Cops Used Fake Patient Ids To Buy Medical Pot;

[Guest Happy Guy]

Those that created the MMMP agree with me on this. Ignorant? And who are you calling 'we' (we created this). You are not we. Bottom line, the courts will decide and they haven't had the chance yet.

[The Digital Nomad]

Those that created the MMMP agree with me on this. Ignorant? And who are you calling 'we' (we created this). You are not we.

 

I am an activist, and I like to think I am mentored by the old school activist before us. While I didn't create the actuall MMMP, I am still a part of it, working what was created before us.

 

So 'they' (who are you calling they?) do not agree with patients helping patients? So tell me - how would patients get clones and meds without a caregiver?

 

I guess we can talk about this at the next rally or protest - you'll be there with "us" right?

 

-DN

[Guest Happy Guy]

It's not a compassion issue. It's a legal issue for the courts to decide on. It was low to play that card. You need to rise above smearing people for trying to be legal with the accusation of lack of compassion. That's not the issue here. It's a cheap shot used by wanna-be activists. We can do better than that.

[The Digital Nomad]

It's not a compassion issue. It's a legal issue for the courts to decide on. It was low to play that card. You need to rise above smearing people for trying to be legal with the accusation of lack of compassion. That's not the issue here. Cheap shot for wanna be activists.

 

where did I say it was compassion? I used the michigan law to make my statement for P2P.

 

wanna-be? I guess you know me so well! :jipo:

 

www.thc4u.com

 

-DN

[peanutbutter]

In other words, my name is submitted to the MDCH. That doesn't make my name confidential information.

 

You say it isn't confidential. The law says it is confidential.

 

Section 6 (h) (2)

Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential

 

It says each individual name is confidential information.

[Wayne'sWorld]

The patient retains a copy of the submitted documents. Would you claim these copies are not protected?

 

I'm guessing not ..

 

As for those that didn't get a recommendation, that would be a very small minority of those attempting to get certified.

 

Those ledger notes are the very first step in the application process. It is the sole reason the names are there.

 

I still have my copies and I want everyone who is disemminating the information regarding my private medical records that I stapled to the lamp posts on main street prosecuted for violating my rights!

[peanutbutter]

I still have my copies and I want everyone who is disemminating the information regarding my private medical records that I stapled to the lamp posts on main street prosecuted for violating my rights!

 

I gathered the impression that the PA was trying to conceal the police violated confidential information sections of the law.

 

So far the only evidence introduced that showed anything at all, in that area, was something about a Colorado ID card.

[bobandtorey]

Ignorance is not bliss.

 

"Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

And what is the definition of Medical use as STATED in the MMMAct??

 

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

http://legislature.m...d-Law-1-of-2008

 

You didn't think we created a law without thinking about it? Give some credit to those that created the MMMP.

 

A registered, qualified patient can assist a registered, qualifying patient with a 'acquistition, delivery, or transfer'. A caregiver may only assist the five qualifying, registered patients he is connected with through the MDCH database.

 

Don't take my word for it, go ask Matt Abel - he frequently shows up at the MOCC meetings and events.

He also stated this in an issue of Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine in response to this same question.

 

-DN

 

you do make some good points but what happens when some one comes for another State does he have to Waite 4 Months for Meds am just asking

[DenturesLost]

You say it isn't confidential. The law says it is confidential.

 

Section 6 (h) (2)

Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential

 

It says each individual name is confidential information.

You aren't making any sense. You take things out of context. You can't take a clause out of a law and just apply it willy nilly. Read it IN CONTEXT.

 

The law says the info submitted to the MDCH is confidential---The LIST. In other words the LIST contains names and the MDCH has a responsibility to keep those names confidential. The way you try to apply that is to say that since the names are confidential according to the law then that means the name itself, outside that list, is confidential and that every citizen has an obligation to not disclose your name. I mean really. I don't know what to say at this point. To suggest that a pt's name is confidential because it is on the list and then to suggest that the confidentiality of that name becomes confidential everywhere else in life is so absurd that I am finding it hard to contain myself.

 

A few days ago you asked that I not insult you. First, I don't think I did insult you. Breaking things down so you could understand them was not an insult. Sometimes you have to lay things out in kindergarten terms for people to grasp them. HOWEVER, believe me, I DO want to insult you now. But I'll keep it in...

 

What you are suggesting is that the plain meaning of the statute, as well as the intent, indicate that a person's name is "confidential" if it is on the "list." To you that means no one can divulge their name in everyday life lest they violate the confidentiality of the act. The ultimate in government control huh? You're a pt or cg so now the gov't owns your name. Go down to the local court to contest a parking ticket and the judge is supposed to call the case as "John Doe" because if he discloses your name then he is breaching confidentiality. Seriously man, wake up.

