New activist funding plan.

i wouldn't exactly call them motivated....

GregS said:

I have lawyers looking at everything and am anxious to find whether this has a good chance help people avoid conviction under sec. 8 in that it is intended to prove that a physician has stated..., and that the patient and caregiver are engaged in medical use to treat or alleviate the patients condition. Those are two of the three elements necessary to succeed in a sec. 8 action. All that would remain is to ensure that reasonable quantities are involved, and are no more than necessary to ensure an uninterrupted supply.

Click to expand...

Have you had any responses from the lawyers as to whether or not they think that this would stand up in court?

Wild Bill said:

Have you had any responses from the lawyers as to whether or not they think that this would stand up in court?

Click to expand...

Lawyers do not give guarantees, and neither do I nor have I. I have been advised that it can be helpful. Given the plain text of sec. 8, I think it would.

Helpful and 'won't hurt' are not the same.

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

Helpful and 'won't hurt' are not the same.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

Your point is...?

GregS said:

Your point is...?

Click to expand...

My point is at one time during our discussions on this matter you claimed CL supported your stance. I asked him, and he clearly said that it wouldn't work but might not hurt to have the documentation. You also claimed Grow, Komoron, and John down in Kalamazoo supported your plan. I know them personally and at best the response they would have given you was 'it won't hurt'. NONE would say it would protect a patient or assure a section 8 win. None would say it would improve your chances of a section 8 win. You were just name dropping and misleading readers, much as you did when everyone was talking about your 'meeting' in Lansing as a potential compassion club.... You knew otherwise (it was about starting a farmers market based on your unregistered caregiver theory/scheme) yet you let the talk of a compassion club go on without correction.

Your only response to that dishonesty was to challenge anyone to paste a post from you that you were starting a club. There was none, you just let others imply it. Despite your demand for 'transparency' and who the officers of another compassion club were, when YOU were asked who came to the meeting or what was discussed YOU claimed to have never said anything about being transparent in YOUR meeting.

What a schmuck.

Dr. Bob

I said precisely that CL indicated it can be helpful. No more, no less. I did not claim to have buy in from any other attorney, and clarified that when asked. I did not at any time suggest that I intended a compassion club. Your own foolish assumption played in that. Now you blame me for your dumbassness. You cannot produce any factual evidence that I made any of those remarks. There is none.

if you have a lawyer and want to stay OUT of court


...you are gonna have a bad time.


go pro se with counsel.. if you understand the law, defend it yourself! much cheaper than dealing with ineffective attorneys

There are un-registered caregivers out there. They are the ones who you will never hear about until it is to late. They are the ones freely giving.

Our laws and the people involved with writing them or interpreting them have jumped the shark. They do not care for the patients. So why should we care for them? Fear???? They should fear us

Wild Bill said:

Have you had any responses from the lawyers as to whether or not they think that this would stand up in court?

Click to expand...

Here ya go. I will be commenting further, and am coming closer to rolling out the plan. I would expect anyone to walk into it with eyes wide open:

First, let's set argument parameters. Whether Greg's ideas (his contracts, etc.) can be proved-up in court is really not relevant to the unregistered cg issue. So I will ignore that issue for the time being. The question should be whether an unregistered cg can transfer and be protected by sec. 8. Whether the elements within sec. 8 can be proven sufficiently is a different issue.
Sec. 8 clearly provides at least a modicum of protection for an unregistered cg. However, the cg must meet all requirements. These requirements are:

(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.

Close examination of (3), above, is important as I do believe the courts will closely scrutinize this section. I think I posted about this a few days ago in a different context. The question that will be asked is whether the cg was 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. Read the pertinent clause below with my added highlight:

. . . 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 . . .

So now cut out the fat to make this simpler and read it this way: The cg must be engaged in the transfer of mj to treat or alleviate the pt's serious condition. Now ask yourself whether the reason the cg is engaging in the transfer is to treat the patient. Or, are they doing so to be compensated? Are they doing so to make profit? What is their purpose in the transfer? As I wrote before, Rite-Aid, while it may sell aspirin, is not selling it to you to relieve your headache. They are doing it to make profit for shareholders. The relief of your headache is incidental to the transfer for Rite-Aid as they are a business and the primary goal of a business is to make profit. This is one way to interpret section (3), above. If you recall the COA touched on the idea that the main purpose of a transaction outside of sec 4 protections must not be a business purpose. They will revisit that if necessary. Will the supremes overturn a ruling with that line of reasoning? No one knows.

Next, let's examine supporting evidence that tends to show that the intent of the act was not to allow for money to change hands in a sec. 8 defense. Sec. 4 contains the clause:

(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.

That subsection could be interpreted as an exception to the requirement contained within the definition of medical use. See the definition below:

(f) "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.

