Jump to content

Legal Opinion On What Happened In Mt. Pleasant/ann Arbor?


Smokey J
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are there any legal professionals who can clarify what exactly happened with the ruling in Mt. Pleasant/ dispensary raids in Ann Arbor. All I can find is mainstream media coverage, which as we know is 99% BS. Is patient to patient transfer still legal? Obviously medical marijuana sales for profit are not, but can you still transfer overage to another patient who makes a donation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the website of leading cannabis attorney Mathew Newburg of Lansing ( http://newburglaw.com ):

 

Michigan Court of Appeals: Patient to Patient “Sales” of Medical Marihuana Are Unlawful

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its decision in People v McQueen and drastically altered Michigan’s medical marihuana landscape. In this case, the court was asked to address whether the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) permitted the operation of a private club that facilitated the sale of marihuana from one patient to another. In interests of full disclosure, the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers retained Newburg Law, PLLC, as Amicus counsel in this matter

 

Background: The Circuit Court found the dispensary, which stored marihuana in individual lockers and facilitated its sale to registered patients, was not a public nuisance because it operated within the MMMA.

 

The Opinion: The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court. Most importantly, the Court found that patient-to-patient “sales” of marihuana are not permitted by the MMMA. The Defendants argued the definition of “medical use,” which includes the “transfer” and “delivery” of marihuana, permitted the “sale” of marihuana. The Court disagreed finding that the sale of marihuana is not equivalent to the transfer or delivery of marihuana. The court stated:

 

The “delivery” or “transfer” of marihuana is only one component of the “sale” of marihuana—the “sale” of marihuana consists of the “delivery” or “transfer”
plus
the receipt of compensation. The “medical use” of marihuana, as defined by the MMMA, allows for the “delivery” and “transfer” of marihuana, but not the “sale” of marihuana.

 

Because the dispensary at issue was engaged in the “sale” of marihuana, it was operating outside the bounds of the MMMA, not afforded any MMMA protections and was declared a public nuisance.

 

What’s Next: The decision to appeal this ruling is left with Mr. McQueen and his attorneys. Should an appeal be granted, we will not have a conclusive answer to this question for anywhere from six to nine months.

 

This decision places the continued operation of a number of locally licensed dispensaries in serious jeopardy. If you are in this position, or have any questions about how this decision impacts you, you should contact an attorney immediately. If you require legal assistance, please contact us at 517.505.2323.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Friday, from 9:30am until noon, Bill Schuette will be on the Interlochen Public Radio. Broadcast on 91.5 FM in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula counties, or on the web at: www.ipr.interlochen.og/listen

 

The telephone number for the station is 231 276-4400

Let's keep the callers all pro-mm for this broadcast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Appeals Court Says No To Medical Marihuana sales

 

Details

IPR program(s): IPR News Features Date: August 24, 2011 By Bob Allen

 

There's a major court ruling on medical marihuana in Michigan. The Court of Appeals says any sales of marihuana are illegal. That puts so-called storefront dispensaries of the drug at risk.

 

The case comes out of Mt. Pleasant, where a business called The CA opened a storefront. It also opened dispensaries in Traverse City and Lansing.

 

The CA rents lockers to registered patients or caregivers who can then arrange sales and the business takes a 20% cut to broker the sales.

 

Larry Burdick, the Isabella County prosecutor, tried to shut down The CA in Mt. Pleasant last year. But the local court ruled against him so he appealed.

 

Burdick was convinced from the start that dispensaries aren't allowed under the state's medical marihuana law.

 

"We felt under the statute patients can grow their own or they can obtain it from their caregivers. They can't obtain it from one another," he says.

 

The Appeals Court didn't say whether patients can provide each other with marijuana, even though Burdick asked for a ruling on that question. The court just said any sales of medical marihuana are illegal.

 

But for those with storefront businesses that sell the drug the ruling is a death knell.

 

"If you are a dispensary and you are depending on a percentage or the sale of marihuana to financially support your business you've just had the rug pulled out from under you," says Mike Woodworth, with the Hubbard Law firm in Lansing. He advises local governments on how they can comply with Michigan's medical marihuana law.

 

Woodworth says the Appeals Court ruling is now the law of the land in the state and, he says, even if the case is appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, there's no guarantee the high court will even take it.

 

Larry Burdick the prosecutor in Isabella County says he plans to have police deliver copies of the ruling and a letter advising all the dispensaries in that county to shut down. And he wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in other counties.

 

"Local governments can just move forward now," he says. "They've just been struggling all over Michigan with how to deal with dispensaries and how to zone them and are they permitted or not permitted. And I think this opinion is a giant step in clarifying that not only for local municipalities and law enforcement but for medical marihuana patients and caregivers."

 

Advocates for medical marihuana say the ruling is not good for patients. Adam Devaney, from Traverse City, says dispensaries are a key part of insuring a continuous supply of medical marihuana for registered patients.

 

"Because some patients do not have caregivers," he explains. "Which means that these dispensaries and collectives were the only places that they were actually able to acquire it."

 

Devaney says without dispensaries some patients may have to wait months to find a reliable source of their medicine. He says many collectives and storefronts in Traverse City shut down today because of uncertainty of how they're affected by the court ruling.

 

Calls to police in Traverse City were not returned in time for this report

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the opinion: footnotes 16 and 17.

 

 

 

16

 

"In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

 

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

 

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

 

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

 

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

 

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting

 

any

 

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

 

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

 

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

 

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

 

do not, resolve this dispute.

 

17

 

 

Plaintiff and the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, ask us to hold that patient-to-patient

 

conveyances of marihuana that are without compensation are not permitted by the MMMA.

