Jump to content

Listen To What This Pa Says We Already Have.


Recommended Posts

The PA almost didn't sound like she believed half of it...

 

The problem I have with a Section 8 defense vs Section 4 is that Section 4 shouldn't be a defense! It isn't, it is a safe harbor, you shouldn't be charged or arrested for anything if you fit section 4!! If you fall outside of section 4, you have section 8 as a defense!

 

WTF, why isn't that argued? Why are we having to use Section 4 as a defense? It isn't, it is a free pass, no arrest...

 

Grrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes .. it is very very important that these two sections of law do not become intertwined.

 

The fact that unregistered patients are protected, by section 8, go to show that it is not required that every single iota of section 4 is applied to section 8.

 

This fact of unregistered patients being protected by our law is only possible because of the Redden Clark case. Their case is vital to the very existence of the Affirmative Defense.

 

Any time that it is available, please support Bob and Torey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Patients 'tell' docs all the time how much medication they need to control symptoms all the time. Good doctors listen and decide for themselves what they wish to prescribe.

 

2. How about using an expert in MMJ, ie one of the '55' like me, Dave Crocker, Robert Kenewell, etc to testify about 'reasonable amount' and the actual certification process when done by an 'expert' in the field. I know how babies are born, I'm a doctor, but I am not the expert you want to bring in to testify about a birth accident.

 

3. Why aren't we asking the obvious question? In a court, the prosecutor must prove wrong doing, the defendant does not have to show he did right. I need x oz's, YOU bring an expert that says that is more than is reasonable. I think so long as the amount is not on it's face unreasonable (I need two pounds to treat my pain from my broken finger). 2.5 oz is reasonable in general, so is 10mg of coumadin a day as a general rule for adults. But I spend alot of time adjusting coumadin dosages to get it just right for a particular patient, the same goes for MMJ. Considering the federal government, in its own MMJ program, gives out over 7 oz at a time, I would think that anything between 2.5 and 7 oz could be argued, and 2.5 oz and under clearly covered in the defense.

 

4. Prob the best way to handle this would be to dismiss clear cases of being in the limits. If not, up to 7oz, it could be presented but would be up to the jury. I walk into court, tell the judge this is a silly case and should be dismissed, he disagrees and we go on to trial. That does NOT preclude me from mounting a defense. It is up to the jury to decide.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the little factoid that a doctor may not prescribe it. They can recommend it.

 

When a doctor says take this amount this many times a day, that is a prescription.

 

Federal law forbids them to do that. Or, at least, the DEA forbids it.

 

 

1. Patients 'tell' docs all the time how much medication they need to control symptoms all the time. Good doctors listen and decide for themselves what they wish to prescribe.

 

2. How about using an expert in MMJ, ie one of the '55' like me, Dave Crocker, Robert Kenewell, etc to testify about 'reasonable amount' and the actual certification process when done by an 'expert' in the field. I know how babies are born, I'm a doctor, but I am not the expert you want to bring in to testify about a birth accident.

 

3. Why aren't we asking the obvious question? In a court, the prosecutor must prove wrong doing, the defendant does not have to show he did right. I need x oz's, YOU bring an expert that says that is more than is reasonable. I think so long as the amount is not on it's face unreasonable (I need two pounds to treat my pain from my broken finger). 2.5 oz is reasonable in general, so is 10mg of coumadin a day as a general rule for adults. But I spend alot of time adjusting coumadin dosages to get it just right for a particular patient, the same goes for MMJ. Considering the federal government, in its own MMJ program, gives out over 7 oz at a time, I would think that anything between 2.5 and 7 oz could be argued, and 2.5 oz and under clearly covered in the defense.

 

4. Prob the best way to handle this would be to dismiss clear cases of being in the limits. If not, up to 7oz, it could be presented but would be up to the jury. I walk into court, tell the judge this is a silly case and should be dismissed, he disagrees and we go on to trial. That does NOT preclude me from mounting a defense. It is up to the jury to decide.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the recent COA ruling sipulates that people who get arrested for possession or such of marijuana cannot get a doctor's rec after the fact. The doctor has to deem its medical use before you get arrested for it - this closes the loophole for people with no doctor's rec at the time of arrest.

 

"‚*In order to meet the requirement *in MCL 333.26428(a)(1)that a physician

‘has stated’ a benefit to a patient from medical marijuana use, the physician’s

statement must have occurred after the enactment of the [Michigan Medical

Marijuana Act (MMMA)+, but prior to arrest.‛ People v Kolanek, ___ Mich App"

 

-DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes .. it is very very important that these two sections of law do not become intertwined.

 

The fact that unregistered patients are protected, by section 8, go to show that it is not required that every single iota of section 4 is applied to section 8.

 

This fact of unregistered patients being protected by our law is only possible because of the Redden Clark case. Their case is vital to the very existence of the Affirmative Defense.

 

Any time that it is available, please support Bob and Torey!

 

Thanks peanut butter for your support and the MMMA we are going to be the A.D case of this Law (we hope) if i(we) take a plea the A.D will be over as we know it we have to hold on some how

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

She admits that unlicensed patients are covered by section 8.

 

She admits that it is possible to lawfully have more than 2.5 oz under the AD.

 

This is looking good for those issues.

 

Unfortunately, the Court didn't agree with her and determined that it is not lawful to have more than 2.5 oz under section 8 (or more than 12 plants, or outside an enclosed, locked facility). It would have been nice if the defense attorney had filed his request for oral arguments on time so he could have chimed in on the issue. This really chaps my rectum, an attorney has a hopeless case, the outcome of which could easily gut our protections under the MMA, and doesn't even request a chance to argue the issue on time? Are you kidding me? I was wondering what the procedural issue was that kept the defense attorney from being heard by the court, I found this:

 

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=300641&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the Court didn't agree with her and determined that it is not lawful to have more than 2.5 oz under section 8 (or more than 12 plants, or outside an enclosed, locked facility). It would have been nice if the defense attorney had filed his request for oral arguments on time so he could have chimed in on the issue. This really chaps my rectum, an attorney has a hopeless case, the outcome of which could easily gut our protections under the MMA, and doesn't even request a chance to argue the issue on time? Are you kidding me? I was wondering what the procedural issue was that kept the defense attorney from being heard by the court, I found this:

 

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=300641&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0

Yeah see that's the problem. THe judges were asking why would there be more protection for an unregistered person than there is a registered person. That isn't the distinction between section 8 and 4. You could be a registered person and use a section 8 defense. What Section 4 allows is no arrest, no prosecution, no problems, they check your card and send you on your way. Section 8 is for if you get caught with more than your allowed, you can defend youself from jail by proving it was needed. No proof required in section 4, proof is required under section 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the COA agreed with the PA about most things that I'd noticed before.

 

Unregistered patients are protected by the law.

 

It's difficult, but possible, to have more than the 2.5oz/12plant. They held that didn't apply in this case.

 

There's bad things in this ruling. But good things also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the bad things in this ruling is that a defendant is only allowed to present a medical defense one single time.

 

Near the end, it says something about "the defendant elected to ask for a hearing. Therefore he is not able to present to a jury."

 

What is interesting about this is that in several cases in Oakland county, the judge has ordered the defendants to make a section eight motion.

 

This is not where the defendant elects to have the motion. It has been court ordered.

 

Our Michael K. is one of the defense attorneys defending.

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...