Leaderboard

After the legalization of marijuana in Michigan, some patients are thinking they could stop paying the state $100 for the special mmp card , and just use the recreational marijuana law to grow their medicine. A patient with a registered card can use the ultimate defense and immunity to avoid a driving under the influence charge. Only adults 21 or over are protected by the new legalization law, but no one yet knows how the new law will affect driving privileges. Is the zero tolerance of THC in your blood law still in effect for adult use marijuana ? The new law is similarly worded to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. Whereas the MMMA says While the meaning of "under the influence" was not decided within the MMMA until 2012, with People v Koon, that was 4 years of police arresting patients for driving with marijuana in their blood. The court in People v Koon came to the conclusion: Ignoring that for a minute, the Michigan State Police have been tasked with sampling saliva during road side stops for a task force on marijuana driving. The task force was created in order to find a nanogram limit for THC in blood, even though 50 years of scientific research on the subject has consistently said marijuana does not affect driving. http://komornlaw.com/35-years-research-reports-driving-cannabis-marijuana/ http://komornlaw.com/mmma-court-case-library/ So my advice is, if you are a patient, keep the patient card active until the courts either give up on all marijuana issues, or at least this driving issue , or it is decided by the Michigan Supreme Court. Basically, until non-patients get a similar "People v Koon" ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court, it is advised that any patients keep their cards to protect them fully under the MMMA. "Don't be the first person to test this in court."

Whole plant shots of Northern King and Skunkberry. The rest of my pics are too large of files to upload here.

Our clients in Wayne and Garden City were charged with four counts of controlled substance felonies, as well as the police seizing retirement bank accounts, vehicles and other unrelated property. Count 1: Controlled Substances – Delivery / Manufacture of marijuana 5-45 kilograms Count 2: Controlled Substances – Delivery / Manufacture of marijuana 5-45 kilograms At the time of the charged offense, the clients were valid registered patients and caregivers with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program, and were in possession of their cards, and identification at all times during the incident. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, officers were aware the accused were medical marihuana patients and caregivers. In the criminal case in Garden City we had to file many motions to maintain and preserve our client’s rights. · Motion for immunity from prosecution, Section 4 MMMA defense. · Motion for immunity from arrest, Section 4 MMMA Defense. · Motion in Limine to preclude the Search Warrant as defective. · Motion to dismiss charges, Section 4 paraphernalia MMMA defense. · Motion in Limine to preclude evidence from an unconstitutional warrantless cell phone search. · Motion to return untainted property based on lack of a probable cause. Simultaneously, the county seizes assets via civil asset forfeiture laws at the same time as the criminal charges. If you do not challenge the civil asset forfeiture, the county or state will just take the property. Police and prosecutors are only required to give you a piece of paper when the police take the property, called a "Notice of intent to forfeit". For our clients to get their bank accounts back and other property, we had to file motions to compel the court to uphold our client’s constitutional rights to their property. After putting in an appearance on the forfeiture case, the prosecutor failed to notice us of any actions. When we showed up to court, the forfeiture case was dismissed due to “Failure to Serve” in 2015. Wayne County Prosecutors then refiled the forfeiture case TWO years later. We fought again with a series of motions. · Motion to dismiss due to statute of limitations, failure to refile case “promptly”. · Motion to quash discovery. · Motion to dismiss, Section 4 MMMA defense to any penalty (forfeiture). · Motion / Memo to demand a show cause hearing for reason why property was not returned. The clients were charged by the police who thought they were committing serious crimes. The police officers thought, based on their training and experience, our clients were manufacturing marijuana. In cross-examinations of the police officers involved in the raids, we asked a few standard questions. Mr. Komorn : Have you read the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act? Sgt. Police officer: The whole thing? How are the enforcers of the law supposed to carry out the law, if they don’t know the law? How are the police officers supposed to decide who is in compliance with the law and who is not in compliance with the law? There are also 2,000 pages of case law on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, detailing out various immunities and procedures that are not being followed by the police. The police were overzealous and caused ridiculous violations of our client’s constitutional rights. Our clients were charged with the following crimes in Garden City, due to the police using false and incompetent search warrants. Controlled substance--- Manufacture of Marijuana, contrary to MCL; 333.7401(2)(d)(ii), a 7 year felony Controlled substance--- Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, contrary to MCL; 333.7401(2)(d)(ii), a 7 year felony The criminal case against our client was dismissed in Garden City after filing two motions. · Motion to suppress evidence due to lack of probable cause. · Motion to return untainted property. The judge in the case read the original search warrants and said it was ridiculously deficient! https://www.wxyz.com/news/rep-lucido-says-bill-would-prevent-police-from-seizing-innocent-peoples-stuff

