Response From Phil Cavanagh

[jamrock]

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concern of potential changes to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Rep. John Walsh, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tapped myself and Representative Ken Horn to head a bipartisan workgroup on several pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the House dealing with medical marihuana. These bills include House Bill 4834 and House Bills 4850-4856. The workgroup and the Judiciary Committee held numerous meetings over a ten month period; which included testimony from various groups, caregivers and patients who use Medical Marihuana

 

A number of Representatives, including myself, introduced these bills in an effort to supply medicine to those that suffer from chronic illness and/or pain and to clarify a poorly written law. My intent from day one was to ensure the privacy of patients and caregivers as they were promised when the Medical Marihuana Act was approved by 63% of voters.

 

I understand that many are concerned with the definition of “locked enclosed facility” as it is currently before the Michigan Supreme Court. I believe that is our duty as legislators to bring some clarity to the act and not just roll the dice and wait and see how the Supreme Court may rule on the current vague and ambiguous language in some areas of the act. The same holds true to concerns with the rights to present a medical marihuana defense to a jury.

My bill, House Bill 4851, also adds language, which I hope to strengthen before it’s voted on, which will guarantee the right to have a medical marihuana defense heard by a jury.

 

Other issues that we are working diligently to address are ending delays in getting the registry cards out to patients and push the Advisory Committee on Pain and Symptom Management to meet regularly and look into adding/approving medical conditions to the list of debilitating medical conditions that allow for the use of Medical Marihuana.

 

I have heard from many citizens who are concerned that these bills could prohibit medical marihuana from those who are desperately in need. That is not the case. Our goal is to create a uniform state law that clarifies the rules and regulations for obtaining medical marihuana, and protect the patients' rights.

 

Your concerns are important to me. Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Phil Cavanagh

State Representative

District 17

[+Malamute]

Yea right. Protect the patients.

 

Be a man Phil and vote against HB 4834 which does nothing but harm patients and strip their rights away.

 

 

Thanks for posting Jam.

[GregS]

I rec'd the same, and responded.

[Restorium2]

and not just roll the dice and wait and see how the Supreme Court may rule on the current vague and ambiguous language in some areas of the act.

 

 

I'm not so sure about this now Phil. What do you know that we don't?

Maybe a little talk from the SC telling these guys they would rule for us? Hurry up and legislate to cut off the other branch of government?

[Medcare]

and not just roll the dice and wait and see how the Supreme Court may rule on the current vague and ambiguous language in some areas of the act.

 

 

I'm not so sure about this now Phil. What do you know that we don't?

Maybe a little talk from the SC telling these guys they would rule for us? Hurry up and legislate to cut off the other branch of government?

Exactly!!!

[garyfisher]

i received the exact email

[mizerman]

I received the same e-mail as well

[Zombiefied]

My bill, House Bill 4851, also adds language, which I hope to strengthen before it’s voted on, which will guarantee the right to have a medical marihuana defense heard by a jury.

 

Where and How does HB 4851 do that? I just skimmed over it and didnt see anything in there about that.

[GregS]

My response. If cross posting is a problem, please let me know:

 

 

What is the vague and ambiguous language you speak of? It is strange that this is consistently argued, but nothing is specified, unless you consider Mr. Schuette's clear and unambiguous and ridiculous take on the law. He is a known quantity who has every intention to stop this issue in its tracks by rendering the law unworkable or worse.

 

What could possibly entice anyone to believe that the courts will fall in line with any requirement to require the defense be presented to the trier of fact, when they have refused to conform to the law that presently states that no arrest shall ensue if an individual is duly registered and is otherwise compliant, or that in the event the defendant chooses an affirmative defense, the charges shall be dismissed at an evidentiary hearing BEFORE a case goes to trial when a defendant proves the section 8 requirements? Recall that after my sending this initial message, the Ingham County Prosecutor, for the Prosecutor's Association, testified that the courts cannot be expected to comply with the proposed amendment based on separation of powers. Put perhaps more clearly, the courts have been intransigent in the administration of the law and have every intention to continue in this. Maybe a better question would ask what the legislature can do to compel the courts to adhere to clearly written law, rather than adhere to the twisted agenda that COA Judge O'Connel wrote of in his hot winded and deluded diatribe, and what can be done to contain a berserk Attorney General? Even now their efforts are putting people in harm's way and prosecuting them for cannabis use with no objective test to determine impairment. The law is clear that we are not permitted to drive while impaired, and that must be determined within scientific disciplines, rather than speculation and ideology.

