Jump to content

Appeals Court Rules Mmj Patients Need Id Card First


Recommended Posts

Last Updated: September 01. 2011 1:00AM.

 

Appeals court rules medical marijuana patients need ID card first

 

Steve Pardo and Kim Kozlowski/ The Detroit News

 

Lansing— In its second opinion in a week on medical marijuana, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that anyone looking to grow or use the drug for medical purposes must first have a state-issued identification card.

 

The case involved a Montmorency County man charged with a four-year felony for having plants on his property before he had his ID card. The appeals court judges on Monday upheld the manufacture of marijuana charge against Brian Bebout Reed.

 

"The statute ties the prior issuance and possession of a registry identification card to the medical use of marijuana," judges Patrick Meter, Donald Owens and Peter O'Connell said. "Defendant did not have the card at the applicable time and therefore is not immune from arrest, prosecution or penalty."

 

Some said the ruling is not in the spirit of Michigan's 2008 medical marijuana law.

 

"The intent of the law is to protect individuals who are not just timely (but) to protect individuals who have a medical condition and are reasonable in their possession of plants and medicine," said Samantha Moffett, a business consultant at the Ambrose Law Group in Walled Lake.

 

Others said the judges' ruling that a patient must "possess" a medical marijuana card will need to be clarified. The law allows the state 21 days to reject or approve a card from an applicant, but officials are months behind.

 

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is getting 500-600 medical marijuana applications a day, said Rae Ramsdell, acting director of the state Bureau of Health Professions. Lack of resources has officials working on applications submitted in mid- to late May.

 

"If they meant to say 'possess' your card, then there is going to be some implications," said Matt Newberg, a Lansing attorney who will ask the Michigan Supreme Court to review a ruling last week by the appeals court, which banned medical marijuana sales at dispensaries.

 

The ruling came as arrest warrants were executed for four employees of Big Daddy's Compassion Center, a dispensary in Oak Park. The charges — conspiracy to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance — stemmed from a January raid when minimal cannabis or cash was found, said Rick Thompson, who is part of Big Daddy's management. The people peacefully surrendered to Oak Park police through the dispensary's attorney.

 

Wednesday's court decision involved Reed, who suffers chronic back pain from a degenerative disc disease and underwent surgery more than 10 years ago, according to court documents. He started looking to get a medical marijuana card after passage of the law.

 

He went to a clinic in Montmorency County in the northern Lower Peninsula, but doctors there said they wouldn't issue certifications because they receive federal funding.

 

Growing and possessing marijuana is against federal law, even if someone has a state-issued medical marijuana certification card.

 

Reed looked for other places for certification, the appeals court said, "but he had not formally consulted with another doctor before his marijuana was discovered."

 

On Aug. 25, 2009, authorities spotted six marijuana plants on Reed's property while conducting aerial surveillance. On Sept. 16 of that year, he obtained a doctor's certification to use marijuana.

 

On Oct. 6, he received his marijuana identification card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. He was arrested Oct. 26 and charged.

 

spardo@detnews.com

 

(313) 222-2112

 

 

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110901/METRO/109010367/Appeals-court-rules-medical-marijuana-patients-need-ID-card-first#ixzz1WhiFT45z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new;

Reed looked for other places for certification, the appeals court said, "but he had not formally consulted with another doctor before his marijuana was discovered."

 

You need to have seen a doctor about it before you launch. The wording of the law says "A doctor has stated"

meaning he stated it before hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appeals court rules medical marijuana patients need ID card first

 

Steve Pardo and Kim Kozlowski/ The Detroit News

 

Lansing— In its second opinion in a week on medical marijuana, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that anyone looking to grow or use the drug for medical purposes must first have a state-issued identification card.

 

The case involved a Montmorency County man charged with a four-year felony for having plants on his property before he had his ID card. The appeals court judges on Monday upheld the manufacture of marijuana charge against Brian Bebout Reed.

 

"The statute ties the prior issuance and possession of a registry identification card to the medical use of marijuana," judges Patrick Meter, Donald Owens and Peter O'Connell said. "Defendant did not have the card at the applicable time and therefore is not immune from arrest, prosecution or penalty."

 

Some said the ruling is not in the spirit of Michigan's 2008 medical marijuana law.

 

"The intent of the law is to protect individuals who are not just timely (but) to protect individuals who have a medical condition and are reasonable in their possession of plants and medicine," said Samantha Moffett, a business consultant at the Ambrose Law Group in Walled Lake.

 

Others said the judges' ruling that a patient must "possess" a medical marijuana card will need to be clarified. The law allows the state 21 days to reject or approve a card from an applicant, but officials are months behind.

 

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is getting 500-600 medical marijuana applications a day, said Rae Ramsdell, acting director of the state Bureau of Health Professions. Lack of resources has officials working on applications submitted in mid- to late May.

