Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[CaveatLector]

i disagree...as has been noted time and time again..what i see people needing is a little less of "dr" bob

I suppose that if you need less of Dr Bob then you could always not read his posts. That, or you could simply stay at your dear leader's site. There is probably NO Dr Bob there, right?

 

I really don't understand why so many of you people come over here complaining when you could simply stay at his wonderful temple of a site. It's all free thinking and democracy there, right? Everyone gets along. They have all you need. This site has crashed to nothingness, right? So why do you bother coming here? Do you have battered wife syndrome?

[Croppled1]

"I am sure most members are getting what they need from ..... Those that do not wish to risk arrest have a clear path, those that are ok with a riskier path at least know what they are getting into."

 

I have to disagree with this because inspite of what is being said I have come to the honest conclusion that it is very difficult if not impossible for most individuals with medical need to comply with the Act in it's present configuration . It was already posted that any Law Enforcement interaction is resulting in arrests over 60% of the time in Michigan . Most often for weight or count violations usually via technicallities of what constitutes a seperate enclosed space per patient , what is useable marihuana or inert ingrediants counted in medables .

 

I guarantee you if you go into 10 patient grow situations eventually you will find 9 out of 10 patients limited to 2.5 useable ounces of cannabis in non compliance with the act at some moment in time . If your a recreational user with very low needs like a quarter oz a week you may be able to throw your cananabis away wet fast enough to comply as well as dry small amounts to keep a continuous supply at all times but it will still take 12 plants and waste resources using a perpetual grow of limited storage. You may also still be subject to some officers interpretation that every plant on site is useable material and they will take it away and dry it for court having learned not to let it rot . I know in the Vanderbutts case he was overweight with material to be frozen in blocks of water making it unuseable but wanted it cured first which was very similar to the lady that called Planet Greentree's this week asking about would her cannabis be considered unuseable if it was stored in alchohal while making tinctures . It is so obvious non medical users write these laws in and legislators dismiss and fail to ever accept and understand what real medical use needs in practice are so as to develop and improve the law for patients , caregivers and society in general .

 

I was terrified when a Lawyer on planet greentree's this week was saying curing material was ambiguous too now ! I never thought about it and assumed anything curing was safe until moved out of the room into storage . I know pain patients that use medables and over 2 ozs a week for everything . There very ill and can't weigh things daily nor create concentrates that take prolonged standing , effort though they can do things for minutes at a time , they usually can get 2 -4 hours of activity a day but hurt themselves and collapse frequently drained . However they definitely want to comply with the law and are very dilligent about trying . Non cured material is worthless to their medical use and with it taking a minimum of a few weeks to cure cola's and large buds with them using 2 oz's a week do the math they must have 4 oz in cure at all times as well as 2.5 oz in storage or current use for a non interupted supply incase of a event that precludes them from putting new product in curing and tending their room .

 

We have people in Law Enforcement stating this is all a hoax infact the leader of Law Enforcement stated as much publically ! The AG has never issued a opinion on what constitutes useable material( has he ) and it is the achilles heal of the whole program currently and places every patient at risk of conflict , arrest , and serious injury . Why do I say serious injury because the jail system is not required to give dependent medications nor will it understand people whose behavior deteriorates due to medication neglect or change , pain , and other medical causes . Barbituate or Opiate abrupt withdrawls can be deadly and violent . The jails withold these medications and hospital referals are tossed aside often to be returned to a cell with no help given . that normal drugs are not given sure seems like discrimination as well as the system often substitutes psychiatric drugs to people which also results in death . I have repeatedly brought up a lady who died after arrest in withdrawls and put on psychiatric medicines in Oakland County who has nobody to speak up for her now that she is in the grave . It must be terribley painful to her family who may feel helpless or like she brought it on herself . I say no she deserved more adequate help

 

Severe pain needs to be treated our own State web site says so and patients know their bodies best not books , regulations or others including Doctors . Until the last 100 years rarely were Doctors more then storage vessals of knowledge that served patients . They did not dictate treatments under the enforcement of law leaving patients to suffer the consequences without freedom of choice . We litterly have a slow economy where some professional groups are targeting patients for profit . I may not be much anymore unable to work and care for myself without help but I can see where people are afraid and why .

