Jump to content

People V. Carruthers Opinions And Analysis

mi-courtofappeals_0.gif

Last week, The Court of Appeals determined that edibles do not constitute "usable material" as defined by the MMMA. In other words, brownies, cookies, suckers, or any other edible is not protected under Section 4 of the Act. To read a more in depth analysis of what this means for the community, click the following link: http://komornlaw.com/people-v-carruthers-opinion-and-analysis/



5 Comments


Recommended Comments

This is exasperating! Where is the best place for us to express our outrage in this decision? I am so disheartened by the ignorance on the part of these judges! This decision makes it impossible to abide by the Act without being in danger of prosecution. Where is the understanding that when the courts are interpreting a citizen-initiated statute, they are to "ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate, rather than the Legislature, as reflected in the law itself." People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382, 397; 817 NW2d 528 (2012). Any ambiguity in a statute must be resolved in favor of lenity. This is an example people in charge of upholding the law, willfully failing to do so.

Link to comment

First don't vote for politicians that screw with the little people ... namely the GOP has fought this all the way. This is a long slow process but first you have to stop the people bringing the charges to the judges... that's the idiots like we have for an attorney general we now have.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...