The definition of medical use requires that a transfer be made to treat the pt's condition. It doesn't allow the transfer to be made for pecuniary benefit on the part of the cg. However, 4(e) swoops in and makes it okay for the cg to receive pecuniary benefit. There is no such exception in sec. 8. So what can this mean? It could mean that an unregistered cg better be making a transfer free of charge. Why? Because 4(e) expressly allows a carded cg to receive compensation and, as proper statutory interpretation tells us, where something is explicitly expressed in one part of a statute but not in another then the drafter will be deemed as deliberately leaving it out of the other.


There is a lot more that can be said on this topic but I've spent enough time on a Sunday morning on this so I'll wrap it up for now. I will point out that while I acknowledged that p2p could reasonably be gleaned from the statute that there were reasonable arguments against it as well. Those on the pro-dispensary and farm mkt bandwagons told me how ridiculous my arguments were. I was not arguing for or against p2p, just laying out positions. We all know what happened in the sup ct with that. Similarly here, I am not arguing for or against sec 8 protections. I am simply indicating that there are areas of uncertainty in this law. A court could well find that section 8 protections should be afforded an unreg. cg but not if money changed hands. It is a possibility that I, personally, would not risk.

i care for the patients.... :/ its why i jumped in.. i saw too many doing what you said nurse nancy...

this is why The Human Solution Michigan chapter was formed.. people supporting people

Given the attorney statement above, I will say that the Supreme Court already ruled in the McQueen case that transfer, as spelled out in the law, includes sales. That he would not personally engage as an unregistered caregiver is a respected point, and it is up to each of us to measure the risk and the benefit before acting. Please note that the author does not say this is definitive, and that there is more that can be said.

My opinion is that there is always intention to engage in medical use to treat or alleviate a patient's condition, and that covering caregiver cost is incidental to that. Profit is, in business and legal parlance, the difference between the purchase price and the costs of bringing to market. Labor is an operating expense, as are other direct and indirect costs, to include the facility to grow in, utilities, nutrients and chemicals, &c. It would take a pretty weird perfect storm to bring one of these cases to appeal. Discreet dealings between patients and their caregivers, registered or not, are paramount in all things medical mj. Being smart about it is part of the equation.

We don't have as much to lose as a high powered attorney or a doctor without a clue (the latter which is not a patient or caregiver. I am not aware the status of the former). We have too damm little to lose. I have nothing better to do this Sunday morning than to eat analgesics, to include some fine cannabis, and ice my bones.

Hey Greg, did you see the definitive post from CL on your little scheme? Still want to brag about neutralizing me? (I saw you removed the post when the answer was posted by the one you called definitive- looks like pretty much what I said all along).

Well it was a fun theoretical exercise with no practical purpose. Here, I'll repost the definitive answer for you and your 'contract'.... Recall no one said it was impossible to get some section 8 action as the caregiver of an UNREGISTERED PATIENT, but it was quite a burden to prove- to the point of being nearly impossible, especially if money changed hands....

CaveatLector
Advanced Member

Members
PipPipPip
2,229 posts
Posted Today, 12:40 PM
Sheesh. I spent all this time writing this and then the thread was locked before I got it posted. So I started a new thread. I am definitely not trying to :horse: . I just figured this may help. A mod can feel free to lock this or merge it with the thread that was just locked or even just delete it altogether. I'm not trying to cause waves just help out.

The trouble in this argument is that everyone is potentially correct. You may as well be arguing religion here. I will say upfront that my opinion isn't any better than anyone else's. However, I will also say that my opinion weaves in the text of the law as well as proper use of rules of statutory construction and interpretation and the law's history in the courts thus far. The bottom line is that using proper rules of statutory construction and interpretation still leaves us in a "gray" area. In other words, interpretation of the law could go either way as there is evidence to support both sides of this argument. Reasonable minds can differ.

With that said, those are the precise reasons I stay out of this debate. I used to complain that peanut's opinion held some authority on this board if, for no other reason, that he had thousands more posts than anyone else. That kind of leads some (new people especially) to believe that he knows what he is talking about. That is why I did not care for peanut's constant posting of insanely dangerous ideas. Furthermore, because of what I do, I generally urge one to stick to the sure path. I am okay with discussing theory but I have seen far too many people take others' theoretical arguments as gospel based only on who posted them. Therefore, in an effort to remain non-hypocritical, I tend to advocate the safe path.

With all THAT said, I'll dive in and give this a go. First, let's set argument parameters. Whether Greg's ideas (his contracts, etc.) can be proved-up in court is really not relevant to the unregistered cg issue. So I will ignore that issue for the time being. The question should be whether an unregistered cg can transfer and be protected by sec. 8. Whether the elements within sec. 8 can be proven sufficiently is a different issue.