 

I truely believe everyone will remain in a ambiguous situation until storage limits are removed or increased at grow sites and useable marihuana is defined as it stands now many patients are neglecting themselves and their medical needs trying to be in compliance confused on just what is legal . How can this be 4 years after the program started when these are multi year felonies with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars , cars were taken in Saginaw and recently someone posted about innocents ( grandparents ) loosing their home ? I am all for giving credit where credit is due and not complaining but patients deserve a safe program in practice where they can interact with all members of society without ever being in fear with all their needs met .

 

I have not met one individual that truly wanted to take a riskier path that could lead to arrest , loss of their normal medical routine , or premature death as has happened for some patients .

Edited June 24, 2012 by Croppled1

[SFC]

"battered wife syndrome"! Man, I lost it on that one! LMAO!

 

Croppled, you are right. Four years in and we are still in peril. That is precisely why we are now preaching careful instead of flamboyance. Until there is regime change in the legislature and more importantly the AG it will remain so. We can continue to stay engaged and we encourage that as well, but in the meantime we need to all be mindful of a conservative reading of the law and do our best to either stay within it or stay under the radar. That is reality my friend.

 

Joke Cain will eventually find himself in Jail or prison. It may not be right and I personally do not believe anyone shoudl ever be locked up over this plant that we all love and believe in, but I don't enforce the laws of the land, our enemies do...

[Dr. Bob]

i disagree...as has been noted time and time again..what i see people needing is a little less of "dr" bob

 

Another die hard from the other site.

 

Here is his rhetoric from the other site, so you know where he is coming from....

 

Originally Posted by roofratMI

Let's not lose site of one of the real reasons for the opposition to the Jackson Farmers Market. Brother Joe. The dark side has a grudge against Joe as Joe is for patient rights and the dark side is for their wallet rights. Joe did not drink their tainted Kool Aid and he had to go. But Joe did not go quietly. He went out with both barrels blazing, so they would love to destroy the best patient, caregiver system going. As this is Joe's baby. This is grudge match. So inform their sheeple the market is dangerous, come on do you really think they would promote the market for Joe?

 

IMO the real reason they are SO opposed to any alternative format than what they have been working on is the fact they have all worked so hard and have everything in place so when 5580 goes thru they can all surface with their new distribution model (provision centers)and anything that isn't within their unambiguous compliance language is threatening that was their bargaining leverage with the reps--complete unambiguous compliance with the language they helped draft

most of these folks are allready on the greenhouse outdoorventure just waiting to flood the market with their high priced medicine...remember they have a lot at "steak" ...$$$......I feel that is the real reason they didn't try and take up the fight of p to p transfers as that takes the control out of their hands and the leverage to bargain with the reps I mean if all of us as patients were able to share and help each other obtain affordable access what would they be left with?

 

Last edited by

ganja soldier

; Yesterday at 10:54 PM.

 

 

So you see, we are all just a bunch of 'STEAK' holders interested in lining our pockets with expensive meds from 'compassion clubs' at the expense of poor sick patients. I think that pretty much sums up the credibility of this poster. I am especially amused by the implication that the unambiguous compliance policy is not designed to protect patients, but rather as a direct attempt to torpedo Joe's dispensary.

 

I really don't know where to start pointing out the falicies of this position, other than to point out there is no involvment with any dispensaries, mines, etc on the part of this site, legitimate organizations like CPU have clearly and unambiguously come out as neutral on dispensaries and opposed the legislation for them,

 

Hey thanks for your input ganga, have a nice day. So much for getting back to the discussion of the Section 8 defense started by CL

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 24, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

"battered wife syndrome"! Man, I lost it on that one! LMAO!

