The Mmma’s-operation We Didn’t Vote For This

[Michael Komorn]

THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org

 

Fighting For Patients’ and Caregivers’ Rights’ Since 2008

President Michael Komorn

Interim Executive Director Chad Carr

 

 

THE MMMA’S

OPERATION WE DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS

 

June 6, 2012

 

Regarding: Walsh Bills (HB 4834, 4851, 4853, 4856),

 

Dear Medical Cannabis Community,

 

The above referenced bills were adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, and then passed by the House of Representatives by 75% vote with both Democrats and Republicans joining in support. They are now before the Senate, and await the same process before a final vote on the Senate floor.

 

Operation We Didn't Vote For This: our objective is a full scale, grass roots, community response to this specific package of bills. It is aimed at reaching the House Democrats and Republicans that have overlooked the medical cannabis community, and for the Democrats and Republicans of the Senate who have the final vote to pass this bill. Before the Senate votes on this bill they need to hear the voice of this community's opposition in large numbers.

 

Please join us in making a difference by contacting the Representatives and Senators listed below via phone, email, letter, and visiting them in person. Especially encouraged is a face-to-face meeting at every coffee hour scheduled by your Representative and Senator. Each one of them has the power to stop these bills from advancing. We have provided a form letter addressing the bills directly, but please feel free to write your own using the talking points provided. We would encourage those involved to forward the suggested letters as well as the responses and experiences they receive from their interactions.

 

Please let your voice be heard by:

 

Cutting and pasting the letter below (or your own) into an email, and then sending it to each of the email addresses listed below or printing the letter and mailing it via US mail. And most importantly call, call, call these government employees (see telephone numbers listed below) and explain to them why the bills are unacceptable.

 

The bills that have advanced, intending to amend the MMMA, fail to address the real concerns of patients and caregivers, and not one of the medical cannabis organizations in Michigan has supported any of the bills. In light of People v. Koon, HB 4834 subjects every patient who drives to liability, and this is not acceptable. 140,000 patients were promised that their registry status would be kept private, and now four years into the program, we have learned that we have been lied to.

 

Up to this point our community has lacked leverage in the process, and we have been subject to a political and judicial circus act. The ruling by the Supreme Court this past week, in People v. King and People v. Kolanek, expressly reaffirmed what many in our community have known all along: the unregistered patient is protected under section 8 of the MMMA. For the first time, a recognized right to be protected under the MMMA has been codified, giving patients the choice to not register, and still have a defense under the Act. It is without question that the premise of all the bills was based upon a faulty interpretation of the Act. It is now obvious that the passing of these bills failed to consider the unregistered patient protection, amongst other things, and the choice that now exists provides a chance for this community to act strategically.

 

I am certain that the People who passed these bills never considered being asked the following question: "If you Mrs. Legislator were advising your loved one suffering from a debilitating condition and they chose to treat their condition with cannabis, would they be more protected if they registered or kept their medical information private?"

 

I would like to believe that in what seems like an attempt to control the registry through law enforcement access, the most direct way to oppose this bill is the threat of the registry program being abandoned. Join me and the MMMA in letting the Legislature know that their failure to implement the voters' initiative as intended by the people of the state of Michigan, has caused our community to take pause and consider these options. They need to know we have legitimate legal options, and their behavior cannot be tolerated any more.

 

Below is a list of talking point to utilize in your calls, conversations, letters, and meetings as you go forward and interact with the Legislature. Many would have bet against the medical marijuana community when 18 bills were introduced by a Republican-dominated Legislature in June of 2011, but to date, more than one year later, the MMMA of 2008 remains unchanged. This is due to the hard work of our grass roots lobby and its dedicated advocates like you.

 

We are on our last lap, and need to finish strong. Please let your voice be heard, and let this government understand that they cannot get away with treating its citizens this way.

 

 

 

 

***************************************************************************

 

 

I am writing today to let you know that the medical cannabis community still remains firmly opposed to the package of bills recently passed by the House and now waiting for review by the Senate Judiciary committee, HB 4834, 4851, 4853, and 4856. My position on the bills remains unchanged by amendments that were made from the House floor prior to passage.

 

While you may have heard representatives comment before the House vote that the bills were supported by patient groups, no approval was asked for, nor granted. All of the patient groups still oppose the package, and in light of the recently published Supreme Court decisions in King and Kolanek, they are seen as unnecessary legislation. They do not bring clarity to the Act, but instead, reduce the protections that the voters intended when they voted 63% in favor of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. These bills will implement new technical violations for patients and their caregivers, and are clearly against the intent of the electorate.

 

The Michigan Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the rights of registered and unregistered medical marijuana patients and caregivers to a defense in court. In light of that decision a patient now has more privacy of their medical records than they would by registering in a database that is to be shared with law enforcement. Michigan’s Attorney General has shown a willingness since entering office to disregard the wishes of Michigan voters and make private medical information in the registry available to law enforcement despite the protections expressed in within the Act. When abuses of this new, invasive police power happen, we must have an organization in place to investigate, prosecute and punish any offenders.

