Search the Community

I just picked a jury in a marihuana case, there were several perspective jurors who were excused, who will not sit on our jury because of the answers they gave during the jury voi dire. This is not the first time this has happened. If you believe in medical cannabis, and or that Marijuana should be legal and you find yourself on a jury in a marihuana case here are some things to remember: 1. During the Jury Selection, you will be asked if you can put your personal or philosophical feelings aside, and be fair to both the prosecutor and the defense. 2. During the Jury Selection, you will be asked if despite your beliefs you will follow the law as it is given to you, and apply the facts to the law when you deliberate. 3. These are common question asked during the jury selection also known as voi dire, with the overall goal of the process to select persons who will put aside there personal beliefs, as the Judge will direct , and render a just verdict. 4. The same questions are asked to prospective Jurors, who have family members or relatives who are police officers, ie Madam juror despite being married to the Chief of police for 25 years and despite the fact that your husband is a police officer, will you be able to put that fact aside and be fair to the defendant in this case. 5. 10 out of 10 times the answer of the Police Chief's wife will be yes. I can follow the law, and will follow the instructions that the Court gives me. Please note that the Police Chiefs wife’s answer allows her to stay on the jury. Unfortunately as we saw today, from the many prospective jurors who were asked if they could be fair in our case involving marihuana, the answer " no, I could not be fair because I could never convict someone of a marihuana charge" had them removed for “cause”, and they did not even have a chance to sit and judge the case. Or said another way the ideal person who should be on our jury will not be. As they were excused from the jury box, and exited the court room, I could not help but think to myself, that I bet they really could be fair in this case, that they really could follow the law as the Court instructed them, that they could apply the law to the facts of the case, and also put aside whatever beliefs they had about marihuana to render a just verdict. We all have biases, beliefs and preconceived ideas of the world, anyone who participates in the jury process is asked to put those feelings aside, and listen to the specific facts of the specific case, which will not come until after the jury has been selected. Those who are against marijuana prohibition should be more open minded and objective in their answers, just as any other perspective juror would be. Unfortunately the answer "I could never convict a person for marihuana because it should be legal" actually has a serious and negative effect on the fairness of the trial. " If the wife of the Police Chief can sit on the jury, and put aside the stories she has heard at dinner every night for her entire marriage, then so can those who oppose marihuana prohibition. If she can follow the law, be fair and render a fair verdict, then so can those who oppose marihuana prohibition. The distinction here is in the semantics and the desire to render a just verdict by participating in the jury trial process. The issue is not what you believe but weather you can be fair. Being fair means listening to the evidence and rendering a just verdict. So to all of you, who believe in ending marihuana prohibition, remember there is a time and place for that discussion, and it is not during a jury selection. Despite your convictions, remember being on a jury is the quintessential American experience, embrace it, be one with it, put your beliefs of the world aside, and tell the court you can be fair. Your roll in all this chaos will be better served having you sit and be that juror who can render justice. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) (855) 456-6676: (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.

I just picked a jury in a marihuana case, there were several perspective jurors who were excused, who will not sit on our jury because of the answers they gave during the jury voi dire. This is not the first time this has happened. If you believe in medical cannabis, and or that Marijuana should be legal and you find yourself on a jury in a marihuana case here are some things to remember: 1. During the Jury Selection, you will be asked if you can put your personal or philosophical feelings aside, and be fair to both the prosecutor and the defense. 2. During the Jury Selection, you will be asked if despite your beliefs you will follow the law as it is given to you, and apply the facts to the law when you deliberate. 3. These are common question asked during the jury selection also known as voi dire, with the overall goal of the process to select persons who will put aside there personal beliefs, as the Judge will direct , and render a just verdict. 4. The same questions are asked to prospective Jurors, who have family members or relatives who are police officers, ie Madam juror despite being married to the Chief of police for 25 years and despite the fact that your husband is a police officer, will you be able to put that fact aside and be fair to the defendant in this case. 5. 10 out of 10 times the answer of the Police Chief's wife will be yes. I can follow the law, and will follow the instructions that the Court gives me. Please note that the Police Chiefs wife’s answer allows her to stay on the jury. Unfortunately as we saw today, from the many prospective jurors who were asked if they could be fair in our case involving marihuana, the answer " no, I could not be fair because I could never convict someone of a marihuana charge" had them removed for “cause”, and they did not even have a chance to sit and judge the case. Or said another way the ideal person who should be on our jury will not be. As they were excused from the jury box, and exited the court room, I could not help but think to myself, that I bet they really could be fair in this case, that they really could follow the law as the Court instructed them, that they could apply the law to the facts of the case, and also put aside whatever beliefs they had about marihuana to render a just verdict. We all have biases, beliefs and preconceived ideas of the world, anyone who participates in the jury process is asked to put those feelings aside, and listen to the specific facts of the specific case, which will not come until after the jury has been selected. Those who are against marijuana prohibition should be more open minded and objective in their answers, just as any other perspective juror would be. Unfortunately the answer "I could never convict a person for marihuana because it should be legal" actually has a serious and negative effect on the fairness of the trial. " If the wife of the Police Chief can sit on the jury, and put aside the stories she has heard at dinner every night for her entire marriage, then so can those who oppose marihuana prohibition. If she can follow the law, be fair and render a fair verdict, then so can those who oppose marihuana prohibition. The distinction here is in the semantics and the desire to render a just verdict by participating in the jury trial process. The issue is not what you believe but weather you can be fair. Being fair means listening to the evidence and rendering a just verdict. So to all of you, who believe in ending marihuana prohibition, remember there is a time and place for that discussion, and it is not during a jury selection. Despite your convictions, remember being on a jury is the quintessential American experience, embrace it, be one with it, put your beliefs of the world aside, and tell the court you can be fair. Your roll in all this chaos will be better served having you sit and be that juror who can render justice. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) (855) 456-6676: (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.

@KomornLawMI# Planet Green Trees-The Battle In Bad Axe- a story of perseverance, Love, and A** Kicking-http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/03/29/planet-green-trees-episode-141-the-battle-in-bad-axe March 28, 2013 -13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Hosted By: Attorney Michael Komorn/ Komorn Law PLLC 18006553557 SHOW TOPIC: The Battle In Bad Axe In what was one of the biggest news stories in 2009, Ellis claimed he had done nothing wrong after local police raided his home. A card-carrying registered caregiver licensed to give patients medical marijuana, Ellis felt he deserves protection under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. We plan to talk about this case, relish the victory and memorialize the victory for our community, for Jeff and Susan Ellis- may she rest in peace. SPECIAL IN STUDIO GUEST:Attorney David Rudoi, will be live in the Studio to discuss 3 new COA cases addressing the MMMA, and offer his thoughts and commentary: people-v-dehko/people-v-christner/people-v-mccleese CALL IN GUEST: ASA Announces New Michigan Chapter: Special Guest Hunter Holliman ASA National Representative will join us to discuss the recent announcement of the New Michigan ASA Chapter and the local activists participating. Possible call ins from those activists: Brandi Zink chair of the Michigan Chapter Brought to you by: Our Regular Group of Community Entertainment. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law, PLLC-18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson-Editor and Chief of the Compassion Chronicles- reporting on news events, Canna-Miracles our very own Gold Cup Winner. Thanks to Purnell Jameson and Greg Pawlowski for producing tonight’s show. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557- The Med Joint Community Compassion Center - Oshtemo, MI Kevin Spitler

By statute, custodial interrogations must be recorded in all major felony cases where the maximum penalty for the offense is 20 years or more. On December 27, 2012 Governor Snyder signed the new law, Public Act No. 479 of 2012, which goes into effective March 28, 2013. It's available at the legislative website. Remember these words instead: I WANT TO SPEAK WITH MY LAWYER ! http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/publicact/htm/2012-PA-0479.htm

Going Live at 8:00 p.m. EST February 7, 2013 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Guests: We are honored to have returning and taking care of unfinished business from last week: Power House Attorney Neil Rockind, aka the Rockweiler joins us again to discuss and analyze P v, Green (holding patient to patient transfers where no money is exchange is protected from arrest and prosecution). Additionally we will take a look at 2 other recent COA opinions regarding medical cannabis: P v. Hinzman (perjury case) and P v. Hill (warrantless search of a home-emergency exception) Dan Riffle attorney and legislative analyst for Marijuana Policy Project. (MPP) Representative Mike Callton ® Nashville MI Also we will be revisiting some of the important cases still pending in the Judicial system that will have an impact on the interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. On the Agenda: Robert Redden, Barb Agro, People v. McQueen, People v. Jeff Ellis (Bad Axe), Marshall Alternatives. Also on the agenda for discussion: Everything that is Cannabis or Medical Cannabis related Brought to you by: Our Regular Group of Community Entertainment. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson-Editor and Chief of the Compassion Chronicles- reporting on news events, Canna-Miracles our very own Gold Cup Winner. Thanks to Purnell Jameson and Greg Pawlowski for producing tonight’s show. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557- The Med Joint Community Compassion Center - Oshtemo, MI Kevin Spitler http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/02/08/planet-green-trees-episode-133-green-money-and-the-industry

What counts as being too high to drive? In both Washington and Colorado, laws approved by voters let anyone at least 21 years old possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. But the means of judging whether someone is driving while impaired varies in the two states. In Washington, driving with a THC blood-content level of 5 nanograms per milliliter is illegal. In Colorado, no such limit was set. THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main mind-altering chemical in marijuana. http://www.carinsurancequotes.com/articles/marijuana-and-driving This is a critical issue for Michigan Cannabis Patients. People v. Koon is a terrible decision, the law in Michigan currently punishes a person for having "any amount (presence) of active THC, delta 9, in their blood. A person who is driving as any reasonable driver would, is still considered to be committing a crime (punishes the same as an OWI) just for having the presence of THC.