 

Croppled, you are right. Four years in and we are still in peril. That is precisely why we are now preaching careful instead of flamboyance. Until there is regime change in the legislature and more importantly the AG it will remain so. We can continue to stay engaged and we encourage that as well, but in the meantime we need to all be mindful of a conservative reading of the law and do our best to either stay within it or stay under the radar. That is reality my friend.

 

Joke Cain will eventually find himself in Jail or prison. It may not be right and I personally do not believe anyone shoudl ever be locked up over this plant that we all love and believe in, but I don't enforce the laws of the land, our enemies do...

 

Yeah, just a little whiner coming over for a probe to keep a little choas going. Battered wife indeed.

 

As for the curing, yes it is a weakness, we need court certifiable experts trained in cannabis to be available for professional testimony. Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, all these 'cannabis colleges' could specifically offer a course in expert testimony on curing, usable material etc. in addition to the grow classes. Heck I'd take the course simply to be available for my patients. It has to be some formal training in cannabis medicine, preparation, forms, curing, etc that could result in a specific set of credentials that could be presented in court.

 

We as a community need to be a little smarter. One of those guys busted in Clare mentioned that he had about 2 oz of 'trimmings' he used to make 'medibles' or something. Are stalks and leaves trim not to be counted in the total weight of usable material? Poorly thought out statements to the media like this are not helping the argument we are making that they are not usable.

 

Finally, I don't buy this line of reasoning that patients 'can't stay within the limits of the act' or that '9/10 caregivers are illegal'. Look, just because you can't do everything you want doesn't mean you can exceed the limits of the act. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to grow extra because 'you need it'. It is a difference in mind sets. There are those that take pain medicines to be 'pain FREE' which is unrealistic in many cases. My goal is to make you 'FUNCTIONAL'- even if you only have 25 or 50% of your total pain removed. Even if marijuana, keeping in STICT compliance with the limits of the Act, only takes away 10% of your pain, you are moving in the right direction. Just because you want 10 times that amount of control, you can't grow that much and stay in limits. Take what you are allowed and no more. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO USE THE ACT AS AN EXCUSE TO DO WHAT EVER YOU WANT OR TO DECIDE HOW MUCH YOU NEED. If you do, be prepared to defend yourself from jail.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 24, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Croppled1]

You have recommended up to a ounce a week for patients in your posts do the math it puts you over the limit if curing takes 2 weeks and you keep a one week supply . This is without medables or tinctures ,salves etc . You frequently imagine or percieve threats and always threaten individuals This type of behavior wouldn't be acceptable in a Doctor I would personally choose or recommend . I feel sorry for you ,hope you get help and don't hurt anyone you don't appear to have the temperment for this work , good intentions towards people using this as medicine not recreation or a understanding of what is required . You can do whatever you want if it is just recreational use but we are patients who don't have that luxury we need medables and reasonable amounts . It takes 6 months to raise a proper plant .Many of us struggle to do the most basic things like go to a dentist , gather food , cook . You don't appear to have any consideration . I find it hard to believe your really practicing medicine and dishing out suboxone that can be so dangerous and 1/20 can't tolerate it . I had a seizure on it in 2003 or 4 and have never been the same . Methadone ruined my teeth in just several months of use . I have waited over a decade for proper care only to meet Doctors like you over and over and have to remind myself every treatment has injured me more . Having a license or the training is only a small part of being a good Doctor . May God have mercy on your soul and mine .

 

I can see how you could preceive this as a choice to go to jail or not but your wrong for those in terrible pain they have few choices you have to cut the pain down so you can care for yourself , have a chance on maintaining composure in public and survive . I once saw a sheriff jail a homeless man for taking a single orange who was hungry . He hadn't stopped to eat his fill he was a few blocks from the grove eating a single orange . When you preach and rant to people dieing with severe chronic conditions you remind me of that Sheriff .

