Lansing Judge Dismisses Medical Marijuana Case

[cristinew]

4 b for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

Ignore that ... useless garbage...

 

6 d provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

Ignore that too it is also Useless garbage,,,,,

 

When the Cops bust you just scream 4 E and it will set you free

[OG Fire Beaster]

That's like asking what cases rules murder illegal. Uh, none. They don't need to because the legislature made it illegal. Similarly, here, the legislature made possession of marijuana illegal.

 

Remember, the MMA grants immunity for committing a crime. Possession and transfer of marijuana is a crime. So the better question is what part of the MMA makes p2p legal. That's what we need to be able to point to in order to argue that p2p is legal.

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,...

 

combined with

 

Sec. 3 (e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

(please note that it says "relating to the administration to treat or alleviate" it does not say "directly alleviate")

 

should be enough to authorize P2P

[cristinew]

2 lbs would be protected under section8..??? protected from What??

[cristinew]

administration of marihuana IS NOT sales

[t-pain]

guys, we should go to chat if we want to hash this out, its hard to talk in a forum when we're talking to previous posters and someone else misreads something.

Edited November 28, 2012 by t-pain

[cristinew]

combined with

 

6 d provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

[Highlander]

what cases ruled p2p illegal?

 

2 lbs would be protected under section8...

 

Where does Section 8 say "medical use?"

 

That's why you need to read "medical use" in context.

[cristinew]

You said it t

 

t-pain, on 28 November 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

what cases ruled p2p illegal?

 

2 lbs would be protected under section8...

 

 

Now i ask you what protections?

[CaveatLector]

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,...

 

combined with

 

Sec. 3 (e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

(please note that it says "relating to the administration to treat or alleviate" it does not say "directly alleviate")

 

should be enough to authorize P2P

There are good arguments that can be made both for and against p2p transfers. That's why the supremes heard McQueen. There are umpteen different threads on this forum debating p2p. No one will magically solve it in this thread. I'll wait for the supremes . . .

[Highlander]

guys, we should go to chat if we want to hash this out, its hard to talk in a forum when we're talking to previous posters and someone else misreads something.

 

There was a COA case on this. That "administering" and "using," grammatically speaking, must be interpreted to be similar...in the same vein...and when you read the dictionary definitions of either word, there is no discussion about sales. They said that "administering" is akin to "using" and is not given the broad interpretation as you suggest.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Highlander

[t-pain]

i agree with cav, we're getting nowhere and none of us are michigan supreme court justices (at least i hope not).

[cristinew]

P to P has a better chance than C to any patient, because of this,,, don't think they will ignore this part of the law,,

 

6 d provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

[OG Fire Beaster]

combined with

 

6 d provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

I was pointing out where it authorizes p2p.

 

my opinion of transfers outside of that is that they fall under sec8.

 

My understanding of 6d is that it is a rule for issuing cards to use as a sec 4 defense. The card is for identification so that one may use the sec 4 defense immediately, nothing else. If I lose my driver license I am still a legal driver? yes, I just don't have the physical proof of it at the moment. As far as having large amounts of medicine or anything else that one can dream up, that is for you to explain and a jury to decide.

[Highlander]

I was pointing out where it authorizes p2p.

 

my opinion of transfers outside of that is that they fall under sec8.

 

My understanding of 6d is that it is a rule for issuing cards to use as a sec 4 defense. The card is for identification so that one may use the sec 4 defense immediately, nothing else. If I lose my driver license I am still a legal driver? yes, I just don't have the physical proof of it at the moment. As far as having large amounts of medicine or anything else that one can dream up, that is for you to explain and a jury to decide.

 

Section 4 requires that you're in possession of your MJ card in order to avail yourself to the protections. You DL and your MMJ card are apples and oranges. Comparison is useless.

[OG Fire Beaster]

HELLO!

 

The title of section 4, in text, is "Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana."

 

The stuff outlined in section 4 is protected. Section 8 is its own thing and doesn't even talk about medical use.

