticulate blathering does not make the point properly. Basically these type of situations, you guys are relying on non growing drug dealer "caregivers" for your herb and retaining you plant possession for a hobby? Why designate a caregiver at all if you're gonna grow your own plants anyway? I guess it's cool to connect your friends to you in the state registry so it looks less legitimate and more like criminal enterprises?(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.
(e) The department shall issue registry identification cards within 5 days of approving an application or renewal, which shall expire 1 year after the date of issuance. Registry identification cards shall contain all of the following:
(1) Name, address, and date of birth of the qualifying patient.
(2) Name, address, and date of birth of the primary caregiver, if any, of the qualifying patient.
(3) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification card.
(4) A random identification number.
(5) A photograph, if the department requires 1 by rule.
(6) A clear designation showing whether the primary caregiver or the qualifying patient will be allowed under state law to possess the marihuana plants for the qualifying patient's medical use, which shall be determined based solely on the qualifying patient's preference.
Timmah, you're the one spreading the bad info. Either the patient grows the plants themselves, or they designate a caregiver to do so for them. End of story.
Exactly my friend. Ignorance here would be repeatedly quoting LARA legislation as law and then the police in the same post. Do any of these "laws" you study so thoroughly define the legal term "Affirmative Defense"?I see more than a Few do not understand this law and then they go online on forums of profess to show you their level of ignorance (ignorance is defined as NOT KNOWING THAT FACTS, its not a slam its an observation). This is why and how people that THINK They know the Law end up in trouble with the police.
Not scheming huh? Let me guess... Your wife doesn't smoke, or doesn't have a qualifying condition, so she's your caregiver so you can legally possess 5 oz. instead of 2.5... Seems likes a scheme to me...what happens when you're together and have 5 oz, and the officer pulling you over says, "we'll, if you have your 2.5 oz with you, why does she have to have your 2.5 oz too?" As her not being a patient would only allow her to posess your medicine, not hers.There are many reasons to have a caregiver and have said caregiver NOT grow your plants. I do possess and grow my own plants.... I do have a caregiver..... My card does show I have a CG and it does show that I possess my plants. I am also a caregiver for others. All legal and none has anything to do with a drug dealer. In fact finding a caregiver that will agree NOT to possess plants makes said caregiver even LESS of a drug dealer IMO.... I provide all my own meds..... There are many things a caregiver can do for you besides provide meds. In my case my CG is my wife..... Like I said there are many reasons someone would assign a CG yet retain their own plants without it including any scheming , dealing, scamming or getting over on the system. In fact alot of these reasons are why they went with the pt/cg model to begin with...................
So who is supposed to grow the plants timmah? This GOD you speak of?Learn to read there Sampras. That is what I am saying. Beside that fact Neither of them are REQUIRED TO Grow. Please point to the section of the MMM Act that states SOMEONE Must grow the plants?
You wont find it.
I agree, it states that SOMEONE Must possess the plants IF They are going to cultivate them. But it does not say someone MUST cultivate them.
every point I have made an RIU about this law is backed up by the Law, and multiple court cases.
To the extent the supreme court ruled on the Blysma case just as I intuitively understood that they would, per the existing laws.