 

Participating in the medical marijuana registry program is intended to guarantee protection against arrest and prosecution. HB 4834 increases the risk of arrest by making private medical information available to law enforcement officers in a way that offers no remedy for inevitable abuses. Please vote NO on HB 4834, 4851, 4853, and 4856.

 

The thought that not registering would afford me more protection than registering seems absurd, and yet, that is what will happen if these bills pass according to the rulings of the Michigan Supreme Court. I would have never given my private medical information to the state if I knew it would be shared with any non-medical part of the government, including law enforcement.

 

***************************************************************************

THE MMMA’S

OPERATION WE DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS

 

Talking points for conversations with the Legislature:

 

Operation We Didn't Vote For This - Talking Points

 

1. The privacy protection in the Act, section 6 (h) cannot be reconciled with

the HB 4834:

 

333.26426 Administration and enforcement of rules by department.

6. Administering the Department's Rules.

 

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has

issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the

list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA

442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(3) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT ALLOW ANY PERSON ACCESS TO ANY

INFORMATION ABOUT PATIENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S CONFIDENTIAL LIST OF

PERSONS TO WHOM THE DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUED REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION

CARDS OR FROM WHOM THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION OR TO

INFORMATION OTHERWISE MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNING

PHYSICIANS WHO PROVIDE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION AND PRIMARY

CAREGIVERS, EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING:

(A) AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OR OF A

SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER SUBSECTION (J) IN THE COURSE OF THEIR OFFICIAL

DUTIES.

(B) STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OFFICIALS, BUT

ONLY IF EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:

(i) THE OFFICER OR OFFICIAL PROVIDES A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER, THE OFFICER OR OFFICIAL IS ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR

HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO

MORE INFORMATION THAN IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO VERIFY THE

AUTHENTICITY OF THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

(ii) THE OFFICER OR OFFICIAL PROVIDES A NAME AND A DATE OF

BIRTH FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN ADDRESS; THE OFFICER OR OFFICIAL HAS

PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION OF LAW THAT INVOLVES THE

POSSESSION, USE, TRANSFER, OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIHUANA HAS

OCCURRED; AND THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO MORE

INFORMATION THAN IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO VERIFY THAT THE

INDIVIDUAL OR AN INDIVIDUAL AT THE SPECIFIED ADDRESS HAS A VALID

REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALLOW ACCESS TO

INFORMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SUBPARAGRAPH THROUGH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

INFORMATION NETWORK. THIS SUB-SUBPARAGRAPH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE

OFFICER OR OFFICIAL TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO

THE REGISTRY INFORMATION.

 

(4) A person, including an employee, CONTRACTOR, or official

of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act ACCESSES, USES, OR DISCLOSES NONPUBLIC INFORMATION GOVERNED UNDER THIS ACT FOR PERSONAL USE OR GAIN OR IN A MANNER THAT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

The act provides protections and penalties for the release of confidential information, for the reason that abuses were anticipated.

 

The Bill fails to provide for any real remedies to patients and caregivers if law enforcement violates the probable cause requirements set out in HB 4834.

 

The Bill fails to protect the registry from overzealous or abusive law enforcement.

 

The Bill fails to provide a mechanism to investigate these violations, and more importantly, a procedure for prosecuting them. We do not believe the

Attorney General will fulfill his obligation on these matters.

 

Before the Supreme Court ruled that the unregistered patient is a protected right under the Act, many did not believe that the law provided for it.

 

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that unregistered patients are protected, each patient will have to consider whether they are safer by obtaining a doctor's certification and keeping their medical information private, or by registering in a database that is to be shared with law enforcement.

 

One of the purported goals of these bills is to protect patients, yet there is not one patient group that supports them.

 

The Legislature had the opportunity to clarify the law but instead created a serious concern for all patients and caregivers that ultimately could unravel the registry program, bringing more chaos to both the law enforcement and medical cannabis community.

 

After 4 years not one penny of the 15 million dollars brought in by the registry program has been used to educate the law enforcement community about medical cannabis.

 

Law enforcement still views medical cannabis as a public safety issue instead of a public health issue as the voters intended.

 

Expanded law enforcement access to the registry without proper education of its officers creates an unreasonable expectation on law enforcement.

 

In its public testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on the same bill, the

Michigan State Police could not articulate a reason for expanded access to the registry.

 

It seems that expanding law enforcement access to the registry will increase patient arrests rather than decreasing arrests as claimed, and as desired by 63% of Michigan voters.

 

****************************************************************************

 

THE MMMA’S

OPERATION WE DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS

 

The List

Here is a partial list of the Senators

These are the People that need to be convinced.