 

To redefine "enclosed, locked facility" is unnecessary and amounts to little more than a head fake. The balance of the amendments are more onerous. Please do not expect that throwing us a bone to appease us is acceptable when the text of the amendments and the testimony of the police and the courts, and some members of the legislature, is clearly intended to kick us out the door when the last vote is cast. The amendment restricting access to an enclosed, locked facility could not possibly be any more counter to the letter and intent of the Act. Clearly intended is the protection for the people to engage in a small cottage industry that is capable to provide for itself. Preventing patients and their caregivers from entering each others' facilities serves no purpose except to make it much more difficult for patients to engage in our constitutionally protected medical use. We do not intend to have that taken from us.

 

The medicine is inended to be supplied by a nework of patients and/or their caregivers freely to and from each other per Proposition 1. You would eliminate the choice of the electorate to permit us to freely cultivate, acquire, transfer, transport, distribute, and deliver it among and between each other. It is that provision that protects patients in all of these clearly defined activities that provides for the source of cannabis that has been argued is not spelled out in the law and facilitates it.

 

I am afraid the legislature dithered too long. It took a ballot initiative to grant what we need to enjoy the blessed relief the drug provides. Some argue that this is a messy situation, but it is the meddling by reactionary courts and law enforcement that are at the core of the problem. It is pertinent here to mention again the influence of asset forfeiture in motivating those institutions and agencies. We will no longer stand for that. Perhaps you would be so kind to introduce legislation to prohibit that practice.

 

The balance of the amendments are unacceptable, with the exception that registry be valid for two years rather than one. I will be happy to respond to the other issues at play.

 

There are more than three million motivated voters who agree with me and our ranks are closed.

 

Sincerely,

...

[+washtenaut]

I too got that same reply from Rep Cavanaugh and sent my own response.

 

 

Representative Cavanaugh,

 

Thank you for the reply. The medical cannabis community appreciates any effort on our behalf and we are grateful for yours.

 

One problem is that any 'new' provisions of this law will need to be tested through the courts eventually. Perhaps we should wait and see if the Supreme Court rulings need to be addressed in order for patients to maintain access to their medicine. To create new legislation on these points pending in the courts could begin a whole new 3 year court process. Some other poor souls will lose their life savings fighting the system in test cases. I agree that legislation will be likely but I think we should hear them out before creating new law.

 

In spite of starting out with great goals and all of your efforts to protect patients, each of the 4 bills passed out of the Judiciary Committee causes additional problems for patients. ALL patient groups OPPOSED the bills passed by the Judiciary Committee. That should tell you that we wish you to vote NO on these bills. I'm sorry but their are objectionable parts to each of these bills, especially the one that opens up the registry to a wide array of 'government officials'.

 

The Court of Appeals recently made another atrocious ruling relating to medical cannabis. Schuette's buddy, Judge O'Connell, held up his end of the apparent conspiracy again and ruled that medical cannabis patients cannot legally drive while THC is in their system. (Just an aside, but is it legal for Schuette to conspire with the COA judges to bring down the people's initiative? If not, why is there not some sort of investigation as this conspiracy is underway?)

 

This ruling means that if the police see a medical cannabis patient driving they can almost certainly arrest and convict that person of DUID. Why can users of every other medicine drive an automobile as long as they are not 'impaired', but a medical cannabis patient cannot drive until all traces of their medication are gone from their body - perhaps days? The COA ruling against patient drivers will cause tremendous pain to the patients though this does not appear to be a concern to the conspirators. Disabled people are shut-in enough due to our affliction. Now we are not allowed even get out on the few days we feel well.

 

This COA ruling does not remove even 1 impaired driver from the road either. They have just forced patients like me to use medications that are less effective for us, are more difficult to dose, don't allow us to function as well in society, will eventually cause serious health problems and then, will literally kill us. I am leaving soon for a doctor appointment to get more vicodin because that's what the doctor, er I mean the judge ordered. Glad there is no 'zero tolerance' of opiates!!

 

Thank you again for your concern.

 

Regards,

[DLD420]

Excellent reply, sure hope some of these dolts get it sometime soon.