Is This The End? Caregivers Giving Up Inmass

[Restorium2]

Back in the day...

 

When you got pulled over and they smelled marijuana, the officer would pen a tiny D on the corner of the back your drivers license. This made it easier for their brother officers. It was a blatant disregard for our rights, but they did it anyway to make their jobs easier. Nothing has changed.

[quietone]

I am not going anywhere and will continue to help people. If we quit then they win and I for one am not ready ti give up. Caregivers have to think about those patients that are counting on getting their meds. The patients are why we are here and why we help now is not the time to throw them under a bus because things get a little hot. We need to continue fighting these bills and I think we really need to start thinking about writing some new people initiatives.

[treehugger]

Lol, doom and gloom the sky is FALLING! (I'm moving to AFGANISTAN!) 99% of uninformed patients who read this unrelenting crying and gnashing of teeth are disturbed and sign off, congratulations on destroying the movement from the inside. Thankfully most patients have better sources of information than this moaning pool...

[Beans]

I am not going anywhere and will continue to help people. If we quit then they win and I for one am not ready ti give up. Caregivers have to think about those patients that are counting on getting their meds. The patients are why we are here and why we help now is not the time to throw them under a bus because things get a little hot. We need to continue fighting these bills and I think we really need to start thinking about writing some new people initiatives.

 

Check the headlights, taillights, brake lights, registration signed and proof of insurance as this could be a bumpy ride

 

Going to see the Doc this month(Rec.) and still on the fence about submitting to the state

[Celliach]

Celliach,

What did they do STOP DRIVING?

I see no way to cover your donkey. Especially on That!

Card equals blood test for MMJ, good luck with that.

My representative said that they are not concerned with establishing impairment levels.

Good luck with your DUID.

No card No Target.

My 2¢ anyway.

Am I wrong? Quite possibly.

However I trust my gut, and my gut is telling me to get while the getting is good.

Nothing has changed with driving....NOTHING.

It was always illegal to drive intoxicated, period. The court just ruled that patients don't get a free out like we wanted. Did you drive before this court ruling? If so then you were doing it illegally. Did you drive while taking narcotic painkillers? If so, then you did it illegally.

Nothing at all has changed....nothing.

You're freaking out over nothing. Don't want LEO to question you in a traffic stop, then don't show him your card. I wouldn't have shown my card before this ruling. Nothing changed.

[Restorium2]

Practice your heel to toe walking and counting backwards. Demand a field sobriety test. Ask if the car has a dash cam. We need video.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Restorium2

[Celliach]

 

 

I am not arguing with what you are saying here, I just don't think it will effect the program as much as you guys think it will. I can understand if the risks are too high for any one person, everyone has their own risk level. But I look at it this way: if the law had been written this way from day one, would the program have flopped completely?

 

Also, if they profile you, which is what we are worried about, why wouldn't they do that and take blood without a card? Any presence charges work without a card, too, and don't need an appeals court ruling to do it.

It was written this way from day one. Being intoxicated while driving, no matter the reason for your intoxication, was illegal when the law went into affect.

[Celliach]

"They have made it illegal for patients that are treating a chronic condition with cannabis to drive."

It was already illegal before the Koon decision. The Koon decision just upheld the law as it was already being implemented. It didn't change anything.

 

About a decade ago, while living in another state, I was taking massive amounts of oxycontin. I didn't drive. If I had gotten into an accident and they found out I was on heavy narcotics, I would have been screwed. I was a patient, taking legal medicine, that shouldn't have been driving because the medicine was intoxicating.....period. It was illegal for me to drive. (My not driving caused a lot of problems between my ex-wife and I.)

 

"What the COA has done with Koon has definitely taken away patient rights/protections that were granted under the original law. "

 

Where in the law did it give us the right to drive while under the influence? It's not there.

[Restorium2]

The Act said that you couldn't drive under the influence of marijuana. It did not say that just having a trace in your blood was a disqualifying factor. The court is who said that. It is outside of the direction of the Act, which should be the controlling document for us and our actions. They took a short cut to help the officers.

[Celliach]

" It did not say that just having a trace in your blood was a disqualifying factor."

 

Seriously?!? Do you really believe that?!? There were "No Tolerance" laws for driving under the influence BEFORE the law was passed. The law had decided that a trace in your blood was illegal long before the MMMA was passed.

 

This was ALWAYS the law.......ALWAYS.

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Restorium2]

" It did not say that just having a trace in your blood was a disqualifying factor."

 

Seriously?!? Do you really believe that?!? There were "No Tolerance" laws for driving under the influence BEFORE the law was passed. The law had decided that a trace in your blood was illegal long before the MMMA was passed.

 

This was ALWAYS the law.......ALWAYS.

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

There were a lot of things the Act changed as it mentions them. Driving is one that is mentioned. Go read it and see.

[Celliach]

What part of the MMMA makes you believe that?

 

[Restorium2]

And a circuit court judge did agree with us. Don't forget that part.

[Restorium2]

What part of the MMMA makes you believe that?

That part that talks about driving.

[Celliach]

7. Scope of Act.

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

(b) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:

 

(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

 

(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana:

 

(A) in a school bus;

 

(B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or

 

© in any correctional facility.