 

SenHWalker@senate.michigan.gov; SenRRichardville@senate.michigan.gov; senrwarren@senate.michigan.gov; SenPColbeck@senate.michigan.gov; SenJProos@senate.michigan.gov; SenJHune@senate.michigan.gov; SenDRobertson@senate.michigan.gov; senmjansen@senate.michigan.gov; SenDHildenbrand@senate.michigan.gov; SenAMeekhof@senate.michigan.gov; senrkahn@senate.michigan.gov; senrjones@senate.michigan.gov; whubbard@senate.michigan.gov

 

These are the People, the Representatives that need to be convinced.

 

Here is the link http://www.housedems.com/ if you want to see the faces of the Government officials who will decide the future of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

 

State Representative Richard E. Hammel (Mt. Morris Township) House Democratic Leader

Office Address

167 Capitol Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-7557

Fax: (517) 373-5953

Toll-Free

(888) 347-8048

Email

richardhammel@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Kate Segal, 62nd House District.

Office Address

141 Capitol Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0555

Fax: (517) 373-5761

Toll-Free

(888) 347-8062

Email

katesegal@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Woodrow Stanley, Michigan’s 34th House District.

Office Address

N798 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-8808

Fax: (517) 373-5997

Toll-Free

(888) 966-3034

Email

woodrowstanley@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Mark Meadows 69th House District

Office Address

S1088 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1786

Fax: (517) 373-5717

Email

markmeadows@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Steven Lindberg, 109th House District

Office Address

S1488 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0498

Fax: (517) 373-9366

Toll-Free

(888) 429-1377

Email

stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Jeff Irwin

53rd House District

Office Address

S987 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2577

Fax: (517) 373-5808

Email

jeffirwin@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Jim Ananich 49th House District

Office Address

N898 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-7515

Fax: (517) 373-5817

Toll-Free

(800) 354-6849

Email

jimananich@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Vicki Barnett

37th House District

Office Address

S886 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1793

Fax: (517) 373-8501

Toll-Free

(888) 642-4037

Email

vickibarnett@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Joan Bauer

68th House District

Office Address

S1087 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0826

Fax: (517) 373-5698

Email

joanbauer@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Tim Bledsoe

1st House District

Office Address

S585 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0154

Fax: (517) 373-6094

Toll-Free

(888) 254-5291

Email

timbledsoe@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Lisa Brown

39th House District

Office Address

S888 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1799

Fax: (517) 373-8361

Toll-Free

(877) 822-5472

Email

lisabrown@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Charles Brunner

96th House District

Office Address

S1285 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0158

Fax: (517) 373-8881

Toll-Free

(866) 737-0096

Email

charlesbrunner@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Barb Byrum

67th House District

Office Address

S1086 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0587

Fax: (517) 373-9430

Email

barbbyrum@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Phil Cavanagh

17th House District

Office Address

N696 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0857

Fax: (517) 373-5976

Toll-Free

(888) 737-1784

Email

philcavanagh@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Paul D. Clemente 14th House District

Office Address

N693 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0140

Fax: (517) 373-5924

Email

paulclemente@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Bob Constan

16th House District

Office Address

N695 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0849

Fax: (517) 373-5967

Toll-Free

(888) 345-8017

Email

bobconstan@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative George T. Darany

15th House District

Office Address

N694 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0847

Fax: (517) 373-7538

Toll-Free

(855) 775-1515

Email

georgetdarany@house.mi.gov

 

State Rep. Brandon Dillon

75th House District

Office Address

N1094 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2668

Fax: (517) 373-5696

Toll-Free

(888) 750-3326

Email

brandondillon@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Fred Durhal Jr.

6th House District

Office Address

S685 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0844

Fax: (517) 373-5711

Toll-Free

(877) 877-9007

Email

freddurhal@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Douglas A. Geiss

22nd House District

Office Address

S786 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0852

Fax: (517) 373-5934

Toll-Free

(888) 737-4347

Email

douglasgeiss@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Tim Greimel

29th House District

Office Address

N793 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0475

Fax: (517) 373-5061

Email

timgreimel@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Harold L. Haugh

42nd House District

Office Address

N891 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0854

Fax: (517) 373-5911

Toll-Free

(866) 994-2844

Email

haroldhaugh@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Rudy Hobbs

35th House District

Office Address

N799 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1788

Fax: (517) 373-5880

Toll-Free

(855) 737-7839

Email

rudyhobbs@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Marcia Hovey-Wright

92nd House District

Office Address

N1196 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2646

Fax: (517) 373-9646

Toll-Free

(877) 411-3684

Email

marciahoveywright@house.mi.gov

 

State Rep. Lisa L. Howze

2nd House District

Office Address

S586 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0106

Fax: (517) 373-7271

Toll-Free

(855) 547-2402

Email

lisahowze@house.mi.gov

 

State Rep. Shanelle Jackson

9th House District

Office Address

S688 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1705

Fax: (517) 373-5968

Toll-Free

(888) 474-2635

Email

shanellejackson@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Andrew J. Kandrevas