PLEASE READ THIS THREAD WITH CAUTION! NONE OF THE BELOW IS INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVISE, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. IT IS MERELY POSTED AS AN OPENING DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS LEGISLATIVE ACT 4856 DOES TO THE PRIOR LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN MICHIGAN REGARDING USABLE MARIHUANA, UNUSABLE MARIHUANA, TRANSPORTING MARIHUANA AND BEHAVIOR INVOLVING MARIHUANA BY A PERSON, AS NOW DEFINED IN THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, PURSUANT TO 4856. ANYONE WHO READS THE BELOW AS ADVISE WILL SURELY END UP A TEST CASE, WHICH IS THE MOST UNPLEASANT PLACE TO FIND YOURSELF, PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW THESE WORDS AS LEGAL ADVICE. Lets start with the obvious conflict that exist now: section 4 a and b protects a patient or caregiver from arrest prosecution or any penalty so long as they are not in violation section 7. The limitation to protections against arrest for patients and caregivers come from section 4 and section 7. Possession for patients and caregivers is subject only to the MMMA, and does not apply in or to the Michigan Penal Code (O'Connell and Byslma). Marihuana remains illegal except for limited exemptions for persons with serious or debilitation conditions. 4856 directly conflicts with section 4 a and b, and can not be reconciled. More importantly 4856 punishes persons only, not patients or caregivers, and section 4 a and b were not amended, and still remain as protections different than the persons 4856 seeks to punish for this behavior. A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "The Michigan penal code," (MCL 750.1 to 750.568) by adding section 474. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: SEC. 474. (1) A PERSON SHALL NOT TRANSPORT OR POSSESS USABLE MARIHUANA AS DEFINED IN SECTION 26423 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.26423, IN OR UPON A MOTOR VEHICLE OR ANY SELF- PROPELLED VEHICLE DESIGNED FOR LAND TRAVEL UNLESS THE USABLE MARIHUANA IS 1 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS CARRIED IN THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. (B) ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE, IF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH THE PERSON IS 1 TRAVELING DOES NOT HAVE A TRUNK. 2 (2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A 3 MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 93 DAYS OR 4 A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.00, OR BOTH. 4856 amends the Michigan Penal Code to acknowledge a lawful way to transport usable marijuana (as defined in the MMMA) and refers to the definition section of the MMMA. Any person can now transport unusable marihuana in the car and have it laying open on the passenger seat anywhere- one could say? Or if it is in a case or in the trunk a person is protected, because that behavior is lawful. It is not merely protected from arrest, prosecution or any penalty, IT IS PROTECTED BECAUSE IT IS A LAWFUL WAY TO CARRY MARIHUANA IN A CAR. IT IS LAWFUL. On a larger scale beyond the search issues and all the bad that it does, is this the amendment that was needed to codify the act as legit? Or said another way a legal right? Does this new law speak to the theme running through all those COA opinions and the MSC that has stated up to now, that the MMMA didn't amend the Michigan Penal Code legalizing the use of marihuana, it merely carved out limited exemptions for people with serious and debilitating conditions. If a person may now carry unusable marihuana in a car, without the need for a card, 1. This 4856 has acknowledged that unusable material ( as defined in the MMMA act) is not contraband, anymore. Anyone can possess it. 2. You don't need a card to or be a patient or need a medical reason to carry this non contraband substance- unusable material. 3. It is a crime for a person to do this if the material is usable, but you are protected for doing it if its in the trunk or in a case if in the interior of the vehicle. A specific protection or a right if done in accordance with this rule. 4. Or said another way usable material may now be possessed and transported by a person and so long as it is in the trunk or in a case that is locked with in the interior of the vehicle it is not a crime and therefore is lawful. 5. This is obvious in conflict of the unlawful possession, use, delivery etc of marihuana by a person in other sections of the Michigan Public Health Code section 333. 6. But by itself 4856 seemingly describes marhuana behavior that is lawful if done in accordance with the rules contained therein by a person. 7. This has not yet been done, and the judiciary has consistently ruled that no rights exist, only immunity from arrest. Here the Legislature has stated a specific protection for this type of behavior (not in the MMMA) but in the Michigan Penal Code. 8. This new law is in the Michigan Penal Code and for the first time ever since the MMMA was enacted, the MPC is recognizing a way to engage in some form of marihuana use. Is marihuana still illegal under state law? Not if it is in your trunk locked in a case. Or if it is unusable ?

Learn about the amazing health benefits of juicing raw cannabis (marijuana) leaves http://www.naturalnews.com/035759_cannabis_juicing_health.html (NaturalNews) Contrary to popular belief, the marijuana plant is a whole lot more than just a psychoactive drug that "stoners" use to get high. In raw form, marijuana leaves and buds are actually loaded with a non-psychoactive, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer nutrient compound known as cannabidiol (CBD) that is proving to be a miracle "superfood" capable of preventing and reversing a host of chronic illnesses. Though you may not have heard much about it, the CBD found in the marijuana plant -- marijuana is technically just a vegetable, by the way -- is a highly medicinal substance with unique immune-regulating capabilities. Since the human body already contains a built-in endogenous cannabinoid system, complete with cannabinoid receptors, inputting CBD from marijuana can help normalize the body's functional systems, including cell communication and proper immune function. The way CBDs work is that they bridge the gap of neurotransmission in the central nervous system, including in the brain, by providing a two-way system of communication that completes a positive "feedback loop," according to Dr. William Courtney, a medical marijuana expert and founder of Cannabis International. As opposed to a one-way transmission, which can promote chronic inflammation of healthy tissue, the unique two-way transmission system engaged by marijuana CBDs mimics the body's own natural two-way communications system. So individuals whose systems are compromised by autoimmune disorders, cellular dysfunction, chronic inflammation, cancer cells, and various other illnesses can derive a wide range of health-promoting benefits simply by consuming CBDs. And one of the best ways to obtain CBDs is to juice raw marijuana leaves and buds, according to Dr. Courtney, who currently runs a clinic in Luxembourg that provides raw cannabis medicinal services to patients in need. "CBD works on receptors, and as it turns out, we have cannabinoids in our bodies, endogenous cannabinoids, that turn out to be very effective at regulating immune functions, nerve functions, bone functions," says Dr. Ethan Russo, a Seattle, Wash.-area physician who is also a senior advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, a British drug company that is utilizing CBDs in a new marijuana mouth spray known as Sativex. "There's a tendency to discount claims when something appears to be good for everything, but there's a reason this is the case. The endogenous cannabinoid system acts as a modulator in fine-tuning a lot of these systems, and if something is deranged biochemically in a person's body, it may well be that a cannabinoid system can bring things back into balance." Be sure to check out these amazing videos from Cannabis International that explain more about how raw cannabis, and specifically the CBDs found inside the plant, work to promote health and reverse disease: As long as marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug with 'no currently accepted medical use,' most Americans will never realize its benefits While some U.S. states like California and Colorado are beginning to recognize and accept that marijuana has legitimate therapeutic value, the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with "no currently accepted medical use." And as long as it remains classified in this way, most Americans will never have the opportunity to experience the healing potential of this vital superfood. But Cannabis International and other groups are continuing to educate the public about why marijuana is a food essential, and how legalizing it could change the world. To learn more, be sure to visit: But Cannabis International and other groups are continuing to educate the public about why marijuana is a food essential, and how legalizing it could change the world. To learn more, be sure to visit: http://www.cannabisinternational.org/ Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Here are the Summary of the arguments THE DEA ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY, AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IN CONCLUDING THAT MARIJUANA DOES NOT HAVE A “CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICA USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES” QUALIFIED EXPERTS RECOGNIZE THAT MARIJUANA HAS MEDICAL USE THE DEA ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT MARIJUANA’S CHEMISTRY IS KNOWN AND REPRODUCIBLE THE DEA AND HHS ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO COMPARE MARIJUANA TO OTHER SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES THE DEA ERRONEOUSLY EQUATES US OF MARIJUANA WITH A “HIGH” POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE THE DEA AND HHS ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO COMPARE MARIJUANA TO OTHER SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES QUALIFIED EXPERTS RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEA ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT MARIJUANA’S CHEMISTRY IS KNOWN AND REPRODUCIBLE THE DEA AND HHS ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO COMPARE MARIJUANA TO OTHER SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES THE DEA ERRONEOUSLY EQUATES US OF MARIJUANA WITH A “HIGH” POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE THE DEA AND HHS ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO COMPARE MARIJUANA TO OTHER SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES RESPONDENTS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERS A HEARING AFTER STALLING ON THEIR DENIAL OF T HE RESCHEDULING PETITION FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/08/appeals-court-to-consider-theraputic-value-of-medical-marijuana/ http://safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ASA_v_DEA_Reply_Brief.pdf Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Great Show last night- we had the world renowned leading specialist in the human cannabinoid system Dr. William Courtney. If you want to learn about the health benefits of Raw Juicing the cannabis plant, this is the show you want to listen to. (Dr. Courtney and the Medical Cannabis Communities favorite Legislature Representative Callton will be speaking tonight Friday 10 12 12 at the Genesys Conference and Banquet Center, 801 Health Park Boulevard, Grand Blanc township, MI 48439). Also calling in was Stephanie Sherer, the executive director of ASA. A longtime activist in the medical cannabis community, she provided many details to the upcoming challenge filed by ASA against the Federal Governments schedule 1 classification of marijuana. A special thanks to our in studio staff and other callers who participated in this informative and exciting show: Jamie Lowell, Peanut Butter, Greg Palowski, Pernell, Q tipper, Rick Thompson, Chad Carr, Kevin Spitler, Charme Gholson. Planet Green Trees is sponsored by” the Michigan Medical Marihuana Association-.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org and Komorn Law-18006563557. The archive to this episode can be found here: http://www.blogtalkr...am-l-courtney-s Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Governor Snyder signed a bill yesterday that will impose a 25 year minimum for fourth time offenders who commit a "violent" crime and have a qualifying prior offense. The law can be found here: http://legislature.m...12-SNB-1109.htm STATE OF MICHIGAN 96TH LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 2012 Introduced by Senators Jones, Brandenburg, Pappageorge, Hildenbrand, Rocca and Schuitmaker ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 1109 AN ACT to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “An act to revise, consolidate, and codify the laws relating to criminal procedure and to define the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of courts, judges, and other officers of the court under the provisions of this act; to provide laws relative to the rights of persons accused of criminal offenses and ordinance violations; to provide for the arrest of persons charged with or suspected of criminal offenses and ordinance violations; to provide for bail of persons arrested for or accused of criminal offenses and ordinance violations; to provide for the examination of persons accused of criminal offenses; to regulate the procedure relative to grand juries, indictments, informations, and proceedings before trial; to provide for trials of persons complained of or indicted for criminal offenses and ordinance violations and to provide for the procedure in those trials; to provide for judgments and sentences of persons convicted of criminal offenses and ordinance violations; to establish a sentencing commission and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for procedure relating to new trials and appeals in criminal and ordinance violation cases; to provide a uniform system of probation throughout this state and the appointment of probation officers; to prescribe the powers, duties, and compensation of probation officers; to provide penalties for the violation of the duties of probation officers; to provide for procedure governing proceedings to prevent crime and proceedings for the discovery of crime; to provide for fees of officers, witnesses, and others in criminal and ordinance violation cases; to set forth miscellaneous provisions as to criminal procedure in certain cases; to provide penalties for the violation of certain provisions of this act; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act,” by amending section 12 of chapter IX (MCL 769.12), as amended by 2006 PA 655. The People of the State of Michigan enact: CHAPTER IX Sec. 12. (1) If a person has been convicted of any combination of 3 or more felonies or attempts to commit felonies, whether the convictions occurred in this state or would have been for felonies or attempts to commit felonies in this state if obtained in this state, and that person commits a subsequent felony within this state, the person shall be punished upon conviction of the subsequent felony and sentencing under section 13 of this chapter as follows: (a) If the subsequent felony is a serious crime or a conspiracy to commit a serious crime, and 1 or more of the prior felony convictions are listed prior felonies, the court shall sentence the person to imprisonment for not less than 25 years. Not more than 1 conviction arising out of the same transaction shall be considered a prior felony conviction for the purposes of this subsection only. (b) If the subsequent felony is punishable upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years or more or for life, the court, except as otherwise provided in this section or section 1 of chapter XI, may sentence the person to imprisonment for life or for a lesser term. © If the subsequent felony is punishable upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a maximum term that is less than 5 years, the court, except as otherwise provided in this section or section 1 of chapter XI, may sentence the person to imprisonment for a maximum term of not more than 15 years. (d) If the