 

 

Parenthetically, I would point out that one way to invalidate a criminal statute is its being determined void for vagueness. Why? Because a vague statute violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional. What you are suggesting is that the act is so confusing that it is vague. That the meaning is just too hard to glean. I would suggest that if it is as vague as you are trying to make it then it is unconstitutional anyway and therefore void. In other words NO ONE could be found guilty under that section.

[peanutbutter]

You aren't making any sense. You take things out of context. You can't take a clause out of a law and just apply it willy nilly. Read it IN CONTEXT.

 

The law says the info submitted to the MDCH is confidential---The LIST. In other words the LIST contains names and the MDCH has a responsibility to keep those names confidential. The way you try to apply that is to say that since the names are confidential according to the law then that means the name itself, outside that list, is confidential and that every citizen has an obligation to not disclose your name. I mean really. I don't know what to say at this point. To suggest that a pt's name is confidential because it is on the list and then to suggest that the confidentiality of that name becomes confidential everywhere else in life is so absurd that I am finding it hard to contain myself.

 

A few days ago you asked that I not insult you. First, I don't think I did insult you. Breaking things down so you could understand them was not an insult. Sometimes you have to lay things out in kindergarten terms for people to grasp them. HOWEVER, believe me, I DO want to insult you now. But I'll keep it in...

 

What you are suggesting is that the plain meaning of the statute, as well as the intent, indicate that a person's name is "confidential" if it is on the "list." To you that means no one can divulge their name in everyday life lest they violate the confidentiality of the act. The ultimate in government control huh? You're a pt or cg so now the gov't owns your name. Go down to the local court to contest a parking ticket and the judge is supposed to call the case as "John Doe" because if he discloses your name then he is breaching confidentiality. Seriously man, wake up.

 

 

Parenthetically, I would point out that one way to invalidate a criminal statute is its being determined void for vagueness. Why? Because a vague statute violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional. What you are suggesting is that the act is so confusing that it is vague. That the meaning is just too hard to glean. I would suggest that if it is as vague as you are trying to make it then it is unconstitutional anyway and therefore void. In other words NO ONE could be found guilty under that section.

 

It would undermine the entire system, if this section were to be applied that way .. Correct?

 

Properly licensed medical marijuana patients couldn't even be in the system.

 

What do you think they were trying to do? Our elected officials refused to do the job themselves. So the marijuana people wrote the law itself.

 

What kind of legal system would marijuana people design?

[DenturesLost]

It would undermine the entire system, if this section were to be applied that way .. Correct?

 

Properly licensed medical marijuana patients couldn't even be in the system.

 

What do you think they were trying to do? Our elected officials refused to do the job themselves. So the marijuana people wrote the law itself.

 

What kind of legal system would marijuana people design?

System? Huh?

 

How would the system be undermined? What it would do would be undermine EVERYDAY LIFE! To impose a nazi confidentiality requirement on EVERYONE such that you can't mutter your own name for fear of criminal punishment would undermine how everyone goes about daily life. We would all be relegated to the use of pseudonyms to introduce ourselves to someone. No one could call us by name because under your interpretation our names would thus be disclosed.

 

You aren't making any sense. None.

[Guest Happy Guy]

you do make some good points but what happens when some one comes for another State does he have to Waite 4 Months for Meds am just asking

You can make that case for need. That is not necessarily a legal case. It is the same with various transfers. Need does not dictate legality.

[peanutbutter]

You can make that case for need. That is not necessarily a legal case. It is the same with various transfers. Need does not dictate legality.

 

The case can also be made for protection under the law, as cardholders from other states are protected in our law.

[Guest Happy Guy]

The case can also be made for protection under the law, as cardholders from other states are protected in our law.

You can wish it. You can hope it. You can pray it. The courts will decide it. It takes time. Saying it over and over, ad nauseam, means nothing at all.

[peanutbutter]

Parenthetically, I would point out that one way to invalidate a criminal statute is its being determined void for vagueness. Why? Because a vague statute violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional. What you are suggesting is that the act is so confusing that it is vague. That the meaning is just too hard to glean. I would suggest that if it is as vague as you are trying to make it then it is unconstitutional anyway and therefore void. In other words NO ONE could be found guilty under that section.

 

Thank you for supporting my case.

 

I have been saying all along that "a person" does not include the defendant themselves.

 

There is a sever-ability clause in the law. So if that "a person" is vague the rest of the sentence is still valid.

 

The rest of the sentence makes it a crime for any police officer, PA or judge able to commit this act.

 

A while back you said you have to study the sentence more to determine how it should be viewed. Have you came to any conclusion yet?