 

"If they meant to say 'possess' your card, then there is going to be some implications," said Matt Newberg, a Lansing attorney who will ask the Michigan Supreme Court to review a ruling last week by the appeals court, which banned medical marijuana sales at dispensaries.

 

The ruling came as arrest warrants were executed for four employees of Big Daddy's Compassion Center, a dispensary in Oak Park. The charges — conspiracy to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance — stemmed from a January raid when minimal cannabis or cash was found, said Rick Thompson, who is part of Big Daddy's management. The people peacefully surrendered to Oak Park police through the dispensary's attorney.

 

Wednesday's court decision involved Reed, who suffers chronic back pain from a degenerative disc disease and underwent surgery more than 10 years ago, according to court documents. He started looking to get a medical marijuana card after passage of the law.

 

He went to a clinic in Montmorency County in the northern Lower Peninsula, but doctors there said they wouldn't issue certifications because they receive federal funding.

 

Growing and possessing marijuana is against federal law, even if someone has a state-issued medical marijuana certification card.

 

Reed looked for other places for certification, the appeals court said, "but he had not formally consulted with another doctor before his marijuana was discovered."

 

On Aug. 25, 2009, authorities spotted six marijuana plants on Reed's property while conducting aerial surveillance. On Sept. 16 of that year, he obtained a doctor's certification to use marijuana.

 

On Oct. 6, he received his marijuana identification card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. He was arrested Oct. 26 and charged.

 

spardo@detnews.com

 

(313) 222-2112

 

 

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110901/METRO/109010367/Appeals-court-rules-medical-marijuana-patients-need-ID-card-first#ixzz1Whsxiuqp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What came firsst ? The Chicken or the Egg ? Well in our cases it was the egg ! As it wont do you any good to see the Doc if you dont have a qualifiying condition. I'm quite sure that was made clear in the beginning when the law first passed in Dec of 2008. I'm sure 'cause I was in Court about the same time as Bob [b&T] in March 2009. This has not continued through the Administrative Rules or something, over-ruled maybe ...

 

if you have a qualifying condition you are covered by the AD. That's one of the primary functions of this "Compassionate Care" Law, to give people with debilitating illness, some relief, as in not worrying you will have to deal with Americas Health Care Plane , incarceration . Yeah , thats about all you can expect in the Land of the Free these days ... actually it's been going on quite awhile now ...

 

You cant get a chicken unless you have the egg . This is strictly a Medical Program for the people of MI, who have lived here, payed taxes here, and in all likelyhood will spend eternity here. Unfortunatley they can't take their possesions with them, and the Government will be along shortly thereafter to pick up anything of value lying around. Like Property , Bank Accounts , maybe even the gold in your teeth. Untill then stay away from things you have NO Understanding or qualifications for !!! BS + RS + assoc.s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What came firsst ? The Chicken or the Egg ? Well in our cases it was the egg ! As it wont do you any good to see the Doc if you dont have a qualifiying condition. I'm quite sure that was made clear in the beginning when the law first passed in Dec of 2008. I'm sure 'cause I was in Court about the same time as Bob [b&T] in March 2009. This has not continued through the Administrative Rules or something, over-ruled maybe ...

 

if you have a qualifying condition you are covered by the AD. That's one of the primary functions of this "Compassionate Care" Law, to give people with debilitating illness, some relief, as in not worrying you will have to deal with Americas Health Care Plane , incarceration . Yeah , thats about all you can expect in the Land of the Free these days ... actually it's been going on quite awhile now ...

 

You cant get a chicken unless you have the egg . This is strictly a Medical Program for the people of MI, who have lived here, payed taxes here, and in all likelyhood will spend eternity here. Unfortunatley they can't take their possesions with them, and the Government will be along shortly thereafter to pick up anything of value lying around. Like Property , Bank Accounts , maybe even the gold in your teeth. Untill then stay away from things you have NO Understanding or qualifications for !!! BS + RS + assoc.s

I agree with you Solabeirtan, if a cancer patient is on their death bed, they should be protected from using MMJ no matter what, there should be exceptions that allow someone to use without a Dr's rec, however that's not what the law says. The law specifically says in Section 8, that a patient or CG may use the section 8 defense after having a doctor recommend MMJ to a patient. The actual ruling, and not media hype, is that you can't see a doctor after you get nailed. You need a Dr Rec before growing or using MMJ at least for section 8 and it appears the judge follows that logic as well in his ruling.

 

The reason I think it is like that, is that people should not be diagnosing their own ailments and coming up with treatment. Where I think a person is MUCH better suited to diagnose and treat themselves on most occasions, that isn't how any laws in the US are set up. You can't decide you need Oxycontin and go get some legally because you have a pain without first seeing a doctor. Same applies here and that is the common wording of the law.