All of the ordinances against patients and caregivers are nullified by the state MMMA law, and as upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in Ter Beek v Wyoming. http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Ter-Beek-v-Wyoming-S145816.pdf and http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/York-v-Miller-335344.pdf Some cities are still harassing patients and caregivers of course. Even cities that have dispensaries and should know better (Ypsilanti area). So... Do you poke the city's eye with this issue? Get a declaratory judgement like Mr TerBeek did ? Waste time in court etc? It is up to you. Also double check that it is the township that your new home is located in, some of these ordinances are for the city and not the township and vice versa. You could call the prosecutors office there and ask if they are enforcing that ordinance in light of Terbeek v Wyoming. They may not be enforcing the issue and just leaving it on the books in order for the township supervisors to feel better.

I think that legalization and kicking Schuette to the curb go hand in hand. I can't imagine them together. I doubt Schuette would go along with legalization. He has made it so clear that he hates marijuana in all forms. Hates marijuana stores the most. He must be suffering greatly right now. That thought makes me feel all warm and fuzzy after years of reading his hateful comments about marijuana.

First shot is Northern King by Peak Seeds BC (tester), second is Skunkberry by Peak Seeds BC.

Komorn Law PLLC is proud to report another complete dismissal of all charges for our client. These past few months we have attained a high rate of dismissals of our client’s cases. In this case our client was charged with allegations of felonious marihuana conduct; the case involved the definition of a medical marijuana plant in the law. More specifically, whether or not the plant was producing food from photosynthesis and was “living”. Of course, the prosecutor wanted to fight about the definition of “usable marihuana” too. With a splash of Manual and Mansour mixed into the fray. Much to my surprise the Court was very familiar with the conflicts of law that currently exist within the MMMA and the court, and the issues that were created by the Mansour opinion. The court was prepared to grant a stay in the proceedings until that mess of an opinion gets worked out. Today the Court heard arguments from the parties regarding the warrantless search of my clients home and whether the government could constitutionally validate the warrantless search. In Michigan, we have found that the courts go to great lengths to destroy the 4th amendment protections, going so far as to have a “good faith” exemption to unconstitutional search warrants. As is often the case in warrantless searches regarding drug task forces investigating marijuana tips this case dealt with a “knock and talk". The knock and talk is a tool used by law enforcement agencies which allows them to traverse on to a citizen’s property, to question and even investigate a person or citizen. The knock and talk however is not absolute and there are specific limitations. The best way to describe is that the police would be allowed to come into a person's property in the same manner or method that a Girl Scout would or some other person soliciting something. Knock and talks are generally legal assuming that the police limit their interactions to the areas of the property that a citizen would not have an expectation of privacy. Examples of this limited to walking up the driveway to the front door. Nothing more nothing less. There is some significant case law recent years in Michigan that lays out specific details of some of those limitations and also when an officers’ knock and talk goes too far. People v Frederick and Van Doorne is a case involving Kent County Sheriff's officers that baked marijuana butter. The case went to the Michigan Supreme Court, which describes those limitations and the proper analysis for when and how officers can conduct knocks and talks. The court did not take issue with the police detectives/investigators in this case, ignoring the fact that they were not in police uniform when they did their knock and talk. The court ruled that it didn’t matter if the police were undercover, because that fact did not violate the knock and talk rules. Even though I disagreed with the court in this tiny issue, this was not the ultimate legal issue that was dispositive in this case. The legal issue that was dispositive in this case was that once the police officers, who were conducting a lawful knock and talk, and who were lawfully on the porch of my client's house, and were lawfully ringing the doorbell to interact with my client, with the intent of trying to establish probable cause to search possibly get a search warrant, it is what happened in that situation that was the ultimate dispositive issue to which the court ruled in our favor. As we have been finding more and more, police agencies in Michigan have an additional tool to trick patients and caregivers from the immunities from arrest, prosecution, and penalty of any kind. Police make offers to do a “compliance check”. Police will ask very politely if the homeowner will show them around their medical marijuana garden to ensure compliance with the MMMA. This was the ultimate issue in this case. As I mentioned this case involving search and seizure of evidence without a search warrant. The U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution expressly prohibits the searching and seizures without a warrant. That in fact warrantless searches and seizures are per se invalid. The government must make an allegation to justify