How Is Cannabis Legally Scheduled In Mi?

[peanutbutter]

We the people of the state of Michigan have accepted marijuana for medical use.

 

We did so by law. The most "set in stone" form of law that can be passed in Michigan. A form of law that requires a 75% vote in Lansing to change.

 

WE accepted it.

 

Michigan is within the United States. Sounds like an odd statement. Why is that important?

 

The phrase "accepted for medical use within the United States" exists within our states drug laws. It is an echo of the federal drug laws. Yet it is Michigan law.

 

We accepted it, by law, within the United States.

 

It was not accepted by the DEA. It was not accepted by the NIH. It was not accepted by the FDA.

 

It was accepted by law by we the people.

 

The medical benefits are no longer the debate. The yardstick is law.

 

It is no longer a matter of debate. It is accepted, in Michigan, for medical use BY LAW and command of the people.

 

That means cannabis is incorrectly scheduled. Here are the requirements that a schedule one substance is REQUIRED to meet:

 

333.7211 Schedule 1; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7211.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

 

Our law accepted cannabis for medical use inside the United States.

Our law established a system where patients self administer WITHOUT being watched by a doctor! This system is NOT "treatment under medical supervision." Medical professionals avoid supervising consumption of cannabis. Treatment takes place OUTSIDE medical supervision.

 

These are conflicts with schedule one and our new law.

 

When a conflict takes place, the new law negates the old one. In our case, the new law is one of those that is nearly set in stone. A command of "we the people."

 

At some point in time, this conflict will be addressed. Marijuana can not be legally within schedule one.

 

That means there have been thousands of people that have been arrested, tried, convicted and punished, under an improper classification, since 12/4/2008.

 

Each and every one of these cases should be reversed.

[peanutbutter]

This is important for a patients' driving rights. Law enforcement has to prove impairment, not just use, when cannabis has medical use, and not schedule 1 drug.

 

This impacts tax law also.

[peanutbutter]

But most of all:

 

SET THE PRISONERS FREE RIGHT NOW!

[peanutbutter]

To be specific;

The courts have ruled that you have had to see the doctor first, then it's medical use. So you would have had to see the doctor before the charges. You would have to have written proof you saw the doctor and the doctor wrote down that cannabis would help you.

 

LIKELY to help.

 

They can't watch you consuming.

 

So those that don't have a doctors letter .. Exactly which scheduling should they be tried under?

[JB420]

I know that marijuana is technically a schedule 1 drug, but then why does it usually carry a lighter penalty, and in my experience is even a different charge. If arrested with heroin, meth or cocaine you would be charged with felony posession of a sched 1 cs, but if arrested with marijuana, its usually a simple marijuana posession. Even the feds have seperate punishments laws etc for marijuana than other sched 1's. So I guess I am confused as to how it remains on the books as a schedule 1, when obviously everyone knows its not supposed to be.

[peanutbutter]

Here are the requirements for each of the five schedules in our Michigan health code:

 

333.7211 Schedule 1; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7211.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

 

333.7213 Schedule 2; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7213.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 2 if it finds all of the following:

 

(a) The substance has high potential for abuse.

 

(b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

 

© The abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychic or physical dependence.

 

333.7215 Schedule 3; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7215.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 3 if it finds all of the following:

 

(a) The substance has a potential for abuse less than the substances listed in schedules 1 and 2.

 

(b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© Abuse of the substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

 

333.7217 Schedule 4; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7217.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 4 if it finds all of the following:

 

(a) The substance has a low potential for abuse relative to substances in schedule 3.

 

(b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© Abuse of the substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the substances in schedule 3.

 

333.7219 Schedule 5; placement of substance.

 

Sec. 7219.

 

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 5 if it finds all of the following:

 

(a) The substance has low potential for abuse relative to the controlled substances listed in schedule 4.