 

Their position is that the only conveyance of marihuana permitted by the MMMA is the

 

conveyance of marihuana from a primary caregiver to his or her patients. Because defendants’

 

operation of CA involves the selling of marihuana, and because the selling of marihuana is not

 

permitted by the MMMA, we need not, and do not, reach the issue whether the MMMA permits

 

uncompensated patient-to-patient conveyances of marihuana."

 

 

It would appear that the below types of transfers/deliveries were not ruled on but identified as other ways in which patients may obtain medicine.

 

 

Registered Caregiver to a Registered Patient

 

Registered Caregiver to one of her 5 Patients

 

Patient to Patient without money being exchanged

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So, I'm still of the same general opinion of the police around here. You can't stock pile marijuana at a location for the purpose of selling it. Overage transfer among patients is still a grey area. Theres far too much crime in Detroit to even think about "grey areas". Some dispensaries even remain open. I don't think they're accepting new patients, but they are still operating. You can still buy reggie nicks on every block. Not much has changed around here except a couple of the "mainstream" dispensaries got shook and closed up.

 

Isn't it silly that the only city where I feel safe is Detroit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm still of the same general opinion of the police around here. You can't stock pile marijuana at a location for the purpose of selling it. Overage transfer among patients is still a grey area. Theres far too much crime in Detroit to even think about "grey areas". Some dispensaries even remain open. I don't think they're accepting new patients, but they are still operating. You can still buy reggie nicks on every block. Not much has changed around here except a couple of the "mainstream" dispensaries got shook and closed up.

 

Isn't it silly that the only city where I feel safe is Detroit?

 

 

That does sound silly that the only place you feel safe is in Detroit. LOL

Patient to patient transfer for compensation is no longer a gray area. It is

not allowed. I just want you to understand that that is what was ruled on.

And it was ruled illegal. Be safe my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Can I...can we...can't I...can't we...why can't I...why can't we...am I allowed...are we allowed...am I not allowed...why are we not allowed...when are they gonna...why don't they...someone should...someone needs to..."

 

We say we wanna fight? We say we wanna win? Fighting for scraps is not winning anything. Fighting for legalization is winning.

 

We must end cannabis prohibition in Michigan, and only then will we put an end to the madness. We must get it on the Nov 2012 Michigan ballot. The alternative they have in store for us is unacceptable as we shall soon discover when those 17 bills get to the House floor. We think we're suffering now, we have no idea the suffering they can bring down upon us.

 

Time to get busy. Legalization is the only logical and intelligent solution. That, or we continue a futile fight for the occasional scrap. I don't want their scraps. We the People, We the Patients, deserve far better than scraps.

 

Anyone have a better plan or idea than legalization? I haven't heard one. Fighting for scraps sure isn't a better plan. :rock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legalization

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML 11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png/ˈnɔrməl/) is an American non-profit organization based in Washington, DC whose aim is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the legalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty. According to their website, NORML "supports the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts," and "supports the development of a legally controlled market for cannabis."[1] NORML and the NORML Foundation support both those fighting prosecution under marijuana laws and those working to legalize marijuana.

try this site they may help you

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan Hang You Out To Dry Act or maybe the Michigan Get You Out On A Limb And We'll Saw It Off Act

 

 

 

Rule 333.127 Management of medical marihuana.

Rule 27. (1) 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 the act, if the qualifying patient possesses an amount of

marihuana that does not exceed the following:

 

 

Now where did LEO get lost or confussed ??. Seems pretty Black And White to me

Edited by Kingpinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't leave this out....

 

333.7106.

(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.

Edited by Willy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

From the opinion: footnotes 16 and 17.

 

 

 

16

 

"In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

 

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

 

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

 

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

 

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

 

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting

 

any

 

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

 

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

 

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

 

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

 

do not, resolve this dispute.

 

17

 

 

Plaintiff and the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, ask us to hold that patient-to-patient

 

conveyances of marihuana that are without compensation are not permitted by the MMMA.

 

Their position is that the only conveyance of marihuana permitted by the MMMA is the

 

conveyance of marihuana from a primary caregiver to his or her patients. Because defendants’

 

operation of CA involves the selling of marihuana, and because the selling of marihuana is not

 

permitted by the MMMA, we need not, and do not, reach the issue whether the MMMA permits

 

uncompensated patient-to-patient conveyances of marihuana."

 

 

It would appear that the below types of transfers/deliveries were not ruled on but identified as other ways in which patients may obtain medicine.

 

 

Registered Caregiver to a Registered Patient

 

Registered Caregiver to one of her 5 Patients

 

Patient to Patient without money being exchanged

 

 

 

 

Mr. Komorn, please explain in plain english to an old logger what this means. As I understand it, it means that there is still a dispute as to weather or not a Registered Caregiver can provide meds to any Registered Patient. It looks to me like the Registered Caregiver could face legal issues. I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Edited by Herb Cannabis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Opinion: The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court. Most importantly, the Court found that patient-to-patient “sales” of marihuana are not permitted by the MMMA. The Defendants argued the definition of “medical use,” which includes the “transfer” and “delivery” of marihuana, permitted the “sale” of marihuana. The Court disagreed finding that the sale of marihuana is not equivalent to the transfer or delivery of marihuana. The court stated:

 

 

 

This is some bull bunny muffin; If you sell marijuana and get busted it is called delivery/maufacturing marijuana!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the worst court ruling I've ever seen. There is no law on the books here in Michigan prohibiting sale, only delivery. The MMMA legalized delivery. They don't have a shred of legal basis for prosecution.

 

 

You are correct, I don't understand how the rulling could state that. So basicly anyone who has been charged with delivery manufacturing of marijuana should get it dismissed?

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...