Jump to content

Take A Look At This


Recommended Posts

My link

 

Is this judge out of line or what???

 

He say's you shouldn't use your medication........

 

Judge Peter O'Connell said the state statute is so confusing that until the Michigan Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation, it would be prudent for all Michigan citizens to "avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here are some select quotes:

 

"The MMMA is based on model legislation provided by the Marijuana Policy Project(MPP), a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group organized to decriminalize both the medical and recreational uses of marijuana. The statutory language of the MMMA was drafted by Karen O’Keefe, the Director of State Policies at the MPP in Washington, D.C.6 Interestingly, the confusion caused by reading the statute piecemeal and out of context has seemed to work to the advantage of those who share the MPP’s wish for outright legalization of marijuana. Taking advantage of the MMMA’s confusion, proponents of liberalized marijuana regulations claim that the MMMA legalizes shops that sell marijuana, collective growing facilities, and the cultivation and sale of marijuana as a commercial crop. Further, those individuals who primarily wish to use marijuana recreationally are taking advantage of “pot docs” who will give them written certifications for medical marijuana without bothering to establish either a bona fide physicianpatientrelationship or the existence of a terminal or debilitating medical condition."

 

"At the preliminary examination in this matter, the learned Judge Robert Turner, a veteran of many years on the bench, stated that the MMMA, “is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen in my life.” In interpreting this act, Judge Turner assumed that the sole purpose of it was to set forth the rules and regulations for the use of medical marijuana in Michigan, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the act is being used as a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in Michigan. It is well crafted in its obfuscations, ambiguous language, and confusingly overlapping sections."

 

"Until our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of this act, it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law. I again issue a stern warning to all: please do not attempt to interpret this act on your own. Reading this act is similar to participating in the Triwizard Tournament described in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: the maze that is this statute is so complex that the final result will only be known once the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review and remove the haze from this act."

 

"Accordingly, an individual is not entitled to protection under the MMMA if a physician has acknowledged only that the individual suffers from symptoms of a disease or illness (such as pain, nausea, or anxiety), but has not actually diagnosed that person with a debilitating disease or illness. Also, the term “medical use” is only employed in specific sections of this act, while the term “use” is employed in other sections, thereby suggesting two separate meanings for the term “use” within the act."

 

"An example of this conflict is § 4(a) and § 7(b)(5) of the act. Section 4(a) allows 18-year-old high school students to grow and use marijuana if they are properly registered with the state.Section 4(a) also states that as long as he or she is a qualifying patient who has a registry card, he or she “shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner whatsoever.” Reading § 4(a) in isolation allows 18-year-old students to possess marijuana in our schools without being subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner whatsoever. Conflicting with § 4(a) is § 7(2)(b), which provides that one may not possess medical marijuana on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school."

 

"Section 4(a) also provides that a qualifying patient is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty for the medical use of marijuana if that patient has no more than 12 marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility. Alternatively, the qualifying patient may designate a primary caregiver to grow up to 12 plants in an enclosed, locked facility. However, because the statute provides that a qualified patient may be in possession of the specified number of marijuana

plants only if the patient has not designated a primary caregiver to grow marijuana for him or her, if the qualified patient has made such a designation, the statute provides him or her with noprotection from arrest if found in the possession of any marijuana plants."

 

"Sections 4(b) and 7(b)(5) are also in conflict. Section 7(b)(5) states that a person may not use marijuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition. Section 4(b)allows primary caregivers to assist qualifying patients. Nothing in § 4(a) or (b) allows primary caregivers to use marijuana, unless they qualify under § 4(a). The conflict arises because the act allows primary caregivers to grow marijuana, but it prohibits those who are not “qualifying patients” to use marijuana. I note that caregivers receive registration cards under the statute but are not required to have a “written certification” stating they have a debilitating condition. The only logical conclusion is that “primary caregivers” who do not possess a “qualifying patient”

registry card are not permitted to use marijuana under the MMMA."

 

"The act uses both the terms “qualifying patient” and “patient.” While qualifying patients enjoy greater protections under § 4 than patients do under § 8, both qualifying patients and patients must follow all of the provisions of the act, including the requirement that all patients growing marijuana do so in an “enclosed locked facility.” Growing marijuana in the back yard thus subjects the grower and the homeowner to the penalties found in the Public Health Code. This requirement is consistent with the language of the ballot proposal. The issue whether each patient’s 12 marijuana plants must be grown in a separate locked facility is best left for another day. Those caregivers who commingle various patients’ plants in one facility may look forward

to becoming test cases. Primary caregivers may have only five patients and, if the qualifying patient designates him- or herself as his or her own caregiver, then that caregiver is allowed only four additional patients."

 

"Similarly, a primary caregiver may not possess more than “12 marijuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility” for each qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the registration process and who has that patient’s permission to cultivate the allotment of marijuana plants. MCL 333.26423 defines an “enclosed, locked facility” as “a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permits access only by a

registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.” Although it is unclear from the statute whether each grouping of 12 plants must be in a separate enclosed, locked facility,16 it is

clear that under no circumstances may a primary caregiver be in possession of more than a total of 60 marijuana plants, presuming that the primary caregiver acts in that capacity for the

statutory maximum of five qualifying patients, all of who have given him or her the authority to cultivate marijuana for them."