 

(b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© The substance has limited physical dependence or psychological dependence liability relative to the controlled substances listed in schedule 4 or the incidence of abuse is such that the substance should be dispensed by a practitioner.

 

When proper hearings are held, which schedule should cannabis be realistically placed within? Until such hearings are held, it is not legally placed ANYWHERE.

 

Every single person, that is arrested for marijuana, is being falsely arrested.

[peanutbutter]

And these are the reasons that cannabis is improperly scheduled within federal law also.

 

Every section of code, that I listed, is Michigan state law. Michigan has its own marijuana laws. It is those laws that I refer to.

 

This basis is currently being used to attack the schedule one status at the federal level also.

[JB420]

It's not just the judges though, its actually a different penal code and everything at least in some places. Indiana for example has seperate marijuana laws from any other shed 1 where the rest are bundled together (I know Indiana is this way for sure) For example selling any ammount of marijuana from 1oz to 10lbs is a c felony, selling over 3 grams of any sched 1 is an a felony. c carries 2-8yrs, an a carries 20-50yrs. Same for manufacturing of marijuana or a sced 1 mj is a c sched 1 is an a. I would think that so many places already having made the changes could be a great political tool.

[JB420]

And these are the reasons that cannabis is improperly scheduled within federal law also.

 

Every section of code, that I listed, is Michigan state law. Michigan has its own marijuana laws. It is those laws that I refer to.

 

This basis is currently being used to attack the schedule one status at the federal level also.

 

Exactly, I didn't know it was already being used though. I have always wondered about that.

[Croppled1]

To be specific;

The courts have ruled that you have had to see the doctor first, then it's medical use. So you would have had to see the doctor before the charges. You would have to have written proof you saw the doctor and the doctor wrote down that cannabis would help you.

 

I know this is true now utilized to deny justice where a condition was qualifying , and documented . The spirit and intent of the law offers a medical defense under the AD - discrimination and ignorance has denied people a right to assert the medical defense . Sadly there is no authority willing or strong enough to stand up for patient rights in the Federal Government the checks and balances are so out of whack .

At the State level patients are trying to win fairness .

 

I also want to mention Cocaine is schedule 2 when used in preparations . It used to be one of the most utilized pain medicines before 1904 rotated every six weeks with opiates to minimize dependence . Those whom have been under long term pain control know about rotations to prevent the body from adjusting to medications negating positive effects while also causing dependence which is a sad compromise of treatment . You are a slave to dosing on schedule and vulnerable to the whims of others . Patients need protection from abuse by those whom exploit this vulnerability . This is legislation Michigan needs no patient should live in fear of severe and possible dangerous withdrawals in a weakened state because they or a Doctor move for example - there are many reasons . Patients need protection to continued care with controlled substances . We go into Dependant medications understanding the consequences and unknowns we deserve full support along the way including comfortable detoxifications over realistic periods if desired voluntarily .

 

On rotations this is what we do when we use different strains in cannabis or different pills within the opiate class in a back and forth matter within a organized pattern to improve effectiveness and comfort . There are very few real class options in pain control and or treatment options to rotate with . I put some good links here to reinforce some of these thoughts .

 

Someone said if you medicate and sit it is negative . For those of use with severe nerve damage inflamed by movement that is a necessity cannabis reduces the anxiety of and aids so were able to do simple tasks otherwise neglected due to extreme anxiety from pain . We are all different and there are hidden injuries and conditions in our community many of us can't even imagine or comprehend from our individual viewpoints as well as be properly diagnosed and treated in our time . We all have different reactions to treatments . It is less then 100 years since science and medicine accepted penicillin as described by Flemming in 1928 . However folk or anecdotal medicine utilized bread mold to treat infection back in the middle ages .and notes were referenced among physicians in the 1800's . Inspite of discrimination one cannot deny cannabis begs for modern research with over 5000 years of positive anecdotal evidence established already . It has been identified with the most medical uses of any substance in the modern world . It is just unbelieveable some rich employers that think it makes everyone lazy are holding back medical progress . I guess this goes back to the fear from the Greek warning to " Beware of the land of the lotus eaters ."

