Koon Decision Killed Mmj For Now. Demand And Prices In Freefall

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

Cut and paste where anyone said Marinol is schedule 1! You can't because no one said it is so please make some sense here.

What was said was that synthetic thc is schedule 1. If you read the law you will see that. Your argument that marinol is schedule 3 has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It is entirely possible that schedule 1 was left the way it is for reasons such as preventing someone from driving while on synthetic thc. Then maybe they scheduled marinol as 3 so it could be prescribed. Don't let your brain burst here, just consider that anomaly for a moment.

It is also entirely possible that synthetic thc remained schedule 1 because it was overlooked when marinol was scheduled. That doesn't change the fact that thc is schedule 1 in the law right now. What you are saying is that you'll say, "Your honor, I was taking marinol, which is schedule 3. I know that synthetic thc is schedule1 and I know that there is a separate law that says you cannot drive with schedule 1 listed drugs in your system but gosh darn it that ain't fair!" It's in the law chief. No driving on schedule 1 listed drugs.

Next, consider your bastardized logic. What you are accusing me of doing is exactly what you are doing. You are telling me that since marinol is schedule 3 that synthetic thc cannot be schedule 1. That is laughable because I can argue the reverse of that to you!

Still think it's safe to drive on marinol? You got the script you said. Turn yourself into the guinea pig. Pop a marinol and go tell a cop you took one and then drive away. If you're so sure of yourself that you are willing to suggest everyone do this then prove it to the community. Put up or shut up.

Here is the distinction:

Zero tolerance is for only schedule 1 drugs.

CaveatLector · May 3, 2012

So load up on marinol and drive peanutbutter. You're the guinea pig. We'll wait with baited breath for the result. You can argue to the judge that the fact that synthetic thc is on schedule 1 was a big mistake. Maybe we can all kick in $20 for your legal defense fund that you won't need! :thumbsu:

AKenewell · May 3, 2012

So load up on marinol and drive peanutbutter. You're the guinea pig. We'll wait with baited breath for the result. You can argue to the judge that the fact that synthetic thc is on schedule 1 was a big mistake. Maybe we can all kick in $20 for your legal defense fund that you won't need!

And if anyone else takes his advice maybe he can kick in for their legal defense!

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

Many many times we have been told we don't need marijuana .. that it is available in a pill.

So if we accept the advise from soooooo many officials and use the pill instead of the herb, how long before I can legally drive?

ozzrokk · May 3, 2012

I do not know if a marinol script would help in court but I will tell you this marinol cannot be a schedule 1 drug. A schedule 1 drug CANNOT be prescribed by a doctor.

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

Q-Tipper .. thank you very much for posting that quality information.

I see that you may have written this while Marinol was still schedule 2?

trix · May 3, 2012

Everyone is scarred i am not scared but we have great Lawyers and that will help i think every one should get one are Lawyers are working hard for us to get the truth out in court w have been in court for over 3 years now and we have Oakland County on the run if any Leo get up on the stand and lies they will get caught and the jury will not be happy so if you (Leo) are reading this read my lip's we are NOT guilty

:judge: NOT GUILTY!! You will be vindicated when your case is heard soon enough Bob!

Heres a reasonable question,

Are there any medical conditions or situations where a blood test is too risky to be ordered by a Judge? Such as people taking large doses of blood thinners etc? Hemophilia? etc etc etc.

I have Type 3 Von Willebrand disease http://en.wikipedia....lebrand_disease. The most severe form of Hemophilia, I have to give myself a shots of Humate-P before I have my blood drawn, that one shot to make my blood coagulate costs $18,000 dollars. Without that medication Humate-P, I can bleed to death from a simple blood draw. good luck your honor..

When I was going through court last year the judge ordered that I have urine screening done 3x's a week. I have a distended bladder which causes severe pain when urinating, as well sometimes making it impossible to go at all. They say in order to fully relive my bladder I should lay in a tub full of warm water. Well the drug screening place didn't have a bathtub. I was violated 3x's for failure to present a urine sample, probation officer told the Judge this was ridiculous and requested I no longer should have to be tested for medical reasons. Judge said he didn't care, but did reduce testing to 1x a week vrs 3x's.