Edited June 25, 2012 by Croppled1

[Dr. Bob]

You have recommended up to a ounce a week for patients in your posts do the math it puts you over the limit if curing takes 2 weeks and you keep a one week supply . You frequently imagine or percieve threats and always threaten individuals This type of behavior wouldn't be acceptable in a Doctor I would personally choose or recommend . I feel sorry for you ,hope you get help and don't hurt anyone you don't appear to have the temperment for this work , good intentions towards people using this as medicine not recreation or a understanding of what is required . You can do whatever you want if it is just recreational use but we are patients who don't have that luxury we need medables and reasonable amounts . It takes 6 months to raise a proper plant .

 

Once again, you post out of contex.

 

I have always stated there is no legal way to 'order' a 'dosage' of marijuana, it is a schedule one controlled substance and cannot be prescribed. That is fact number 1.

 

Second, there has always been an issue of what is 'reasonable' when a patient is a defendant in court. While the majority of patients I've spoken with use about an ounce every month, some use two. That covers the majority of patients. In my paperwork, I note this and recommend that 1 ounce a week (4.3 ounces a month) will cover MOST patients as a maximum. Is this a recommendation to use an ounce a week? Absolutely not. It is a recommendation of a reasonable maximum amount which can then be later used in court to justify the amount found on the patient. It is specifically listed to attempt to have IN THE MEDICAL RECORD BEFORE THE ARREST of some objective basis for me to later evaluate the need in a way the court will accept. That is fact number 2.

 

Your outline of what is needed to 'raise a proper plant' including grow time, curing, yield calculations, etc shows you are putting together the evidence you may someday need to defend yourself, this is a VERY WISE course of action because you are thinking of all the factors you need to address in court. Just like I am with the 1 ounce a week figure put in the paperwork is used to provide a basis for later testimony to defend my patient. That is fact number 3, you are approaching it the same way I am and just don't realize it.

 

As for your vacillation between good doctor bad doctor, you are very quick to flip flop and react without considering what is actually being said. Your characterizing me as someone who doesn't understand the difference between recreational and medical use of marijuana flies in the face of everything I've ever said- why have standards for recreational use? Practice standards and guidelines are specifically for medical use.

 

At times Cropped you are pretty lucid in your comments, others they really make no sense. This is one of the latter situations. Are you suggesting that because you misunderstand the purpose of rough guidelines for maximum use to cover most patients (1 oz per week) listed in my information packet for all patients that somehow I represent a threat to patients? Or that because I made the statement that there are limits in the Act to amounts presumed to be legal (12 plants, 2.5 ounces) and that if you exceed those limits you need to stand ready to justify the deviation in court that is evidence that somehow I am mentally ill and in need of 'help'? Michael Komorn, the owner of this site, made similar statements. Are you suggesting Michael is a threat to patients or mentally ill? Or Mal, CL, or any of the others that say the same?

 

Now here is a logical argument to disagree with these statements. Dr. Bob, your recommendations are similar to a prescription BECAUSE you recommend this to treat that, which is very similar to a prescription. Your recommended dosing (which actually is a recommendation for a maximum dose, not a scheduled dose as you seem to read it) suggests a quantity prescribed and implies a dosing frequency, etc. Calling me mentally ill or a threat to patients without providing a basis for that very serious accusation is little more than name calling, and only hurts your credibiltiy in the eyes of those that have actually seen me in action with the legislature/organizations/clubs or working with patients.

 

I'll simply say that if I didn't adequately explain things in a way that was crystal clear to you, that is my fault and a failure of communication on my part. Your firing a broadside at me and my professional reputation, raising questions of my mental health or temprement to deal with patients, without an adequate understanding of what I am even talking about, or a pm asking for clarification, is reckless on your part and only hurts you.

 

Next time, you know how to PM before you put your foot in your mouth.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

Forgive me if this comes across harsh, but this generalization of "poor patients" is not accurate. Not all patients are poor and as much griping about as I see on here I cannot help but question how many of you are able to afford internet? If barely paying your rent or not having food for the table is a problem how can you justify internet? I do not believe all is as some would suggest.

 

I have 3 patients, none of them are poor, they may not be wealthy but they are somewhere in the middle class. I can also say other than a few patients I know from the internet every other patient I know is not destitute by any stretch. Basically I am saying quit using the poor patient line as your rallying call. It is not accurate for all patients. And if you can afford internet and aren't on at the library I don't feel real sorry for you.