13th House District

Office Address

N692 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0845

Fax: (517) 373-5926

Toll-Free

(866) 737-1313

Email

andrewkandrevas@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Marilyn Lane

31st House District

Office Address

N795 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0159

Fax: (517) 373-5893

Toll-Free

(877) 347-8031

Email

marilynlane@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Richard LeBlanc

18th House District

Office Address

N697 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2576

Fax: (517) 373-5962

Toll-Free

(888) 737-5325

Email

richardleblanc@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Steven Lindberg

109th House District

Office Address

S1488 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0498

Fax: (517) 373-9366

Toll-Free

(888) 429-1377

Email

stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Ellen Cogen Lipton

27th House District

Office Address

N791 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0478

Fax: (517) 373-5884

Toll-Free

(888) 347-8027

Email

ellenlipton@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Lesia Liss

28th House District

Office Address

N792 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2275

Fax: (517) 373-5910

Toll-Free

(888) 547-7028

Email

lesialiss@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Sean McCann

60th House District

Office Address

N994 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1785

Fax: (517) 373-5762

Toll-Free

(888) 833-6636

Email

seanmccann@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative David Nathan

11th House District

Office Address

N690 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-3815

Fax: (517) 373-5986

Toll-Free

(888) 697-3711

Email

davidnathan@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Stacy Erwin Oakes

95th House District

Office Address

N1199 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0152

Fax: (517) 373-8738

Toll-Free

(855) 347-8095

Email

stacyerwinoakes@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative John Olumba

5th House District

Office Address

S589 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0144

Fax: (517) 373-8929

Toll-Free

(855) 564-4673

Email

johnolumba@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative David Rutledge

54th House District

Office Address

S988 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1771

Fax: (517) 373-5797

Toll-Free

855-DIST054 (855-347-8054)

Email

davidrutledge@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Harvey Santana

10th House District

Office Address

S689 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-6990

Fax: (517) 373-5985

Toll-Free

(855) 347-8010

Email

harveysantana@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Roy Schmidt

76th House District

Office Address

N1095 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0822

Fax: (517) 373-5276

Toll-Free

(877) 976-4769

Email

royschmidt@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Thomas Stallworth

8th House District

Office Address

S687 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2276

Fax: (517) 373-7186

Toll-Free

(888) 347-8008

Email

thomasstallworth@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Dian Slavens

21st House District

Office Address

S785 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-2575

Fax: (517) 373-5939

Toll-Free

(888) 347-8021

Email

dianslavens@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Charles Smiley

50th House District

Office Address

N899 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-3906

Fax: (517) 373-5812

Toll-Free

(855) 276-4539

Email

charlessmiley@house.mi.gov

 

State Rep. Maureen L. Stapleton

4th House District

Office Address

S588 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1008

Fax: (517) 373-5995

Toll-Free

(855) 782-7304

Email

maureenstapleton@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Jon M. Switalski

25th House District

Office Address

S789 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1772

Fax: (517) 373-5906

Toll-Free

(877) 566-7025

Email

jonswitalski@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Alberta Tinsley-Talabi

3rd House District

Office Address

S587 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-1776

Fax: (517) 373-8502

Toll-Free

(855) 347-8003

Email

albertatalabi@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Rashida H. Tlaib

12th House District

Office Address

N691 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0823

Fax: (517) 373-5993

Toll-Free

(877) 852-4212

Email

rashidatlaib@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Jim Townsend

26th House District

Office Address

N790 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-3818

Fax: (517) 373-5888

Toll-Free

(866) 585-2471

Email

jimtownsend@house.mi.gov

 

State Representative Jimmy Womack

7th House District

Office Address

S686 House Office Building

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Phone: (517) 373-0589

Fax: (517) 373-6404

Toll-Free

(888) 596-6225

Email

jimmywomack@house.mi.gov

[CaveatLector]

The list of senators is currently incomplete, but washtenaut is filling in the blanks for us as we speak.

Good job all invovled!

Now it's time for all people to execute on the plan!

[Croppled1]

Having done this several times what will first happen is staff members will ask your address and write it down to make sure your in their district . After seeing what the Cheif of Police in Flushing admitted too in terms of handing names over to the FBI it is scary for patients to even participate in the political process at this time which it never should be ( all Senetors should be made to understand this I would give them a copy of the Cheif of Polices statement to the press ) . I hope patients are not scared off but careful of what information they give out always you do not need to state your a patient or caregiver to comment . The first patients were led down a cruel path by the MDCH in that regard .

 

I am very concerned that we have no clear legal definition of what useable medical marihuana is yet and how that can effect patients whom may find Law Enforcement at thier door if they run into the wrong people at the Capital . Nobody addresses how plants weigh more then 2.5 ozs on average yet patients are restricted from storing and harvesting their plants to have a non interupted supply up to that level . Like if we don't object it will go away and only other people will be effected . I ask over and over how one can legally comply . The hang one plant with the roots on sounds good if you claim its one of your plants as long as LEO doesn't charge it is dry and useable anyways . Right now everything is so against the patients and it costs so much to do a medical defense even if it is allowed . Patients need more protections not ways to be arrested . We also have to understand were all sick and injured as well as dehabillitated so all laws must be very simple to understand and comply with by patients who require innexpensive and affordable access as most are living on very restricted incomes or less then 150% of poverty and any money spent on cannabis is coming from previous living expenses .

