Michigan Appeals Court Strikes Down Local Ordinance Against Medical Marijuana

[AKenewell]

The City Of Wyoming’s Ordinance Banning Medical Marijuana Violates Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan applauded a state appeals court decision today (August 1, 2012) declaring the City of Wyoming’s ordinance that bans medical marijuana “void and unenforceable” because it directly violates the state’s Medical Marihuana Act.

 

The lawsuit was originally filed in November 2010 on behalf of John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient who suffers from diabetes and a neurological disorder that causes neuropathy and severe pain.

 

“In 2008, people across the state overwhelmingly voted to protect patients who use marijuana to treat their medical conditions from punishment and penalty,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Today’s decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals rejects the misguided efforts of a few local officials to undo the results of that historic election. Now that the law is clear, all cities should take notice and stop threatening to treat patients who have done nothing wrong like criminals.”

 

The ordinance was adopted by the Wyoming City Council in 2010 despite a public outcry. Ter Beek, who feared criminal and civil penalties if he grew or used medical marijuana in accordance with state law, filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance. The ACLU later joined the lawsuit.

 

“The fact is medical marijuana helps people; it’s helped me,” said Ter Beek. “I’ve tried narcotic-based drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin and nothing worked like medical marijuana. I couldn’t just sit by as our elected officials try to ignore the will of the people and take this option from me and thousands of others.”

 

In 2008, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act was approved on a statewide ballot. Sixty-three percent of voters approved the law statewide, including 59 percent of voters in Wyoming. The Wyoming ordinance, while not specifically mentioning medical marijuana, prohibits any violations of federal law. Because medical marijuana is still technically illegal under federal law, the city used this terminology to ban medical marijuana.

 

The federal government, however, does not prosecute patients and caregivers who comply with their states’ medical marijuana laws, and the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act specifically states that registered patients and their caregivers “shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner” for growing, possessing, or using medical marijuana.

 

Just 5 days before Wyoming adopted its ordinance, the ACLU of Michigan filed a similar lawsuit against the cities of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Livonia. The ACLU sent a copy of that lawsuit to Wyoming city officials prior to their vote. The lawsuit against Birmingham is pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

 

In addition to Korobkin, Ter Beek is represented by Michael J. Steinberg, Kary L. Moss, Miriam Aukerman and Mike Nelson of the ACLU of Michigan.

 

To read the decision, go to:http://www.aclumich....kCOAOpinion.pdf

 

To read the ACLU of Michigan’s winning brief, go to:http://www.aclumich....erBeekBrief.pdf

 

Source: ACLU

 

 

http://www.theweedbl...ical-marijuana/

[GregS]

It appears that the COA got the memo from the SC. They know that they can no longer play silly bullschit games to construe the law outside its clearly written intent.

[free country 420]

why cant we use this same logic to be able to drive?.....

“shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner” for growing, possessing, or using medical marijuana.

the "any manner" sounds like it means any manner....

[Dr. Bob]

Not according to the COA, and that is the way it is right now. But it is a good thought.

[GanjaWarrior]

Not according to the COA, and that is the way it is right now. But it is a good thought.

 

but what does the law say...

[CaveatLector]

but what does the law say...

Well, the law says whatever the COA decides it says, unless overruled by the Sup Ct.

[GanjaWarrior]

Well, the law says whatever the COA decides it says, unless overruled by the Sup Ct.

 

no thats not what the law says...what the law says is what we voted on...not what some judge made up. i asked what the law said i didnt asked for some biased jack donkey op on it...i said what does the law say...as for the coa ur wrong... the higher courts have already instructed them to follow the word of the law as we voted on it...so as i asked what does the law say.

[Restorium2]

no thats not what the law says...what the law says is what we voted on...not what some judge made up. i asked what the law said i didnt asked for some biased jack donkey op on it...i said what does the law say...as for the coa ur wrong... the higher courts have already instructed them to follow the word of the law as we voted on it...so as i asked what does the law say.

Yeah, those smart attorneys are biased as heck! They let all those judges influence what they say. Then they have the nerve to post it here to help patients and their caregivers make informed choices, darn them.

[GanjaWarrior]

Yeah, those smart attorneys are biased as heck! They let all those judges influence what they say. Then they have the nerve to post it here to help patients and their caregivers make informed choices, darn them.

 

 

you know you make the schittiest cheerleader....did i say anything about a biased attorney? ill give you the benefit ...i agree the judge was most likely a lawyer once...but when did i say anything about an attorney? really ask for pointers before starting your cheer, it gets old.

[Dr. Bob]

The key to safety is understanding that laws are interpreted not by the 'people' but by the courts. They are ENFORCED by the 'people' through the jury system, but the basic policy is up to how the courts see it. Right now the court has spoken and until a higher court overturns them, you would be well served by having a clear understanding of what the ruling was, not what you think the ruling should have been.