 

http://arthritis.abo...f_Marijuana.htm

 

http://arthritis.abo...me_Remedies.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia....lled_substances

[peanutbutter]

It is current in Michigan court in a driving rights case.

 

It was ruled to be improperly scheduled. Case dismissed.

[cristinew]

This is by far a very good point in changing cannabis in the right direction, very good pb

[Mememe]

The reason why the battle seems so tough - Look at the flag next time you are in court. The gold fringe lets you know the court is under Admiral Law/Maritime Law. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject.

 

 

 

http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html

 

http://ecclesia.org/truth/flags.html

[peanutbutter]

And appealed by the prosecutor. But the appeal is weak because of the equal protection under the law I stated earlier.

 

By the appeal arguement, they would have us believe that a medical cannabis patient is less impaired, or a better driver when impaired, than a non patient cannabis user.

 

They want to limit the protection, of having to be proven impaired, to card holders. This is unfair and unequal treatment under the law. Everyone who uses cannabis will have to be proven impaired to be charged, once the precedents are in place.

 

Interesting .. you seem to have more information about the case than I do.

 

I didn't realize the case had an appeal filed yet.

 

I'll have to look it over. thanks.

 

Yes the case has two different potential impacts. Driving and marijuana in general.

[cristinew]

The reason why the battle seems so tough - Look at the flag next time you are in court. The gold fringe lets you know the court is under Admiral Law/Maritime Law. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject.

 

ucc 1-207 without prejudice

 

http://truthpills.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/without-prejudice-ucc-1207-1-308/

“The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)

 

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.

 

 

 

http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html

 

http://ecclesia.org/truth/flags.html

[cristinew]

off subject here but i though i would post,since mememe brought out the subject of common law, and martial law

 

http://truthpills.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/without-prejudice-ucc-1207-1-308/

 

 

Without Prejudice UCC 1.207 / 1-308

 

Posted by truthpills on 2009/02/03

 

Remedy and Recourse

 

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code they will show you a tremendous shelf completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the U.C.C. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.

 

Remedy

 

“The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)

 

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.

 

UCC 1-207 goes on to say…

 

“When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” (UCC 1-207.9)

 

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

 

“The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice”. (UCC 1-207.4)

 

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: “Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4).” This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

 

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone… The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!

 

Without Prejudice UCC 1.207

 

When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”

 

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don’t have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.

 

If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.

 

Recourse

 

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:

 

“The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.” (UCC 1-103.6)

 

This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

 

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: “Who was injured as a result of your failure to ‘buckle up’?” However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers’ Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, “Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”

 

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: “Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?”

 

Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, “yes”, then you say: “I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination.” Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.

 

Explain U.C.C. 1-207

 

If you are confronted with explaining what the “UCC 1-207″ does here is

your answer.

 

When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a

automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree,

or any other document).

 

BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through any

thing that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a

group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract.

Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract

is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If

not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract

you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have

not had the opportunity to view.

 

Now how the UCC 1-207 works.

 

After you put UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. ” your

signature” is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up

your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your

right to change the contract. Here is some more UCC information. You can go

to a public law library for more information.

 

Read the full article

[peanutbutter]

You can't pick and choose what you want to follow.

 

So state officials need to enforce state law and federal officials need to enforce federal law.

 

Isn't that simple?

 

Instead state officials try to enforce federal law in a state court.

 

Now we get confused.

[peanutbutter]

They do what they want and can enforce federal law on the state level, that is why announcing that Marijuana is no longer a schedule 1 is misleading. It clearly is still a schedule 1 on both levels and I don't want to see people get in trouble. Saying it isn't schedule 1 enough times doesn't make it true. Don't confuse frustration and unfairness with fact.

 

Colorado, South Dakota, Illinois, and Oregon have rescheduled marihuana by removing it from Schedule I.

