Search the Community

We are wrapping up with a comprehensive voting guide. If anyone has strong opinions about any candidate running in November please discuss here. I'd like to personally thank Legacy for the great work he put into his "friend or foe" spreadsheet. Obviously time is extremely limited, so please help.

FACTS Client charged with Possession with Intent to deliver 5-45 Kilograms of Marijuana-7 year felony, and Maintaining a Drug Vehicle- 2 year felony. Client pulled over for speeding, police report said officer could smell marihuana while following the vehicle. Once at the driver’s window, officer noticed 6 totes in the back of the vehicle. Client asked to step from vehicle, which he did, and then proceeded to lock car with key fab and declare I do not consent to a search right out of the “know your rights” video. Much discussion about plants, lawfulness, cards, unusable material, where are you going etc.. At one point the client’s patient showed up at the scene of the stop and offered paperwork and cards, not in possession of the driver, which were of no interest to the officer. Client was arrested, and arraigned a few days later. One of the memorable quotes from the case was when I tried to explain to the detective/OIC that the material confiscated were recently cut plants and not usable material, to which this 30 year police veteran exclaimed " what did you expect me to do let him go? He was of course referring to the weight of the 23 freshly cut plants that had been found in the totes which weighed 14 lbs. The Preliminary exam was conducted over several days. At one point the prosecutor asked for an adjournment to consider if they wanted to trim and dry the material, to get an accurate weight. I responded that this would be the first time the government manipulated evidence to meet its theory of guilt and asked for precedent on this issue. The prosecutor could not produce any and ultimate chose not to meddle with the evidence. DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT At the preliminary examination, the Court made a finding of fact that on the day in question client was in fact a registered medical marihuana patient and a registered caregiver for five patients and was in possession of valid registry identification cards. All of the registry cards were admitted into evidence. As such, the court found that client was authorized to possess up to 72 medical marihuana plants and up to 15 ounces of usable medical marihuana. The Court found that the marihuana found in clients car was 23 freshly cut marihuana plants. The court further found that the freshly cut plants were wet and not dried. Although the Court found the freshly cut plants weighted a total of 14 pounds, the Court expressly found that the marihuana plants were not usable marihuana. Additionally, the Court found that there was no evidence that client ever actually sold marihuana since no large amounts of money were found. DISTRICT COURT’S RULINGS OF LAW AT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION At the close of evidence, the People moved to bindover the client on the charges of Possession with Intent to deliver 5-45 Kilograms of Marijuana and Maintaining a Drug Vehicle. I objected to the bindover based the fact that client, as a medical marihuana patient and caregiver, is protected by Section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (“MMMA”), MCL 333.26424, and is immune from prosecution. I argued that no evidence had been presented to show that my client had more than 2.5 ounces of usable material. The District Court, in its oral opinion, determined that the main issue is whether the client’s possession of the 23 freshly cut marihuana plants, totaling about 14 pounds of wet marihuana, was legal per Section 4 of the MMMA, considering that client is a registered medical marihuana patient and a registered caregiver for 5 patients. The court first analyzed Section 4 (b) of the MMMA, MCL 333.2604(b), and stated that the Section provides that: A primary caregiver who has been issued and possess 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 assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process with the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marijuana that does not exceed [(1)]2.5 ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process and, [(2)], for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marijuana for the qualifying patient 12 marijuana plants kept in an enclosed locked facility. The court went on to state that it is clear from the testimony that client had his own medical marihuana patient registry card and had caregiver registry cards for five patients. Thus, the court ruled that if client had less that 15 ounces of usable marihuana and less than 72 marihuana plants, his possession of the marihuana would be legal and he would be immune from prosecution. The court held that since the marihuana involved in this case were cut plants, they are not considered plants for purposes of Section 4 immunity. The court determined that the ultimate issue in this case is whether the marihuana that client possessed was “usable” for purposes of Section 4 immunity, and if not, what effect “unusable” marihuana has on Section 4 immunity. The court referred to MMMA Section 4 (j), MCL 333.26423(j), for a definition of useable marihuana, and stated that “usable marijuana means the dried leaves and flowers of the marijuana plant and any mixture or preparation thereof but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” The court also referred to the general definition of marijuana contained in the Public Health Code under MCL 333.7106, and stated that “[m]arijuana means all parts of the plant, cannabis sativa L, growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant and every compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.” Based on the District Court’s reading and interpretation of Section 4, the MMMA’s definition of usable material, and the general definition of marijuana contained in the public health code, the court ruled that Section 4 of the MMMA only protects patients and caregivers who possess actual marihuana “plants” and/or patients and caregivers who possess “usable” marijuana. The court ruled that “unusable” marihuana is not protected by Section 4 of the MMMA; thus, patients and caregivers who possess unusable are subject to prosecution under the public health code. Applying the facts of the case to its interpretation of the MMMA, the District Court ruled that the marihuana possessed by client “was all wet marijuana, none of which was usable under the statute. . . If it would have been usable marijuana that did not exceed 15 ounces, there would be immunity. But the court is of the opinion that [since it was unusable] the Defendant did not enjoy the immunity provided by section four.” To clarify its ruling, the Court stated that “ecause it was wet, it was not usable marijuana. I find none of it was usable . . . and I find that the individual does not have immunity if they are transporting or in possession of nonusable marijuana, irrespective of the card.” Thus, since client was in possession of marijuana that was wet and unusable, the District Court bound client over on count 1 Possession with Intent to deliver 5-45 Kilograms of Marijuana but dismissed count 2 Maintaining a Drug Vehicle. CIRCUIT COURT MOTIONS AND HEARINGS We drew The Honorable Judge