Eric L. VanDussen Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Edited January 12, 2011 by Eric L. VanDussen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanks2 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The bad, must have doc's approval before arrest. The good, he can still use AD at trial even though the judge did not think he qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenturesLost Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The bad, must have doc's approval before arrest. The good, he can still use AD at trial even though the judge did not think he qualified. Did we read the same opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne'sWorld Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Michigan Supreme court appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trix Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Hmm, this AD defense is complicated huh? You all will more than likely be seeing mine soon, if not dismissed before hand.. hopefully a better outcome. Trix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solabeirtan Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) I believe this is a bad decision. His condition is documented by his physician for 9 years. He had his qualifying condition prior to the law being passed even. It's really unbelievable. This is NOT justice. Apalling gross ignorance is more accurate . 1.) The Law was made to protect the people esp /w qualifying conditions who derive therapuetic relief from cannabis 2.) to not be involved in this very BS. 3.) There were no cards available at the time, in fact the MDCH had only started accepting applications the previous week, or there would be absolutly no cause for this incorrect decision. This should be appealed to the SC if you have the $$$$ a. He had previously discussed the possible theraputic relief / benefits of Cannabis with his Physician. This is an unnecessarily Cold treatment of people with absolutley no intention of breaking any Laws but to possibly obtain some Harmless Relief from Natures cruel ways. With no other apparent detrimental effect than possibly stimulating a small amount of ecobomic activity that should by any yardstick be a good measure. ...gunner check out thet okeefe video now ... Edited January 13, 2011 by solabeirtan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/21065-court-michigans-medical-pot-law-isnt-retroactive/page__p__184526__hl__%2Bkeith+%2Bcampbell__fromsearch__1#entry184526 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanks2 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Did we read the same opinion? What did I miss or miss interpret? They said a doctor's rec has to be after the law but before the arrest. The last paragraph says that just because he did not meet the standard to have the case dismissed, that does not bar him from presenting a section 8 defense at trial. Or did I just completely miss the point of the decision? Edited January 13, 2011 by thanks2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The last paragraph in this ruling means that a medical defense can be presented to ANY jury in ANY marijuana case. And then the PEOPLE can decide. Not the "good old boy" network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The last paragraph in this ruling means that a medical defense can be presented to ANY jury in ANY marijuana case. And then the PEOPLE can decide. Not the "good old boy" network. EVEN IN OAKLAND COUNTY!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bob Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It is my read that there are two lessons in this opinion.... 1. In order to use the AD, you must have started the formal certification process after the law went into effect and before arrest. 2. While the case is referred back to the court, the defendant still has the right to present an affirmative defense if he can provide additional evidence he complied with #1 above. I am not happy with this ruling, but like any ruling we have to look at it like the FAA looks at a plane crash. It is a tragedy but what lessons can we learn, how can we change our behavior, what can we do to prevent it from happening to another patient. My opinion is that if you qualify, get certified- count on the AD in the 20 days the state has to make a decision, you are legal on day 21 after they cash your check anyhow. Follow the rules, keep things private and steadily increase our numbers. On the UP Hemp and Cannabis site, where I spend alot of time, I suggested we start an on line resource titled 'So you want to be a Michigan MMJ patient, here's what you need to know....'. Make it open source, lead the patient through the forms, certification, caregiver selection, grow operations and use. Each court case (Redden, Kolanek, etc) that affects a particular aspect of the program should be provided as an attachment and explained, with recommendations as to how to avoid running afoul of the point made by the ruling. Dr. Bob What did I miss or miss interpret? They said a doctor's rec has to be after the law but before the arrest. The last paragraph says that just because he did not meet the standard to have the case dismissed, that does not bar him from presenting a section 8 defense at trial. Or did I just completely miss the point of the decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.