Sec. 8 clearly provides at least a modicum of protection for an unregistered cg. However, the cg must meet all requirements. These requirements are:

(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.

Close examination of (3), above, is important as I do believe the courts will closely scrutinize this section. I think I posted about this a few days ago in a different context. The question that will be asked is whether the cg was 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. Read the pertinent clause below with my added highlight:

. . . 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 . . .

So now cut out the fat to make this simpler and read it this way: The cg must be engaged in the transfer of mj to treat or alleviate the pt's serious condition. Now ask yourself whether the reason the cg is engaging in the transfer is to treat the patient. Or, are they doing so to be compensated? Are they doing so to make profit? What is their purpose in the transfer? As I wrote before, Rite-Aid, while it may sell aspirin, is not selling it to you to relieve your headache. They are doing it to make profit for shareholders. The relief of your headache is incidental to the transfer for Rite-Aid as they are a business and the primary goal of a business is to make profit. This is one way to interpret section (3), above. If you recall the COA touched on the idea that the main purpose of a transaction outside of sec 4 protections must not be a business purpose. They will revisit that if necessary. Will the supremes overturn a ruling with that line of reasoning? No one knows.

Next, let's examine supporting evidence that tends to show that the intent of the act was not to allow for money to change hands in a sec. 8 defense. Sec. 4 contains the clause:

(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.

That subsection could be interpreted as an exception to the requirement contained within the definition of medical use. See the definition below:

(f) "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.

The definition of medical use requires that a transfer be made to treat the pt's condition. It doesn't allow the transfer to be made for pecuniary benefit on the part of the cg. However, 4(e) swoops in and makes it okay for the cg to receive pecuniary benefit. There is no such exception in sec. 8. So what can this mean? It could mean that an unregistered cg better be making a transfer free of charge. Why? Because 4(e) expressly allows a carded cg to receive compensation and, as proper statutory interpretation tells us, where something is explicitly expressed in one part of a statute but not in another then the drafter will be deemed as deliberately leaving it out of the other.

There is a lot more that can be said on this topic but I've spent enough time on a Sunday morning on this so I'll wrap it up for now. I will point out that while I acknowledged that p2p could reasonably be gleaned from the statute that there were reasonable arguments against it as well. Those on the pro-dispensary and farm mkt bandwagons told me how ridiculous my arguments were. I was not arguing for or against p2p, just laying out positions. We all know what happened in the sup ct with that. Similarly here, I am not arguing for or against sec 8 protections. I am simply indicating that there are areas of uncertainty in this law. A court could well find that section 8 protections should be afforded an unreg. cg but not if money changed hands. It is a possibility that I, personally, would not risk.

Edited by CaveatLector, Today, 12:41 PM.

Damn I hate being right so much for a guy without a clue. And I wasn't aware that being a patient or caregiver had anything to do with understanding the laws related to medical cannabis use.

But whatever you say Greg. Now prepare your response telling us how Caveat got it wrong and in any event you were saying that right along......


LOL

Dr. Bob

I am real cozy with the text of the law and Supreme Court precedent behind me. Produciing a preponderance of evidence with the required documents should be cake.

Starting to count down to rollout.

This should be the final draft of a workable document to present as a preponderance of evidence in defending oneself under the Affirmative Defense along with any pertinent supporting documents. Please note the inclusion of a confidentiality clause and do not overlook the supporting documents. It is not intended as legal advice, and should be considered by an attorney at law before use. It may be used in any circumstance where protection under the law is wanted by a patient or caregiver, registered or unregistered.



Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008.

__Dr._____________________________, a physician authorized under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556, physician license I.D. number____________________ ,has stated that in the physician's professional opinion, on or about (date)___________________________, and 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, that I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition (copy attached) .

Or:

__A registry card duly issued by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) , number______________________(copy attached), has been issued to me which attests to a physician's recommendation that in the physician's professional opinion, and after having completed a full assessment of my medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

I hereby designate_______________________________ as my caregiver under that law, and agree to conform to the Act in the medical use of marijuana.

I, ______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

Confidentiality: Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in any manner or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information, save and except that both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their legal advisers and counselors for the specific purposes contemplated by this agreement. Presentment or disclosure of this information is not prohibited as required by law or in any prosecution pertaining to the medical use of marijuana.

For the purpose of this Agreement, Legal advisers and counselors shall mean, with respect to any party, any person licensed to practice at law, or any paralegal, legal assistant, or other person directly supervised by an attorney at law who is ultimately responsible for any and all work product.