 

Not saying you are wrong in your thinking, but remember the story of the road to Hades. Last thing you want to do is have one person go to jail because they agreed with you and not the courts. The courts have the keys to the cells.

[+Malamute]

Sec. 7(b) subsection (1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

 

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

 

 

 

 

People v Koon

 

 

From there it is all speculation.

[CaveatLector]

no thats not what the law says...what the law says is what we voted on...not what some judge made up. i asked what the law said i didnt asked for some biased jack donkey op on it...i said what does the law say...as for the coa ur wrong... the higher courts have already instructed them to follow the word of the law as we voted on it...so as i asked what does the law say.

Clearly you need a primer on law. So I'll teach you.

 

In Michigan, as in most states, we have 3 main sources of state law. Those sources include statutes, regulations, and court precedent. Regulations, technically, are not law but they do have the force and effect of law.

 

Statutes, or written law, are contained in volumes that, in Michigan, are known as the Michigan Compiled Laws.

 

Precedent is caselaw, or judge made law, that is handed down by court opinions. Published opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals are binding on the entire state unless such an opinion is overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court. Binding precedent (caselaw) generally involves the interpretation of statutes, or the common law, by the mentioned courts. Opinions/decsions generated by published cases out of the Michigan Court of Appeals are LAW unless changed later by the Michigan Supreme Court.

 

So there you have it. As I originally said, law is whatever the Michigan Court of Appeals says it is unless, and until, the Michigan Supreme Court decides differently. It matters not whether you agree with the court.

[GanjaWarrior]

Clearly you need a primer on law. So I'll teach you.

 

In Michigan, as in most states, we have 3 main sources of state law. Those sources include statutes, regulations, and court precedent. Regulations, technically, are not law but they do have the force and effect of law.

 

Statutes, or written law, are contained in volumes that, in Michigan, are known as the Michigan Compiled Laws.

 

Precedent is caselaw, or judge made law, that is handed down by court opinions. Published opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals are binding on the entire state unless such an opinion is overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court. Binding precedent (caselaw) generally involves the interpretation of statutes, or the common law, by the mentioned courts. Opinions/decsions generated by published cases out of the Michigan Court of Appeals are LAW unless changed later by the Michigan Supreme Court.

 

So there you have it. As I originally said, law is whatever the Michigan Court of Appeals says it is unless, and until, the Michigan Supreme Court decides differently. It matters not whether you agree with the court.

 

i glanced over your over inflated attempt at proving self worth but i failed to see any quotes of the law i asked about?so i just skipped it..... so again what does the law say. notice, no where in this thread did i say....what is the current interpretation of our law , nor did i ask any courts opinion on our law. I asked what the law that we voted on said, in ref to the topic at hand. you can not possibly answer my question by babbling on about judges and court rooms....i asked a very simple question. what does our law say....

[CaveatLector]

i glanced over your over inflated attempt at proving self worth but i failed to see any quotes of the law i asked about?so i just skipped it..... so again what does the law say. notice, no where in this thread did i say....what is the current interpretation of our law , nor did i ask any courts opinion on our law. I asked what the law that we voted on said, in ref to the topic at hand. you can not possibly answer my question by babbling on about judges and court rooms....i asked a very simple question. what does our law say....

Then go up to the "patients" tab and click on "MMM Act." You can read can't you? Why do you need to ask what the law says if you aren't looking for an interpretation? Lazy much?

[GanjaWarrior]

Then go up to the "patients" tab and click on "MMM Act." You can read can't you? Why do you need to ask what the law says if you aren't looking for an interpretation? Lazy much?

 

What is it you are doing when asking me if i can read, when we are typing a conversation? is that more of your childish desire to belittle and talk down to everyone? I cant imagine you could be so stupid as to think you could ask an illiterate person if they can read via a typed message. Opinions change, evolve even. the only thing set in stone so far...is the wording of the law and the supreme court who has shown to favor the wording of the law. beyond that its speculation....I cant believe you could even object to me saying "what does the law say". first and foremost to all pts and caregivers is that law, opinions change, bad judges make bad rulings, that are over turn by more balanced minds......until the tyrants in Lansing change it that law is what we live by...

[Honeyoil]

I cant imagine you could be so stupid as to think you could ask an illiterate person if they can read via a typed message.

 

:lol:

[GregS]

Yeah. There are loads of uninformed and ill intended azzholes here who wish to somehow navigate around the word of law.

[CaveatLector]

What is it you are doing when asking me if i can read, when we are typing a conversation?

 

I cant imagine you could be so stupid as to think you could ask an illiterate person if they can read via a typed message.

 

Try and think outside the box bro. I know it's a bit of a stretch to expect that from you but give it a shot.

 

When I asked if you could read I was writing colloquially, not literally. Since you clearly don't understand that writing tool I'll take this opportunity to teach you. When someone says, or writes, "It's right there, see it? Are you blind?" That doesn't mean they are asking whether the person is literally blind. It's a figure of speech delivered in a colloquial manner. Similarly, here, when I asked if you could read I was writing in a colloquial manner. I'm astonished that you didn't get that. Maybe I shouldn't be though...?