 

The fact that this has already taken place combined with a court ruling goes a long way toward my argument.

[Timmahh]

federally, as i understand, cannabis has been ruled not a schedule one, but it has not been re scheduled by the DEA.

so in all actually, it is not actaully scheduled. so in reality, the DEA is refusing to comply with a federal court, thus showing their socialistic, anti american agenda, and yet, they are allowed to roll one due to the massive gains in finances by using illegal search and seizure tactics. fact is they are illegal because per our Judicial system its (cannabis) in no longer actually on the schedule. the DEAs refusal to put it anywhere else is further proof of their naziesque agenda.

[CedarSpringsCG]

That means cannabis is incorrectly scheduled. Here are the requirements that a schedule one substance is REQUIRED to meet:

 

Our law accepted cannabis for medical use inside the United States.

Our law established a system where patients self administer WITHOUT being watched by a doctor! This system is NOT "treatment under medical supervision." Medical professionals avoid supervising consumption of cannabis. Treatment takes place OUTSIDE medical supervision.

 

These are conflicts with schedule one and our new law.

 

When a conflict takes place, the new law negates the old one. In our case, the new law is one of those that is nearly set in stone. A command of "we the people."

 

At some point in time, this conflict will be addressed. Marijuana can not be legally within schedule one.

 

That means there have been thousands of people that have been arrested, tried, convicted and punished, under an improper classification, since 12/4/2008.

 

Each and every one of these cases should be reversed.

 

MJ is a CS Schedule 1, and it will remain there as long as they want it to. Because, simple fact,

The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

Right there, your quote says no accepted medical use OR lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. Well it does lack accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision, mainly because the DEA/FDA/NIDA won't allow anyone to do studies to get an accepted safety regimen. It's the same reason some lawyers are arguing that the Right to Farm act doesnt' apply to us or hemp farmers because there is no accepted agricultural guidelines, because no one in agriculture is growing it in the US and no one has accepted the agricultural guidelines.

 

Classic catch 22, put in the law that there has to be an accepted portion, then don't allow anyone to set up guidelines to be accepted. If you got a book and put in guidelines for medical use, they would ask you where and how you tested it, are you qualified to do these tests, etc, and find that your guidelines aren't adequate becuase they are not Dr./scientist written and peer reviewed.

 

So unfortunately, those people are lawfully arrested and charged, and if they were found guilty, they are in jail. You also have to realize that if you were in jail for any MJ related charge, and say they exempted it from the schedules just like alcohol and tobacco, the people in jail still committed a crime while it was illegal, your are in jail for the crime, if it was unlawful when you did it, tough, you broke the law, yoru in jail.

 

All you can do is plead with a judge/appeals board/probation board and see if they will relax your sentence in light of the changes in the law. It wouldn't make you not guilty, it would just give reason to reduce your punishment.

 

Now don't take this as I agree with it, I am just pointing out the parts you seem to have missed.

 

I know that marijuana is technically a schedule 1 drug, but then why does it usually carry a lighter penalty, and in my experience is even a different charge. If arrested with heroin, meth or cocaine you would be charged with felony posession of a sched 1 cs, but if arrested with marijuana, its usually a simple marijuana posession. Even the feds have seperate punishments laws etc for marijuana than other sched 1's. So I guess I am confused as to how it remains on the books as a schedule 1, when obviously everyone knows its not supposed to be.

 

Actually, Cocaine and Meth are not Schedule 1. They are Schedule 2. Heroin, PCP, LSD, etc are other schedule 1 drugs. So if you got popped with Coke (not crack, crack is Schedule 1) and they arrested you for a Schedule 1, then they have a problem as the charge doesn't fit the crime.