 

Patients want and need a rule book that explains how to conduct themselves properly and a program with rules that cover every aspect of medical use in a reasonable manner coverred by a legal mechanism respected and understood that works in practice for their needs by all parties in the State . Many patients need a couple ozs a week and the abillity to store for a non interupted supply that is reasonable . Even medication now is ordered in 90 day supplies . Cannabis takes 5 months or more to grow for most strains and has a two week optimum harvest window . First and foremost legislators need a stop to the concept being spread by some officials in the State that patients do not have a real medical need who are on the program and that this is a farce for legalization which is insulting and endangering patients on the program acting in good faith who are receiving benefit and most often were damaged by other medications for which nobody has been able to comfort them . This is a supposed program designed for patient saftey and comfort not taxation or how ones profession can profit from the sick and injured whose expenses already have escalated from a inhabillity to function as most healthier adults are able to do . I can't remember one person in Law Enforcement that has stated they would protect patients on the program that were preyed upon by those who would take advantage of them in all the time since the Act passed . I have heard many statements that conflicted and have created the perception that patients must enforce their own justice which never ends well and again places them at risk .

Edited June 7, 2012 by Croppled1

[GanjaWarrior]

Having done this several times what will first happen is staff members will ask your address and write it down to make sure your in their district . After seeing what the Cheif of Police in Flushing admitted too in terms of handing names over to the FBI it is scary for patients to even participate in the political process at this time which it never should be ( all Senetors should be made to understand this I would give them a copy of the Cheif of Polices statement to the press ) . I hope patients are not scared off but careful of what information they give out always you do not need to state your a patient or caregiver to comment . The first patients were led down a cruel path by the MDCH in that regard .

 

I am very concerned that we have no clear legal definition of what useable medical marihuana is yet and how that can effect patients whom may find Law Enforcement at thier door if they run into the wrong people at the Capital . Nobody addresses how plants weigh more then 2.5 ozs on average yet patients are restricted from storing and harvesting their plants to have a non interupted supply up to that level . Like if we don't object it will go away and only other people will be effected . I ask over and over how one can legally comply . The hang one plant with the roots on sounds good if you claim its one of your plants as long as LEO doesn't charge it is dry and useable anyways . Right now everything is so against the patients and it costs so much to do a medical defense even if it is allowed . Patients need more protections not ways to be arrested . We also have to understand were all sick and injured as well as dehabillitated so all laws must be very simple to understand and comply with by patients who require innexpensive and affordable access as most are living on very restricted incomes or less then 150% of poverty and any money spent on cannabis is coming from previous living expenses .

 

Patients want and need a rule book that explains how to conduct themselves properly and a program with rules that cover every aspect of medical use in a reasonable manner coverred by a legal mechanism respected and understood that works in practice for their needs by all parties in the State . Many patients need a couple ozs a week and the abillity to store for a non interupted supply that is reasonable . Even medication now is ordered in 90 day supplies . Cannabis takes 5 months or more to grow for most strains and has a two week optimum harvest window . First and foremost legislators need a stop to the concept being spread by some officials in the State that patients do not have a real medical need who are on the program and that this is a farce for legalization which is insulting and endangering patients on the program acting in good faith who are receiving benefit and most often were damaged by other medications for which nobody has been able to comfort them . This is a supposed program designed for patient saftey and comfort not taxation or how ones profession can profit from the sick and injured whose expenses already have escalated from a inhabillity to function as most healthier adults are able to do . I can't remember one person in Law Enforcement that has stated they would protect patients on the program that were preyed upon by those who would take advantage of them in all the time since the Act passed . I have heard many statements that conflicted and have created the perception that patients must enforce their own justice which never ends well and again places them at risk .

 

I think Ben Franklin said it best....but i wont even get into that.... sen penis face jones has known my name and address from the start, i live less than 2 miles from bill schutte and again his office has known i was a pt cg for years now....please understand im not arguing your point...it is a scary time, pt or not. but there's two ways to do this, we can can sit home afraid of the boogy man and let them take our rights, then we get to live under tyranny.Or we can stand and be heard. there is only one way to freedom, there is but one path that ends without a boot on ur neck. Im a pt too, ive got 4 kids, ive been to prison twice. I feel like i have as much to lose as anyone else, maybe even more. living a life of fear is not living.

[GanjaWarrior]

It is important to note that time is of the essence on this project. The bills are headed to judiciary on Tuesday with what appears to be a plan for smooth passage prior to the end if session on Thursday. We now have just a few days left to make our voice heard to the Senate who has not heard much from us to this point, and to remind a House that knows full well where we stand.