 

MMJ is supposed to be for chronic and debilitating conditions. If you have an infected tooth for instance, someone might say my jaw hurts, and perscribe themselves MMJ. Where a Doctor would say, you have a bad tooth, extract it and be done, no more pain, no chronic condition.

 

Just to be clear, I think that if he could get a doctor to testify or submit an affidavit stating he talked to this person BEFORE AUGUST 2009, and did say to the defendant he thinks it would be beneficial, but couldn't issue a rec because of federal issues, then this person should be allowed to use Section 8.

Edited by CedarSpringsCG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Aug. 25, 2009, authorities spotted six marijuana plants on Reed's property while conducting aerial surveillance. On Sept. 16 of that year, he obtained a doctor's certification to use marijuana.

 

On Oct. 6, he received his marijuana identification card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. He was arrested Oct. 26 and charged.

Did they have a time stamp on the photo's. It it verifiable? did they produce the photo?

He was charged on Oct. 26. Is that not the time he became a crimminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Aug. 25, 2009, authorities spotted six marijuana plants on Reed's property while conducting aerial surveillance. On Sept. 16 of that year, he obtained a doctor's certification to use marijuana.

 

On Oct. 6, he received his marijuana identification card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. He was arrested Oct. 26 and charged.

Did they have a time stamp on the photo's. It it verifiable? did they produce the photo?

He was charged on Oct. 26. Is that not the time he became a crimminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Aug. 25, 2009, authorities spotted six marijuana plants on Reed's property while conducting aerial surveillance. On Sept. 16 of that year, he obtained a doctor's certification to use marijuana.

 

On Oct. 6, he received his marijuana identification card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. He was arrested Oct. 26 and charged.

Did they have a time stamp on the photo's. It it verifiable? did they produce the photo?

He was charged on Oct. 26. Is that not the time he became a crimminal?

 

I noticed that too, we are left to assume he was under survelliance or something, but to wait that long before charging someone seems strange. It's like well last month we observed the suspect weaving between lanes while driving, and then 30 days later issuing an OUI based on photos from 30 days ago. Strange!

Edited by AlternativeSolutionsPlus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of people V. Kolanex the court of appeals ruled that "The relevant deadline for obtaining the physicians statement required to establish the affirmative defence was time of defendants arrest." Brian Reed had his physicians statement and was registered with the state before his arrest. Guess now they will have to change that wording in the Kolanex case. Brians sister susan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I think that if he could get a doctor to testify or submit an affidavit stating he talked to this person BEFORE AUGUST 2009, and did say to the defendant he thinks it would be beneficial, but couldn't issue a rec because of federal issues, then this person should be allowed to use Section 8.

 

 

I totally agree with you. If he had talked to the dr and the doc said, "Yeah, MMJ would help with your condition but I can't sign the paperwork becuz we are federally funded." Then he should be able to use it as a defense. But you would have to get that particular dr in court and have him testify that he saw that particular patient and did if=n fact tell him that mmj would work for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had a physicians cert and was registered with the state before the arrest but not before the purported offense. In the court of Appeals People V. Kolanex "the relevant deadline for obtaining the physicians statement required to establish the affirmative defence was time of defendants arrest". Guess they will change the wording on the Kolanex case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had a physicians cert and was registered with the state before the arrest but not before the purported offense. In the court of Appeals People V. Kolanex "the relevant deadline for obtaining the physicians statement required to establish the affirmative defence was time of defendants arrest". Guess they will change the wording on the Kolanex case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New at this posting sorry it takes so long to reply. The hunt team air and ground tean came on august 25 and took 6 plants and left. Brian abtained a doctors cert and regestered with the state. All that was said and done by October 6. Then on october 26 he was arrested and charged with manufacturing MJ. In part of his defence he used the ruling in people v Kolanex. It states "the relevant deadline for obtaining the physicians statement required to establish the affirmative defence was time of defendants arrest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the opinion.

I understand what the court is saying, I do not agree with it but..

I would have thought the hunt team would have arrested him when they

pulled the plants. What is the reason they did not arrest?

If your brother is just a guy who was helping himself and not others

your family is suffering for no reason in my opinion.

what will happen now?

What do the locals think? I mean the wood ticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a nice codifying significance to these precedents however. Consider our argument that p2p sales or cg2cg sales or cg2 other p, one of them is absolutely necessary to the function of the law. Otherwise a person with a NEW caregiver can't legally obtain meds for ~6 months. This court ruling means you can't begin a grow to have useable marijuana available at the onset of legal medical use. It codify's (so to speak) a particular argument for the above form of compensated transfers. Of course other additional arguments exist as well.

 

Now we know that the COA has said can't have useable ready to go at legal date. And that p2p sales are out. We continue to press the question, how does a patient obtain meds in the first 6 months?

Edited by Natural Remedies MGR
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...