[Croppled1]

 

 

Once again, you post out of contex.

 

I have always stated there is no legal way to 'order' a 'dosage' of marijuana, it is a schedule one controlled substance and cannot be prescribed. That is fact number 1.

 

Second, there has always been an issue of what is 'reasonable' when a patient is a defendant in court. While the majority of patients I've spoken with use about an ounce every month, some use two. That covers the majority of patients. In my paperwork, I note this and recommend that 1 ounce a week (4.3 ounces a month) will cover MOST patients as a maximum. Is this a recommendation to use an ounce a week? Absolutely not. It is a recommendation of a reasonable maximum amount which can then be later used in court to justify the amount found on the patient. It is specifically listed to attempt to have IN THE MEDICAL RECORD BEFORE THE ARREST of some objective basis for me to later evaluate the need in a way the court will accept. That is fact number 2.

 

Your outline of what is needed to 'raise a proper plant' including grow time, curing, yield calculations, etc shows you are putting together the evidence you may someday need to defend yourself, this is a VERY WISE course of action because you are thinking of all the factors you need to address in court. Just like I am with the 1 ounce a week figure put in the paperwork is used to provide a basis for later testimony to defend my patient. That is fact number 3, you are approaching it the same way I am and just don't realize it.

 

As for your vacillation between good doctor bad doctor, you are very quick to flip flop and react without considering what is actually being said. Your characterizing me as someone who doesn't understand the difference between recreational and medical use of marijuana flies in the face of everything I've ever said- why have standards for recreational use? Practice standards and guidelines are specifically for medical use.

 

At times Cropped you are pretty lucid in your comments, others they really make no sense. This is one of the latter situations. Are you suggesting that because you misunderstand the purpose of rough guidelines for maximum use to cover most patients (1 oz per week) listed in my information packet for all patients that somehow I represent a threat to patients? Or that because I made the statement that there are limits in the Act to amounts presumed to be legal (12 plants, 2.5 ounces) and that if you exceed those limits you need to stand ready to justify the deviation in court that is evidence that somehow I am mentally ill and in need of 'help'? Michael Komorn, the owner of this site, made similar statements. Are you suggesting Michael is a threat to patients or mentally ill? Or Mal, CL, or any of the others that say the same?

 

Now here is a logical argument to disagree with these statements. Dr. Bob, your recommendations are similar to a prescription BECAUSE you recommend this to treat that, which is very similar to a prescription. Your recommended dosing (which actually is a recommendation for a maximum dose, not a scheduled dose as you seem to read it) suggests a quantity prescribed and implies a dosing frequency, etc. Calling me mentally ill or a threat to patients without providing a basis for that very serious accusation is little more than name calling, and only hurts your credibiltiy in the eyes of those that have actually seen me in action with the legislature/organizations/clubs or working with patients.

 

I'll simply say that if I didn't adequately explain things in a way that was crystal clear to you, that is my fault and a failure of communication on my part. Your firing a broadside at me and my professional reputation, raising questions of my mental health or temprement to deal with patients, without an adequate understanding of what I am even talking about, or a pm asking for clarification, is reckless on your part and only hurts you.

 

Next time, you know how to PM before you put your foot in your mouth.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Almost all your statements are fabricated including your qoutes of me at times . I can't pm you because you feel your reputation is in question you do that to yourself the words are what they are and most the time nowhere near what your preceive or actually state back rhetorically . Temperment does not equal mental illness . I didn't know Mr Komorn owned this site outright and you were one of his spokespersons but it makes sense . If they want me to leave I have no problem with that it may be for the best it is too stressful here .

Edited June 25, 2012 by Croppled1

[+Malamute]

 

 

Last edited by

ganja soldier

; Yesterday at 10:54 PM.