 

We need to reach out through our personal networks and do what it takes to generate as many calls and letters as possible today, Monday, and Tuesday morning.

 

 

all senators? i dont see my guy on the list?

[Dr. Bob]

Now this is how you do it. Organized, with fact based talking points. Specific target points.

 

Here are my two biggest gripes with the new bills- not saying I approve of the package, just these two points bother me the most.

 

1. The new bills allow police access to the database. This is designed to prevent raids on legal patients, or so they say. Nice concept but incomplete- the cops are not REQUIRED to check before a raid on a 'grow' so the raids against legal growers could continue, and the cops are not held financially or legally responsible if they don't check before raiding. What I am referring to with this is that if they 'don't bother' to check before raiding my legal grow (analogy y'all) come in, kill my dog (another analogy, I don't actually have a dog), scare the heck out of my kids, damage my plants and THEN find out I was within limits and fully legal, I want a little more than a 'sorry about that' from the cops. They could have avoided it, they chose not to check and raided anyhow, I want compensation for my dog, my door, my plants, and the emotional pain and suffering my family went through due to their neglect of their duty.

 

What's more, the Flushing issue is very interesting. Here we have a local yokel deciding on his own to screw with legal MMJ patients/caregivers, reporting them to the feds because he wants to rather than he has to. Clearly this is selective prosecution of MMJ patients- does he report everyone 'approached' about alcohol or prescription drugs, or any of the other reportable acts to the Feds? What safeguards do the bills as written provide?

 

2. The in person exam portion of the HB 4851 will be devastating to those parts of the state that do not have full time certification clinics, such as N. Michigan and the UP. If you want an in person exam, require those local doctors to issue certifications to qualifying patients, or make an exception to the in person exam for areas without a full time clinic offering certifications to all qualified patients within 50 or 75 miles, or require a special permit/training to do skypes. To simply put that in to avoid docs from CO doing skypes will result in the loss of access to the certification process to a LARGE number of rural patients in the more remote areas of the state.

 

For the record, I don't have a dog in either fight other than looking out for my patients. I have already set up what I need to bypass the roadblock in 4851, but as it stands I'll be the only game in town up north that will be legally compliant. Even if I hadn't already planned for it, I have plenty of other things I can and am doing to make sure my patients are well cared for in those areas. I'm a real medical practice and MMJ certifications are no longer going to be the main thrust of the practice. But the points are valid.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Darkmatter]

I have a question.

 

If I, or one of my patients decide not to register next year, how will my grow be protected?

 

Hypothetically, would I just keep copies or mine, and thier registration, and caregiver attestation?

 

I intend on continuing to register, to keep my grow legal, at least until I can figure out how it wouold be protected.

[Celliach]

all senators? i dont see my guy on the list?

 

The list of senators is currently incomplete, but washtenaut is filling in the blanks for us as we speak.

[Dr. Bob]

I have a question.

 

If I, or one of my patients decide not to register next year, how will my grow be protected?

 

Hypothetically, would I just keep copies or mine, and thier registration, and caregiver attestation?

 

I intend on continuing to register, to keep my grow legal, at least until I can figure out how it wouold be protected.

 

Self growing patients have the option of registering or not. When you are growing for another person, especially if you possess the plants, you are the one at risk, not the patient. Example if you have a certification and have 12 plants, you have a good arguement you are legal. If you have 24, 36, or 48 plants, you had better be able to justify that or you are screwed. While you could spend money and years of your life fighting it out in court (bow to the recent SC ruling), you will be FAR safer if you have a papertrail to show the cops/courts why you are clearly allowed to have those plants and are legal.

 

IF I was a caregiver, there is no way in hades I would ever exceed the 12 plants I was allowed to personally possess without documentation showing I was legally growing those plants for another patient. You can play it as loose as you want, at your own risk of incarceration, but any caregiver that doesn't INSIST on their patients designating them as caregiver through the registry is playing with fire.

 

Here are some problems to consider other than the obvious lack of a paper trail. Suppose there is a change in the act on the qualification to be a caregiver, or more importantly an unannounced change in the rules that you miss? You prepared to find out you are somehow no longer qualified to be a caregiver as the cops are counting your plants (58, 59, 60,....)? How about if you patient gets cold feet and decides to go the registry route, names another caregiver, and forgets to mention it to you? Sure you can tell them Joe is your patient and you are growing for him, but what if they go to Joe and he tells them Fred is now his caregiver? Or Joe moved last week, didn't tell you, and the cops can't find him to confirm?

 

Dr. Bob

[man of steel]

Is there a way to force the AG or GOV. to update their opinion or lack of since the SC decision?

The gov says its not a priority of his, How is overriding a voters init. not worthy of comment?

The AGs opinion has been changed by the supreme court now. His Clearing the air seminars have been modified

by the ruling?