Hayman in the Genesee Circuit Court, while in Circuit court we filed a motion to quash the bindover, as well as another section 4 motion and a section 8 motion. The motion hearing resulted in a denial of the motion to quash and denial of the motion for dismissal pursuant to section 4, in a prepared written ruling the Judge read from the Bench. He did not let us argue orally at the motion hearing, but did ask if we had anything to add other than what was asserted in our pleadings. I offered the Court the recent amendment to the MPC, 4856, suggesting that this recent legislative enactment supported my position that usable material was protected within section 4, and not excluded, and gave him a copy of it at the bench. His ruling on the motions really did not address the issues I laid out in my pleadings but he did he did reference several time that the amount of 14 pounds of marihuana was not and could not be what was intended in the voter initiative MMMA. Prior to our scheduled return for the Section 8 evidentiary hearing, I debated with the prosecutor via email on several occasions, what would be required at the section 8 hearing. My impressions after the motion hearing on the Section 4 immunity, were that the Judge would have a difficult time moving his focus off the 14 pound number and that the best we would do after the section 8 hearing would be to create a question of fact on the three prongs of section 8, and then take our medical defense to a jury, who I have always believed and continue to maintain will be the best audience for positive outcomes in these cases. I had actually one point concluded in my own mind that it would be silly to have a section 8 hearing and instead suggested to the prosecutor that we just stipulate that a question of fact existed for purposes of the section 8 hearing and move on and pick a jury. Prosecutor “I have been running around all day but have had an opportunity to look at some of the MMMA stuff. The more I read and understand, the more I realize we will have to have a Section 8 hearing before the trial. Case law seems pretty concrete that if you want to assert that as a defense, we need to have that evidentiary hearing beforehand. Also, I know we spoke about some different things with your doctor testifying and I really believe he needs to be in court.” Komorn I agree that the law is clear on this issue. An evidentiary hearing regarding section 8 has to take place prior to the jury trial and an affirmative defense regarding the MMMA. I would note that the law is also very clear on the evaluation of the evidence or the threshold that needs to be met by the defense to assert such a defense is “weather a question of fact exists on each of the three elements of section 8. People v. Anderson is the controlling case on this: http://publicdocs.co...300641o.opn.pdf “The trial court also erred by assessing the weight and credibility to be given Anderson’s evidence and by resolving any factual disputes. Kolanek, 491 Mich at 411. The trial court’s sole function at the hearing was to assess the evidence to determine whether, as a matter of law, Anderson presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie defense under § 8 and, if he did, whether there were any material factual disputes on the elements of that defense that must be resolved by the jury. Id. at 412-413. Further the case law is pretty well established in People v. Kiel http://publicdocs.co..._301427.opn.pdf In this case the courts states that the cards suffice as prima fascia evidence of prong 1 and 3. “At the evidentiary hearing, defendant testified that he was not only a medical marijuana user, but he was also a medical marijuana caregiver for himself, plus four other people. To support his testimony regarding the first element and third element, he offered into evidence various medical marijuana IDs of himself, Hublick, Geyer, Ehl, and his son, Dusty. Defendant also submitted two caregiver attestations, one each for Hublick and Dusty that were each dated July 24, 2009. The fact that these individuals were registered with the state as medical marijuana users is prima facie evidence of the first and third elements. The facts are uncontested that my client had 4 valid cards at the time of the offense, 3 for being a caregiver and 1 as a patient. The only issue that remains is prong 2 of section 8 “(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; The Anderson case seems to dictate and by definition “Reasonableness” makes prong 2 a question of fact for a jury. My suggestion of stipulating that a question of fact exists in this case was made because, it would seem silly to go through the section 8 hearing when there seems to be no genuine dispute that a question of fact exists. Or said another way the facts of this case create a question of fact. If you think otherwise please explain what your support for that would be. In fact the law as outlined in Anderson suggests that that upon a showing of some evidence on each of three prongs of section 8, would entitle the accused to a medical marihuana defense. My suggestion to stipulate to this was based upon the above facts presented to you as an offer of proof, and an attempt to not waste time or resources arguing about issues that are resolved by a standard of proof of “a question of fact.” The remedy for the accused who is denied the right to present a defense per P v. King/Kolenik, is an interlocutory appeal, which would be our intent in the event of an adverse ruling regarding a mm defense. Nonetheless if you want to go forward with the section 8 hearing I will be ready to do this. I should have an affidavit from the Doctor regarding my client and his patient status tomorrow morning. As I discussed with you, the certifying Dr. for my client has indicated that he is disabled and appearing live in Court is going to be very challenging to him, despite him being ordered to be in court to testify. At this time I have told him he is on standby. Thanks for your attention in this matter, please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Prosecutor After speaking with my boss, we have determined that since the judge will not let your Doctor call in, he is going to need to be there. Komorn I specifically recall the Judge saying that we should depose the Doctor. Ask your Boss when a good time to do this will be. I know we are supposed to go back on Friday, and my schedule is tight, but I will try to assist in getting this done. I don’t recall any ruling or order saying that my Dr. had to be there, and in light of P v. Kiel, and really no offer of proof by the People as to why he would need to be there, the statement “he is going to need to be there” seems to be nothing but harassment of medical marihuana Dr.’s, patients and caregivers. The Judge only said that the Dr. couldn’t call in on the phone, because of the difficulty of getting the conversation into the formal record. He never said that the Doctor had to be there. Furthermore, I provided you with the full medical records of my client and an affidavit from the Doctor, what more could the prosecutor ask of the Dr on the issues related to prong 1 of section 8. Prong 1 of section 8 requires that (1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; The signed certification, which you are now in possession of, has a signature below a statement, by a physician as defined in the law, that (he) certifies that He is physician