 

 

So you see, we are all just a bunch of 'STEAK' holders interested in lining our pockets with expensive meds from 'compassion clubs' at the expense of poor sick patients. I think that pretty much sums up the credibility of this poster. I am especially amused by the implication that the unambiguous compliance policy is not designed to protect patients, but rather as a direct attempt to torpedo Joe's dispensary.

 

I really don't know where to start pointing out the falicies of this position,

other than to point out there is no involvment with any dispensaries, mines, etc on the part of this site,

legitimate organizations like CPU have clearly and unambiguously come out as neutral on dispensaries and opposed the legislation for them,

 

 

 

Um, "joe" submitted language to the legislature for his own brand of "commercial dispensary" himself. He is no different than any other commercial interest out there.

 

And yes, CPU is neutral on dispensaries unless it intereferes with our other core principles in which case we will oppose them. i.e. alters the Act.

 

CPU is one of the very very few groups who have not either submitted language for commercial operations or are currently supporting HB 5580. Yep, even "Joe" has submitted language for commercial operations he can and does currently make money off of.

 

Look beyond the rhetoric is what i say.

 

We know 'Joes" priorities.

 

The Senate Judiciary hearings to pass the 4 bills from the house and the Jackson City council meeting to diuscuss dispensaries were on the same day, although meeting times were 4 hours apart.

 

Which one do you think Joe went to? Which one do you think he found th emost important to attend? Which meeting do you think he actually took the time to go oppose? Um yea. Protect his dispensary over the current Law in the Senate Judiciary.

 

 

Yea. We know. He would rather and did go protect his "dispensary in Jackson instead of standing with groups like CPU to oppose the House Bills. Couldn;t even take the time to protect the actual law.

 

That is the difference between rhetoric and action.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Malamute

[bobandtorey]

The material written summerizes the topic and is included and taken from reference materials of the MMMA with a polite thank you to those who contribute their valueable time to help patients and their caregivers . All the following is from the MMMA Reference materials .

 

Affirmative Defense for Patients and Caregivers

 

Except as provided below, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

 

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

 

(3) (a)The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

b] A person may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

 

c] If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marijuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marijuana:

(I) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(II) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

 

 

Exceptions

 

The medical use of marijuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

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

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

 

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

a] in a school bus;

b] on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or

c] in any correctional facility.

 

(3) Smoke marijuana:

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 marijuana.

 

(5) Use marijuana 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 marijuana.

 

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

 

Fraudulent representation

To a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marijuana 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 marijuana other than use undertaken pursuant to this act.

 

This Act supersedes all previous acts

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

 

 

SUMMARY

 

There has been much talk and confusion regarding the Affirmative Defense (“AD”) provided for in Section 8(a) of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“the Act”). The following is a very general overview of the AD. Please note that nothing in this post should be read as establishing an attorney-client relationship with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, it’s directors, officers, employees or agents, this web-sites administrators, or the posts author. In other words, this general overview is not meant to, nor should it, replace consultation with an attorney.

 

Who may assert the Affirmative Defense?

The Act makes a distinction between a “Qualifying Patient” and a “Patient.” A “qualifying patient” is a person who is eligible to use, possess, acquire, cultivate, transport and deliver marijuana after having been diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from one or more of the debilitating conditions specifically stated in section 3(a)(1)-(3) the Act and otherwise meets the criteria of said Act. In plain English, a “qualifying patient” is a person who meets the requirements of the Act and has received their registry identification (“card”) from the Department of Community Health. As a “qualifying patient” is protected from arrest, prosecution or penalty (including forfeiture of the medicine) under the provisions of the act it is unlikely, though still possible, that a situation will arise where they will need to plead the AD.

 

Conversely, a “patient” is anyone who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes, but does not necessarily qualify under the provisions of the Act and is not eligible to receive their “card” from MDCH. It’s anticipated that the most common reason a person would be a “patient,” rather than a “qualifying patient,” is because their condition is not one of those specified in the Act.

 

The AD may be asserted by a patient or the patients “primary caregiver” for any marijuana charge(s) pending on or issued after December 4, 2008. A case is considered “pending” from the time the charge(s) is formally issued until there is a resolution of the charge(s) by a guilty/no contest plea, a finding of guilt after a trial, or the outright dismissal.