 

"Many Michiganders are faced with the often unwelcome intrusion of medical marijuana dispensaries in their communities, and local governments are faced with the difficult task of determining whether they are obliged to allow such dispensaries to operate in their communities. Yet, interestingly, under a proper reading of § 4(b), the operation of a dispensary would make little economic sense, because in order to abide by the provisions of the MMMA, the dispensary would have to be operated entirely by one individual, and could have, at most, five customers. This is because, first, the MMMA has no provision for the sale of marijuana, and second, a primary caregiver is permitted to receive compensation for only the costs associated with

assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through registration with the DCH."

 

"Anyone growing more than 12 plants in one separate enclosed, locked facility should not complain or be surprised when or if a federal drug enforcement agent appears. Again, under federal law, cultivating marijuana is illegal. Growing large quantities of marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility is the same as waving a red flag in front of a 3,000 pound bull. Any questions in this regard are quickly answered by reading the Gus Burns article in the April 22,

2010, Saginaw News, “Federal agents and sheriff’s deputies say seized marijuana in Saginaw County was illegal and not medicine.”http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/04/federal_agents_and_sheriffs_de.html

(accessed September 13, 2010). Caregivers who do not want to become a test case should proceed with caution. No clear, reliable, or lasting resolution to this conflict between state and federal law seems in view."

 

"In addition, a primary caregiver may receive compensation for only the costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana. This simply means that the primary caregiver may receive reimbursement for monetary expenses incurred in the course of assisting the qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana. The statute does not authorize compensation for the labor in cultivating marijuana, or for otherwise assisting the qualifying patient in its use, nor does it indicate that the primary caregiver may profit financially from this role."

 

the bias in his tone is disturbing. this is only from reading half way so far.....

 

i can't believe some of the wording he uses in there.....especially about the 18 year old high school students and the harry potter reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some more:

 

"The DCH should keep track of the number of certification forms each doctor signs. If it is determined that certain doctors are collecting money for routinely signing the forms, those doctors should be disqualified from participation in the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program. It is beyond question that one doctor treating 100, 500, or 1,000 terminally ill patients, with a 10-minute examination, has not been acting pursuant to bona fide physician-patient relationships. A

revolving-door, rubber-stamp, assembly-line certification process does not constitute activity “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship,” especially where the doctor fails to set

any medical boundaries for his or her patients and fails to monitor the patient’s progress on a regular basis."

 

"Accordingly, I can find no circumstance under which the MMMA legalizes the sale of marijuana by medical marijuana dispensaries. The statute simply does not permit such activity."

 

"I do not direct my critical comments toward those qualifying patients who do in fact have a serious debilitating condition and seek some solace in medical marijuana. This act was intended to help those individuals. My comments are directed at those who are currently abusing the written certification process, i.e., the majority of the persons who are becoming certified at this time. My comments are also directed at those who are charged with the oversight of the administrative process.

At oral arguments, it was revealed that a certain Livingston County doctor was selling written certifications for $50. Apparently all one had to do to obtain a written certification to use medical marijuana was to show up at this doctor’s house and slip $50 under the door. This history of the written certification process may in fact jeopardize the entire medical marijuana process for those who are legitimately entitled to use it. New checks and balances on this

process are certainly in order to resolve this problem."

 

"In the present case, Dr. Eisenbud testified that he met with each defendant for about a half an hour, spending five minutes reviewing the medical records, and about ten minutes on the physical examination, while also interviewing them. On those bases Dr. Eisenbud then certified that he was treating both defendants “for a terminal illness or a serious debilitating condition.” Such foolishness is so obvious on its face as to deserve no more than a footnote in this opinion to

expose it, although I note that even Dr. Eisenbud’s certifications appear to be more credible than the Livingston County doctor described in the previous paragraph."

 

"What has been lost in the rush to implement the MMMA is a comprehensive set of administrative rules. Under MCL 333.3642(9)(a), the DCH only had 120 days to draft the administrative rules that are currently in effect. As evidenced by the rules that did come into

being, this was a totally unreasonable time limit for such a task."

 

"To quote from Sir Walter Scott’s 1808 poem, Marmion, “O, what a tangled web we weave / When first we practise to deceive!” Of central importance to this appeal is the question,

is the MMMA a subterfuge for legalizing marijuana in this state, or is it a legitimate medical reform intended to help only those individuals who have a terminal illness or a serious or debilitating medical condition?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Medicinal Patient

My link

 

Is this judge out of line or what???

 

He say's you shouldn't use your medication........

 

Judge Peter O'Connell said the state statute is so confusing that until the Michigan Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation, it would be prudent for all Michigan citizens to "avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law."

 

Thanks so much for this information. This Judges advice needs to boomerang right back to him and his colleagues and other authority figures throughout the state when it comes to advising one not to violate our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...