[CedarSpringsCG]

federally, as i understand, cannabis has been ruled not a schedule one, but it has not been re scheduled by the DEA.

so in all actually, it is not actaully scheduled. so in reality, the DEA is refusing to comply with a federal court, thus showing their socialistic, anti american agenda, and yet, they are allowed to roll one due to the massive gains in finances by using illegal search and seizure tactics. fact is they are illegal because per our Judicial system its (cannabis) in no longer actually on the schedule. the DEAs refusal to put it anywhere else is further proof of their naziesque agenda.

 

When/who ruled it not a schedule 1? I think you mean the DEA judge that claimed he did find it to have a medical use, however that was in an opinion or a brief or something, not a ruling. Also, Obama, or Leonhart could reschedule it with the stroke of a pen, I think Biden could do it as well. They don't need Congess, the House, anyone to agree, they just need to write it up and sign it.

[peanutbutter]

Your argument, perhaps. But the topic title isn't presented as an argument, it says 'now that it isn't schedule 1'. Your point is well taken but Cedar is correct, it is there in schedule 1 until it isn't. We must be accurate and correct, not express what we would like to see as fact. Some may leave with the mistaken impression that something has changed when it hasn't. You should correct that.

 

The state has not held the required new condition hearings.

The state doesn't issue cards in 20 days.

 

Just because they do it, doesn't mean they are legally correct.

 

We accepted marijuana as medicine by law.

We established a system of patients self medicating without a doctor present. And we did that by law.

 

Those two issues are not about science or medicine anymore. Those conclusions have been reached by law.

[CedarSpringsCG]

We established a system of patients self medicating without a doctor present. And we did that by law.

 

Right, you proved my point, it is a Schedule 1. IT LACKS ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE IN TREATMENT UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION. Making it a schedule 1 controlled substance. There is no safety guidelines to be accepted, adn it is all done without a doctor present. Most Dr's don't even know how to dose it.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Rest2, are we talking Federal or State? PB starts with state, but you are arguing the Federal...

 

State says medical use "OR" safety. There are no safety standards as no one is allowed to test it to set those standards. And no one has "accepted" them that the state has determined is in position to accept them, therefore in the state, there are no "accepted" safety standards" for it to be removed from a schedule 1....

[Iceman081]

Colorado, South Dakota, Illinois, and Oregon have rescheduled marihuana by removing it from Schedule I.

 

The fact that this has already taken place combined with a court ruling goes a long way toward my argument.

 

PB have you seen this ruling from a few weeks ago?

 

 

Michigan Judge Rules that the Operating With Any Presence of Marijuana Statute is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

 

BREAKING NEWS!!! Michigan State, DUI, OUI, Driving While Impaired, Ruled Unconstitutional!

 

Posted on October 19, 2011

 

 

 

Return To OnlinePot's Legal Section Main Page

 

 

 

HOW MUCH POT IS TOO MUCH WHEN DRIVING? OUI, DUI, Driving While Impaired,

 

 

 

 

Today, in a case handled by Neil Rockind, P.C., a district court judge has declared that the Operating with the Presence of Drugs (OWPD) statute, as it pertains to Marijuana, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and as a result is unconstitutional.

 

The opinion is ground-breaking.

 

For longer than anyone can remember, Michigan prosecutors and city attorneys have been able to obtain convictions against people who are operating and driving

vehicles safely, exhibiting no signs of impairment or intoxication but who, it is later discovered, have small amounts of marijuana in their system.

 

While the law used to require prosecutors to have to prove that a person was intoxicated or impaired in order to convict them of a crime, lab technicians and government experts complained that it was too difficult to offer an opinion on intoxication due to drugs because there was no set level similar to alcohol, e.g., .10 BAC or .08 BAC, where it was presumed that a person was intoxicated due to drugs. They argued that the presence of any drugs in a person’s system should be sufficient. As is often the case, the law was modified (in our opinion) to make it easier to convict people. Out of this amendment was born the Operating with Presence of Drugs Statute (OWPD). People became sitting ducks if they had any remnant of some controlled substance.