[Celliach]

How many rallies were there?  Three or four?  They didn't stop these bills either did they?  

 

Are you aware that if you show up "in their front yard" you could be arrested for trespassing?</p>

[Dr. Bob]

Good point about putting a face on it. I know that when I met with Horn and the others, the thing that really impressed them was a photo of a patient I saw the day before, mid 50's with a cane and looking uncomfortable. I've always recommended including a photo with the letters.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

All of these things are currently risks for registered caregivers as well, unfortunately.

 

Quite true, but without the paper trail, the position of the caregiver is far worse.

 

Dr. Bob

[man of steel]

Understand what you are saying and hope a positive rally will happen, if we have 6 days roughly before they head to Judiciary in the senate any ideas on how to stop it in judiciary? No protest is going to stop him.

 

Would like to testify but can't figure out how to deal with Mr Jones. Any Ideas?

No sarcasm intended.

Peace</p>

[Celliach]

There is no dealing with Jones, he's a fanatic that is motivated by his personal ideas rather than facts..

[Herb Cannabis]

Now this is how you do it. Organized, with fact based talking points. Specific target points. Yes Sir, this is how it must be done, actual leadership at work here, thank you.

 

Here are my two biggest gripes with the new bills- not saying I approve of the package, just these two points bother me the most.

 

1. The new bills allow police access to the database. This is designed to prevent raids on legal patients, or so they say. Nice concept but incomplete- the cops are not REQUIRED to check before a raid on a 'grow' so the raids against legal growers could continue, and the cops are not held financially or legally responsible if they don't check before raiding. What I am referring to with this is that if they 'don't bother' to check before raiding my legal grow (analogy y'all) come in, kill my dog (another analogy, I don't actually have a dog), scare the heck out of my kids, damage my plants and THEN find out I was within limits and fully legal, I want a little more than a 'sorry about that' from the cops. They could have avoided it, they chose not to check and raided anyhow, I want compensation for my dog, my door, my plants, and the emotional pain and suffering my family went through due to their neglect of their duty. I hope that this will be picked up in our community and we force them to pay for their mistakes just as we must pay for ours! Great idea Dr. Bob, it is just.

 

What's more, the Flushing issue is very interesting. Here we have a local yokel deciding on his own to screw with legal MMJ patients/caregivers, reporting them to the feds because he wants to rather than he has to. Not only does he want to cause trouble for the legal patient, it seems like he stands to gain a hefty percentage of the forfeiture money. Clearly this is selective prosecution of MMJ patients- does he report everyone 'approached' about alcohol or prescription drugs, or any of the other reportable acts to the Feds? What safeguards do the bills as written provide?

 

2. The in person exam portion of the HB 4851 will be devastating to those parts of the state that do not have full time certification clinics, such as N. Michigan and the UP. If you want an in person exam, require those local doctors to issue certifications to qualifying patients, or make an exception to the in person exam for areas without a full time clinic offering certifications to all qualified patients within 50 or 75 miles, or require a special permit/training to do skypes. To simply put that in to avoid docs from CO doing skypes will result in the loss of access to the certification process to a LARGE number of rural patients in the more remote areas of the state.

 

For the record, I don't have a dog in either fight other than looking out for my patients. I have already set up what I need to bypass the roadblock in 4851, but as it stands I'll be the only game in town up north that will be legally compliant. Even if I hadn't already planned for it, I have plenty of other things I can and am doing to make sure my patients are well cared for in those areas. I'm a real medical practice and MMJ certifications are no longer going to be the main thrust of the practice. But the points are valid.

 

Dr. Bob

Now this is how you do it. Organized, with fact based talking points. Specific target points.

 

Here are my two biggest gripes with the new bills- not saying I approve of the package, just these two points bother me the most.

 

1. The new bills allow police access to the database. This is designed to prevent raids on legal patients, or so they say. Nice concept but incomplete- the cops are not REQUIRED to check before a raid on a 'grow' so the raids against legal growers could continue, and the cops are not held financially or legally responsible if they don't check before raiding. What I am referring to with this is that if they 'don't bother' to check before raiding my legal grow (analogy y'all) come in, kill my dog (another analogy, I don't actually have a dog), scare the heck out of my kids, damage my plants and THEN find out I was within limits and fully legal, I want a little more than a 'sorry about that' from the cops. They could have avoided it, they chose not to check and raided anyhow, I want compensation for my dog, my door, my plants, and the emotional pain and suffering my family went through due to their neglect of their duty.

 

What's more, the Flushing issue is very interesting. Here we have a local yokel deciding on his own to screw with legal MMJ patients/caregivers, reporting them to the feds because he wants to rather than he has to. Clearly this is selective prosecution of MMJ patients- does he report everyone 'approached' about alcohol or prescription drugs, or any of the other reportable acts to the Feds? What safeguards do the bills as written provide?