[DenturesLost]

Thank you for supporting my case.

 

I have been saying all along that "a person" does not include the defendant themselves.

 

There is a sever-ability clause in the law. So if that "a person" is vague the rest of the sentence is still valid.

 

The rest of the sentence makes it a crime for any police officer, PA or judge able to commit this act.

 

A while back you said you have to study the sentence more to determine how it should be viewed. Have you came to any conclusion yet?

If your case is that the law is vague and thus unconstitutional then I supported your case.

However, the phrase "a person" is clear as day and so is the rest of that sentence. Your interpretation is completely wrong on that part.

My suggestion of vagueness has nothing to do with "a person," rather I am referring to whether the conduct is, in fact, a violation of the law. By that I dont mean figuring out who is "a person." I mean figuring out what disclosures qualify as violative of the act.

Let me break it down for you yet again (and for the last time).

 

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both.

 

In order to be guilty of the crime at issue certain elements must be present and they are:

1. you are a person as described by the law

2. you disclose confidential info

3. the diclosure violates the law

 

You are reading that subpart incorrectly. That subpart is meant to describe who can be guilty of the crime, and when, and what the punishment would be. You are suggesting that it reads "...discloses confidential information IS in violation..." That is NOT what it reads. What the sentence tells us is that we have to find a violation of the act. That means looking at OTHER parts of the act to find a violation before there is a crime.

 

To read it the way you suggest first of all makes no sense but secondly would indicate that the drafter of the act put the words "in violation of this act" in for no reason whatsoever. That they serve no purpose. That they are just "extra words." If we read it without those words it would mean the same thing as what it means (according to you) with the words.

 

A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor...

 

or

 

A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information is guilty of a misdemeanor...

 

You have to look in the act to find where the act makes disclosure a violation of the act. There are only 2 instances where the act indicates that disclosure can violate the act and the 1st instance is the MDCH providing disclosure via FOIA. The 2nd is the MDCH disclosing more info to the cops than reasonably necessary. Where else in the act does it say disclosure IS a violation or that disclosure of certain info shouldn't occur?

 

So to sum it up, the vagueries that exist in the act are by no means who is "a person." The vagueries I refer to are what type of disclosures are violative of the act.

[fortin151]

There should be a hotline where you enter the patients/caregivers MM I.D card. once you enter a valid I.D number the automated answering machine will tell you there Name , height , and eye color. this must match there state I.D. (Aswell as there person) quick and simple. this is what any person who works any situation that calls for I.D checking is suppose to check.(if there is resonible doubt for the I.D in question)

[+RevThad]

You can wish it. You can hope it. You can pray it. The courts will decide it. It takes time. Saying it over and over, ad nauseam, means nothing at all.

So what you are saying is the law doesn't matter, because the courts will just ignore things like:

 

"Section 333.26424 (j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department."

 

Ignoring sections of the law and declaring the actions covered by those ignored sections "illegal" does not make it so. Allowing prosecutors and civil servants to repeat their take on the law over and over, without challenging it or correcting it, will eventually lead to more and more folks believing the restricted positions that are taken by them. So, if it takes repeating the same sections of the law over and over ad infinitum to get the message out there; let it be so.

 

Remember this is not just a legal fight, this is also a fight against propaganda and misinformation.

[peanutbutter]

You have to look in the act to find where the act makes disclosure a violation of the act. There are only 2 instances where the act indicates that disclosure can violate the act and the 1st instance is the MDCH providing disclosure via FOIA. The 2nd is the MDCH disclosing more info to the cops than reasonably necessary. Where else in the act does it say disclosure IS a violation or that disclosure of certain info shouldn't occur?

 

To accept your interpretation requires that you ignore the list of people that are eligible to commit this crime.

 

That list includes much more than just the MDCH.

 

Therefore it must cover more than just disclosure by the MDCH.

 

I hold that any disclosure is illegal unless it is permitted by the law. That any disclosure that is not distinctly permitted is "in violation of this act."

[peanutbutter]

The writers of this law forbid officials and employees of local units of government from disclosing this information.

 

Would you suggest that the only way that could take place would be for a local official to have the physical MDCH computer and hand that computer to someone else? That would be silly.

 

It has to be the information contained in the MDCH computer file. Not the computer itself.

[Guest Happy Guy]

So what you are saying is the law doesn't matter, because the courts will just ignore things like:"Section 333.26424 (j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana,shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department. Ignoring sections of the law and declaring the actions covered by those ignored sections "illegal" does not make it so. Allowing prosecutors and civil servants to repeat their take on the law over and over, without challenging it or correcting it, will eventually lead to more and more folks believing the restricted positions that are taken by them. So, if it takes repeating the same sections of the law over and over ad infinitum to get the message out there; let it be so.Remember this is not just a legal fight, this is also a fight against propaganda and misinformation.