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, 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 marihuana 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 marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana 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) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana 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 marihuana 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).

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana 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 marihuana:

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

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

[OG Fire Beaster]

Section 4 requires that you're in possession of your MJ card in order to avail yourself to the protections. You DL and your MMJ card are apples and oranges. Comparison is useless.

 

Is that not what i wrote?

 

"My understanding of 6d is that it is a rule for issuing cards to use as a sec 4 defense"

 

The comparison is that the registry card like a driver license is not what gives you the authority, It is merely identification.

 

 

I think it is more about being issued the card not actually having the physical card in your possession. If I lose the card I am still a registered patient, It just may take a couple extra steps to prove it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by OG Fire Beaster

[Highlander]

Is that not what i wrote?

 

"My understanding of 6d is that it is a rule for issuing cards to use as a sec 4 defense"

 

The comparison is that the registry card like a driver license is not what gives you the authority, It is merely identification.

 

 

I think it is more about being issued the card not actually having the physical card in your possession. If I lose the card I am still a registered patient, It just may take a couple extra steps to prove it.

 

"Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege...."

 

Well Section 4 says the card has to be issued and in your possession in order for you to assert Section 4 protections. I don't know how you're arriving at a different conclusion. It's right there in black and white. No card in your possion = no protection from arrest.

 

Might take a couple extra steps to prove it - sure. Section 8 tells you what those steps are. Who wants to go through that, and who has the $10,000 to do so?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Highlander

[OG Fire Beaster]

"Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege...."

 

Well Section 4 says the card has to be issued and in your possession in order for you to assert Section 4 protections. I don't know how you're arriving at a different conclusion. It's right there in black and white. No card in your possion = no protection from arrest.

 

Might take a couple extra steps to prove it - sure. Section 8 tells you what those steps are. Who wants to go through that, and who has the $10,000 to do so?

 

I don't have first hand experience, but in the case of a lost card, I think it would be possible to prove you were issued one and that it is still valid without using section 8. I could be wrong though.

[Highlander]

I don't have first hand experience, but in the case of a lost card, I think it would be possible to prove you were issued one and that it is still valid without using section 8. I could be wrong though.

 

I would agree with that but would plan on getting arrested first. So maybe not Section 8. Point is, if LEO shows up and you have no card, you can plan on having your grown taken down, meds taken, and any cool stuff in sight too. Then pay a few grand in attoreny's fees, court costs, etc. to get everything dropped and your (dead) plants back.

 

People really should make copies of their cards. I also keep a copy of the LARA letter that came with the card.

[peanutbutter]

People like to believe that the Act says "All medical use is legal." It doesn't say that. Just because you can define something as "medical use" doesn't mean it is covered. The law protects "medical use in accordance with this act." You can't just read the definition of "medical use" and go from there. You have to read it in context with the protections.

 

For example, under "medical use" I can possess MJ. But when I look at the rest of the act, I see that there is a limitation on how much I can possess.

 

Think of it like this. If you possess 2 pounds of MJ for the purpose of alleviating your condition, there is no question that this fits within the definition of "medical use" but that doesn't mean it is protected.

 

Not protected from arrest, but protected under section eight.

[+Malamute]

Maybe...

[mibrains]

didn't the courts rule on carrying your card with you over the summer? or maybe even last year?

the rule was that you do not have to have your card on your person for it to be valid? i swear i remember hearing that and being relieved if you travel and forget your wallet or something then your still protected.. does this only fall under a section 8 defense? and not under a section 4 exemption from arrest?

[SFC]

Common sense should guide all of us. If you are carrying or transporting meds you should absolutely have your card (common sense) You should not offer up your card until LEO has obviously become aware that you are in possession of mmj and then do it politely (You are an ambassador of MMJ) act like it. This as much psychological warfare we are in as it is a war in the courts. Hearts and minds..

[mibrains]

 

 

 

[mibrains]