subsequent felony is a major controlled substance offense, the person shall be punished as provided by part 74 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401 to 333.7461. (2) If the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for any term of years under this section, the court shall fix the length of both the minimum and maximum sentence within any specified limits in terms of years or a fraction of a year, and the sentence so imposed shall be considered an indeterminate sentence. The court shall not fix a maximum sentence that is less than the maximum term for a first conviction. (3) A conviction shall not be used to enhance a sentence under this section if that conviction is used to enhance a sentence under a statute that prohibits use of the conviction for further enhancement under this section. (4) An offender sentenced under this section or section 10 or 11 of this chapter for an offense other than a major controlled substance offense is not eligible for parole until expiration of the following: (a) For a prisoner other than a prisoner subject to disciplinary time, the minimum term fixed by the sentencing judge at the time of sentence unless the sentencing judge or a successor gives written approval for parole at an earlier date authorized by law. (b) For a prisoner subject to disciplinary time, the minimum term fixed by the sentencing judge. (5) This section and sections 10 and 11 of this chapter are not in derogation of other provisions of law that permit or direct the imposition of a consecutive sentence for a subsequent felony. (6) As used in this section: (a) “Listed prior felony” means a violation or attempted violation of any of the following: (i) Section 602a(4) or (5) or 625(4) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.602a and 257.625. (ii) Article 7 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7101 to 333.7545, that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 4 years. (iii) Section 72, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 110a(2) or (3), 136b(2) or (3), 145n(1) or (2), 157b, 197c, 226, 227, 234a, 234b, 234c, 317, 321, 329, 349, 349a, 350, 397, 411h(2)(b), 411i, 479a(4) or (5), 520b, 520c, 520d, 520g, 529, 529a, or 530 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.72, 750.82, 750.83, 750.84, 750.85, 750.86, 750.87, 750.88, 750.89, 750.91, 750.110a, 750.136b, 750.145n, 750.157b, 750.197c, 750.226, 750.227, 750.234a, 750.234b, 750.234c, 750.317, 750.321, 750.329, 750.349, 750.349a, 750.350, 750.397, 750.411h, 750.411i, 750.479a, 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520g, 750.529, 750.529a, and 750.530. (iv) A second or subsequent violation or attempted violation of section 227b of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227b. (v) Section 2a of 1968 PA 302, MCL 752.542a. (b) “Prisoner subject to disciplinary time” means that term as defined in section 34 of 1893 PA 118, MCL 800.34. © “Serious crime” means an offense against a person in violation of section 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 317, 321, 349, 349a, 350, 397, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520g(1), 529, or 529a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.83, 750.84, 750.86, 750.88, 750.89, 750.317, 750.321, 750.349, 750.349a, 750.350, 750.397, 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520g, 750.529, and 750.529a. Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2012. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. Secretary of the Senate Clerk of the House of Representatives Approved Governor Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Simple as 1,2,3 - Will be the new policy for the MMMA forums So much ado has been made at our attempt to provide a reasonable policy for posting on the forums. Much debate has been had amongst the moderator staff and on the forums amongst our members. As is often the case and even more so on the Internet, communication and semantics are critical when trying to develop a consistent but clear policy regarding the Act that can be enforced easily and without issue. The unambiguous policy to date has created some confusion when its intent was just the opposite. Additionally and without merit many of the moderators have been under attack for attempting to enforce a policy that is designed only to protect patients from arrest, prosecution or penalty. The reference to Nazis is offensive and reflects an absolute lack of knowledge of history, common sense, and humanity. The comparison of anything the moderators do on this site to the devastation the Nazis did in world history is blatant ignorance. Let it be stated now, and made very clear that the MMMA does not believe that the proper interpretation of the law would prohibit any of the behavior that may fall into the so called ambiguous zone. The MMMA believes that the Act should be interpreted liberally, and with the sole purpose of protecting patients and caregivers. Further the MMMA does not believe that dispensaries, farmers markets, any registered caregiver transfers to any registered patient or patient to patient transfers are unlawful. In fact the MMMA believes and acknowledges that all of these acts and behaviors are critical and essential for the medical cannabis community to survive and flourish. Why then would the MMMA attempt to create a policy that purports to limit this behavior? The answer is simple, we are not! What are we trying to do then? The MMMA is simply trying to provide advice and direction for patients and caregivers to avoid arrest, and be forced to defend themselves in court. It is that simple. Perhaps as simple as 1, 2, 3. Simple as 1, 2, 3 will be the new policy for the MMMA forums. The behavior of patients and caregivers will be and should be assessed by a ranking of risk and liability scored by Level 1 risk, Level 2 risk, and Level 3 risk. Ask yourself the following question: is there a consistent and unequivocal interpretation of the behavior by patients and caregivers that LEO would agree is lawful? Said another way, would the behavior in question result in an arrest if you asked all LEO statewide? The focus here is not what the MMMA wants; the focus here is not what the MMMA believes the proper interpretation of the act should be. The focus here is not what LEO in your local community says is lawful. Instead the operative question is how do all Leo state wide interpret the act and what do they believe is unlawful behavior? Is there a consistent and unequivocal interpretation of the behavior by patients and caregivers that LEO would agree is lawful? If the answer is yes you are in a Level 1 Risk category and should be protected against arrest, prosecution, or any penalty. All other behavior outside of this definition falls into Level 2 and 3 risk categories. Level 2 and 3 behavior is not unlawful per se, but is behavior that may subject you to a higher risk or liability of arrest. The key here is that the MMMA is not calling this behavior unlawful. The Level 2 and 3 behavior however is behavior which may not without equivocation protect you from arrest, prosecution, or any penalty, although the MMMA believes it should. Those seeking information and guidance from our site need to know that your protections do not include immunity from arrest. Instead your protections will come via the affirmative defense set out in section 8 of the Act. For those that are not aware, the Act is set up with 2 different levels of protection. There is a section 4 protection which is immunity from arrest prosecution or any penalty. Immunity means that after interacting with LEO, you are released without incident, no arrest takes place, medicine, money, and property is not confiscated. You are not handed an "intent to forfeit" document that requires you to post bond for your property. Immunity means you go home; you kiss your significant other on the lips when you get home and you thank the stars above that you are sleeping in your own bed instead of the concrete floor of the local county jail. Then there is a section 8 protection, which is an affirmative defense. These protections are as real and as important as the protections of section 4, but they occur in a completely different environment that is important to distinguish. The section 8 affirmative defense will take place in Court, before a Judge at an evidentiary hearing (first). This game will start with you waking up from the concrete floor of the county jail. It will include eating bologna sandwiches for breakfast, the mustard jar will have something that looks like an infection growing on of the top. It will have been at least 24 hours since you spoke to your family (72 hours is the maximum), and the return to your normal life will not yet begin until you post bond, get your car out of the lot, which will cost you at least $1000. Then you will have approximately 15 days to post bond on the forfeiture case. This amount is usually 10% of the total value of the property seized. Consider the forfeiture matter a second case, one that will put the burden on you to establish that the items sought to be forfeited were acquired through lawfully earned funds. Lawfully earned funds could be a definition that is in controversy in your forfeiture case. After the arraignment in your criminal case, usually done by video while you remain in the jail cell, you will be on bond. The conditions will likely include no use of medical cannabis while on bond. You will have to hire an attorney or rely upon the experience of the local court appointed attorney's knowledge of the MMMA. After many months of your case pending and when you find yourself at your evidentiary hearing for your section 8 defense much ado will be made about your bona fide relationship with your certifying doctor. "Is my doctor willing to come to court?" is a good question to ask yourself when engaging in Level 2 and 3 behaviors. Remember if your doctor is not your treating physician, in some jurisdictions you may fail to establish the first prong of section 8. Although the MMMA believes this is wrong, this is how it has played out in many jurisdictions. Awareness of these distinctions is all that is being sought by the MMMA. The point here is that the different levels of protection between section 4 and section 8 are significant; with the most important factor being one protects you from arrest (Section 4) while the other (Section 8) protects you from conviction in court. The previous policy and guidance provided on the forums for our members has merely embraced a policy to avoid arrest, or Level 1 risk behavior. Moving forward the key factor that will and should be expressed will be to point out and make known what behavior falls into the category that is a Level 1 risk that protects you from arrest, prosecution and any penalty versus what behavior is a Level 2 or 3 risk that offers its protections pursuant to section 8 in court. No one at the MMMA wants to be responsible for advising behavior that results in a patient or caregiver being arrested. Likewise no one at the MMMA believes patients or caregivers should be arrested. But we are living in a time when the Peoples' law has yet to be implemented as it was intended. There remain many different interpretations throughout the state that are not consistent or absolutely clear, to the extent that all LEO would agree. For example see the twisted interpretation of Court of Appeals cases from the "Legal Updates at the Michigan State Police," website regarding medical marihuana.** Please note that the MMMA disagrees with these interpretations, but would be acting neglectful if we did not point out these simple facts for our community. We are not taking responsibility for how LEO currently thinks, we disagree with it and have been and will continue to try to change how they think. In the meantime, we are simply reporting it for the benefit and protection of the medical cannabis community. ** http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._99_390580_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._96_382986_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._91_370314_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._89_362839_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._78_276204_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._69_259822_7.pdf Soon a day will come when we can all laugh about this but in the interim our community and those that post on the MMMA forums and our membership needs to be made aware and be informed. More importantly they need to act with knowledge, caution, and understanding the various levels of risk associated with the behavior they choose to engage in. With that being said what once was called the unambiguous compliance policy, or behavior that would conform to those principals has been morphed into what will now be described as Level 1 risk behavior. Strict compliance with section 4 of the act is what will be advised to all who care to listen, as the type of behavior that has the lowest degree of risk of arrest. Everything else is Level 2 or 3 risk. That is to say if an encounter with law enforcement occurs the level of risk of being arrested, and being forced to defend yourself in court is higher. Is Level 2 and 3 risk behavior lawful? I personally think so, but who cares what I think. The analysis here is what we know of how LEO sees it collectively throughout the state. It may not be that way in your jurisdiction and it may be that way for a very good reason, but until all LEO acknowledge it as so, that behavior is just simply of higher risk. Please notice that nowhere in any of this analysis is the word unlawful or illegal used we are simply pointing out that there may be a higher risk of a negative outcome. So please understand, that no one at the MMMA wants to impede the success of the medical cannabis community growing and thriving, we just want those that care to listen to understand the difference of how the Act is being interpreted by LEO,the courts, and the impact it is having on patients and caregivers. Knowledge of these distinctions will make for a better understanding of how the lines have been drawn temporarily by the courts and law enforcement, and give our community proper notice of the risks that they may be taking when engaging in the medical use of cannabis. In closing I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion created earlier, and we all look forward to your input and an educated discussion which evolves this community. Thank you for your support and understanding. Michael Komorn President of the MMMA

Judge Sentenced In Marijuana Case http://www.dnronline..._marijuana_case Judge Sentenced In Marijuana Case ________________________________________ Posted: September 10, 2012 By KAITLIN MAYHEW ________________________________________ Correction (3:45 p.m.): The original version of this story incorrectly stated that Judge Sheridan ordered Allamong to serve his sentence in Warren County. Sheridan said that Allamong could serve the time elsewhere if the sherrif's office deems it appropriate. WOODSTOCK — A former substitute Shenandoah County judge, accused of growing marijuana plants on his property, pleaded guilty this morning in the county's circuit court. James H. Allamong Jr. accepted a plea agreement that amended the charges against him. He was charged with felony possession with intent to distribute, and felony manufacturing of marijuana. He was convicted of two misdemeanors: possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. Retired Arlington County Judge Paul Sheridan sentenced Allamong to 30 days in jail beginning Oct. 5 and to pay a $500 fine. The sentence includes 12 months suspended jail time, two years probation and 200 community service hours. All judges in the 26th Judicial District recused themselves from the case. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert was the prosecutor. Allamong’s attorney, N. Randolph Bryant, said officials with the Shenandoah County Sheriff's Office did not want his client to serve his sentence in the county. Sheridan said that Allamong could serve the time elsewhere if the sherrif's office deems it appropriate. Allamong, who is still practicing law in Shenandoah County, was arrested on Oct. 5, 2011, after police discovered 41 marijuana plants growing on his property. They discovered the plants while investigating a fire at an outbuilding near his home.