The courts will decide which filibuster breath was right. I think it's ridiculous to think that all the 'talking' makes any difference at all. Maybe it burns off your nervous energy? Not doing much else...... Maybe stirring up your base? LOL

[peanutbutter]

So how would the local official have this information that they could go to jail for passing out to someone else?

 

The MDCH is permitted to disclose the information in the law. Under limited situations.

 

For instance they are supposed to take that information and print it on a ID card. It is reasonable to assume that an employee of a local unit of government might see the ID card. The source of that information is the MDCH file.

[DenturesLost]

To accept your interpretation requires that you ignore the list of people that are eligible to commit this crime.

 

That list includes much more than just the MDCH.

 

Therefore it must cover more than just disclosure by the MDCH.

 

I hold that any disclosure is illegal unless it is permitted by the law. That any disclosure that is not distinctly permitted is "in violation of this act."

The thing is, my interpretation is based on plain English and applicable rules of statutory construction and interpretation. Yours is not.

 

You are trying to force something to fit. You are trying to force something that just plain is not there. Furthermore, you are assuming that the author put the "any person" language in to make the section applicable to every living human being. What you fail to recognize is that the "any person" language (regardless of who we decide "any person" covers) is qualified. In other words the section was designed to cover any person who ALSO discloses and who ALSO does so in violation of the act. It does not say that any person who discloses is in violation. It does say that the person has to make a disclosure that IS in VIOLATION OF THE ACT. You are disregarding that point.

 

Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that when the meaning of a criminal statute is not perfectly clear then the interpretation that best protects against criminal prosecution should be accepted. This reasoning is right in line with constitutional law in that a vague criminal statute is void under our constitution for violation of due process. In other words, if it cannot be reasonably clear to someone that certain action could be a violation of criminal law then they shouldn't be held accountable. You would argue, and have above, that things that are not clear in this regard should be "severed" from the law. That isn't how it works. The act can have 100 sections that have the severability language and it doesn't matter because it doesn't apply to the criminal portion of the law. You cannot sever a criminal law to force it to make sense. The fact that you HAVE TO sever something from a criminal law to force it to make sense is, in and of itself, the exact thing that makes the criminal law unconstitutional.

 

It would appear that the author left "any person" open as a broad category so that there would be no argument as to who could fit in that category IF they also fit the rest of the requirements---disclosing confid. info AND in violation of the act. In other words the author wanted to make it clear that if the disclosure is in violation of the act then being an employee does not sheild someone from criminal liability---so a specious argument could not be made that the action of disclosure was done on part of the agency and thus the employee is not culpable.

 

I have analyzed all of your arguments and your arguments fail for all of the reasons I have pointed out. I know you want to be correct, but in the interest of operating on the level of reality you are going to have to accept that you are incorrect.

[Wayne'sWorld]

If I post my MDCH paperwork on the post office bulletin board and you read it, do we both get prosecuted or just me?

[+RevThad]

The courts will decide which filibuster breath was right. I think it's ridiculous to think that all the 'talking' makes any difference at all. Maybe it burns off your nervous energy? Not doing much else...... Maybe stirring up your base? LOL

Interesting turn of a phrase... the use of "your base". This leaves 2 options, first that you are speaking generally about both sides of the issue, or second that you do not include yourself in what would be considered my base...

 

Educating folks about the law and the protections and rights afforded by it, does and will continue to make a difference. Allowing LEO and other public officials to paint the MMMAct with the old stereotypes and smears, without being challenged allows for some of that tar to stick. The opponents to the law continue to attempt painting everybody involved in the medical marijuana community as stoners, potheads, drug abusers, and dealers. They attempt to compare compassion clubs, dispensaries, and homes of patients/caregivers to crack houses. They continue to try and narrow the scope and intent of the MMMAct, by nibbling away at small pieces, and if allowed to do so there will be nothing left; just look at New Jersey.

 

One of the biggest opponents has even changed his tune on the law as written, as he attempts to make more political headway. From an article in late 2008:

 

"The proposal smacks of the "law of unintended consequences," said William Schuette, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge and a leader of Citizens Protecting Michigan's Kids. Not explicitly outlawing pot shops implicitly allows them, he said. "

 

It is funny how even the great crusader against medical marijuana read the proposal and law to mean it "implicitly allows" for dispensaries... Go figure. The proposal and the law haven't changed, so that only leaves the person interpreting it.

 

I think Mr. Schuette would like to change his statement to read "the law of unacceptable consequences", at least from his position. He knew what would be allowed, and thus must live with those consequences now.

 

Just something to think about.