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

Patient sign here: _________________________________

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

Caregiver sign here: ________________________________

/s/_________________________________

Print Notary Name: ________________________________

Notary public, State of Michigan, County of _____________________

My commission expires ___________________

Acting in the County of ___________________

Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here
https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

GregS said:

Here ya go. I will be commenting further, and am coming closer to rolling out the plan. I would expect anyone to walk into it with eyes wide open:

First, let's set argument parameters. Whether Greg's ideas (his contracts, etc.) can be proved-up in court is really not relevant to the unregistered cg issue. So I will ignore that issue for the time being. The question should be whether an unregistered cg can transfer and be protected by sec. 8. Whether the elements within sec. 8 can be proven sufficiently is a different issue.
Sec. 8 clearly provides at least a modicum of protection for an unregistered cg. However, the cg must meet all requirements. These requirements are:

(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.

Close examination of (3), above, is important as I do believe the courts will closely scrutinize this section. I think I posted about this a few days ago in a different context. The question that will be asked is whether the cg was 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. Read the pertinent clause below with my added highlight:

. . . 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 . . .

So now cut out the fat to make this simpler and read it this way: The cg must be engaged in the transfer of mj to treat or alleviate the pt's serious condition. Now ask yourself whether the reason the cg is engaging in the transfer is to treat the patient. Or, are they doing so to be compensated? Are they doing so to make profit? What is their purpose in the transfer? As I wrote before, Rite-Aid, while it may sell aspirin, is not selling it to you to relieve your headache. They are doing it to make profit for shareholders. The relief of your headache is incidental to the transfer for Rite-Aid as they are a business and the primary goal of a business is to make profit. This is one way to interpret section (3), above. If you recall the COA touched on the idea that the main purpose of a transaction outside of sec 4 protections must not be a business purpose. They will revisit that if necessary. Will the supremes overturn a ruling with that line of reasoning? No one knows.

Next, let's examine supporting evidence that tends to show that the intent of the act was not to allow for money to change hands in a sec. 8 defense. Sec. 4 contains the clause:

(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.

That subsection could be interpreted as an exception to the requirement contained within the definition of medical use. See the definition below:

(f) "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.

The definition of medical use requires that a transfer be made to treat the pt's condition. It doesn't allow the transfer to be made for pecuniary benefit on the part of the cg. However, 4(e) swoops in and makes it okay for the cg to receive pecuniary benefit. There is no such exception in sec. 8. So what can this mean? It could mean that an unregistered cg better be making a transfer free of charge. Why? Because 4(e) expressly allows a carded cg to receive compensation and, as proper statutory interpretation tells us, where something is explicitly expressed in one part of a statute but not in another then the drafter will be deemed as deliberately leaving it out of the other.


There is a lot more that can be said on this topic but I've spent enough time on a Sunday morning on this so I'll wrap it up for now. I will point out that while I acknowledged that p2p could reasonably be gleaned from the statute that there were reasonable arguments against it as well. Those on the pro-dispensary and farm mkt bandwagons told me how ridiculous my arguments were. I was not arguing for or against p2p, just laying out positions. We all know what happened in the sup ct with that. Similarly here, I am not arguing for or against sec 8 protections. I am simply indicating that there are areas of uncertainty in this law. A court could well find that section 8 protections should be afforded an unreg. cg but not if money changed hands. It is a possibility that I, personally, would not risk.

Click to expand...

The above is, as the poster said, speculation. Another opinion that runs counter to the matter of having money exchanged and being determined to be illegal is reasonable. There is every reason to think that caregivers can attend a market with the intent to connect with patients, with or without registry. Take note that the agreement can be used between any two people privately and confidentially as long as they meet the legal requirements as a patient or caregiver. Once the parties agree to the necessary conditions and establish documented proof of a physician's statement, we have improved access for that patient. If the caregiver is a patient with a personally allowed quantity I think it is fair to say that s/he can offer any or all of it to the newly acquired patient, and continually afterward to not only that patient, but any other who is looking to them as a quality caregiver and has entered into the same agreement, at which point providing for them, and to include extracts and medibles, is legitimate and certainly intended to treat or alleviate. Entering into a verifiable agreement before a sale necessarily establishes that as the intent. Recouping caregiver cost is secondary and incidental to that.

Sec. 8 dismissal under these circumstances should be cake.

hey gregs empty your mailbox its full buddy

I'm bumping the thread, thinking it might be good to make it sticky. There is the question whether you would want to go to court with or without something resembling the above documents in any prosecution regarding marijuana. In point of fact, I think it would be smart for all patients to engage in these with their caregivers as cheap protection in addition to what sec. 4 provides, which we have seen come up short a lot. Whatever the reason you may be required to defend yourself, you only have the AD to fall back on once you walk into a courtroom. Sec. 4 arguments are moot at that point. Because it has the potential to stop due process before it gets real complicated it is worthwhile. Otherwise you are on your own to provide the necessary evidence without it. That would require expert testimony and jumping through prosecutorial hoops. Lawyers and professional witnesses who profit handsomely at this might have a problem with it, but caregivers will watch their patients spark up with newfound confidence.