the warrantless search in order for the search warrant to be constitutionally valid. In this particular case, the government's theory of why the search and seizure was constitutionally valid, was because according to them my client consented to the search of his house. Today the government in this matter argued my client consented to a search of his house, offering the testimony of the officers who said my client consented to search and therefore the government did need a search warrant. While this theory may be true in other circumstances, a warrantless search and seizure is justified if the homeowner consents to a search and seizure. However this was not the testimony that supported the charges, this is not the way in which testimony came out at the prelim exam during cross-examination. Had the testimony in the preliminary examination been that they requested consent of the homeowner/my client to search his house and asked if they could come into search the house for illegal contraband or whatever arguably that would've made for a constitutionally valid search and seizure. As I argued today and in contrast to the states position I relied on the testimony at the prelim exam where I had locked the officers into admitting that they did not follow proper procedure, but upon encountering my client at the front door during the “lawful knock and talk”, that they indicated the reason to which they were there. That reason according to the officers was that there was a tip that they had received that there was an illegal marijuana grow that occurred was occurring at that location. As I got the officer to admit that when you explain to my client the reason why you were there when you're doing your knock and talk that he responded by telling you that he was a medical marijuana patient and that there was no illegal substances within the house. The officer answered yes. I said then what did you say next that ultimately resulted in you gaining access to the house the officer said “well I told him that he needed to check whether or not he was in compliance with the Michigan medical marijuana act”. During this colloquy I said to the officer please explain to me, please direct me, please show me what is your legal authority for doing a compliance check of any individual regarding their medical marijuana behavior? It is here at this juncture that the state’s case against my client fell apart. There is no legal authority for any drug task force team to do a medical marijuana compliance check. The specific section of the MMMA that prohibits this is section 333.26424G, possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of a person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registered indication card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by local county or state government agencies. At the hearing today it was this compliance check issue that was flushed out and ultimately the constitutional violation the resulted in the court holding that the consent to search was not valid. Because of that issue, the court found that the police did not constitutionally validate the warrantless search. The issue of consent to search has an abundance of jurisprudence both in Michigan and the federal court system. The concept of consent has been written about often, and raises various issues, charges, defenses etc. regarding police officers interactions with citizens. The States intrusions of citizens rights, or what would be described as unconstitutional, is of no consequence if the citizen, suspect or accused consents to that government behavior. However, consent must be unequivocal. It can’t be wishy washy and it can’t be based upon false or misleading information. Consent must be unequivocal and it must be given knowingly, voluntarily without threat or coercion. The capitulation to the government’s request can’t be based upon trickery or a lie. The circumstances of my client’s case today were about the consent, or shall i say consent that was not unequivocal or constitutionally valid. I read from the transcripts from the preliminary exam ( quoting from the testimony of the officers) where the officers had testified that the last statement made to my client before entering his house was that they the investigator/ detectives needed to do a medical marihuana compliance check. These same officers admitted they were not part of the MMFLA task force or investigators ( and were not even sure that they were even aware of the existence of that agency). I pointed out to the judge that there exists no legal authority by these officers to do a compliance check. A compliance check is not the same as consent to search. By asking, suggesting even implying that they had this legal authority is obtaining consent by trick, by misrepresentation or whatever you may want to call it, it was not “ knowing, voluntary and or without duress” consent. It was this behavior by the government actors the Court found to be the constitutional violation. The court found that my client’s consent, which was allegedly obtained, was invalid, and the warrantless search of the residence and the seizing of the property and “evidence” was unconstitutional. Thus the evidence seized was done so illegally and the court suppressed the evidence and all the charges were dismissed. The lesson learned here, and the take away is simple. 1. Don’t be fooled into believing that there exists a legal authority for police officers or drug task force officers to check or determine you compliance with the MMMA 2. Never, Ever, Ever consent to a search. The often forgotten 4th amendment got some love today, and my joy is that this Court today had the courage and wisdom to make the correct ruling.