 

Requirements to Establish the Affirmative Defense

 

Section 8 of the Act states that the Affirmative Defense is to be asserted in a Motion to Dismiss. The burden of proving the AD is on the person asserting it, the patient or the patient’s primary caregiver. In order for the AD to be effective, the patient/primary caregiver must establish the elements as provided in the Act by a preponderance of the evidence. The elements are as follows:

A doctor (MD or Osteopath), after having reviewed both the patient’s medical history and current medical condition during the course of a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, has stated (orally or in writing) that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medicinal use of marijuana.

 

Collectively, the patient and/or primary caregiver do not possess a greater amount than is reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of the medicine used to treat or alleviate that patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or the symptoms of same.

The marijuana was in fact for the purposes of treating or alleviating the patients serious or debilitating medical condition and/or symptoms of same.

 

According to section 8(3)(B the Act, if the above elements are met, the charges shall be dismissed.

 

What to expect

 

On first glance the above listed elements would seem fairly easy to meet, thereby requiring the charge(s) be dropped. However, litigation is never simple, there are no guarantees of outcome and it is usually quite expensive, both financially and emotionally. It would not be unusual for several months to elapse before a hearing can be scheduled for a Motion to Dismiss. During this time your attorney will be conducting witness interviews, researching law, organizing their evidence, crafting the arguments to be made and otherwise preparing the Motion to Dismiss.

 

At the hearing the evidence will be presented to the court and the arguments made. The Judge may make their decision immediately or issue a written opinion. If a Judge decides to issue a written opinion, it is likely to take anywhere from 2-4 weeks, if not longer. Hopefully the decision will go your way. Regardless of the ultimate decision, getting to that point will likely cost several thousand dollars, a fair amount of time and a large amount of stress.

 

It should be noted that many different hypothetical situations have been discussed on the board regarding the AD. While many are an interesting exercise in “what if,” in reality none of us know how the courts are going to approach and interpret the law. As with any new legislation, it will take several years and more than a few “test cases” before any determinations or recommendations can be made with confidence.

 

Law Citations

 

http://michiganmedic...rmative-defense

 

This Act supersedes all previous acts

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

this part i like a lot

[CaveatLector]

Um, "joe" submitted language to the legislature for his own brand of "commercial dispensary" himself. He is no different than any other commercial interest out there.

 

And yes, CPU is neutral on dispensaries unless it intereferes with our other core principles in which case we will oppose them. i.e. alters the Act.

 

CPU is one of the very very few groups who have not either submitted language for commercial operations or are currently supporting HB 5580. Yep, even "Joe" has submitted language for commercial operations he can and does currently make money off of.

 

Look beyond the rhetoric is what i say.

 

We know 'Joes" priorities.

 

The Senate Judiciary hearings to pass the 4 bills from the house and the Jackson City council meeting to diuscuss dispensaries were on the same day, although meeting times were 4 hours apart.

 

Which one do you think Joe went to? Which one do you think he found th emost important to attend? Which meeting do you think he actually took the time to go oppose? Um yea. Protect his dispensary over the current Law in the Senate Judiciary.

 

 

Yea. We know. He would rather and did go protect his "dispensary in Jackson instead of standing with groups like CPU to oppose the House Bills. Couldn;t even take the time to protect the actual law.

 

That is the difference between rhetoric and action.

This needs said again.

[Dr. Bob]

Almost all your statements are fabricated including your qoutes of me at times . I can't pm you because you feel your reputation is in question you do that to yourself the words are what they are and most the time nowhere near what your preceive or actually state back rhetorically . Temperment does not equal mental illness . I didn't know Mr Komorn owned this site outright and you were one of his spokespersons but it makes sense . If they want me to leave I have no problem with that it may be for the best it is too stressful here .

 

Have a great day Cropped. The problem with making false statements is that you get caught in them. I keep things consistant for a reason.