licensed to practice in the state of Michigan. That he has the responsibility for the care and treatment for the above mentioned patient. That it is his professional opinion that the applicant has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition as indicated above ( severe and chronic pain). That the medical use of marihuana is likely to be palliative or provide therapeutic benefits for the symptoms or effects of applicants condition.. This is not a prescription for the use of medical marihuana. Additionally if the patient ceases to suffer from the above identified debilitating condition, I hereby certify I will notify the department in writing. Additionally you have a 16 paragraph affidavit outlining more statements by the doctor related to his decision to certify my client. All of this begs the question of what is the issue you contest in this regard. Can you assert an actual offer of proof ? What is your legal response to the P v. Kiel case other than you disagree with it, and instead have a different personal and subjective statutory interpretation? Prosecutor Judge Hayman will have some questions for the doctor as well. Komorn How do you know this? I didn’t hear the Judge refer to the need to question the Doctor, and further more if the Doctor says the exact same things he says in the certification and the affidavit, as a matter of law a question of fact has been created. Or do you mean that your Boss will have some questions? If so what bearing do those questions have on the limited issue of prong 1 of section 8. Prosecutor I know this puts you in a tough position but hopefully it can be quick and get him in and out fairly painlessly. Komorn I don’t know that the Doctor will even be available Friday. In my past conversations with him, it had been indicated that his best day if any would be Monday’s. I agreed to the Friday date upon the premise that the affidavit would suffice. Only after we received that date, a date I am pretty certain the Dr. is not available did I learn that you do not acknowledge the affidavit, the certification document of Dr. Shaw and 2 other Dr. Licensed to practice in Michigan and my client’s medical records. If the Court is inclined to move the hearing to this Monday instead of Friday I may be able to get him there, but again, why and for what specific reason, other than to have him repeat the exact same items that have already been provided to you. Demand for Discovery Pursuant to our ongoing demand for discovery in this case: Please provide to me the “relevant supporting data” for the Forensic Scientist Elaine Dougherty that she refers to in her report. Specifically the error rate for the weighing of the material. Thanks for your attention in this matter, please let me know if you have any questions or comments. We had been ordered to return for our hearing on a Friday, the doctor was not available but said he could be available on Monday if needed. When the hearing commenced the Court asked of any preliminary issues, to which the above email conversations were reiterated on the record. I argued that pursuant to Kiel, we had established a prima fascia showing of prong 1 and 3 with the cards, and the only issue that remained was prong 2 the reasonable amount. The prosecutor essentially offered no response in Court to my arguments, and in fact agreed with my interpretation of Kiel. The Honorable Jude Hayman then concluded he agreed with the parties reading of Kiel, and stated after reading Kiel and Anderson, “I find that prong 1 and 3 have been satisfied.” He then went on to say that I agree the only issue that remains is prong 2, and the way I am reading it seems to be: that if the defendant provides evidence of the quantity being a reasonable amount, I must dismiss the charges absent a showing of evidence to the contrary that creates a question of fact. Clearly this was the absolute best interpretation I had heard of section 8, and I had no interest in arguing with this interpretation, I also knew that the prosecutor was not planning on calling any witnesses at this hearing. Suggesting to me that the game was over at this time and everything else was just going through the motions. Section 8 Hearing I called one of my clients patients, she was also the mother of one of my clients other patients. She gave very compelling and detailed testimony of her medical conditions, lack of relief from other traditional treatments and that the honey oil/ Simpson oil that my client was making for her was the only medicine that worked for her. She testified she had been on a 1 gram a day dosing, ½ gram in the morning sativa, and ½ gram in the evening indica. She explained that the prior 2 harvests before the raid, she and my client had a method to the making of the medicine. He would take 12 freshly cut plants to her house, leave them there to dry and be trimmed by the patient. He would return a few weeks later and process the useable material, flower/bud into the honey oil/Simpson oil. When she got off the stand, Judge Hayman said to her “Mam you are a beautiful person, and I am going to pray for you and your family.” I could tell he was moved by her testimony and courage to share the very personal and intimate medical issues she had experienced. When we returned this past Friday we continued with the hearing, I called my client, who explained his own medical conditions, and his history of growing for himself, and then when he became a caregiver. I had him go into elaborate detail of his growing techniques and procedures. We discussed projected yield of his plants from his past experience ( although it is not a science), and the amount of usable material he would need to process in order to provide a 30/60/90 day supply of the honey oil/Simpson oil for his patients. He went on to explain what his intentions were on the day of the arrest. How his plan was the same as it had been in the past few harvests, and what he specifically planned to do with the 23 freshly cut plants. Judge Hayman seemed to be impressed with my client’s testimony. He was amazed with the care and concern my client took in the preparation of the material to ensure it was clean and the steps he took to ensure the final processed material left with the patient was not more than allowed pursuant to section 4. He commented on how he did not know that the fan leafs of the plant were not what was considered valuable from the plant. “Every time I see pictures of a marihuana grow, I always say wow look at all those leaves. I didn’t know the leaves of the plant were not desirable.” He even joked that if he was dropped in a field of marihuana and was told to grab what he could he would have grabbed all the wrong parts of the plant. I must compliment Judge Hayman (and his staff) who seemed very prepared and focused on the issues presented at the section 8 hearing. After my client stepped down, we offered our closing remarks and the Court made a finding that we had satisfied all the elements of section 8 and thus we were entitled to dismissal of the charges. 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.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. Attorney Michael Komorn’ practice specializes in Medical Marihuana representation. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marihuana patients, and caregiver rights. He is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marihuana patients and caregivers

