Caregvier to Caregiver

djwimbo said:

P2P transfer is not allowed, patients are "expected" to know where their meds came from(IE: their caregiver).

Any time I have green on me, I'll forfeit it before I give up where I got it from. I am a patient, and my own caregiver. I am never near my 2.5 limit (on my person, or my residence).

Click to expand...

But.
A patient''s caregiver can locate the necessary goods, the pt can assign a sec. 8 cg authorization to the source, and have the pt's (other) registered cg retrieve it and start growing.

Around here we call it creative problem solving.

Soooo, your caregiver is finding "goods", you are then "authorizing" that "source" as "sec8 cg" for the point of transfer from "source" to your state registered caregiver, and you say there is protection for your caregiver because you "authorized" it?

Creative way to avoid the charge on yourself, and throw your caregiver under the bus Greg.

Bull shit. The transaction that caregiver makes, is not legal according to the ruling. Now we can argue the ruling being opposite of the law makers/voters intent but you clarified quite clearly that you as the patient have nothing to worry about and the protection you claim your caregiver has is based on your "authorization".... right.

I would love that interpretation of sec 8 to hold in court, why don't you test it for us? Be our saving grace and prove your point for the greater good!

Believe me friend, I WANT to believe..

The only thing about your whole claim that truly rubbed me the wrong way was this statement. "Why is that so hard to understand"...

If the majority does not undetstand, its not easy to, that's why. You have done no better job explaining it.

Our family was recently brought into this war when our mother was sent home to die. A man showed up one night to offer some help with finding her a few more 'good' days. I don't think we ever got his real name. It was a shock to find out everything that he did for us was illegal.

What's the law in regard to selling overages to a collective... Legal?

pretty sure the answer is "no" but just wanna make sure

Usernamewastaken said:

What's the law in regard to selling overages to a collective... Legal?

pretty sure the answer is "no" but just wanna make sure

Click to expand...

Its illegal to give them away for free...

woodsmantoker said:

Soooo, your caregiver is finding "goods", you are then "authorizing" that "source" as "sec8 cg" for the point of transfer from "source" to your state registered caregiver, and you say there is protection for your caregiver because you "authorized" it?

Creative way to avoid the charge on yourself, and throw your caregiver under the bus Greg.

Bull shit. The transaction that caregiver makes, is not legal according to the ruling. Now we can argue the ruling being opposite of the law makers/voters intent but you clarified quite clearly that you as the patient have nothing to worry about and the protection you claim your caregiver has is based on your "authorization".... right.

I would love that interpretation of sec 8 to hold in court, why don't you test it for us? Be our saving grace and prove your point for the greater good!

Believe me friend, I WANT to believe..

Click to expand...

Well said.

Dr. Bob

Caregiver to Caregiver is still running strong here in Michigan . I know many who are moving forward regardless while benefiting the patient and themselves . Its a game of Russian Roulette .Once the meds are in possession after a transfer the patients receive from there caregiver and medicate as needed and intended simply put. Who the fuck is really going to sit this one out when its required of them due to the laws and rules of the courts . I doubt in the end that many will really follow this order and rule of law . I sure the hell will not tell someone terminally ill that they will have to wait it out . Nope not within my soul and heart to do such as this could be me .

Again the law of the people will always be and for what it is worth be careful out there . Only work with those you know and even then be careful . There are many good people amongst us doing the above and to be honest they are harming nobody and only benefiting our communities regardless of the oppositions view .

You know who you are , I and many others thank you for taking the risks involved to help others in need here in Michigan !

woodsmantoker said:

Soooo, your caregiver is finding "goods", you are then "authorizing" that "source" as "sec8 cg" for the point of transfer from "source" to your state registered caregiver, and you say there is protection for your caregiver because you "authorized" it?

Creative way to avoid the charge on yourself, and throw your caregiver under the bus Greg.

Bull shit. The transaction that caregiver makes, is not legal according to the ruling. Now we can argue the ruling being opposite of the law makers/voters intent but you clarified quite clearly that you as the patient have nothing to worry about and the protection you claim your caregiver has is based on your "authorization".... right.

I would love that interpretation of sec 8 to hold in court, why don't you test it for us? Be our saving grace and prove your point for the greater good!

Believe me friend, I WANT to believe..

Click to expand...

That is precisely what I mean to say. Thank you. Under the letter of the law, any prosecution of a patient and/or caregiver requires dismissal when the elements of the AD are proved by a preponderance of evidence after a motion to dismiss at an evidentiary hearing before circuit court trial and after circuit court arraignment. Such is criminal procedure . That said, the documents I offer offer a hell of a lot of evidence of two of the three prongs, leaving it only to justify the amount in possession.

woodsmantoker said:

The only thing about your whole claim that truly rubbed me the wrong way was this statement. "Why is that so hard to understand"...

If the majority does not undetstand, its not easy to, that's why. You have done no better job explaining it.

Click to expand...

If you''re going to quote me, or for that matter anyone, please get it right. It is not a stretch to think that there are those who understand. There is really no way to know how many. Likewise there are obviously those that don't. We cannot know that number either, beyond about three who have been critical.

So the golden ticket Greg, (which I wish you had just been clear about ) is the all mighty power of the patient to authorize anyone as his caregiver, in order to make a transaction legal.

woodsmantoker said:

So the golden ticket Greg, (which I wish you had just been clear about) is the all mighty power of the patient to authorize anyone as his caregiver, in order to make a transaction legal?

Click to expand...

The simple answer is yep. That's about right. It is uuber important that you establish your evidence clearly and early. The notarized documents do that. There are legal hurdles that can be minimized if we are smart about it. Having the sec. 8 cg transfer directly to the patient would be best, leaving the registered caregiver out of that loop to avoid any legal entanglements. As with any transaction, keep things discreet.

woodsmantoker said:

Greg, You also said that if I were going to quote, to get it right, you are absolutely correct and my apologies for ad-libbing.

Direct Quote: "Look. As a patient you are permitted to acquire from any source. Patients can acquire and subsequently give permission to grow to the caregiver of their choice. If you are a caregiver, just have the patient get what you need.


What is so difficult about that? " End quote.
​

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Who do you suggest I authorize? Subcool?

woodsmantoker said:

Who do you suggest I authorize? Subcool?

Click to expand...

Dunno. Does he grow good dope?

Explain to me what you need in order to test your theory, if you will.

Huel Perkins said:

Its illegal to give them away for free...

Click to expand...

As I thought, but momentarily hoped otherwise..

thanks Huel

and let me also get one more thing clarified Greg, you do expect to have to defend the transaction as legal, in court, or you would not be concerned with how uuber clear or early the evidence was presented, correct?

woodsmantoker said:

and let me also get one more thing clarified Greg, you do expect to have to defend the transaction as legal, in court, or you would not be concerned with how uuber clear or early the evidence was presented, correct?

Click to expand...

IF there are any entanglements with the law, you can expect to defend the transaction in circuit court, at an evidentiary hearing before trial. As long as the court abides by the law and dismisses, and the prosecutor knows better than to appeal, the case ends there. The evidence cannot be presented until then. Yes. You will have to cover the expense to get it there, which is why I am kicking around a defense fund to cover cases.