 

(3) Smoke marihuana:

 

(A) on any form of public transportation; or

 

(B) in any public place.

 

(4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.

 

(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

© Nothing in this act shall be construed to require:

 

(1) A government medical assistance program or commercial or non-profit health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marihuana.

 

(2) An employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.

 

(d) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marihuana to avoid arrest or prosecution shall be punishable by a fine of $500.00, which shall be in addition to any other penalties that may apply for making a false statement or for the use of marihuana other than use undertaken pursuant to this act.

 

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

[Celliach]

 

 

While I agree that the words on paper have always been there, it is the COA's flawed opinion that puts us in this situation across the state.

 

How is it logical to say you can treat a chronic, severe, and debilitating condition and not have the medicine in your bloodstream while driving?

That's the way it is for ALL drugs. Everyone driving on narcotic painkillers is driving illegally....by the law.

 

[Celliach]

And a circuit court judge did agree with us. Don't forget that part.

Doesn't matter, circuit court rulings aren't binding.

[+Malamute]

Nothing changed. If you do not like the zero tolerance law in Michigan, it has been in effect for like 10 years.

 

Nothing new here except the expanded understanding of many people who were clueless before and filled with bad information.

 

I would also venture to say that nothing has changed with the police either. I assume they already had access to the registry in the manner they are now allowed to use if those bills pass.

 

I wouldn't even think of not having card myself. I think people are crazy. Go to Florida? Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. They have no MMj law in Florida and the penalties for mj in Florida are worse than Michigan. *shrug*

 

Police have easier access to the Registries in California than Michigan even when this law passes.

 

I guess everyone just thought a mmj card was a free pass to do anything. *shrug* I was never under such an illusion myself and when i told people, they simply got mad at me. :-)

 

Keep it Secret. Keep it Safe.

 

I will take a DUID over a 4-7 year felony anyday. Hahahaha.

 

I've always told people act like the law never passed.

 

The world never changed, only your mindset.

 

There are more people in the program today than there was yesterday and the same thing will be true tomorrow. People have been getting DUID under the Michigan law for a couple years now. Is the Koon decision actually a surprise? Not to me. I of course hoped, but i knew better.

 

If we wish to fix our law to how "we" want it, we will have to pass another initiative in 2016. Start saving your money. We need a million bucks.

 

But i definitely find this to be a fear mongerer thread. Nothing is different today than it was a year ago except your understanding it seems.

[quietone]

Check the headlights, taillights, brake lights, registration signed and proof of insurance as this could be a bumpy ride

 

Going to see the Doc this month(Rec.) and still on the fence about submitting to the state

 

And put your registration in someone else's name so when they run the plate they get a non registered name and address. If the vehicle isn't registered to a patient it should help you as long as you are not driving like an idiot.

[+Malamute]

O yea, and to the title of the thread, Caregivers can still drive. If you are only a caregiver, you arent using marijuana anyway. Right?

[Celliach]

"Driving on narcotics is not illegal. "

 

It is if you're "intoxicated." Since we have a No Tolerance law in Michigan, any trace of the drug in your system counts as "intoxication." It's messed up, I know. I don't agree with it.....I don't agree with anything I said so far. However, it's the way it is. I will follow the law even if I disagree with it and am working to change it.

 

This is one fight we are probably going to lose for some time to come though. I hate to say that.....just being a realist.

[+Malamute]

This Koon thing,... let us remember to blame the right people... MPP that wrote our law. They knew Michigan was zero tolerance and they didnt adjust their model language properly to protect the patients. Their fault.

 

They screwed up a ton of language. We all know it. If we want it fixed, we will have to do it ourselves. :-)

 

Examples: Driving, Medibles and amount of usable marijuana allowed.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Malamute

[Restorium2]

We will know we won when we have the same warning with our medicine as narcotics have.

 

The one that says to be careful driving and operating heavy machinery until you get used to the drug.

[+Malamute]

I think people forgot, this law was simply step 1.

 

We are on a journey to the promised land and i am proud to help push the carts there for the next generation. We are the Pioneers of medical marijuana. Now we just have to cross the Mississippi and watch out for the Indians on our way to the promised land.

 

The day the law passed in November of 2008, the first thing i said after results came in was "Yay! Hopey McChange won!" Then i seen the MMj law passed and said, " Now the real fight has started".

 

I just seen things differently(realisticly) i guess.

 

O yea... and i don't like it one fruckn bit either.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

The piece of crapp is definitelt a piece of crapp.

 

:-)

 

No question there. Dam Conservative(republican) Judges are always Legislating from the bench.

 

I would agree MPP may have "intended" something, but the fact is, they screwedd it up. They know they did. They have revised their language for states that come after us. They adjusted their medibles language in Septemember 2008. Just months after they finished michigans language. It happens. It is our jobs to fix it. :-)

 

But that is not going to happen unless it is passed "by the people" in another initiative. Michigans Republican dominated government is horrible and i have no idea what the heck happened to Michigan. Wasnt this a Democratic and Union dominated state at one time? Why all the intolerant Republicans now?