I wanted to share this with the forum, because it is real world, real time feedback from Holders statements this last week, on the positive side, for now. This is a case of 2 brothers a little over the plant count, ie 600, charged with the manufacturing over 100 plants, requiring a mandatory minimum in federal court of 5 years. This is an email sent to me from the Assistant U.S. Attorney in a federal case set for tomorrow. “Good morning. I just wanted to alert you both that in light of some new directives from Washington, D.C., I will not charge either of your clients w/mandatory minimums, as will be seen in the acknowledgments. Consequently, the Rule-11s previously sent to both of you will, in time, be amended to reflect this change. I will assume that neither of you have concerns w/this. Thx.” C. Barrington Wilkins Assistant U.S. Attorney 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. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD. Attorney Michael Komorn’ practice specializes in Medical Marihuana representation. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marihuana patients, and caregiver rights. He is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marihuana patients and caregivers

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.

A new study published in the American Journal of Medicine has shown that marijuana use can lower the risk of diabetes and obesity. The study analyzed data collected from a 2005-2010 survey of over 4600 Americans. Of those surveyed, 2,103 had never ingested or inhaled cannabis, 1,975 had used marijuana in the past, and 579 were current users. The study found that current and prior cannabis users had lower fasting insulin levels as well as smaller waist circumferences. Though marijuana users were found to have greater caloric intake levels than non-users, on average they have lower body mass index (BMI). The study suggests that two of our nation's greatest health risks (diabetes and obesity) could potentially be treated by the use of cannabis. check out this link for an excellent overview of the study http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/health&id=9114798 below is a link to the original article from the American Journal of Medicine http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00200-3/abstract

Daniela Drake, a graduate from the prestigious Stanford medical school, shares her experiences as a California "Pot Doctor" and how she was transformed from a skeptic to an avid supporter of medical cannabis. Like many doctor's involved in medical marijuana certifications, she has witnessed first-hand the cruelties and hypocrisy of marijuana prosecution, these experiences have compelled her to speak out. Michigan readers will resonate with her poignant story and will hopefully glean important lessons therein. Check out the article from the daily beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/10/how-a-doctor-came-to-believe-in-medical-marijuana.html

@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

March 21, 2013 -13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air SHOW TOPIC: Growing Medical Marihuana Outdoors in Michigan. Spring is here, and many Michigan Patients and Caregivers will be planting their gardens outside. Many Legal issues arise whenever the medical use of cannabis takes place outside. The "Enclosed Locked Facility" has at times, served as a loophole for Law Enforcement to vitiate the protections of the MMMA. In an effort to provide some guidance to our community,PGT is proud to bring you the Top Cannabis Lawyers in the State to give thier comments, reflections and take questions from the listeners on this topic. Hosted By: Michael Komorn of Komorn Law Pllc. Neil Rockind-Rockind Pllc John Targowski of Targowski and Grow, will be joining us for 2 hours of Medical Cannabis OutDoor Grow Talk. Also Hunter Hollinan Asa National Coordinator discussing new chapter Rick Thompson of the Compassion Chronicles and the Political Twist up Radio show - delivers the news, As as always we will be discussing recent cases and suggesting what we can learn from these experiences. 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 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/03/22/planet-green-trees-episode-140-the-outdoor-grow-show