Trix

:bong2:

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

I'm going to toss out some words that may make some people angry. I hope that isn't to large a number ..

how about

"For driving purposes, regulations that are applicable for prescription THC, also known as Dronabinol, shall also apply to the medical use of marijuana."

These regulations, for medical use of THC, have successfully existed for decades. Both federal and state.

There is no reason for two standards for medical THC. That is, for medical purposes, medical THC is schedule 3.

Zero tolerance is intended for crimnals.

There is no reason for a new set of THC regulations when such a set of regulations for THC has existed, nationwide, for decades.

Restorium2 · May 3, 2012

I'm going to toss out some words that may make some people angry. I hope that isn't to large a number ..

how about

"For driving purposes, regulations that are applicable for prescription THC, also known as Dronabinol, shall also apply to the medical use of marijuana."

These regulations, for medical use of THC, have successfully existed for decades. Both federal and state.

There is no reason for two standards for medical THC. That is, for medical purposes, medical THC is schedule 3.

Zero tolerance is intended for crimnals.

There is no reason for a new set of THC regulations when such a set of regulations for THC has existed, nationwide, for decades.

Get that you posted in red in a bill so it can't be ignored. Might have to vote out some people first. Every YES voter on the present bills needs to go so we eventually can get something for patients. LEO gets to go first, then patients might get a turn at a wish list. Our wants are meager compared to what they are asking for. We want to be able to drive, defend ourselves in court, and not have our homes invaded for smelling like cannabis.

CaveatLector · May 3, 2012

Q-Tipper .. thank you very much for posting that quality information.

I see that you may have written this while Marinol was still schedule 2?

I would be interested in seeing your source for the claim that marinol is schedule 3 in Michigan. Do you have a source or are you just guessing since it is schedule 3 federally?

Restorium2 · May 3, 2012

Better yet, leave marinol right out of it.

Write a fair bill that treats our medicine like their medicine. Equal treatment under the laws. Call it an anti disrimination bill. Or an anti hate bill. Something for patients for a change.

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

Ahh .. thank you for that.

R 338.3114 Schedule 1; tetrahydrocannabinols.
Rule 14. Synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant or in the resinous extractives of cannabis and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure or pharmacological activity, or both, such as the following, are included in schedule 1:

(a)Δ1cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol and their optical isomers, excluding dronabinol in sesame oil and encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule in a drug product approved by the United States food and drug

CaveatLector · May 3, 2012

double post

CaveatLector · May 3, 2012

Ahh .. thank you for that.

Again, you are quoting from administrative rules. Administrative rules don't trump statutory law so you need to be showing me the exception in statute not rules.

CaveatLector · May 3, 2012

Yes, I posted it all in this thread. The law that forbids driving on schedule 1 drugs states:

(8) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7212, or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7214

It references explicitly the schedule 1 list in 7212 of the public health code. It does not tell you to look to schedules developed by an admin. agency instead.

So we jump to 7212 of the public health code and it states:

(d) Synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of cannabis and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure or pharmacological activity, or both, such as the following, are included in schedule 1:

(i) /\1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

(ii) /\6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

(iii) /\3,4, cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

(e) Compounds of structures of substances referred to in subdivision (d), regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions, are included.

(f) Gamma-hydroxybutyrate and any isomer, salt, or salt of isomer of gamma-hydroxybutyrate.

Some trade and other names: Sodium oxybate

4-hydroxybutanoic acid monosodium salt

So, as you can see, synthetic thc is listed as schedule 1 under 7212. No exception was made for dronabinol. Therefore, you cannot drive on it regardless of admin. rules.

peanutbutter · May 3, 2012

Driving regulations, for medical THC, already exist. They are uniform across the entire United States.

Why fight to invent something that's already there?