 

The reason I asked that was because you asked what the law, "says." I figured you probably could read the statute on your own, so further figured that you were asking something beyond what is written in the statute. That is why I wrote what I did regarding the courts. Then, when I added my comment about the courts, you once again don't disappoint and you come out all pissy and nasty and write that you want to know what the law says and not the courts.. Then you actually have the nerve to call ME childish.

 

I still don't know why you would ask what the law says if you were asking what the black and white text of the statute reads. Presumably you can have the text of the statute in front of you in 10 seconds.

Edited August 6, 2012 by CaveatLector

[cristinew]

The law is always what the Judge says, he has the power, not the defendant, always .been that way ,

[Dr. Bob]

Thank you CL for explaining the sources of law. It was very clear.

[GanjaWarrior]

Try and think outside the box bro. I know it's a bit of a stretch to expect that from you but give it a shot.

 

When I asked if you could read I was writing colloquially, not literally. Since you clearly don't understand that writing tool I'll take this opportunity to teach you. When someone says, or writes, "It's right there, see it? Are you blind?" That doesn't mean they are asking whether the person is literally blind. It's a figure of speech delivered in a colloquial manner. Similarly, here, when I asked if you could read I was writing in a colloquial manner. I'm astonished that you didn't get that. Maybe I shouldn't be though...?

 

The reason I asked that was because you asked what the law, "says." I figured you probably could read the statute on your own, so further figured that you were asking something beyond what is written in the statute. That is why I wrote what I did regarding the courts. Then, when I added my comment about the courts, you once again don't disappoint and you come out all pissy and nasty and write that you want to know what the law says and not the courts.. Then you actually have the nerve to call ME childish.

 

I still don't know why you would ask what the law says if you were asking what the black and white text of the statute reads. Presumably you can have the text of the statute in front of you in 10 seconds.

 

this gets so boring....look more of you ignorant over blown sense of self worth.... its funny to see you use to same bs to attempt to belittle people in thread after thread...

 

im aware that you brought up a bunch of speculation and mentioned the ever waving opinion ....i said what does the law say...i for the life of me cant see how you dont feel the LAW is germane to the subject at hand...yes i called you childish....same immature belittling pompous attitude you display in every thread.

 

ok so there's a conversation...one side says...."but the judge said" then someone says "but i think the judge means " ....then a third person pops up and says "whats the law say?" see this isnt a request for info...its more of a directional arrow....a guide....get confusing answers, conjecture and speculation..... look to the law. one would think with all the time you waste trying to explain bunny muffin you might have picked up on that all on your own, then i wouldn't have to keep talking to you.

[GanjaWarrior]

Thank you CL for explaining the sources of law. It was very clear.

 

where did he explain the sources of the law? i didnt see that...and wtf are you talking about...some people wrote the law we voted on it...its law. thats the source. i know your just cheering bob but that was a weak cheer u c an do better.

[CaveatLector]

this gets so boring....look more of you ignorant over blown sense of self worth.... its funny to see you use to same bs to attempt to belittle people in thread after thread...

 

im aware that you brought up a bunch of speculation and mentioned the ever waving opinion ....i said what does the law say...i for the life of me cant see how you dont feel the LAW is germane to the subject at hand...yes i called you childish....same immature belittling pompous attitude you display in every thread.

 

ok so there's a conversation...one side says...."but the judge said" then someone says "but i think the judge means " ....then a third person pops up and says "whats the law say?" see this isnt a request for info...its more of a directional arrow....a guide....get confusing answers, conjecture and speculation..... look to the law. one would think with all the time you waste trying to explain bunny muffin you might have picked up on that all on your own, then i wouldn't have to keep talking to you.

So, again I ask, why would you ask what the law "says" when you can click on the link in the patient tab above and read it yourself? You forgot to answer that question.

 

You're making a fool of yourself. Stop while you're behind...

[GanjaWarrior]

So, again I ask, why would you ask what the law "says" when you can click on the link in the patient tab above and read it yourself? You forgot to answer that question.

 

You're making a fool of yourself. Stop while you're behind...

 

often the problem with trying to communicate with the over inflated is that they only communicate within their own minds so even if u answer they will just keep babbling like you didn't.

 

"ok so there's a conversation...one side says...."but the judge said" then someone says "but i think the judge means " ....then a third person pops up and says "whats the law say?" see this isnt a request for info...its more of a directional arrow....a guide....get confusing answers, conjecture and speculation..... look to the law. one would think with all the time you waste trying to explain bunny muffin you might have picked up on that all on your own, then i wouldn't have to keep talking to you."

 

I have already answered you...if you cant understand say so...

[GanjaWarrior]

and stop sending me rude pm .... just be your childish self here where everyone can see....