(1) "Designated provider" means a person who:

(a) Is eighteen years of age or older;

(b) Has been designated in writing by a patient to serve as a designated provider under this chapter;

(c) Is prohibited from consuming marijuana obtained for the personal, medical use of the patient for whom the individual is acting as designated provider; :thumbsup:

Anything past this is asking for more bleeding..

Look here as an example of how courts think about the words/meaning of CAREGIVER:

Primary Caregiver

Under the CUA, a ??primary caregiver? is defined as an ??individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.? (§ 11362.5, subd. (e).)

Our Supreme Court recently concluded that to be a primary caregiver within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e) of the CUA, an individual must show that ??he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana.? (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 283 [85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061].) Because the appellant in Mentch failed to proffer sufficient evidence he was providing his patients consistent caregiving, independent of providing them marijuana, at or before he began providing them marijuana, the court held he was not entitled to a primary caregiver jury instruction. (Id. at pp. 288??289.) The Mentch court concluded that the appellant's testimony he ??sporadically? took a couple of patients to medical appointments and provided shelter to one of his patients was insufficient to establish the primary caregiver defense under the CUA. (45 Cal.4th at pp. 288??289.)

The Mentch court noted the term ??consistency? ??suggests an ongoing relationship marked by regular and repeated actions over time.? (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283.) The court further noted that primary caregiver status ??requires an existing, established relationship. In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] ? [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale.? (Id. at p. 284.)

Finally, the court in People v. Mentch noted a primary caregiver ??must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause [in section 11362.5, subdivision (e)] based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana.? (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 284.) That is, under the CUA a ??primary caregiver relationship is a necessary antecedent, a predicate for being permitted under state law to possess or cultivate medical marijuana.? (Mentch, at p. 284.) Thus, the Mentch court agreed with previous decisions concluding consistent growth and supply of medical marijuana by itself is not sufficient to establish the primary caregiver defense. (Id. at p. 285, citing People v. Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336], and People v. Windus (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, 644 [81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227] [??Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient with marijuana has no defense under the CUA.?].)

The MMPA defines ??primary caregiver? using the same definition as the CUA. (See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) ??While the MMPA identifies certain individuals who can be valid primary caregivers, i.e., persons designated by more than one person, all of whom reside in the same city or county, the person (or entity) [designated as the primary caregiver] must still meet the requirement of ??consistently?? assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.? (People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1015??1016 [98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 347], citing People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283.)

So as you see, that specific word has ill effects when defined.