A look at what it means to regulate just like alcohol http://www.kplu.org/post/marijuana-notes-everyone-consuming-or-just-few-0?nopop=1 Marijuana Notes: Is everyone 'consuming' or just a few? Washington's marijuana legalization initiative (I-502) - A look at what it means to regulate just like alcohol. The details of growing and selling marijuana through new state-licensed businesses. The definitions of these new businesses were interesting, just by themselves: "Marijuana processor" means a person licensed by the state liquor control board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products. The "pot processor" would package and label useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets and sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers. "Marijuana producer" means a person licensed by the state liquor control board to produce and sell marijuana at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. "Marijuana-infused products" means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use. The term "marijuana-infused products" does not include useable marijuana. "Marijuana retailer" means a person licensed by the state liquor control board to sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products in a retail outlet. KPLU reporters are looking into Washington's marijuana legalization initiative (I-502) to produce a series of stories that will separate facts from rumors and to learn exactly what would change if it’s approved. And on this page, we’re sharing some of the interesting facts as we learn them along the way. Sept. 21: Sometimes, it can seem like marijuana is everywhere. We were wondering: How many cannabis-smokers and consumers are there currently in Washington? It turns out, we have official estimates. The Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) needed an estimate in order to fulfill its duty re. Initiative-502, which would legalize marijuana. They have to figure out the financial impact of any initiative. They assume from federal surveys that there are nearly 363,000 “users” currently in Washington. “Using the United States Department of Health and Human Service, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2008-2009 data for Washington, prevalence of use was 17.18% for persons eighteen to twenty-five years of age and 5.57% for twenty-six years of age and older. Assuming Washington’s use of marijuana is increasing at the same rate as national use, estimated prevalence of use in CY 13 is 18.4% for persons eighteen to twenty-five years of age and 6.1% for twenty-six years of age and older. Applying those percentages to Washington’s estimated population in CY 2013, our assumption is an estimated 363,000 Washington users.” [Note: CY = calendar year] (p.26) This seems to be the closest thing to a reliable estimate. But many researchers say it underestimates the number by 20-40%. That means there could be as many as 508,000 users. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Author presents 150 beneficial and healthful uses of marijuana http://www.digitaljo...l.com/pr/896120 VANCOUVER, B.C. (PRWEB) September 22, 2012 “Living happier, healthier and longer lives are ultimate rewards with consuming natural marijuana plant components,” explains Joseph W. Jacob. It is with this sentiment he pens his new book “Medical Uses of Marijuana” (published by Trafford Publishing). Jacob describes more than 150 beneficial and healthful uses of marijuana plants, from the dawn of recorded history until today. “Conversely, drinking alcohol produces more than 150 destructive medical harms to human bodies,” he observes. “It’s not democratically fair to encourage harmful food products for people to consume, while legally prohibiting the public from consuming a healthful and nutritional product.” Thoroughly researched and documented, “Medical Uses of Marijuana” also discusses discriminatory government laws allowing public ingestion of alcohol, while prohibiting helpful uses of marihuana, and the process by which marijuana uses became illegal due to taxation laws. “Medical Uses of Marijuana” seeks to provide the truth about the loss of beneficial public uses of what Jacob describes is a natural and helpful plant. About the Author Joseph W. Jacob attended Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, double-majoring in Economics and Commerce. Afterwards, he graduated from the University of Victoria, a sister school of the Harvard School of Public Administration, earning a Master’s Degree in Public Administration. After graduation, Jacob worked as an analyst, researcher and ergonomic specialist with the British Columbia Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for 15 years. This is his third book. Trafford Publishing, an Author Solutions, Inc. author services imprint, was the first publisher in the world to offer an “on-demand publishing service,” and has led the independent publishing revolution since its establishment in 1995. Trafford was also one of the earliest publishers to utilize the Internet for selling books. More than 10,000 authors from over 120 countries have utilized Trafford’s experience for self publishing their books. For more information about Trafford Publishing, or to publish your book today, call 1-888-232-4444 or visit trafford.com. ### Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com...rweb9928892.htm Read more: http://www.digitaljo...0#ixzz27C4I1r5x Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Sixth Circuit Rules A Private Employer Can Fire You For Using Medical Marijuana http://www.ca6.uscou...12a0343p-06.pdf RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0343p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ JOSEPH CASIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.;WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.; and TROY ESTILL, Defendants-Appellees, X---- >,--- N No. 11-1227 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:10-cv-781—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge. Argued: April 18, 2012 Decided and Filed: September 19, 2012 Before: SUHRHEINRICH, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Scott Michelman, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Santa Cruz, California, for Appellant. Susan M. Zoeller, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Scott Michelman, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Santa Cruz, California, Daniel S. Korobkin, Michael J. Steinberg, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN, Detroit, Michigan, Daniel W. Grow, TARGOWSKI & GROW, PLLC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellant. Susan M. Zoeller, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Michael P. Palmer, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP, South Bend, Indiana, for Appellees. CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 13–15), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. 1 No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this wrongful discharge action, Plaintiff Joseph Casias, a former Wal-Mart employee, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remand and the dismissal for failure to state a claim following his termination for failing a drug test in violation of Defendants’ drug testing policy. Because we find no reasonable basis to conclude that the non-diverse Defendant Troy Estill (“Estill”) would be liable and because we hold that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) does not regulate private employment, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. DISCUSSION I. The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act In 2008, Michigan passed the MMMA, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26421 et seq., to provide protections for the medical use of marijuana. The Act defines the term “medical use” to include “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.” Id. § 333.26423(e). Although the Act broadly defines a “debilitating medical condition,” only a “qualifying patient” or “primary caregiver” who is issued a “registry identification card” by the Michigan Department of Community Health are permitted to administer or use medical marijuana. Id. §§ 333.26423(h), (g), (i). Thus any “qualifying patient” or “primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty of any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business.” Id. §§ 333.26424(a),(b). No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 3 II. Plaintiff’s termination from Wal-Mart Plaintiff was an employee of Wal-Mart’s Battle Creek, Michigan store from November 1, 2004 until November 24, 2009, when Plaintiff was terminated from Wal- Mart after he tested positive for marijuana, in violation of the company’s drug use policy. Plaintiff was diagnosed with sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor at the age of 17. During his employment at Wal-Mart, Plaintiff endured ongoing pain in his head and neck. Although his oncologist prescribed pain relief medication, Plaintiff continued to experience constant pain as well as other side effects of his medication. After Michigan passed the MMMA in 2008, Plaintiff’s oncologist recommended that he try marijuana to treat his medical condition. The Michigan Department of Community Health issued Plaintiff a registry card on June 15, 2009, and, in accordance with state law, he began using marijuana for pain management purposes. Plaintiff stated that the drug reduced his level of pain and also relieved some of the side effects from his other pain medication. Plaintiff maintains that he complied with the state laws and never used marijuana while at work; nor did he come to work under the influence. Instead, Plaintiff used his other prescription medication during the workday and only used the marijuana once he returned home from work. In November 2009, Plaintiff injured himself at work by twisting his knee the wrong way while pushing a cart. Plaintiff contends that he was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of his accident. Although Plaintiff came to work the next day, he had trouble walking and was driven to the emergency room by a Wal-Mart manager to receive treatment. Since Plaintiff was injured on the job, he was administered a standard drug test at the hospital in accordance with Wal-Mart’s drug use policy for employees. Prior to his drug test, Plaintiff showed his registry card to the testing staff to indicate that he was a qualifying patient for medical marijuana under Michigan law. Plaintiff then underwent his drug test, wherein his urine was tested for drugs. One week later, Defendant notified Plaintiff that he tested positive for marijuana. Plaintiff immediately met with his shift manager to explain the positive drug test. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 4 Plaintiff showed the manager his registry card and also stated that he never smoked marijuana while at work or came to work under the influence of the drug. Plaintiff explained that the positive drug test resulted from his previous ingestion of marijuana within days of his injury in order to treat his medical condition. The shift manager made a photocopy of Plaintiff’s registry card. The following week, Wal-Mart’s corporate office directed the store manager, Defendant Troy Estill, to fire Plaintiff due to the failed drug test, which was in violation of the company’s drug use policy. Wal-Mart did not honor Plaintiff’s medical marijuana card. Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart and Estill in state court for wrongful discharge and violation of the MMMA, arguing that the statute prevents a business from engaging in disciplinary action against a card holder who is a qualifying patient. Defendants thereafter removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a), and moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court on the basis that Defendant Estill is a Michigan citizen, as is Plaintiff, and was properly joined, therefore eliminating diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff also opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The district court held that Estill was fraudulently joined and could not be held liable under Michigan law because he did not make the decision to terminate Plaintiff, nor did he have the authority to fire Plaintiff. Therefore, the district court determined that Estill’s citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the district court held that the MMMA does not protect Plaintiff’s right to bring a wrongful termination action because the MMMA does not regulate private employment. Plaintiff now appeals. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Remand We review a district court’s ruling on the issue of jurisdiction de novo, but the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Coyne v. American Tobacco No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 5 Co., 183 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 1999). “When a non-diverse party has been joined as a defendant, then in the absence of a substantial federal question the removing defendant may avoid remand only by demonstrating that the non-diverse party was fraudulently joined.” Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Fraudulent joinder is “a judicially created doctrine that provides an exception to the requirement of complete diversity.” Coyne, 183 F.3d at 493 (quoting Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original)). A defendant is fraudulently joined if it is “clear that there can be no recovery under the law of the state on the cause alleged or on the facts in view of the law . . . ” Alexander v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940, 949 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The relevant inquiry is whether there is “a colorable basis for predicting that a plaintiff may recover against [a defendant].” Coyne, 183 F.3d at 493. “The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating fraudulent joinder.” Alexander, 13 F.3d at 949 (citation omitted). When deciding a motion to remand, including fraudulent joinder allegations, we apply a test similar to, but more lenient than, the analysis applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Walker v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 443 Fed. App’x 946, 952–54 (6th Cir. 2011). As appropriate, we may “pierce the pleading” and consider summary judgment evidence, such as affidavits presented by the parties. Id. The court may look to material outside the pleadings for the limited purpose of determining whether there are “undisputed facts that negate the claim.” Id. at 955–56. Plaintiff argues that the district court improperly asserted diversity jurisdiction because Defendant Estill, a Michigan citizen, was a proper defendant in this case. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Estill participated in the tortious conduct alleged by Plaintiff by firing him from his position at Wal-Mart, and therefore was personally liable and properly joined in this action. In response, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to establish a colorable claim because Defendant Estill had no involvement in Plaintiff’s termination. Defendants further argue that, under Michigan law, corporate agents cannot be liable for a wrongful discharge action. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 6 In dismissing Plaintiff’s motion to remand on the grounds of fraudulent joinder, the district court concluded that personal liability did not attach to Defendant Estill. In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on federal and state cases that discuss employee liability. See, e.g.,Freeman v. Unisys Corp., 870 F. Supp. 169, 173 (E.D. Mich. 1994); Champion v. Nationwide Security, Inc., 205 Mich. App. 263, 266 (1994), rev’d on other grounds, 450 Mich. 702 (1996); Urbanski v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 211223, 2000 WL 33421411, at * 3 (Mich. Ct. App. May 2, 2000); Bush v. Hayes, 282 N.W. 239, 240–41 (Mich. 1938); and Allen v. Morris Bldg. Co., 103 N.W. 2d 491, 493 (Mich. 1960). The district court also relied on a number of undisputed facts, including: [That] Wal-Mart’s corporate office in Arkansas, not Mr. Estill, made the decision to terminate Mr. Casias. In fact, Wal-Mart employed a specific drug screening department at its corporate headquarters for precisely this type of situation. Neither Mr. Estill nor any other individual store manager had the authority or the discretion to vary from the decisions made by Wal-Mart’s Drug Screening department in Arkansas. Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914, 916 (W.D. Mich. 2011). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the record is void of any evidence that would support a conclusion that Defendant Estill intended to cause an adverse action against Plaintiff or was a causal factor in the discharge of Plaintiff. Defendant Estill’s role was to simply communicate the decision. On this basis, we decline to adopt Plaintiff’s argument which, by extension, could make any individual who participates in the “communication” of a corporate decision a proper defendant in a cause of action. We recognize that our holding is in some tension with tort law precedent. Under the traditional doctrine of proximate cause, a tortfeasor is sometimes, but not always, liable when he intends to cause an adverse action, Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011), or when he provides significant input into the ultimate employment decision. Chattman v. Toho Tenax America, Inc., 686 F.3d, 339, 351 (6th Cir. 2012). Michigan courts have held that, “a corporate employee or official is personally liable for all tortious or criminal acts in which he participates, regardless of whether he was acting on his own behalf or on behalf of the corporation.” Att’y Gen. v. Ankersen, 385 N.W. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 7 2d 658, 673 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); see Warren Tool Co. v. Stephenson, 161 N.W. 2d 133, 148 (Mich. 1968) (applying Michigan tort law and holding that “the agents and officers of a corporation are liable for torts which they personally commit, even though in doing so they act for the corporation, and even though the corporation is also liable for the tort.”) (citations omitted). There is, however, an absence of guidance from Michigan courts on the issue of a corporate employee’s personal liability and the required level of individual participation necessary to establish a common-law wrongful termination action. We therefore consider Defendant Estill’s liability in a wrongful termination suit in the context of other Michigan laws. Under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws. § 37.2101 et seq., a supervisor can be personally liable as an employer’s agent for discriminatory employment actions if he or she “is responsible for making personnel decisions.” Urbanski, No. 211223, 2000 WL 33421411, at * 3 (citing Jenkins v. Se. Mich. Chapter, Am. Red Cross, 369 N.W. 2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)). Similarly, in the context of conversion cases, personal liability attaches when a Defendant “actively participates” in the conversion. See Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Delcamp Truck Ctr., Inc., 444 N.W.2d 210, 213 (1989) (“When conversion is committed by a corporation, the agents and officers of the corporation may also be found personally liable for their active participation in the tort, even though they do not personally benefit thereby.” (citations omitted)); Trail Clinic, P.C. v. Bloch, 319 N.W. 2d 638, 642 (1982) (“This Court has held that where a defendant acts on his own behalf or as an officer or agent of a corporation he is personally liable for the torts in which he actively participated.” (citations omitted)). Thus, Michigan courts recognize limitations on the ability to attach personal liability to corporate actors. Defendant Estill’s actions fall squarely within those limitations. In this case, Defendant Estill was not a participant in the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and merely communicated the corporate decision to Plaintiff. His mere acquiescence to the command from Wal-Mart’s corporate office to communicate Plaintiff’s termination does not render him subject to personal liability. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 8 Therefore, we find that the district court appropriately held that Defendant Estill’s limited involvement in Plaintiff’s discharge did not subject him to liability. The district court did not err in its conclusion that the state court complaint failed to state a plausible claim against Defendant Estill. II. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff next claims that the plain language and policy of the MMMA protects patients against disciplinary action in a private employment setting for using marijuana in accordance with Michigan law. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Vibo Corp. Inc. v. Conway, 669 F.3d 675, 683 (6th Cir. 2012). In order to entitle the plaintiff to relief, the complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations” but should identify “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A. Statutory Interpretation According to the MMMA, A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act . . . . Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(a). The parties’ dispute focuses on the use of the word “business” and whether the word simply modifies the words “licensing board or bureau,” or in the alternative, whether “business” should be read independently from “licensing board or bureau.” No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 9 Under Michigan law, courts interpreting statutes “must review the entire law itself in order to arrive at the legislative intent and provide an harmonious whole. If the intent is evident from this comprehensive review of the statute, [then the] inquiry ends and [the court] employ the plain intent.” Grand Traverse Cnty. v. State, 538 N.W. 2d 1, 4 (Mich. 1995) (citation omitted). When the “language used is clear and the meaning of the words chosen is unambiguous, a common-sense reading of the provision will suffice, and no interpretation is necessary.” People v. Lee, 526 N.W. 2d 882, 885 (Mich. 1994) (quoting Karl v. Bryant Air Conditioning, 331 N.W.2d 456 (1982)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Only if the “statute is of doubtful meaning or ambiguous, is the ‘door . . . open to a judicial determination of the legislative intent.”’ Id. (quoting Knapp v. Palmer, 37 N.W. 2d 679, 681 (1949)). The district court concluded that “the MMMA does not regulate private employment; [r]ather the Act provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution or other adverse action by the state.” Casias, 764 F. Supp. 2d. at 922–23 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Specifically, the court concluded that the “MMMA contains no language stating that it repeals the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan or that it otherwise limits the range of allowable private decisions by Michigan businesses.” Id. (emphasis in original). Moreover, the district court found that the word “business” does not govern private employment actions. Id. We agree with the district court and find that the MMMA does not impose restrictions on private employers, such as Wal-Mart. Where as here, the “statute does not define one of its terms[,] it is customary to look to the dictionary for a definition” and be mindful that “undefined words are given meaning as understood in common language, taking into consideration the text and subject-matter relative to which they are employed.” Lee, 526 N.W.2d at 885 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also West Town Line Assocs., LLC v. Mack & Meldrum Assocs., LLC, 2010 WL 785938 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (finding that the dictionary definition of the word “business” meant a “commercial enterprise carried on and for profit,” and “commercial, industrial, or professional dealings” or “an affair or matter”). Plaintiff’s interpretation No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 10 is entirely inconsistent with state law precedent, which requires us to “interpret the words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Manuel v. Gill, 753 N.W. 2d 48, 56 (Mich. 2008); G.C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co., 662 N.W. 2d 710, 714 (2003) (“It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.”) (citations omitted). Based on a plain reading of the statute, the term “business” is not a stand-alone term as Plaintiff alleges, but rather the word “business” describes or qualifies the type of “licensing board or bureau.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(a). Read in context, and taking into consideration the natural placement of words and phrases in relation to one another, and the proximity of the words used to describe the kind of licensing board or bureau referred to by the statute, it is clear that the statute uses the word “business” to refer to a “business” licensing board or bureau, just as it refers to an “occupational” or “professional” licensing board or bureau. The statute is simply asserting that a “qualifying patient” is not to be penalized or disciplined by a “business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau” for his medical use of marijuana. Plaintiff also argues that the plain language of the statute somehow regulates private employment relationships, restricting the ability of a private employer to discipline an employee for drug use where the employee’s use of marijuana is authorized by the state. We find, however, that the statute never expressly refers to employment, nor does it require or imply the inclusion of private employment in its discussion of occupational or professional licensing boards. The statutory language of the MMMA does not support Plaintiff’s interpretation that the statute provides protection against disciplinary actions by a business, inasmuch as the statute fails to regulate private employment actions. We also note that other courts have found that their similar state medical marijuana laws do not regulate private employment actions. See Johnson v. Columbia Falls Aluminum Co., 350 Mont. 562, 2009 WL 865308, at *2 (Mont. 2009) (“The [Medical Marijuana Act] MMA specifically provides that it cannot be construed to No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 11 require employers ‘to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.”’) (quoting MCA § 50-46-205(2)(b)); Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt., LLC, 216 P.3d 1055 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (“t is unlikely that voters intended to create such a sweeping change to current employment practices [under the Medical Use of Marijuana Act].”); Ross v. Ragingwire Telecomms., Inc., 174 P.3d 200, 203 (Cal. 2008) (“Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act [California’s medical marijuana law] suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees.”) Thus, in addition to being unpersuasive on its face, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the MMMA, which would proscribe employer terminations of qualified medical marijuana