It might have community support and only require 50% support.

cristinew · May 3, 2012

Instead or working on dispensary bills , they should be working on making it ok for patients to drive in michigan

bobandtorey · May 3, 2012

well on my bottle it still says use care when operating a car or dangerous machinery

bobandtorey · May 3, 2012

Instead or working on dispensary bills , they should be working on making it ok for patients to drive in michigan

i agree and will add let people that use it to be able to tell a jury

pic book · May 4, 2012

On point with the OP: Street prices in East Detroit for Bubba are down $200 since the Koon decision

mibrains · May 4, 2012

http://metrotimes.com/mmj/court-ruling-hasn-t-cleared-the-air-1.1308870

Higher Ground

Court ruling hasn’t cleared the air

Controversy over interpretation of ruling on medical marijuana and driving

By Larry Gabriel

Published: May 2, 2012

Update: Since this column was published on May 2, it has generated a heated debate among people with more than a casual knowledge of medical marijuana law and how it is applied in our legal system. The prevalent opinion is that my statement that medical marijuana patients cannot legally drive is wrong.

Attorney John Targowski pointed out that, before June 8, 2010, THC-COOH, the metabolite derived when the human body processes THC, was considered a Schedule 1 drug. However, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Feezel that THC-COOH is only a byproduct of how your body processes THC and is not psychoactive, “Thus, anyone can drive with any amount of THC-COOH, patients or not” and not be legally impaired.

I agree with Targowski and apologize for spreading misinformation. However, a few others say that many prosecutors and judges have a different understanding of the ruling, saying it is irresponsible to say it’s OK to drive with THC-COOH in your system.

The bottom line is that if you medicate with marijuana daily, then chances are that you do have THC in your system at all times. Whether you feel impaired or not, this makes you legally vulnerable to charges of DWI.

Again, I apologize for misrepresenting the legal implications of People v. Koon. There are, however, some people who interpret it this way.

This highlights the need for Michigan law to recognize the science about marijuana and set a fair manner of determining when someone is actually impaired by marijuana use rather than imposing a zero-tolerance standard.

The amended column below has removed the most extreme implications originally expressed while maintaining the concerns of those who believe that some prosecutors and judges take the position that the Koon ruling applies to all elements of marijuana and their derived metabolites, which linger in the body far longer than THC itself.

On April 17, the Michigan Court of Appeals made a controversial ruling in People v. Koon, a Grand Traverse County case in which a medical marijuana patient was charged with driving while impaired simply because there was marijuana residue present in his system.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not overrule a zero tolerance law that prohibits drivers from operating a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana in their system.

The ruling read: “… in the motor vehicle code, the legislature has provided a definition of what constitutes being under the influence of marijuana: The presence of any amount ... of marijuana.”

Since marijuana is detectable in the human body for several weeks (whether that's THC or other substances in the plant), that pretty much takes the driving privileges of the state's 130,000 medical marijuana patients away. No driving to work, the doctor's office, the grocery store — nothing.

This ruling is extreme. The motor vehicle code allows for up to .08 blood alcohol content in drivers' systems before they are legally impaired. This ruling reflects an attitude that considers medical marijuana users as criminals.

"The MMMA gives protection for internal possession of marijuana," says Robin Schneider, legislative liaison for the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers. "That's because marijuana stays in your system for 30 days or longer, the impaired time is much shorter than that. That's something I'm hoping law enforcement will take into account and stick with an impairment assessment at a roadside test. I know a lot of people who have HIV and cancer and things like that, and I don't think the voters intended to completely revoke their driving privileges. We created the MMMA so they can have a healthier option of treatment, and I hope law enforcement officers will use discretion when applying this new ruling."

The court's ruling was based strictly on the language in motor vehicle laws and didn't actually present any opinion about what impairment is. Scientific studies in recent decades have shown that marijuana impairment lasts several hours, not days or weeks.

A 1992 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report concluded: "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drug-free drivers. ... While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes."

In other words, people who smoke appear to cause no more accidents than drivers who are completely straight. However, when you mix pot with alcohol or other drugs, don't get behind the wheel. Stay home and drive your TV remote.