 

 

Along comes our client,

“N.S.”, who had consulted with two (2) other prominent lawyers regarding a Operating with the Presence of Drugs charge before discharging them and hiring Neil Rockind and Neil Rockind, P.C. On the date in question, our client was driving his car. He was not driving erratically. Nor was he driving dangerously. He was stopped for a minor traffic infraction and when the officer began speaking with him, detected an “odor of marijuana.” Our client, in an effort to be honest, admitted to using marijuana. The officer arrested our client and subjected him to a blood test. The test revealed the presence of a minimal amount of THC, i.e., marijuana.

 

At Neil Rockind, P.C., we never give up. As the saying goes: You have to hate to lose, more than you like to win. We hate to lose so much that it is just not an option for us. We just can’t accept a loss…and while a myriad of lawyers were telling

our client or us to accept it, we didn’t. Criminal Defense Attorneys Neil Rockind and Colin Daniels noticed a few things about the case and the law.

 

1) Our client was charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system;

 

2) The crime requires a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

 

3) The drug in question in our client’s case was THC or marijuana;

 

4) Marijuana was classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance;

 

5) A Schedule 1 controlled substance is one that has no medicinal benefit;

 

6) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was passed in 2008 and enacted in 2009;

 

5) The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act states that marijuana has a medicinal benefit;

 

6) A medical marijuana patient would necessarily have marijuana in his sytem;

 

7) A medical marijuana patient cannot be charged with Operating with the Presence of Drugs in his system but would instead need to be

impaired or intoxicated in order to be convicted;

 

 

8 ) A medical marijuana patient could have marijuana in his system but not be guilty of a crime absence proof of impairment while a regular citizen using the same amount of marijuana could have the same amount of marijuana in his system but would be guilty of crime just for having that marijuana in his system;

 

9) Therefore, medical marijuana patients and regular citizens are being treated differently for no reason. Neither is less safe than the other, yet one could operate with marijuana in his system while the other could not not.

 

We concluded that this disparate treatment, i.e., inequality, was illegal. Accordingly, we filed an Equal Protection challenge to the Operating With the Presence of Drugs statute. After we filed our motion to dismiss, the court gave the prosecution time to respond. Interestingly, the prosecutor chose to focus on extraneous issues.

Upon our return to the courthouse, the Court ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act repealed (by implication) Michigan’s Schedule 1 Controlled Substance Act as it relates to marijuana/THC. The judge looked at the prosecutor and offered her more time to respond. We patiently waited as the prosecutor took additional time to deal with this landmark decision — Schedule 1 no longer applied to marijuana in Michigan. After reading the prosecution’s responsive argument, we knew we were on to something — they chose not to address certain cases and facts again.

 

At a hearing today, Judge Kirsten Neilson-Hartig carefully and meticulously laid out her opinion and her rationale. Her ruling revealed a deeper understanding and examination of the law, history, terms and phrases than many more experienced, “higher seniority” judges are capable on their best day. Listening to the judge, it became clear that we

had prevailed, but more so, it was clear that the Judge had issued a wonderfully reasoned and insightful opinion.

 

 

MCL 257.625(8), the offense that prohibits Operating With the Presence of Drugs is unconstitutional as it relates to marijuana. Marijuana is not a Schedule 1 drug because it has medicinal benefit. Both our client and a medical marijuana user use marijuana. The former can be arrested for having marijuana in his system – even the smallest, miniscule amount would subject to him arrest and conviction. The latter could use the marijuana and the prosecution would have to prove impairment in order convict. The judge said (paraphrasing) ,

 

I find the Operating With the Presence of Drugs statute, MCL 257.625(8), unconstitutional and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The case is dismissed.

 

This is a ground breaking ruling and it was obtained by Neil Rockind, P.C.,

Southfield, Michigan criminal defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Colin Daniels. Where most lawyers would have thrown in the towel, Rockind and Daniels pushed on. A bad statute is no more and a good man, our client, is set free.

 

- Neil Rockind