users, is in direct conflict with other states which have passed similar legislation. B. Public Policy Interpretation For similar reasons, we dismiss Plaintiff’s argument that Plaintiff’s discharge was contrary to public policy. The district court held that the MMMA did not regulate private employment but that the statute could potentially provide a defense to criminal prosecution or any other adverse action by the state. The district court concluded, therefore, that private employees are not protected from disciplinary action as a result of their use of medical marijuana, nor are private employers required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace. In rendering its decision, the district court explained that Michigan voters could not have intended such consequences and that accepting Plaintiff’s argument would create a new category of protected employees, which would “mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan.” Casias, 764 F.Supp. 2d at 922. We agree with the district court that accepting Plaintiff’s public policy interpretation could potentially prohibit any Michigan business from issuing any disciplinary action against a qualifying patient who uses marijuana in accordance with the Act. Such a broad extension of Michigan law would be at odds with the reasonable expectation that such a far-reaching revision of Michigan law would be expressly enacted. Such a broad extension would also run counter to other Michigan statutes that No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 12 1We need not address the issue of whether federal law preempts the MMMA based on our finding that the MMMA does not regulate private employment. clearly and expressly impose duties on private employers when the duties imposed fundamentally affect the employment relationship. See, e.g., Michigan Elliott-Civil Rights Act of 1976, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1) (“An employers shall not . . . discriminate against an individual with respect to employment . . . ”); Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act of 1976, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1102(1) (“[A]n employer shall not . . . discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual . . . because of a disability . . . ”); and Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 4008.1002 (“This act shall apply to all places of employment in the state . . . . ”). The MMMA does not include any such language nor does it confer this responsibility upon private employers. We therefore reject Plaintiff’s policy argument.1 CONCLUSION For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 13 _____________ DISSENT _____________ KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Plaintiff Joseph Casias lives in Michigan. Defendant Troy Estill lives in Michigan. The parties in this case are not diverse. In determining that the district court nonetheless had diversity-based subject-matter jurisdiction over this state-law case on the basis of fraudulent joinder, the majority improperly answers an unsettled question of Michigan law, contrary to our caselaw directing us to resolve ambiguities in state law in favor of remand. Moreover, the majority reaches out to answer this first unsettled question of Michigan law in order to address a second unsettled question of Michigan law. In so doing, we overstep our bounds as a federal court, and I respectfully dissent. A defendant is fraudulently joined, and the court may disregard his citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, only if “‘it be clear that there can be no recovery under the law of the state on the cause alleged or on the facts in view of the law.’” Alexander v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940, 949 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1968)). The question is whether “‘there is arguably a reasonable basis for predicting’” that the allegedly fraudulently joined defendant could be liable. Id. (quoting Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, 391 F.2d at 176); see also Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 1999) (no fraudulent joinder “if there is a colorable basis for predicting that a plaintiff may recover against non-diverse defendants”). Because cases that are in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction involve questions of state law, the values of federalism and comity instruct that a federal court “must resolve ‘all disputed questions of fact and ambiguities in the controlling . . . state law in favor of the non removing party.’” Coyne, 183 F.3d at 493 (quoting Alexander, 13 F.3d at 949). The question of whether “‘there is arguably a reasonable basis for predicting’” that a defendant could be liable is not the same as whether such a claim would succeed. Alexander, 13 F.3d at 949 (citation omitted). No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 14 1The majority cites two cases for the proposition that “Michigan courts recognize limitations on the ability to attach personal liability to corporate actors.” Interestingly, both cases held that the actor involved was personally liable. See Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Delcamp Truck Ctr., Inc., 444 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989); Trail Clinic, P.C. v. Bloch, 319 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). Here, it is far from clear that there is no “reasonable basis for predicting” that Estill could be liable for wrongful termination under Michigan law. Under Michigan law, “a corporate employee or official is personally liable for all tortious or criminal acts in which he participates, regardless of whether he was acting on his own behalf or on behalf of the corporation.” Att’y Gen. v. Ankersen, 385 N.W.2d 658, 673 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). Michigan courts have simply not addressed the issue of a corporate employee’s personal liability in the context of a common-law wrongful-termination claim and thus have not ruled on how such an employee “participates” in a wrongful termination.1 In the context of a fraudulent-joinder ruling, federal courts are not free to predict how a state court would rule on an unsettled issue of state law; if the state law is unclear as to whether a non-diverse defendant could face liability, the federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction and must remand the case. Even applying the standard for agency liability under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), the issue of Estill’s liability under the circumstances in this case is not clear. Michigan courts have held that “a supervisor need not have complete authority over hiring, firing, promoting or disciplining” to be personally liable as an employer’s agent for discriminatory-employment actions under the ELCRA. Urbanski v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 211223, 2000 WL 33421411, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. May 2, 2000). Estill is the store manager, which certainly suggests some degree of control over personnel decisions; more importantly for present purposes, Wal-Mart has not shown that Estill lacked such control. Indeed, Estill clearly had authority to terminate Casias, because he was the person who actually fired Casias. See R. 1-3 (Estill Decl. at 4) (Page ID #37) (“I was directed . . . to terminate Plaintiff’s employment for failing his drug test.”). Accordingly, Estill is not like the human resources assistant in Urbanski who neither made nor had the authority to make the challenged termination decision. See 2000 WL 33421411, at *4. No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 15 2Federal district courts in Michigan are divided on whether a supervisor’s “informational input” can subject him to liability for an unlawful employment action, compare Young v. Bailey Corp., 913 F. Supp. 547, 551 (E.D. Mich. 1996) (liability), with Yanakeff v. Signature XV, 822 F. Supp. 1264, 1266 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (no liability), and the Michigan courts have not addressed the issue. 3The district court repeatedly asserts that Estill simply communicated Wal-Mart’s termination decision to Casias, but this is not an established fact. As noted above, Estill’s own declaration states that Wal-Mart “directed [Estill] to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.” R. 1-3 (Estill Decl. at 4) (Page ID #37). Similarly, Estill is not akin to the “receptionist or secretary who typed the termination letter” in the district court’s hypothetical. Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914, 920 (W.D. Mich. 2011). A supervisor who fires an employee at the direction of upper management is different from a co-worker who informs the employee of the decision or a secretary who types the termination letter. At the least, Michigan courts have not ruled on whether this distinction is relevant for purposes of establishing liability, and the conclusion that it is relevant is reasonable. Ultimately, too many questions remain unanswered regarding Estill’s role in Casias’s termination to conclude that no reasonable possibility exists that Estill could be liable as a participant in the termination. We do not know if Estill informed Wal- Mart of the drug test results or if Estill was told of the results at the same time he was told to fire Casias.2 We do not know if Estill took any action pursuant to Wal-Mart’s directive to fire Casias other than telling Casias that he was fired; we do not know, for example, whether Estill removed Casias from the payroll (or instructed human resources to do so) or performed other tasks implementing the termination decision.3 These are questions that could be answered in the course of discovery. It is not clear whether Casias could prove that Estill participated in the allegedly unlawful conduct, but the claim is sufficiently “colorable” to defeat an accusation of fraudulent joinder and to mandate remand to state court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Planet Green Trees episode 112 –Juicing Raw Cannabis September 20 2012 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Special Guests: Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska Brad Forrester Cheboygan Norml We will be discussing the benefits of juicing raw cannabis. Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority has been studying the raw juice, and Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint and others will discuss their experiences and feedback from the patients juicing raw cannabis . Also tonight Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska will discuss his efforts to expose his county's Sherriff for not properly taking his oath of office, and Brad Forrester will give us a re-cap on yesterday's rally in Lansing. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of KomornLaw 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson reporting on news events. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557-Green Thumb Garden Center 2484391851. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Findings inspire medical pot researcher Victoria Colliver Published 5:27 p.m., Tuesday, September 18, 2012 http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Findings-inspire-medical-pot-researcher-3875582.php The therapeutic uses of cannabis have long been a focus of research for Dr. Donald Abrams, UCSF professor and chief of the hematology-oncology division at San Francisco General Hospital. Abrams wrote a study last year on the combination of cannabinoids - the main ingredient in cannabis or medical marijuana - and pain drugs. Abrams talks about the preclinical work by the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute and other research on cancer and cannabis, 16 years after California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Q: Is it difficult, due to stigma or the political climate, to do research on the therapeutic benefits of cannabis? A: The only way you can get cannabis to do research in this county is through the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, and it's clear the congressional mandate is to study the substance for abuse rather than for treatment. It started in 1997 in HIV research when we studied whether it was safe to inhale cannabis while on protease inhibitors. The next study was through the UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in 1999, when the state budget surplus allowed the state to devote $3 million for three years of studies to demonstrate whether cannabis had medical use. The funding enabled a number of studies and NIDA supplied the cannabis, but that money ran out. If this plant were discovered in the Amazon today, scientists would be falling all over each other to be the first to bring it to market. But it has a stigma, and it's being attacked by our government as part of the war on drugs. Q: What kind of research are you doing now? A: We did a study in patients with HIV who had damage to their nerves. We showed inhaling cannabis was better than inhaling a cannabis placebo for relieving those symptoms and that vaporization of cannabis was equivalent to smoking. The last study we did, which was again funded by NIDA, was looking to see if it was safe to combine cannabis with opiates - sustained-release morphine and sustained-release oxycodone. It was a small study ... but we did note patients had increased relief of pain when cannabinoids were added to the opiates. Q: What do you think of the research being done on triple-negative breast cancer cells at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute? A: The data is promising and it's elegant, but the true test is now really going to be to do some clinical trials in the patient population that (the researchers) think is correct to study at this time, which is patients with triple negative breast cancer. But at this time I would not tell my triple-negative patients to go out and look at taking high cannabidiol-containing cannabis products. We need to do the research. What happens in the test tube or even in animal models does not necessarily predict what happens in people. People are much more complex. Q: What do you think about the University of Southern California study released last week that found a link between the recreational use of marijuana among young men and testicular cancer? A: Young men use cannabis and get cancer. If they looked at video games and riding bicycles, that might also be associated. Is there an epidemic of testicular cancer in Jamaica where Rastafarians use cannabis religiously? I think that's all a trick of numbers, personally. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