In addition, the ruling does not take into account the difference between THC and other cannabinoids. THC is the substance in marijuana that causes the high, but other benign cannabinoids might indicate the presence of marijuana in the system but do not indicate impairment. It's an issue that has to be worked out between science and the law. Colorado has considered a THC impairment level at 5 nanograms per milliliter and Washington at 8 nanograms per milliliter. Although neither state has settled on a level, it's a hot topic in both as they face votes on legalization this fall. Ohio and Nevada set the impairment level at 2 nanograms per milliliter, while Pennsylvania sets it at 5 nanograms per milliliter. Those are the only states that have such laws.

One reason the Court of Appeals ruling concerns medical marijuana activists is that the pending House Bill 4834 in the state Legislature would allow law enforcement officers access to the state medical marijuana registry without a warrant. Some believe this will make patients sitting ducks for police officers who access the registry and find out who is a patient, then stop them while driving. Actually, an officer wouldn't even need to go that far. If a driver produces a registry card at a routine traffic stop, that alone is probable cause for the officer to have the driver's blood tested in order to get a DWI determination.

On the good side, HB 4834 requires the state registry to review petitions for possibly adding new conditions that qualify patients to use medical marijuana, something the office of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has not yet done although required by the MMMA of 2008.

Other pending legislation, HB 4851 (defining a bona fide doctor-patient relationship and defining an "enclosed, locked facility"), HB 4853 (making it a felony to sell marijuana in violation of the MMMA), and HB4856 (making it a misdemeanor to transport marijuana in a vehicle unless it's in the trunk or otherwise inaccessible to passengers) are less controversial, yet activists feel they nibble away at the rights provided by the MMMA.

It will take a three-quarters majority of the Legislature to pass HB 4834 and HB 4851 because they are modifications to the MMMA. The others are changes in the state penal codes and require only a simple majority.

"They're having a tough time getting that three-quarters majority," says Tim Beck, an activist who helped push for the MMMA. "The Democrats are closing ranks, although some are getting bought off."

There is pending legislation not yet introduced that could be seen as positive for medical marijuana dispensaries in Michigan. Most dispensaries in the state have shut down since a 2011 Court of Appeals decision that "patient-to-patient" transfers of medical marijuana are not allowed. This case has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, although the high court has not decided whether it will review the ruling.

Rep. Michael Callton (R-Nashville) is working on legislation that would legalize dispensaries. In January, Callton spoke at a medical marijuana forum and said, "I am a chiropractor and have actually seen how this can help people." He went on to discuss that cancer and chronic pain patients have benefited from medical use of marijuana. His legislation, HB5580, could be introduced as soon as this week.

Nick Wake, Callton's legislative director, says, "There could be some things to help fill in the gaps to help both patients and law enforcement in keeping with the spirit of the law. If it's going to be medical, let's make it medical. We're discussing some issues and looking at potential outcomes of, 'If we did this, what would happen?' ... We're trying to address the issue of safe access for patients; we want it to be a safe clinical facility."

HB 5580 leaves the decision of whether to allow dispensaries to local municipalities.

"Both Republicans and Democrats are saying there really should be a safe place where patients can go," Schneider says. "Two-thirds of all patients don't have a caregiver; I do think there will be bipartisan support. They just want to see a set of rules and guidelines that people can follow. ... When we look at this from a health and public safety standpoint, where patients can go and safely access their medicine, have the ability to test medicine, regulate where it's coming from and get it into the proper form, people listen to that. Each local municipality should be able to regulate this the way they see fit. In general, what I'm hearing is they would rather have this stuff happen in a centralized location rather than parks, parking lots and alleys."

The wild days of medical marijuana that followed passage of the MMMA are apparently over, though there are still numerous issues pending. How will the Supreme Court rule on dispensaries? Will the House bills go anywhere? Regarding the proposed vote on decriminalization in Detroit: Will the city appeal to the Supremes or will it go on the ballot in August? And will the underfunded petition initiative to legalize marijuana statewide get enough signatures?

And as regards the impairment issue and driving, be really careful. Too bad we don't have great public transportation around here. That would solve a lot of problems.

vehicle unless it's in the trunk or otherwise inaccessible to passengers) are less controversial, yet activists feel they nibble away at the rights provided by the MMMA.