Townships Get Threatening Letters From Feds!

[Catfinger]

Thanks for the info. I really reallized how much a little effort when we were dealing with the Burton ordinance. I was so scared I was shaking when I told the city council that I was a patient and caregiver but it really made a difference. A bunch of other people came and spoke too and we ended up getting a very patient friendly ordinance.

 

Thats amazing to hear, glad you stepped up! You risked your position and put it all on the line for the sake of the cause and from the sounds of it, you made a difference. These are the kind of individual battles we are going to have to win over the course of time.

[+kurt klaas]

May 26, 2011

 

To the members of the City Council of Holland, Michigan:

 

Council members are not considering all the possible consequences of adopting a 1000-foot caregiver free zone for caregivers.

 

My name is Kurt Volbeda. I am a caregiver. I live at . . . . My house is located 300 feet from a school on . . . . I request that this information be entered into the public record because I want to be the first person the city fines and punishes for violating an ordinance created under color of law, so we can begin the legal process of determining what actually justice is for the sick whose suffering is relieved by medical marijuana. The question of medical marijuana free zones has not been answered by any Michigan court. I will be the test case.

 

Someone mentioned they needed the big picture to make a decision about medical marijuana. Let me suggest what that picture looks like. To begin with, it does not matter what Council members think about the question of medical marijuana, or city lawyers, or what I think. The only thing that matters is what the judges on Michigan’s Supreme Court will think, because the rest of us will have to fall in line with their ruling. So taking into consideration the big picture means you actually will have to vote on how confident you are in your lawyers winning a legal challenge against imposing the federal 1000-foot rule on caregivers.

 

Let me briefly summarize the legal issues involved, so that you come to see the big picture clearly. What your lawyers will have to argue successfully is that the federal drug free zone law trumps state medical marijuana law and that you are required to enforce the former. Neither will win. High court rulings have already been made throughout the country about these questions and settled the issue: federal drug laws are in play when the feds prosecute; state laws when the state prosecutes; therefore, they can coexist. Here is another key fact your lawyers forgot to mention. The Act states, Section 2. ©, “Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. . .

 

Since you are not required to enforce federal law, to do so must be a voluntary choice, which is an indefensible position on which to build a legal justification.

 

The City’s lawyers brought up the recent letter by Justice Department officials of April 14, 2011 to Governor Gregoire of Washington, which threatens prosecution of large scale cultivation facilities, which your lawyers apparently think is what caregivers engage in. Actually, no caregiver can grow more than 72 plants, and federal government rules do not come into play for anything less than 99 plants. The letter reiterates longstanding federal law and authority to prosecute persons who “unlawfully distribute or manufacture controlled substances within 1,000 feet of schools, colleges, playgrounds and public housing facilities, and within 100 feet of any youth centers, public swimming pools and video arcade facilities.” However, this letter provides a legal foundation made of sand upon which to argue that the City of Holland is required by law to enforce the 1000-foot rule in any form. If the state of Michigan is not required to enforce federal law, including the 1000-foot rule, what makes you think the city is?

 

Let me sketch out more of the big picture for you to consider, the picture that would also be presented to judges to consider. If I am correct, Attorney Mulder was quoted in the Holland Sentinel as saying something like, the City of Holland is taking a “conservative” approach to medical marijuana. Okay, lets see what “conservative” means in practice and if that really fits. Probably somewhere around 80-90% of all caregivers who supply medical marijuana for patients would be denied rights and protections granted by state law if the 1000 foot rule is adopted. Furthermore, they would face punishment for not complying. However, the Act protects anyone against being punished for engaging in medical marijuana activity. And this protection applies to all state registered patients and caregivers, regardless of where they live in relation to public schools. The city may not ignore or subvert these protections. The City must acquiesce to a state law its officials may not like.

On top of that, if caregivers did comply and cease providing marijuana for their patients, it would result in immediate harm to and deterioration of their patients’ physical health condition, in addition to other possible effects, such as psychological distress and lessening of daily functioning. This makes it very easy to meet one criterion for requesting a preliminary injunction from a judge.

 

So, would any judge consider all this a “conservative” approach? Hardly. A 1000-foot caregiver free zone is autocratic, that is, blatantly repressive. The 1000-foot rule would be discriminatory and fly in the face of state medical marijuana protections afforded caregivers and patients and the intent of the Act. It would be very easy to argue that what the City’s real intent for its 1000-foot rule is, or at least what its actual outcome would be. The 1000-foot rule would be an attempt to lash back at and undermine the state’s medical marijuana law. Axing 80–90% of caregivers is clear evidence of trying to undermine the Act as much as possible.

 

And think about the following. If your lawyers were able to argue successfully in a court of law that cultivating medical marijuana is illegal within 1000 feet of schools based on federal preemption, they would also be able to argue that all marijuana is illegal! And if all marijuana is illegal federally and city’s must abide by federal law, why not just go ahead and ban all of it, then, as in fact some city’s have done, because you would have legal cover for that too, wouldn’t you?

 

I think your lawyers are giving you very bad advice. But I don’t blame them. I think your lawyers are telling you what some Council members want to hear. You want to hear that you can do something to cut into medical marijuana activity, the more the better.

 

Someone stated, “I voted for the medical marijuana act. But I didn’t know what I was voting for.” I suggest that among other things, what voters were voting for was to prevent persons or agencies that disapprove of marijuana as a medical treatment from being able to deny rights and protections to do so, specifically governmental agencies and law enforcement. The Act is specifically designed to prevent government officials who do not approve of medical marijuana from denying rights and protections to patients and caregivers that the Act grants, like the Council member who apparently wants to ban everything. Some of you might actually want to take the time to read the Act. Pay special attention to the part that talks about how patients and caregivers may not be punished for engaging in state protected medical marijuana activity by anyone.

 

This is some of the big picture you need to consider that someone was so keen on getting a handle on to determine and judge their position on the question of medical marijuana.

 

I recommend that you do not take the “conservative approach” but a neutral approach and let the state legislature decide issues you have no business trying to fix. Only the state legislature has authority to alter or reform a STATE LAW. Not a city’s officials. City ordinances may not preempt state law under cover of federal law. Your lawyers will be unsuccessful in trying to use, as cover, federal law to undermine Michigan’s medical marijuana Act. All the lawyer’s talk about the big bad federal government and the scary stuff they can do is hot air, a smokescreen to justify a hostile approach to medical marijuana: not in our town, if at all possible.

There are plenty of other comments and facts and proposed regulations that make a pretty good argument that the City’s approach is to be as repressive as possible. There is no space to mention them.

 

Finally, you have succeeded at turning me into an adversary. There are at least 6 other proposed regulations that are illegal, that outright go against Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. So even if you decide not to adopt the 1000-foot rule, there’s still plenty of ammunition left to defeat your proposed ordinance in a court of law. That’s were all this will finally be decided. Not by you folks, or me.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Kurt Volbeda

[kirsten]

OK so the Michigan Senators website said 320 Farnum Bldng. no street name no zip etc. Same for my patients' senators. I figure its Michigan Ave, LANSING. Any idea about a street number or zip?

[lawyercaregiver]

This lawyer is a pathetic worthless pond scum bottom feeding filth.

 

No fee unless we recover. He is nothing but an ambulance chaser trying to stir up business.