A pioneer speaks out http://metrotimes.com/mmj/a-pioneer-speaks-out-1.1374920 Irvin Rosenfeld signs copies of his book with one of his U.S. cannabis supply cans nearby. By Larry Gabriel PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 Irvin Rosenfeld is one of the four surviving federal medical marijuana patients. There were once 13 of them, and Rosenfeld has been receiving his allotment longer than any of the other survivors. He gets a canister with about 300 rolled marijuana cigarettes from the government every 25 days. Instructions printed on the can instruct the patient to smoke 12 of them each day. Rosenfeld, who has a bone disease called multiple congenital cartilaginous exostosis, which causes tumors to grow on the long bones of his body, was in Michigan last week to lobby the state Legislature on pending bills that will affect medical cannabis patients and their access to their medicine. He also spoke at a Downriver Community Compassion Club (DCCC) meeting held at Donovan VFW Hall in Dearborn Heights and sold a few copies of his 2010 book, My Medicine: How I convinced the U.S. government to provide my marijuana and helped launch a national movement. It was a heck of a meeting for the 60 or so attendees, who also got to hear from Hiedi Handford, publisher of the Montana Connect (a medical cannabis publication), and Dan Solano, a former Detroit police officer and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Solano gave a status rundown on 11 pending bills in the state Legislature. Rosenfeld was clearly the star of the evening. He began with: "I'm going to thank each and every one of you for paying for my medicine." That's because the cannabis he receives for free from the government is paid for by our tax dollars. Rosenfeld was diagnosed with more than 200 bone tumors when he was 10 years old and was told that he probably would not live through his teen years. He suffered severe pain and pain-related insomnia, had several operations over time to remove tumors that got in the way of normal activities. After one operation to remove tumors from his leg he had to learn to walk again. He was prescribed drugs from alcohol and methaqualone (qualudes) to Demerol, valium and morphine. During high school, he became an anti-drug activist arguing against the use of marijuana and other recreational drugs. It was during his freshman year of college in 1971 that Rosenfeld gave in to peer pressure and tried marijuana. It didn't get him high — it still doesn't — but within a few weeks he realized after smoking that he'd been able to sit still for a half-hour while playing chess. Normally after about 10 minutes the tension in his legs forced him to get up and move around. He also realized that he hadn't taken a pill in six hours — a long time for him in those days. Rosenfeld began researching marijuana and found out that it had once been used in tincture form to treat muscle tension, inflammation and pain. Well, one thing led to the next and soon Rosenfeld was puffing away on a daily basis and watching his health improve while taking fewer of the pills he had been prescribed. He stopped smoking to see what would happen. His health declined. He went back to smoking and got better. "It was now very clear to me that cannabis was a great medicine and that I had to have it," he wrote in My Medicine. Rosenfeld became an activist and many of his activities are chronicled in his book, including his 10-year bureaucratic and legal battle for government-issued marijuana. But his appearance at the DCCC meeting was more about what's happening now. He specifically criticized Senate Bill 977, sponsored by Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge), which would take glaucoma off the registry as a medical marijuana qualifying disorder. Studies have shown that cannabis use decreases intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It should be used in combination with prescribed eye drops to make the medication more effective. However some medical marijuana patients stopped using their prescribed medication, which can lead to problems. Several times during the meeting, speakers exhorted attendees to lobby their representatives, and there was contact information available at the meeting for anybody interested in doing so. "Every phone call you make counts 20 times," Rosenfeld says. "That's how seriously legislators take those calls." SB17 would prevent the formation of medicinal marijuana clubs and SB377 would make MMMA registry information available to law enforcement officers. There are more but I'm not going to detail them all in this column. They were supposed to come up for a vote on Sept. 11 but didn't. "At this time Jones doesn't have the votes," says Solano, who opined that activists need to stay in contact with their representatives on these issues in order to keep Jones from lining up enough votes to pass these bills. Most folks watching the machinations of government and marijuana believe that reclassifying marijuana from the prohibitive Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 or 3 is on its way, and that pharmaceutical companies have cannabis-based drugs in the pipeline to take advantage of that change. Rosenfeld said he'd rather see total cannabis declassification, which would take it out of the hands of government and big pharma entirely. Although his focus is on medical marijuana, he supports the folks who got the question of legalizing possession of 1 ounce or less by adults on private property in Detroit onto the fall ballot. "I'm all about getting medicine into the hands of patients," says Rosenfeld. "That would definitely get medicine into the hands of patients." Handford, who works with a number of medical cannabis organizations across the country, also spent a couple of days lobbying in Lansing. "Sen. Jones is not our friend," she says. "When you walk into legislative offices to lobby you cannot be emotional. When you get in there get straight to it and to the point. Don't ever give up." She also told patients and caregivers that they should experiment with all parts of the plant — leaves, stems and roots. "Grind them up, extract them; let's have zero waste in this industry." I was impressed with the DCCC and how much business they seemed to get done at the meeting. They leave the growing classes to others and focus on protecting their rights. The club just received its federal 501©(3) nonprofit status, which made the $300 winning auction bid for one of Rosenfeld's supply cans tax deductible. The club took care of business, got all their speakers up (there were no problems with the sound system), ran an auction and a raffle, took questions from the audience, and called for lobbying action from the membership. If all clubs ran with such judicious dispatch the political end of the medical marijuana movement would be in very good care. I was also impressed with Rosenfeld, who left us with these words of wisdom: "I always want to push the envelope as far as you can. But don't push it until you get arrested. If you go to jail your family goes on welfare and that's not good for anybody. As far as I'm concerned, cannabis is the fountain of youth." Maybe it is. One guy in the crowd announced that he'd been smoking cannabis since 1948. He didn't look that old.

Compound in cannabis may help treat epilepsy, researchers say http://www.latimes.c...0,1908600.story By Lee Romney Los Angeles Times September 14, 2012, 12:41 p.m. British researchers have determined that a little-studied chemical in the cannabis plant could lead to effective treatments for epilepsy, with few to no side effects. The team at Britain’s University of Reading, working with GW Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, tested cannabidivarin, or CBDV, in rats and mice afflicted with six types of epilepsy and found it “strongly suppressed seizures” without causing the uncontrollable shaking and other side effects of existing anti-epilepsy drugs. According to the findings, reported this week in the British Journal of Pharmacology, CBDV also delayed and reduced seizures when used in conjunction with two common anti-convulsant drugs. “There is a pressing need for better treatments for epilepsy,” said Dr. Ben Whalley, the lead researcher. “It’s a chronic condition with no cure and currently, in around one third of cases, the currently available treatments do not work, cause serious side-effects and increase fatalities.” The study, he added, highlights “the potential for a solution based on cannabinoid science. It has shown that cannabidivarin is the most effective and best tolerated anticonvulsant plant cannabinoid investigated to date.” The casual use of marijuana -- or cannabis -- to control seizures dates back to ancient times. Its most prominent component, THC, is among those shown in animal studies to have strong anti-convulsant properties, but its mind-altering effects have made it unsuitable for pharmaceutical development. A number of the plant’s more than 100 cannabinoids are non-psychoactive, however. The most studied among them is cannabidiol, or CBD, which has shown promise for multiple sclerosis spacticity, nausea, epilepsy and schizophrenia. Animal studies with CBD have also shown it to be effective as a neuoroprotectant and cancer-fighting agent. In recent years, California’s medical marijuana proponents have begun to breed plants for higher CBD content and develop customized tinctures for patients with a range of ailments. Those treatments combine high doses of CBD with smaller amounts of THC. Yet CBD’s widely known structure and well-studied uses mean that the pharmaceutical industry has less of an opportunity to protect patents on its use and profit from any drug development, said Whalley and Raphael Mechoulam, the Israeli researcher who first identified the structure of the compound nearly half a century ago and has conducted many key CBD studies. CBDV is a closely related chemical compound. While it was discovered in 1969, the research made public this week was the first conducted in animals, said Whalley, and only two small in vitro studies have been published, neither of them related to epilepsy. “The commercial protection can be good even if the compound itself was identified some time ago, as long as the proposed use is novel,” he said. “The better described the ‘new use’ is, the stronger the protection.” Medical marijuana proponents largely dismiss pharmaceutical industry efforts as too profit-driven, and say that encourages researchers to find a “magic bullet” compound rather than work with the complex benefits that the whole plant provides. Yet Whalley countered that “to make a cannabis-based medicine available and accessible to a global patient community, the only viable route is via conventional drug development, which is dictated by governmental legislation [and] regulation.” Dr. Stephen Wright, research and development director for GW Pharmaceuticals, which already markets a drug outside the U.S. that is half THC and half CBD for multiple sclerosis patients, said the company hoped to advance the CBDV research on epilepsy to human trials by next year. Epilepsy affects about 1% of people worldwide, and is caused by excessive electrical activity in the brain, which leads to seizures that can be fatal. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Raines: Sheriffs critical to state rights “The county sheriff as the last line of defense against an overreaching federal government” “An effective way to protect that sovereignty, he said, is the Second Amendment. You can’t do that if you’re disarmed by a government that should be protecting your rights — not taking them away,” said Mack, who is the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” http://www.lansingst..._source=message Raines: Sheriffs critical to state rights Officer says right to bear arms in jeopardy CHARLOTTE — Eaton County Sheriff Mike Raines is part of a burgeoning nationwide movement that sees the county sheriff as the last line of defense against an overreaching federal government. The sheriff has the power to stand in the way and can help restore the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” supporters of the movement say. At least 160 sheriffs from around the country are believed to be supporters. Raines said it would be his duty to turn away a federal agent from the county — including an Internal Revenue Service auditor — if the agency was “overstepping (its) bounds.” “A lot of people think they’re losing their rights,” Raines said in a recent interview. “If we can get back those rights, one county at a time, it would be better for all the people in the U.S.” Raines was among nearly 100 sheriffs from across the country who earlier this year attended the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s first-ever convention in Las Vegas. A second convention, also in Las Vegas, is scheduled to begin today. Raines said he is not able to go. Organizers expect about 75 sheriffs who weren’t at the first convention to attend. There are more than 3,000 sheriffs in the U.S. One particular right Raines and other “constitutional sheriffs” focus on is the right to bear arms. They believe it’s in jeopardy. Read more: Primary Michigan statutes governing the office of sheriff “Get on the news, and you’ll find there’s always been a threat to take Second Amendment rights away,” Raines said. “There’s always been a threat out there.” He wasn’t specific, but said he’s heard about legislation that would take away Second Amendment rights. The constitutional sheriffs association’s founder, Richard Mack, was sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., more than a decade ago. He now writes books and travels the country, talking about his belief that an “out-of-control” federal government has left the country on the brink of destruction. Mack worries about federal agents going door-to-door, confiscating guns. He says farmers who produce raw milk have faced federal charges. — He calls the Environmental Protection Agency “the number-one job killer” because of its regulatory power. State sovereignty Mack, who believes a sheriff’s authority is so great that he or she doesn’t have to obey the president, said state sovereignty is the movement’s main focus. An effective way to protect that sovereignty, he said, is the Second Amendment. “You can’t do that if you’re disarmed by a government that should be protecting your rights — not taking them away,” said Mack, who is the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” He added: “Who’s going to enforce state sovereignty? Not the federal government. It has to be local officials, who have the courage to stand against the incursions of the federal government.” Mack said the movement is not subversive, and it’s not a violent protest. In fact, he said, having constitutional sheriffs is “a way to make sure it doesn’t get violent.” Raines, who is running for a third term this November against retired Ingham County sheriff’s Detective Lt. Tom Reich, is one of two sheriffs in Michigan known to be a part of the movement. The other is Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf. Leaf, who like Raines is a Republican, will attend this week’s convention in Las Vegas. He also went to the first. One of his goals, Leaf said, is to continue learning about what a sheriff’s duty and authority is. “If you don’t use the authority that is granted to you,” he said, “you are, in a sense, taking it away from the public.” This week’s convention, which begins today and ends Tuesday, features presentations on state sovereignty, the Bill of Rights as well a keynote speech by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio gained notoriety for his practice of housing some county jail inmates in an outdoor “tent city” in the desert. He also conducted an investigation into President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate, announcing this year that he’d determined it was fraudulent. Mack said he admires Arpaio for being a strong sheriff. 'Guardians' group A few years ago, Raines formed a citizens group, called the Guardians of the Constitution, made up mostly of citizens who hold licenses to carry concealed pistols. Raines called the group, which he said now has about 275 members, a “self-sustaining, non-law-enforcement, citizens group.” They meet monthly to discuss a range of issues, including concerns about the constitutionality of various legislation. They can help legislators make good decisions, Raines said, and pass “good, viable laws.” Many are concealed pistol license holders, he acknowledged. The fact that they have the gun licenses, Raines said, means they have been vetted by state and federal authorities and are eligible to serve in one of his agency’s volunteer deputy groups, such as the all-terrain vehicle or horse-riding divisions. The Guardians of the Constitution, he said, is like a clearinghouse for people who want to move into one of the volunteer deputy groups, which require volunteers to have concealed pistol permits. The group’s proposed mission statement, which is posted on the website for the sheriff’s office, says, in part: “We believe Sheriff Raines is an innovative and progressive sheriff with a heart for people and for the Constitution. ... A free society shall not be shackled by the bonds of tyranny, and shall have the right to keep and bear arms.” Raines said his main motivation is protecting all the rights of his constituents, particularly the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. “And if anybody is against that, they’re against protecting the rights of the individual,” he said, adding: “The citizens of the county and all across the country should be happy they have elected sheriffs, because they have the power to be a check and balance.” Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Time to DEBUNK - Commentary: Medical Marijuana – Time for Parents to Step In Everything about this commentary is slanted and one sided toward the atypical uninformed law enforcement point of view. Obviously expressing the worst side of medical cannabis, possible isolated incidents or exaggerated situations. I posted this in an effort to debunk the commentary, and utilize the insight of this community to respond to this rhetoric. Please help by adding your comments, research and input to this thread with the ultimate goal of responding to the propaganda offered from this commentary. The challenge here is to address the premise of the concerns raised: "THE CHILDREN"- if you look back over the last 4 years, the opponents seem to pull this out in every debate or discussion. Well this needs to be addressed and debunked To allow this kind of rhetoric to go unanswered leaves Parents who are caregivers or patients, or who support medical cannabis in a vulnerable situation. For those interested in assisting, let us use this thread to debunk the rhetoric and paint a picture more accurate, honest and one that really addresses the issue. Here are a few topics to start with. 1. cities that have medical cannabis laws have consistently reported a drop in crimes. Stats needed... 2. The article addresses cannabis use among children, but fails to mention the prescription drug problem which statistics show is a much more widely abused drug, much more dangerous and on the rise amongst children and teens. (For example: 7 overdoses resulting in death for prescription drugs in livingston county high school this past year). ( stats needed ) Thank you in advance for any effort you can offer. http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/commentary-medical-marijuana-time-for-parents-to-step-in By TRI Ken Winters PhD and Amelia Arria PhD | September 11, 2012 | 1 Comment | Filed in Drugs, Legislation & Parenting To paraphrase a former First Lady, “What goes on in the White House is never as important as what goes on in your house.” As the evidence mounts of the negative effects of medical marijuana laws in various states, it’s even more important for parents to recognize that marijuana needs to be on their parenting radar screen. A Colorado study shows some of these impacts, where nearly 74 percent of a sample of teenagers receiving addiction treatment in that state told researchers they used medical marijuana that was recommended for someone else. This news should be of no surprise because increased availability of marijuana is highly associated with increased use. Studies have shown that marijuana is not a safe, benign drug. It’s a highly addictive drug. When smoked it contributes to pulmonary damage. It significantly impairs judgment, and is associated with poor performance in school. Its use has also been linked to contributions to impairment on important measures of life achievement, including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life and career status. Marijuana is a drug that’s widely used by teens and young adults. Among teens aged 12 to 17, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, after several years of declines, current marijuana use increased in 2009 and again in 2010, to 7.4 percent of the population. Among young adults aged 18 to 25, almost 30 percent used marijuana in the past year, with almost 6.3 million young adult users in the past month. Marijuana use is now more prevalent among teens than cigarette smoking. Marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Moreover, the typical weed available to adolescents these days is so much more potent compared to the marijuana used by prior generations. This increased potency is particularly concerning in light of recent scientific findings that marijuana use deleteriously affects brain development, particularly in areas related to mood, reward, and learning. Medical marijuana laws have made parents’ jobs tougher, no doubt about it. Although the provisions of the statutes differ, as of early July medical marijuana statutes had been signed into law in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Parents are a mighty lobbying force – at the local, state and national levels – particularly when they act in groups. We are not suggesting that parents shouldn’t try to influence government at any one of these levels. But because governments move slowly and not always in everyone’s best interests, parents can (and should) influence what goes on in their households. Science will continue to inform the public and seek solutions. But as the constant in a child’s life – with protective instincts that can be brought out by science but not replaced – it’s the parents who are the first lines of defense for their children. Ken C. Winters, PhD & Amelia Arria, PhD Dr. Winters is the Associate Director, Dr. Arria the Scientific Director, of the Parents Translational Research Center (PTRC) of the Philadelphia-based Treatment Research Institute. The PTRC is a NIDA-funded Center dedicated to developing practical, science-based tools for parents and other caregivers faced with challenges related to adolescent substance abuse.

Planet Green Trees episode 111 – Special Memorial Show September 13 2012 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air We lost 2 friends from our community this past week, Renee Wolf and Greg Starks, we want to take a few moments tonight to recognize them and give thanks for being touched by them. Please call in and tell a favorite story or anecdote. http://www.blogtalkr...l-memorial-show Also Special Guest: Oakland County Sherriff candidate Jane Boudrdeau Brad Forrester Cheboygan Norml Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of KomornLaw 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson reporting on news events. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557-Green Thumb Garden Center 2484391851.

Study: Non-Psychotropic Cannabinoid “Proven To Be Safe” In Humans http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/05/study-non-psychotropic-cannabinoid-proven-to-be-safe-in-humans/ Study: Non-Psychotropic Cannabinoid “Proven To Be Safe” In Humans by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director September 5, 2012 http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/05/study-non-psychotropic-cannabinoid-proven-to-be-safe-in-humans/ The oral administration of the non-psychotropic cannabis plant constituent cannabidiol (CBD) is safe and well tolerated in humans, according to clinical trial data published online by the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design. Investigators at Kings College in London assessed the physiological and behavioral effects of CBD and THC versus placebo in 16 healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Investigators reported that the oral administration of 10 mg of THC was associated with various physiological and behavioral effects – such as increased heart rate and sedation – whereas the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD was not. They concluded, “There were no differences between CBD and placebo on any symptomatic, physiological variable. … In healthy volunteers, THC has marked acute behavioral and physiological effects, whereas CBD has proven to be safe and well tolerated.” A previous review of the use of CBD in human subjects, published in the scientific journal Current Drug Safety last year, similarly concluded that the compound was safe, non-toxic, and well tolerated. Separate investigations of CBD have documented the cannabinoid to possess a variety of therapeutic properties, including anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, anti-epileptic, anti-cancer, and bone-stimulating properties. In recent years, patients in states that allow for the use of cannabis therapy, particularly California, have expressed an interest in plant strains that contain uniquely high percentages of the compound. Cannabidiol, because it is an organic component of cannabis, is presently classified under federal law as a schedule I prohibited substance. Such substances are required by law to possess “a high potential for abuse,” “a lack of accepted safety … under medical supervision,” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Full text of the study, “Acute effects of a single, oral dose of d9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) administration in healthy volunteers” appears online in Current Pharmaceutical Design.