Presented by: Kenneth Stecker Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and F/Lt. David Greydanus Michigan State Police The Handout from today's presentation in Monroe will follow. http://www.mi-pte.org/sudppps2010/MedicalMarijuana.pdf

February 21, 2013 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air SHOW TOPIC: Section 8 Does work and other Stories from the Theater of war. Komorn Law PLLC, I am proud to report on a few recent victories showing in fact that the system can work. P v. Johnson 14 lbs case dismissed after section 8 hearing. P v. Pointer the long road is finally over after the United States Supreme Court ruling impacts this 2009 case that has been bouncing around in the Michigan Appellate courts. P v. Mcneil - section 8 hearing results in a a question of fact and the defendant being able to present a medical marihuana defense to the jury. Special Guest Tonight : John Targowski of Targowski and Grow will be calling in to add his comments and thoughts on how the Courts are treating patients and caregivers. Hosted by Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law, PLLC. 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 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/02/22/planet-green-trees-episode-136-14-lbs-section-8-defense

Source: Komorn Law, Pllc-14 Pound Medical Marihuana Case Dismissed Pursuant To Section 8 Of The Mmma.

February 11, 2013 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air SHOW TOPIC: MSC issued its long awaited decision regarding dispensaries in Michigan. Planet Green Trees is proud to present this Special Episode to address the communities concerns and questions. To assist in providing you the very best of information, analysis and guidance we have assembled some of the top medical cannabis attorneys in the state who are going to offer thier insight to what this all means. Hosted by Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law, PLLC. Guests: Neil Rockind, Rockind P.C John Targowski, Targowski and Grow Thomas Lavigne, Cannabis Counsel Denise Pollicella attorney and counselor. Brought to you by: Our Regular Group of Community Entertainment. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law, PLLC18006563557 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/2013/02/12/planet-green-trees-episode-134-mcqueen

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

My latest thoughts on the discussion around finally adding new conditions to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's registry, from the The Huffington Post Last August, the state began assembling a medical marihuana review panel, with the ultimate goal of finally hearing arguments to add new conditions to the Michigan Medical Marihuana registry. Now, with the help of that panel, more than four years after Michigan residents approved the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the registry is close to adding its first new condition -- Parkinson's disease. On Friday, January 25, the state's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs review panel heard from the community about why Parkinson's should be added to the registry and the direct benefits of medical marihuana. This is one of the most important parts of the MMMA, empowering residents to petition and garner support to add new conditions to the registry. Considering new conditions like Parkinson's and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a major step for advancing medical marihuana in Michigan and ensuring the state's residents have access to the best medical care for their condition. One could say this is the first time in four years the discussion between the Government and the medical marihuana community was focused on patient health issues instead of political and legal issues. For medical marihuana supporters, hard work and advocacy is paying off as they see the state truly recognize the medical benefits of cannabis. Initially, the panel met in December to hear marihuana supporters and detractors voice their opinions on Parkinson's and PTSD, both of which were up for debate for potential addition to the registry. With the review panel accepting Parkinson's but denying PTSD, it's a start and reason for hope for thousands of Michiganders looking to use medical marihuana to improve the quality of their lives. While PTSD didn't make the cut, advocates continue to make their push, receiving support from the community and displaying the same strength that helped pass the MMMA initially. Advocates and PTSD sufferers have until March for their arguments, written and orally, to be heard by Michigan's Bureau of Health Services. If the past is any indication, supporters will continue to fight to add PTSD and other conditions to the registry, strengthening the medical marihuana community in Michigan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-komorn/medical-marijuana-michigan_b_2615814.html

A suspended medical doctor was found guilty Friday of two felonies related to selling pre-signed medical marijuana certificates to supposed patients through a co-defendant at a Warren store. http://www.macombdai...na-certificates