As the president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, I testified before the Michigan Medical Marihuana Review Panel earlier today in support of the 21 petitions submitted by our patient and caregiver educational non-profit organization as well as other researchers, patients and caregivers, physicians and parents who combined resources to work on the petitions. There is another meeting for the panel to vote on these conditions NEXT WEEK Friday, May 4th ,2018 at the same location. I do not think there will be additional comments, but by being present you may sway the panel members. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/04/michigan_considers_authorizing.html

6 Defendants, 3 law firms, a "million dollars" of marijuana. The headlines write themselves. Were we in for a fight to the death? Not with me on the case. Other counsel were ready to fight this in circuit court, it was my idea that we should try to get this entire case dismissed at the district court level. The plan worked, all charges dismissed. The judge was also very smart, writing a complete thoughtful opinion so that if this case does get appealed, the issues will be clear. https://www.benzinga.com/government/18/07/12026544/detroit-judge-throws-out-1m-marijuana-case-in-the-interest-of-fairness Read more about how this all started. Why is Detroit raiding businesses that they licensed?? https://www.marijuana.com/news/2018/07/detroit-police-gang-unit-raids-black-owned-operated-marijuana-warehouse-and-arrest-6/

Changes are afoot at LARA. I suggested this a few times to LARA, that they should use the same online registration that Physicians, Pharmacists and Nurses use at LARA to register for licenses online. Also that we should switch to paper licenses, instead of the hard plastic cards. If the paper licenses are good enough for Pharmacists, Physicians and Nurses, they are good enough for Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers. Why waste time and money on certified mail, lost mail, postage, calling to check on paperwork, missing check boxes and missing signatures and all of those paper cuts and copies? LARA has to scan all of those documents, and keep them forever too. LARA HAS ISSUED NEW PATIENT FORMS , PLEASE USE THE NEW FORMS OTHERWISE THEY MAY REJECT YOUR APPLICATIONS. https://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-79571-472407--,00.html

Prohibitionists would use the predicted _possible_ harmful societal effects of marijuana as an excuse to continue the racist war on drugs that put hundreds of thousands of people in jail in the USA each year. Eventually, people realized that if you cried WOLF enough, and no WOLF ever showed up, that you were probably just a professional WOLF troll and that your predictions were false. As is the case here in reality. https://hightimes.com/news/legalization/five-years-marijuana-legalization-what-didnt-happen/

I would make it a point not to go just so I could avoid the music.

2 When root balls or root hairs have formed on the cutting. People v Ventura, 316 Mich App 671 (2016) http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/P-v-Ventura.pdf

Checks and Balances are put in place to protect the human rights of every citizen of the United States of America. One of those rights is the right to due process, meaning that you have the right to be secure in your home and with your property unless a court says otherwise. And you have the right to have your day in court before a jury of your peers. Asset Forfeiture has been tainted by police, prosecutors and courts where police just steal your stuff, leave, then go auction it off later. In some cases, not even a single criminal charge is filed. In other cases, prosecutors bring criminal charges, lose the criminal case, but continue with the forfeiture case. Other taint comes when police take all of the cash from you, but the amount they took is less than what it would cost to hire a lawyer to get it back. Why would anyone hire a $3000 lawyer to fight over a seized $2000 car ? We need more civil asset forfeiture and this bill would help a little bit. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/05/10/civil-asset-forfeiture/34783509/

I have suffered from Ulcerative Colitis for over 15 years, in remission for the past 3 years....until this February when I was hit with a Norovirus which activated my UC with the most horrible severe symptoms that would not go away. My son gave me a dose of full spectrum extract oil suspension with no THC. Symptoms were stopped in their tracks, then started coming back after 2 days. I took a total of 4 doses of this medicine over a 3 week period, and completely reverted to remission again with no additional doses needed. My gastro doc is talking removal of my colon with a colostomy as the only option if symptoms continue. This extract literally saved my colon. The only "side effect" I had was that it also took away my hip inflammation.