 

Dr. Bob

[cristinew]

This needs said again.

and again

[Spartyon]

not related to this topic been busy working latley whats is the current state of the 4 bills that passed the house did the senate vote on them yet?

[cristinew]

Tabled until fall i guess

[CaveatLector]

not related to this topic been busy working latley whats is the current state of the 4 bills that passed the house did the senate vote on them yet?

No. Should be taken up in the fall.

 

They were stopped dead in their tracks after jojo kane and the cainettes held a protest. The senators were running scared. I was a witness to history as I saw hoards of senators, some with briefcases half open and papers flying, running from the senate office building. They couldn't leave that place fast enough. Many thought there was a fire and the fire dept was called. Turns out it was just frightened senators. While they didn't put out a fire the fire run wasn't all for naught as they were able to treat several sprained ankles from a few senators that tried to escape in high heels (one was rick jones!).

[Dr. Bob]

By the way Cropped, you may not believe in suboxone, but I do. I've just had my first graduate, narcotic free for 10 days. He had been stuggling with addiction for years, suboxone for two prior to coming to my program. He was off in 3 months and his doctors and counselors are ringing my phone off the hook to find out how I did it. 2 more will follow the first week in July, same stories, years of addiction, now clean, functional and with their loved ones (this group is a mother/daughter pair).

 

So say what you want, in the right hands, it works.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

not related to this topic been busy working latley whats is the current state of the 4 bills that passed the house did the senate vote on them yet?

 

The best I know is that they are in the Senate and the next requirement is that they go to the floor for debate. Those schitheads there have essentially, however, and ostensibly, shelved them for the immediate and mid range future. It is regarded that the pressure put on them by groups like this, and now working together, have contributed in very significant ways. The unanimous Supreme Court rulings in both King and Kolanek are a stern talking to and embarrasment for the Couirt of Appeals, the Attorney General, reactionary judges, prosecutors, and police, and a clear message to they and the legislature that they have all stepped on their d!cks.

 

Be advised that we cannot count on the Senate members keeping the bills on the back burner. It is possible that they can bring them for argument at any time, and need to be watched closely.

Edited June 25, 2012 by GregS

[Spartyon]

how long can they sit on the bac burner is there a time table do they expire if not voted on?

[GregS]

Dbob. What does suboxone have to do with this thread?

[CaveatLector]

Dbob. What does suboxone have to do with this thread?

What does anything have to do with this thread? This thread is unrecoverable. It stayed on point for the first page. It is thoroughly derailed. At this point no one is going to read 11 pages thinking they are going to get to the point so there is no point in salvaging it now.

[SFC]

Greg, you are wishful in your thinking. The senate (jones) is not scared in the least. He wants no felons, he wants the trier of fact language removed and probably a few other things we won't like. The bills are all still very alive and likely more dangerous than ever. I think at this point we better hope that Jones goes to far and the democrats grow a spine.

[Dr. Bob]

What does anything have to do with this thread? This thread is unrecoverable. It stayed on point for the first page. It is thoroughly derailed. At this point no one is going to read 11 pages thinking they are going to get to the point so there is no point in salvaging it now.

 

He obviously is not paying any attention to anything. Greg go back and read Crops manifesto and note he mentions my use of suboxone.

 

As always, thanks for your input.

[trix]

By the way Cropped, you may not believe in suboxone, but I do. I've just had my first graduate, narcotic free for 10 days. He had been stuggling with addiction for years, suboxone for two prior to coming to my program. He was off in 3 months and his doctors and counselors are ringing my phone off the hook to find out how I did it. 2 more will follow the first week in July, same stories, years of addiction, now clean, functional and with their loved ones (this group is a mother/daughter pair).

 

So say what you want, in the right hands, it works.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Suboxone, worked for me in the past, problem is it is like $10 or more a pill.. Addicition/Dependence is expensive and taxing on the mind even after someone stops their narcotic pain treatments. best wishes to anyone that has to suffer from opiate withdrawls, wish I had never been put on opiates in the first place. Who can afford what, seems to be the game we play...