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.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/marijuana-could-be-legal-in-colorado-and-washington-after-election-day.html Marijuana Could Be Legal in Colorado and Washington After Election Day Oct 3, 2012 4:45 AM EDT Two lines of coke killed Carter’s plan to legalize pot. Thirty-five years later, pro-pot leader Keith Stroup reflects on how close he came and how close we are. Marijuana’s moment finally seems to be here. At Hempfest in Seattle last month more than 100,000 fans rallied for the one-time evil weed. The governor of New York State and the mayor of Chicago recently supported the repeal of criminal penalties against a personal stash. And next month, if current polls hold, voters in Colorado and Washington will approve historic measures that make the pot nearly as legal as heirloom tomatoes. “This is clearly the tipping point,” says Keith Stroup, the grand old soul of the legalization movement. “We are in the process of ending marijuana prohibition in America,” he tells me. But hold on a minute. The last time the movement was this cocky it was dead within six months, murdered by some of its own best friends. These included Jimmy Carter’s reform-minded drug czar, staffers at High Times magazine, and, yes, Keith Stroup himself, who did more than most to bring pot smokers into the mainstream—and more than most to send them back to the wings. To find out if it could all go sideways again, I asked Stroup to do something he’s never done before: revisit the scene of the wildest, saddest chapter in the long fight for more liberal drug laws. That meant trying to find the house where the forces of change last came together—almost exactly 35 years ago—only to vanish up someone’s nose. To his immense credit, Keith Stroup was game. “I want to say it’s the next block,” he says, striding down S Street in Washington, D.C. At 68 years old, and an almost daily marijuana user for decades, Stroup and his trademark energy has yet to flag. Block after block, we’re still walking, until finally he stops in front of a four-story cream-colored townhouse. “That would be the one,” he says, running a hand through his collar-length gray hair, although it’s clear he isn’t totally sure. “It’s awfully big.” It had to be big. In the late 1970s, the movement itself was big, growing from a disorganized band of freaks into an upright national coalition for smokers’ rights—with Stroup as Pied Piper. Raised by God-fearing squirrel-hunting conservatives in southern Illinois in the 1950s, he jumped from the University of Illinois to Georgetown Law School to Ralph Nader’s Product Safety Commission, discovering pot and politics in the process. In 1970 he launched the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML—perhaps the world’s first lobby for the openly criminal. NORML seemed like quixotic kids’ stuff at first. While the adults declared War on Drugs and handed out quarter-century prison terms to pot smokers, what could a few long-hairs with law degrees do? At the start, just a sliver of the country supported a softer approach to pot. But by 1976 the kids were winning. NORML’s legal program shaved decades off of the prison terms of pot smokers, and its lobbying arm provided coast-to-coast leadership, ultimately helping eleven states decriminalize simple possession. And yet the highest high was still ahead. Reading the smoke signals emanating from young America, Jimmy Carter campaigned on the promise of decriminalizing marijuana. When he won, he brought the reform movement into the White House and his staff brought Keith Stroup in from the margins. The man who had partied with pot smugglers and Playboy bunnies was now a privileged insider, a friend of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, working alongside administration officials to end all criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce ofmarijuana. “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself,” Carter told Congress in 1977, using a line Stroup personally helped craft with one of the president’s speechwriters. A Gallup poll showed that a clear majority of the country agreed that pot should be decriminalized. That same year, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to support a bill that would do just that. And Stroup publicly predicted the end of all federal prohibition by 1980. “Smokers were finally out of the closet,” former Carter adviser Robert Carr reflected a few years later. “There was a sense of celebration.” Enter the large, cream-colored townhouse: the perfect setting for NORML’s 1977 Christmas party, a gathering that makes today’s Hempfest rallies seem like fringe events by comparison. On the night of the party, more than 300 young Washington Somebodies poured into the mansion, where a psychedelic juggler tossed strobe lights and silver trays circulated with caviar and hand-rolled joints of the finest Southern-grown herb. But the party was most notable because of a single guest: Peter Bourne, the self-described “first drug czar,” the first person to be given authority over both the treatment and law enforcement sides of federal policy. Bourne was Stroup’s closest federal ally, the only senior drug policy official ever to back decriminalization. He was also afriend. When Stroup was tangled up on drug charges in Canada earlier that year, Bourne says he wrote a letter to the authorities, helping the young lawyer hold onto to his right to practice law. Now, inside the cream-colored townhouse, before a stunned circle of partygoers—including High Times staffers and the drug scene poet laureate, Hunter