Parents and caregivers of children and persons with Autistic Spectrum Disorder have been fighting to try medical marijuana as an option after exhausting all other treatment options available. This fight has been going on for at least 5 years, when LARA denied the petition for autism in 2013. In 2013, the review panel voted 2 yes and 7 no votes. The 2013 petition lacked any research or studies, so parents Dwight Z. and Dr Christian Bogner submitted a new autism petition with studies and help from researcher Joe Stone in 2014. 10/4/13 Final Determination of Department - Autism 8/27/15 Final Determination of Department - Autism LARA rejected the 2014 petition because they had made a "final decision" on autism in 2013. Michael Komorn, president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, filed a lawsuit against LARA to get them to hear the 2014 petition. After months of stalling from LARA they finally decided to hear the petition, and in May 2015, the review panel heard the petition and testimony. LARA tried a dirty trick by not sending the research and studies to the panel. This was brought to the attention of the panel that research was submitted, so the board came back a week later to give time to the panelists to review the research. The panel then voted 4 yes and 2 no votes to approve Autism as a qualifying condition. In August 2015, the Director of LARA, Mike Zimmer, then rejected adding autism as a qualifying condition to the Medical Marihuana program against the wishes of the panel. In his rejection, Mr. Zimmer gave the reason that edibles may be illegal due to a confusing ruling from the Court of Appeals among other objections. Parents and caregivers of people diagnosed with autism continued to fight, and worked together to submit another autism petition. Adding 20 new peer-reviewed research studies from the past 4 years. The new autism petition was submitted in February and was sent by LARA and heard by the review panel on 4-27-2018. Wonderful and brave parents Amie Carter and Jamie Cooper testified before the panel, laying their hearts and family stories out there for the world to gawk at. At the following review panel meeting on 5-4-2018, the review panel approved of 10 conditions including Autism in a 6 yes and 1 no vote. Voting no on a condition is voting to subject the rejected-condition patient to arrest for the medical use or possession of marihuana. A suggestion was made by a panel member that the marijuana legalization ballot initiative would save any concerns for the denied patient conditions. This is not true. There are several differences between legalization and the medical marijuana program that would negatively affect a patient. First, the recreational marijuana initiative will apply a large tax and other costs that would not apply to patients if they were part of the MMM program. Second, patients are treated in the law differently regarding several issues. · Driving · Housing · CPS / Parenting / Custody issues · Employment · Immunities and Affirmative Defense Patients should not be punished for their use of cannabis when it is medical and not for adult recreation. Medical use and recreational use have significant distinctions, that were played out in the discussion of the panel and specifically the experience shared by Dr. Crocker who sees a variety patients with various diseases that are treated by cannabis. It makes no sense to deny the petition for these conditions when the evidence supports the therapeutic and palliative relief. 1. The panel are ignoring the reality of what a “no vote” is and means to patients. 2. The excuses used to deny or vote no have been: · Not enough research · Not enough clinical trials Panel members have lamented on this topic for years, but this argument makes no sense. Why would they approve of some conditions but not others, as they have given this reason for rejecting conditions? No condition has been thoroughly researched to use with marijuana. Absolutely zero clinical trials for any condition have been performed with crude marijuana flowers. Even though marijuana smoking has been shown to absolutely stop epileptic seizures, reduce eye pressure in glaucoma patients, open up airways in asthma patients, return appetite to AIDS patients, prevent nausea, reduce anxiety/stress and control pain signals. There are few, small, less than 100 people research studies on a few small conditions. Those studies are conducted only with Marinol, Sativex or other pharmaceutical formulations, not crude marihuana flowers and extracts. The FDA refuses to study crude marijuana extracts and flowers, and prefers a mono chemical therapy. One plant chemical, THC. Recently the FDA has been testing CBD. Two plant chemicals total from over 400 known cannabinoids (plant chemicals) within the cannabis plant. At this rate, the FDA will have tested each of the 400 cannabinoids separately within 16,000 years. Counting 40 years for THC-only studies, 40 years x 400 cannabinoids = 16,000 years. Which is why, the American people have bypassed the FDA and have approved marijuana as a medicine on a state by state basis. Sick people cannot wait for the FDA to continue to hamper research and deny that marijuana is a medicine. All because the FDA refuses and prefers a single chemical standardized consistent drug. These are terrible reasons because research on marijuana has been hampered. We mentioned this in our petition https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19marijuana.html · Dr. Crocker and other physicians have conflated marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke and then offered and relied upon this unproven fact that the two smokes are the same and have the same health effects. Marijuana smoke is different than Tobacco smoke and has different effects on humans and animals. See The large studies on lung function by Dr Tashkin and all of the other studies that show the only difference between a non-smoker and a marijuana-only smoker is that the marijuana-only smoker has a larger forced air lung capacity. Effects of smoked marijuana in experimentally induced asthma. Effects of cannabis on lung function: a population-based cohort study · Legalization, if the review panel does not approve a condition, the sick patient can possess by adult recreational means. The review panelist who made this comment is a physician and in her reason for denial of the petition is saying that a person should self-medicate! Unheard of advice from a physician. · The panel mentioned several times that they wanted “severe” conditions, severe brain injury vs brain injury or severe autism vs autism. Aren't people with less severe conditions allowed treatment? Are we equal or are severe conditions more important? Nothing about this reason makes any sense to deny a condition from this non-toxic safe medication. The review panel is supposed to look at each individual petition, and only those petitions, to determine if the condition should be added to the MMMA. Frequently, the panel members have made comments or asked questions about other conditions while debating petitions. "Why are we voting on "chronic pain" when "severe and chronic pain" is a qualifying condition?" "Why are there petitions for Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis?" "Brain Injury is too vague, but Traumatic Brain Injury is a condition that may be more appropriate" "Colitis is too broad, colitis can be infectious or non-infectious" Panelist Dr Lewandowski said there was only one "good" study that showed "clinical improvement with dronabinol in this submission" of obsessive compulsive disorder and "this meet the expectation in support of peer-reviewed information". All of the research we submitted in our petitions was peer-reviewed except for one paper on Autism, all of the studies showed palliative or therapeutic benefit and efficacy. The requirements by LARA are the following: Provide a summary of the evidence that the use of marihuana will provide palliative or therapeutic benefit for that medical condition or a treatment of that medical condition. Rule 33(1)(a). Include articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reporting the results of research on the effects of marihuana on the medical condition or treatment of the medical condition and supporting why the medical condition or treatment should be added to the list of debilitating medical conditions under section 3(b) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26423(b). Rule 33(1)(b). Note that Lewandowski's remarks about clinical improvement is not a requirement within the MMMA, the LARA Administrative rules, nor the Petitions themselves. The whole point about medical marijuana programs is that we cannot get marijuana into clinical studies. Cannabis's schedule 1 status, FDA monotherapy rules, NIDA grant bias for harms not benefits, DEA hoop jumping, propaganda and political football including bribery, corruption and market forces (from private prison unions, alcohol, tobacco and Big Pharma industry not wanting competition) makes it incredibly difficult and near impossible to study marijuana for medical benefits. Tabled conditions: · Non chronic non severe pain · Colitis · Organ Transplant

