Jump to content

Property Rights Of The Medical Marijuana Patient


Recommended Posts

The primary property right, granted under our new law, is that the marijuana is not subject to seizure or forfeiture.

 

Currently, there are many cases of police having seized medicine from patients and/or caregivers and are refusing to return it.

 

I'm sure that there are cases of courts refusing to return medicine also. While I'm sure, I don't know off the top of my head of any such event.

 

Seize is what the police would do.

Forfeit is what a court does.

 

Popular theory exists that there is an exemption or protection for those that are committing these illegal actions.

 

Let's examine those "protections" a little closer.

 

Let's look at the idea that these people are protected while breaking the law.

 

There are specific protections that are indeed written into the law. Those protections are older than the medical marijuana law.

 

Do they conflict? What is it that determines if the two conflict in such a way as to prevent a patient from being able to medicate in compliance with the new law?

 

And that is the issue. Does an existing law prevent a patient from medicating?

 

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

Are there laws that allow marijuana to be seized? Yes there are .. for non-medical.

Our new law says that the medicine is not subject to seizure.

 

These two conflict. The old laws are "inconsistent with this act." Since they conflict, the old laws do not apply.

 

So what about these "protections" everyone thinks officials have to ignore the law? Those old protections encourage officials to ignore the new law. Thereby causing patients to do without their medicine.

 

I propose that these "protections" "do not apply to the medical use of marijuana as provided by this act."

 

In other words, officials do not have the shield they think they have, if it deprives a medical marijuana patient or caregiver.

 

Comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

I'm glad it says "a" and not "their" qualifying patient.

 

So a caregiver is allowed to accept money in exchange for marijuana if the person offering the money is a qualifying patient.

 

That action is not the sale of a controlled substance.

 

Whichever of the two (patient or caregiver) owns the plants, it is illegal for law enforcement to seize them. They can not be deprived of this property. This is one single item of property that has gained new protections under our new law.

 

The rest of the patient and or caregiver properties are also protected.

 

Section 4 (h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.

 

In this section we see that marijuana and/or related property shall not be seized.

 

In order to seize a car, they have to claim that it is the proceeds of illegal activity. Within this context the "illegal activity" is "medical use of marihuana."

 

So then .. the old law says the car can be seized. The new law says it can not be seized.

 

The two laws conflict .. so which one is supposed to trump the other? Our new law is supposed to cause the old to not apply.

 

What about the laws that protect officials while breaking such law? They don't apply. They encourage law breaking by law enforcement. Therefore those legal "protections" do not apply. They are, possibly, exposed to serious legal repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BB - great to meet you also - and all I had an opportunity to say hello to.

 

Bob, that is an unenviable position to be in.

I suppose when it is finally done for you and Torey we can have a small celebration? - hope that is soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad it says "a" and not "their" qualifying patient.

 

VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE LAW. SAME USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION FOR ENCLOSED LOCKED FACILITY "ONLY BY A REGISTERED PATIENT OR REGISTERED CAREGIVER. ALSO I WAS BEFORE A JUDGE WHO TOLD A STORY THAT WHILE A CITY ATTORNEY HE LITIGATED THIS ISSUE TO THE MI SUPREME COURT, WITH A RULING THAT "A" WAS ANYONE, INSTEAD OF "THE" AS THE ONLY ONE. AN OBVIOUS INTENT BY THE LEGISLATURE TO EXTEND THE DEFINITION NOT LIMIT IT.

 

 

Michael Komorn

Attorney and Counselor

3000 Town Center Ste 1800

Sothfield, MI 48075

Off: 248-357-2550

Mbl: 248-321-5393

Email: Michael@komornlaw.com

Website: www.komornlaw.com

Planet Greentrees

New Call-in Number: 347-326-9626

Michigan's Premier Radio Show for the Medical Marihuana Community

http://www.blogtalkradio/com/greentreesradio

www.GreenTreesRadio.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...