S. Thompson—the unimaginable happened: America’s top drug warrior joined America’s top drug lobbyist for two lines of cocaine, according to Patrick Anderson’s 1981 book High in America, the story of Stroup’s rise and fall. Afterwards, Anderson continues, Thompson threw his arm around a writer for High Times, sighed loudly, and declared, “My God, man, we’ll all be indicted.” Although there were at least five journalists in the room, the story held for almost six months. It might have held forever, but Bourne, a psychiatrist, came under scrutiny for writing a comely female assistant a Quaalude prescription under a false name. There was an honest explanation, but the press went for the twofer. To confirm the cocaine story, a reporter called the last people you would expect to tell on another drug user: two staffers from High Times, who have never been identified—and Keith Stroup. Since the party, Stroup had soured on Bourne for his support of spraying Mexico’s marijuana crops with a dangerous pesticide. Stroup says he was also doing a lot of cocaine at the time and “not thinking strategically.” “If I had not been enjoying cocaine in those years, I certainly would not have been so foolish as to go upstairs with the president’s drug adviser and snort cocaine,” Stroup says. He confirmed the story: Drug Czar Does Cocaine at Pot Party. It broke on Good Morning America. Bourne has always denied actually doing anything more than “good old American whiskey” at the party, but it didn’t matter. He had been there and that was enough—he resigned within 36 hours, taking the marijuana reform movement with him. “The departure of Peter Bourne from the White House marked the beginning of the end of any kind of enlightened drug policy in America,” according to Carr, the Carter adviser. Said another participant, “It vanished up Peter Bourne’s nose.” Peter Bourne tends to agree, the disappointment apparent in his voice. In his first interview on the subject in 12 years, he told The Daily Beast that decriminalization “probably” would have happened if his tenure had not been cut short. “We were actually fairly close,” he says by phone from England, where he is a senior research fellow at Green Templeton College at the University of Oxford. Dealing would still be illegal, and states would have been free to maintain their own harsher penalties, regardless of federal policy. But Bourne believes “a lot of states” would have followed him. Instead, the Bourne incident killed drug reform as a winning issue for Carter and crippled NORML; for his perfidy, Stroup himself was forced to resign. “I felt like a failure,” he says. “If I had not been enjoying cocaine in those years, I certainly would not have been so foolish as to go upstairs with the president’s drug adviser and snort cocaine with a dozen other people,” he says. “Jeez. When the first person came up and said Peter wants to do a line, I should have said, you’re out of your making whoopee mind. Not here. But instead I was thinking, I want to make our relationship even tighter and doing illegal drugs together is kind of a communion.” Later, he reprises a line he has used before: “It was probably the stupidest thing I ever did. (“He’s probably right,” Bourne quips.) If history were weighted evenly, Stroup would always be remembered as a heroic crusader who defended the average pot smoker, first articulated a vision of legal weed in America—and then did more than most to tilt people in his direction. Many already hold this image. They stand and clap when he appears on stage, and pump his hand at parties. But history is not fair, and many others see Stroup as the rat who ruined everybody’s high. That’s a shame. You don’t have to go further than the NORML offices—located across the street from the St. Regis Hotel, around the corner from the American Legion headquarters, in a modern building less than two blocks from the White House—to see how far Stroup has pushed pot into the mainstream. When NORML opened its doors fewer than one in five Americans supported full-blown legalization (as opposed to decriminalization, which still entails fines and prohibitions on selling); today a majority of Americans do. And Stroup, who returned to head NORML between 1994 and 2005 and whose memoir, Living NORML, will soon be published by High Times books, is predicting another wave of major reforms. “In four or five years I doubt we’ll be arresting marijuana smokers in America, period,” he says, “and I think you’ll have four or five states with legal, regulated models.” But this generation’s reform movement is still plagued by infighting. It helped doom California’s 2010 effort and threatens to undermine similar ones in Colorado and Washington this year. Some reformers want an absolutely unrestricted marijuana market, treating it like tomatoes or parsley; others want an alcohol model; still others prefer an expansion of the medical model to encompass everyone, so rest and relaxation might qualify for a prescription. “moo poo,” Stroup says of this final idea. But he quickly adds that such squabbling is stupid. “Terribly short-sighted.” he says. “The result of being too close to the action to see the big picture.” Stroup certainly sees it now. As we walk away from the house where the marijuana movement last peaked, Stroup ever so slightly brightens. It’s clear he believes a new high is coming his way, ever optimistic that this year really will be the one. “It’s great to be alive,” he says. “This is the most exciting moment in the 40 years I’ve been working on the issue.” And that’s saying something. 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.