 

2. The in person exam portion of the HB 4851 will be devastating to those parts of the state that do not have full time certification clinics, such as N. Michigan and the UP. If you want an in person exam, require those local doctors to issue certifications to qualifying patients, or make an exception to the in person exam for areas without a full time clinic offering certifications to all qualified patients within 50 or 75 miles, or require a special permit/training to do skypes. To simply put that in to avoid docs from CO doing skypes will result in the loss of access to the certification process to a LARGE number of rural patients in the more remote areas of the state.

 

For the record, I don't have a dog in either fight other than looking out for my patients. I have already set up what I need to bypass the roadblock in 4851, but as it stands I'll be the only game in town up north that will be legally compliant. Even if I hadn't already planned for it, I have plenty of other things I can and am doing to make sure my patients are well cared for in those areas. I'm a real medical practice and MMJ certifications are no longer going to be the main thrust of the practice. But the points are valid.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Herb Cannabis

[Dr. Bob]

Herb, I think your comments are positive, but you are missing the actual point. Yes, the cops get the money for doing raids, but in THIS case, the reporting of MMJ card holders to the federal system checked to purchase firearms, there is no money for the police.

 

The reports are being made solely to try and prevent MMJ card holders from purchasing firearms as a way of descriminating against them for doing something legal under state law. The deeper issue is that given the free access to the registry 'in the course of their official duties' could not other zealots like this Flushing guy not do the same? Is updating a federal database not an 'official duty' in their eyes?

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

This is slightly off-topic but it would be nice to pressure the legislature to reform forfeiture laws. Even tweaking them just by putting the money into education or the state's general fund rather than turning over to the cops. That may relieve some of the heavy-handedness when the cops know they aren't getting the toys from a raid.

[Dr. Bob]

Herb, I think your comments are positive, but you are missing the actual point. Yes, the cops get the money for doing raids, but in THIS case, the reporting of MMJ card holders to the federal system checked to purchase firearms, there is no money for the police.

 

The reports are being made solely to try and prevent MMJ card holders from purchasing firearms as a way of descriminating against them for doing something legal under state law. The deeper issue is that given the free access to the registry 'in the course of their official duties' could not other zealots like this Flushing guy not do the same? Is updating a federal database not an 'official duty' in their eyes?

 

Dr. Bob

 

Crap, I addressed one comment and you went back and made a bunch more. Every one, except for the one addressed above, were right on the money. I concur with you that this is LEADERSHIP in action.

[Dr. Bob]

is purchasing a firearm in violation of federal law a crime (in their eyes at least). See how they could justify it? They have done worse.

 

Dr. Bob

[+washtenaut]

This is slightly off-topic but it would be nice to pressure the legislature to reform forfeiture laws. Even tweaking them just by putting the money into education or the state's general fund rather than turning over to the cops. That may relieve some of the heavy-handedness when the cops know they aren't getting the toys from a raid.

 

Agreed. Having LEO directly benefit and now allowing them to use the money for any departmental business is waaaay too much temptation, especially when the department comes under financial pressures.

[Dr. Bob]

I've come out publically for legalization. This does not change that.

 

I think we need to clean up our house, and more importantly get the general public to accept MMJ as a MEDICAL NORM again. Once the papers stop covering zoning issues related to marijuana, once everyone in the state knows a patient, once it is no longer 'controversial', THAT is the time to push for legalization or decriminalization. Right now it is all in the news, and the general public is sharply devided. Folks don't think twice about diabetics having syringes because it is common. We need to prep the field better so folks don't think twice about medical cannabis.

 

It may take a generation, but it will happen and we are laying the ground work for that in Michigan now. In all honesty, that is the main driver behind many of my recommendations to really follow the rules and cut the legs out from Schuette and the others. Every bust of 200 plants, every recordless cert done in an appliance store, every posting of 'aquit all marryjuana cases' put in a paper adds another example for Schuette to promote as why 'medical marijuana is out of control'. Drives me insane.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

If meetings were attended then faces were put on those letters.  

 

Do you honestly think we could organize an effective rally in less than three days?  Another organization tried to do the same thing, with more time to plan, and it didn't work for them.  Should the 3MA put on a bad rally and bring negative connotatons to the movement and organization by doing so?

 

Thanks for the phone calls and meetings.  I wish more people did as much as you've done!  It's fully appreciated.

 

Really, you've never been to a 3MA rally before?</p>

[legacy]

I would like to start preparing now for a 2014 initiative to include adult decriminalization and forfeiture reform. We could reinforce it in our discussions once we decide the details as a community.

 

Other than legalization, these are the 2 best things that could happen. And unlike legal, i think these are guaranteed wins.

 

IMO after forfeiture reform (eg the kind CaveatLector said #28), there would be little resistance to legalization. There would be far broader public support for forfeiture reform than for legalization. It would be a 1-2 knockout punch, rather than the last few fights for legal we've seen.

[CaveatLector]

If their penmanship is that bad they could be typing.  I'm sure your local compassion club would be willing to work with you to be sure everyone has a letter to send.</p>