Happy to report that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Patient Program includes your choice to either grow your own or get a caregiver to grow for you. Nothing has changed or is changing in that regard. The only thing that has changed is the full implementation of medical dispensaries and their legal suppliers. It's just another legal choice now. Finally after nearly ten years dispensaries will be legal in Michigan. One thing that has my interest is how long the war between Colorado imported cannabis and Michigan grown cannabis is going to continue. There are dispensaries right next to each other having this war of suppliers. I'm thinking it might be healthy competition. The Michigan growers need to step up their game because Colorado is taking our jobs ......

Since everyone qualifies then just grow 12 at everyone's house or yard! Here, there, and everywhere. The thought of it makes me smile. Like the old adage: two cars in every driveway.... 12 plants at every house. Smells like freedom ....

Published on Apr 30, 2018 Michigan Mom Amie Carter details the physical and emotional abuse of her Autistic child. After trying all available therapies and prescription medications to no avail, her boy was transformed from a rampaging frightened punch-throwing self-injuring mess into a loving boy with medical marijuana.

I can't wait to someday enter one of my bonsai girls at the Michigan State Fair.

Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn discusses some of the gray areas in The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

Been looking at doing a cycle using a dual arc bulb I have used EYE hortilux bulbs almost a decade but the bulbs are pricey and ive been watching a lot of YOUTUBE growers getting killer results adding the blue spectrum to their flower room I will update this post when I start seeing results to do a comparison with previous grows yields flavors bud appearance etc.

I have an opening and im in your area here is a link to my ad if your interested in getting together and discuss becoming my patient send me a private message and we can talk out of view.

I would never scan my drivers license and patient card for a website. not to mention a website that hides its registrar info. also there is not one single piece of information about what person or company runs grassmatch. except for the email name peter@grassmatch. on the grassmatch about page: they misspelled the word "all". why would a website for patients and caregivers be focused on "Get the most for your money." ? That seems more like a bunch of people selling marijuana than a patient and caregiver relationship. on the privacy page .grassmatch.com/pages/privacy-policy just not a good policy at all. if you upload your info to grassmatch, expect that it will get out, with this kind of privacy policy.

HOLY COW!!! They make you do that? That's totally nutso. Why would anyone do that? NEVER EVER upload pictures of your card and drivers license to anyone ever. Glad this totally came to light. I knew grassmatch was scammy but I didn't know how bad it really was. Caregivers can have 5 patients and then themselves adding up to a possible 6 to grow for.