Going Live at 8:00 pm. Please Join us for Michigan’s Premier Medical Cannabis Radio Show. Planet Green Trees episode 116 – More Rescheduling @Juicing October 18 2012 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Special Guests: The Michigan contingency who attended ASA's Federal rescheduling hearings in Washington will check in and discuss the happenings in court and their experiences over the last couple of days- Ken Buyers more juicing and updates from his interactions with Prosecutors. And a recap of the brilliant seminar with key note speaker Dr. William Courtney. 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 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. http://www.blogtalkr...eduling-juicing

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.

Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), the first all-hemp, publicly-traded company in US history forges path in the industrial hemp industry, continues its effort to blow the lid off a nest of deception and double standards many feel have been imposed by the United States government concerning the ancient superfood, hemp seeds. Despite the Cannabis classification, hemp seeds aren't for smoking, nor does it get you "high" as countless people have been led to believe, according to the Kimble Group, LLC. Hemp seeds are growing in popularity, thus, questions are arising concerning their presumed health benefits. So what is it 'they' don't want the American people to know? Why would such enlightening, useful and beneficial information be kept under wraps? http://www.prweb.com/releases/hemp/marijuana/prweb9954724.htm The first all-hemp, publically-traded company in US History,Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), hemp.com, blows the lid off a nest of deception. (PRWEB) September 28, 2012 It wasn't until this year, August, US senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul ardently worked together in a bipartisan effort to get industrial hemp removed from the federal doghouse. If passed, this historic senate bill will create economic opportunities by removing federal restrictions on the domestic cultivation of industrial hemp. Before light is shed on the benefits on hemp, let's take a look at how and why hemp has been getting a bad rap over the years. According to Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), the first all-hemp, publically-traded company in US history, William Hurst, an influential American newspaper publisher, created a yellow journalism campaign to associate hemp with marijuana. Why? Commercial hemp seeds contain very low amounts of THC, the property responsible for the drug response, plus they contain a substance that counteracts THC. According to Dr. David P. West, who specializes in plant breeding and genetics and who has written a plethora of articles on industrial hemp, says, "The washed hemp seed contains no THC at all. The tiny amounts of THC contained in industrial hemp are in the glands of the plant itself. Sometimes, in the manufacturing process, some THC- and CBD-containing resin sticks to the seed, resulting in traces of THC in the oil that is produced. The concentration of these cannabinoids in the oil is infinitesimal. No one can get high from it." Hurst, along with his friend Pierre DuPont, succeeded in outlawing hemp in America and in turn robbed the world of an environmental cash crop. Why would they do such a thing? As noted by Hemp.com, "Because instead of using hemp for paper, clothing, fuel, oils, resins, medicines, and many other uses, we now use trees and synthetic petrochemicals. Hearst owned huge forests and interests in lumber mills. DuPont made synthetic fuels and fibers (nylon, rayon, plastics) from petroleum." Go figure. Hemp seeds go back as far as 8,500 years. Initially, the Chinese were harvesting it and using the plant fibers to produce durable cloth, however, 3,000 years ago, they began using the seeds as a food source. Hemp seeds have been a proven source of protein on the planet, primarily because they contain all twenty one known amino acids. Clinical herbalist, Larken Bunce, says, "Hemp seeds are a nutritionally dense food source that provide the body with necessary macro- and micronutrients, including protein, essential fatty acids, fiber, vitamins and minerals. The addition of hemp seeds to your daily diet can ensure you are getting necessary essential fatty acids, a good balance of protein and carbohydrates, a good source of fiber as well as some essential vitamins and minerals." Essentially, the human organism is unable to produce all essential amino acids, but amazingly, hemp does. The hemp seeds are a great source of polyunsaturated fat as well as essential fatty acids. According to Nourishing Gourmet, hemp foods are also a rich source of phytonutrients, the organic compounds of plants that are thought to promote human health. More specifically, Dr. Cassandra Forsyth, nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut, says, "Hemp seeds are rich in omega3 fatty acids, which reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke." According to an article in Men's Health, written by Carolyn Kylstra on 9/25/12, a 1-ounce serving of the seeds provides 11 grams of protein, not to be confused with incomplete protein found in most plant sources. The article's research found the protein in hemp seeds to be comparable to that found in meat, eggs, and dairy. If hemp food is easily digested and in turn can be used to treat malnourishment, why such a bad rap? Why not mass produce since the consumption of complete proteins is necessary for human survival? The US Government's complacency of 'profit before health' can no longer stand on the incredulous foundation on which it was built. The American people are, indeed, waking up. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees 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

My thoughts on the recent charges against a medical marijuana-recommending doctor in Michigan, featured on the The Huffington Post Detroit's page. http://www.huffingto..._b_1914157.html Recently, the Michigan Attorney General's office filed a formal complaint with the Licensing and Regulation Division (LARA), alleging that a physician failed to require patients to produce medical records and "failed to maintain those records," prior to and after recommending patients for medical marijuana. The first question raised is, will the Attorney General's investigation extend to all doctors, or is this only an issue because it involves medical marijuana? Through the four-year history of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the physician certification process has been a hot topic, with opponents of the Act routinely criticizing this aspect of the law. To some, these doctors are helping patients find relief through medical marijuana in light of professional risk, complaints and potential criminal investigations. Opponents, however, maintain that obtaining one's medical marijuana card is too easy, citing that as of one year ago, more than 90 percent of the state's 64,000 patients were using medical marijuana to treat severe pain, muscle spasms or nausea. A year later, the state has more than 130,000 registered medical marijuana patients. One fact often overlooked is that LARA has an entire page on its website devoted to pain management, and nearly 30 percent of Michigan's residents have sought treatment for an acute pain condition in the past year. The current legislative process and proposed bills being discussed in Michigan's House and Senate are opening a potentially dangerous debate, not trusting physicians to make the right decision and injecting politics into our right to privacy in healthcare. No other prescription or diagnosis is as scrutinized as a medical marijuana recommendation, despite doctors being tasked with control, regulation and administering thousands of other substances throughout their careers. If Michigan policymakers truly want to protect the medical marijuana community and ensure safe access to medicine, they need to focus on amending the Public Health Code, not the MMMA or attacking those recommending the medicine. Doing so would first allow and recognize the use of medical marijuana and protect recommending physicians, preventing physicians from shying away from medical marijuana for fear of prosecution. The issue of medical marijuana is a public health issue, not a public safety issue. In order for the MMMA to truly work as intended, and to give the voters of Michigan what they approved, the state needs to trust and rely on board-certified physicians, not politicians, to make proper decisions about the use and recommendation of medical marijuana. 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.

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.