Jump to content
  • entries
    167
  • comments
    160
  • views
    263,761

Marihuana Possession In Michigan: It Was Intended To Be Medical After The Fact


Michael Komorn

817 views

I was quite surprised and upset to see a fellow brethren attorney blogging so incorrectly about the interpretation of the MMMA. Whats more, he was agreeing with a short sited, narrow interpretation of the law. You can link to his piece here.

 

The suggestion that a person cannot utilize the protections of the medical use of marihuana defense if they get their card after there arrest is simply not true.

Nowhere in section 8 of the affirmative defenses does that statute specifically state, suggest, indicate or imply a contemporaneous requirement to have the card at the time of the arrest.

 

Moreover, many patients, who have been diagnosed with one of the enumerated conditions covered by law may not have the money to get a certification, may not be covered by health insurance, or may not have records immediately available to present to a doctor for review. I cannot accept the premise that such circumstances preclude a patient without their card from asserting an affirmative defense.

 

A careful reading of the statute very clearly indicates that there is no card requirement in section 8. Rather, one needs either a doctor to testify on their behalf or present evidence via an affidavit that they will receive palliative benefits from the use. To assert this defense you must be a patient or a caregiver, If you look at how the terms patient and primary caregiver are defined in the statute you will see that neither definition requires a registry card.

 

“Registry card’ protections as set out in section 4 are protections against arrest. The protections of section 8, the affirmative defenses, are those that occur in court after you have been arrested. The protections come if you can prove elements a-c at an evidentiary hearing, and, if you do so as a matter of law, the Court must dismiss the charges,. If the court does not make such a finding you have a right to present the medical use of marihuana defense to a jury.

 

This law was intended to protect a wide variety of situations that involve marihuana use for patients. It is not intended to be interpreted narrowly, and I suggest that these points should not be conceded in court. It only sets bad precedent.

3 Comments


Recommended Comments

I AGREE ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAY YOU HAVE TO AHVE YOUR CARD.i FEEL KNOW ONE IS LOOKING PAST THE CARD.GLAD TO SEE SOME ONE IS READING ALL OF THE INFO INSTEAD OF JUST PART.

Link to comment

Text from that blog:

 

"When he came to see me, I learned that he had previously (as in, just before he was pulled over) applied for a Medical Marijuana Card. The problem was that, although he applied, he had not yet been approved for Medical Marijuana at the time of his arrest. Legally speaking, he did not have permission or the right to be in Possession of Marijuana. Even as of our first Court date, more than a month after his arrest, his application for a Medical Marijuana Card had not yet been approved."

 

Don't hire this dope, he doesn't even understand the law:

 

333.26429 Failure of department to adopt rules or issue valid registry identification card.

 

Sec. 9

(b) If the department fails to issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application or renewal submitted pursuant to this act within 20 days of its submission, the registry identification card shall be deemed granted, and a copy of the registry identification application or renewal shall be deemed a valid registry identification card.

Link to comment

Text from that blog:

 

"When he came to see me, I learned that he had previously (as in, just before he was pulled over) applied for a Medical Marijuana Card. The problem was that, although he applied, he had not yet been approved for Medical Marijuana at the time of his arrest. Legally speaking, he did not have permission or the right to be in Possession of Marijuana. Even as of our first Court date, more than a month after his arrest, his application for a Medical Marijuana Card had not yet been approved."

 

Don't hire this dope, he doesn't even understand the law:

 

333.26429 Failure of department to adopt rules or issue valid registry identification card.

 

Sec. 9

(B) If the department fails to issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application or renewal submitted pursuant to this act within 20 days of its submission, the registry identification card shall be deemed granted, and a copy of the registry identification application or renewal shall be deemed a valid registry identification card.

 

I have been in contact with this attorney and would like to retract my negative comment about him. It seems he didn't reveal all the details in his blog and after a couple emails, I could see this guy's logic. Furthermore, it's also clear this attorney understands the uphill battle cannabis consumers are facing with our judicial system. He pointed out to me that for the most part, courts side with prosecutors and cops if the law is not crystal clear because prosecutors and cops generate revenue for the court system. This guy sees the big picture and knows exactly where loyalties lie. I would consider hiring him..... after a lengthly intitial consultation.

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...