Privacy

[semicaregiver]

I have seen a number of recent topics where the issue of cardholder privacy has come up in relationship to LEO and townships enacting all sorts of onerous local regulations. As the law stands now, there is no way that a township can access the MDCH/LARA files short of a search warrant issued by a judge. However, just because we are protected by Michigan State Law, we should always be aware of Federal issues.

 

Cardholders should understand that the Federal courts do not respect our privacy. I am not sure how many on here read the courts opinion on the case back last Spring where the DEA on the Westside of the state issued an administrative subpoena to the MDCH requiring them to identify whether certain individuals held cards. We lost that round. The fed judge in that case issued the following statement...

 

When Michigan adopted the MMMA with its confidentiality provisions, it, of course,

 

only changed Michigan law. The very text of the MMMA recognizes that “federal law currently

 

prohibits any use of marijuana” (MCL § 333.26422©). Thus, anyone who is not deluding himself

 

or trying to push an agenda knows that the confidentiality provisions are only binding on the State

 

of Michigan and its agents, not the federal government and its agencies. “[T]he MMMA has no

 

affect on federal law, and the possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even if it

 

is possessed for medicinal purposes in accordance with state law.” United States v Hicks, 722

 

F.Supp.2d at 833. The use of marijuana continues to be a federal felony and reasonable persons

 

would expect the DEA to continue to investigate those who use or traffic in marijuana.6

 

To the extent that the supporters of the Medical Marijuana Initiative oversold the

 

“confidentiality” provisions to the general populous, they performed a disservice to theirconstituency. The

 

nationwide federal law against marijuana, and the nationwide federal

 

organizations that enforce that law, were the same the day after Michigan adopted the MMMA as

 

they were the day before. They did not go away. Thus, no reasonable person can expect to have a

 

right of privacy from federal investigation when they violate federal laws. The MMMA card affords

 

its holder no greater cloak of privacy than did the emperor’s new clothes.7 To believe the contrary

 

is simply to close one’s eyes to reality. But when you open your eyes, the emperor is still naked;

 

the elephant is still in the room.

 

The above was excerpted from page 12 of the court's published opinion....

USAvMDCH.pdf

[Timmahh]

yes, a clear case of the federal government playing monkey see no monkey do.

[Mememe]

Notice the word opinion at the end.

[petoskeystoned]

I would assume no sense of privacy from either. It just doesn't happen. Get your doc's rec., register if you choose too, and be quiet. Grow your own, smoke your own. Having patients exposes you immediately, being pulled over just once may expose you, your kids could. A zealous friend might, or your sister' boyfriend when he gets busted selling your meds he stole from your sister/patient. (I miss you sister!). Privacy is the last thing I would count on. Just me own thoughts.

[semicaregiver]

Petosky, you more than anyone understands how tentative the privacy implied under the MMM Act is.

 

My goal in posting this is not to create alarm, but remind everyone that even though you have a card, the "old school" approach to growing your own is still a good idea.