Jump to content

Medical Marijuana Absurdities In Michigan: Patients Can't Share


Recommended Posts

Cry to the feds then.  We didn't write the law, MPP did.  It wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I wouldn't trade it for many other states. We still have grow rights......For now.

 

Is the law absurd in your view? Or are you happy with whatever scraps you get tossed, as long as you can grow at home? Lets arrest people for nonsense and pretend it doesn't matter cause we have home grows. Selfish stance IMO.

 

EDIT:

What are we supposed to cry to the feds about? Plenty of places have ignored the fed's stance on marijuana. They have been demonstrated to be mostly irrelevant on the issue. Colorado didn't cry to the feds, neither did Washington. DC is the fed and they passed med laws. Maybe the crying should be directed towards our state, which is what this thread is about. The absurdity of our law.

 

Garbage post as usual SFC.

Go cry some tears of joy about your home grow. I'll shed a tear for the people sitting in jail.

Edited by OG Fire Beaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is the law absurd in your view? Or are you happy with whatever scraps you get tossed, as long as you can grow at home? Lets arrest people for nonsense and pretend it doesn't matter cause we have home grows. Selfish stance IMO.

 

EDIT:

What are we supposed to cry to the feds about? Plenty of places have ignored the fed's stance on marijuana. They have been demonstrated to be mostly irrelevant on the issue. Colorado didn't cry to the feds, neither did Washington. DC is the fed and they passed med laws. Maybe the crying should be directed towards our state, which is what this thread is about. The absurdity of our law.

 

Garbage post as usual SFC.

Go cry some tears of joy about your home grow. I'll shed a tear for the people sitting in jail.

Maybe a little unfair? Homegrows did not put those people in Jail. FedLaw did. 1937, ammended....yes!

 

You're comparing Apples and Unreasonablen Unconstitutional Government. Wanna share some responsibility or just the tears and B$!

 

Yes we're happy! We should be. We'll be happier when we make more real progress. Also when our current attempt to pass a Law are respected. Because, "We are the People!" 

 

Perhaps you might turn your attention to some of the Realities around US that go unmentioned. Like our tolerance of $tate  $upported Terrorism, the kind that got our friends locked up in the first place, under the guise of a War on Drugs. How about the NSA $nooping, Right to Gut Unions, Citys', Schools, Welfare, Natural Resources, Your Property Values ...   

Edited by solabeirtan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember every one of you saying this law is the best thing since sliced bread a few years ago.  If your lack of understanding of what the law allowed has now bittered you to hating this law... I don't know what to tell you.  I still think it is the best thing since sliced bread myself.  It is definitely a highly regulated system with unfortunately somewhat narrow guidelines.  It is what it is.  But it is better than what oh so many states have. First of all it is better than the 30 states that do not have a medical law.  Then It is better than almost half of the other 20 medical states laws.  Take a look at Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire as well as a few others and then decide if you think Michigans law is as bad as it seems everyone is saying here.

 

 I personally would have added a simple clause like:

 

"A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in MCL *******."

 

And then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Some States did that. Most haven't.

 

It's not absurd.  It was purposefully written that way. And well when we; Michigan Residents; actually come up with 1.3 million dollars to pass a ballot initiative which we didn't even do the first time; then we can write the law. :-)

 

Otherwise I do not feel pity that we are allowed to have 12 plants and up to 2.5 oz of cannabis.  I am not gonna sit here and whine that less than .3% of patients have had some issues. And most of those were doing something questionable; outside of the law or relying on Sec 8 defenses. It seems over 99% of the people are not having a problem. That is exactly what the law was meant to do.  Protect as many as possible while allowing some sort of access.

 

 Is it horrible that some patients have got caught up legal battles? Of course.

 

 But did anyone actually think there wasn't gonna be some pushback on the pioneers of medical cannabis in Michigan?

 

 It is actually a lot less than was predicted 5 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us say that patient A has 2.5 ounces of a sativa, and patient B has 2.5 ounces of an indicia. Each patient discovers that what they have is not working as they wish. They trade 1.125 ounces. This new mixture proves to be a medical beneficial mixture for both parties.

 

Would this be approved under the SC ruling where they held, "immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee's use because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of relieving the transferor's own condition or symptoms."?

 

Unless both people were the others caregiver, both could be arrested under current law.  They may not be convicted, but they can certainly be arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the correct way to interpret our act is whichever way helps the least amount of people. Anything else and someone somewhere might make a dollar.

 

Very absurd. The rest of the country is marching towards open distribution while we are steadily moving backwards. Supported in full by the usual crowd.

 

Nobody supports this idea.  What we do is to tell people what the law is and that they should stay within the law until we can change it.  You don't get the law changed by ignoring it and getting arrested or going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the correct way to interpret our act is whichever way helps the least amount of people. Anything else and someone somewhere might make a dollar.

 

Very absurd. The rest of the country is marching towards open distribution while we are steadily moving backwards. Supported in full by the usual crowd.

 

 

Or we can interpret it the right way, which has already helped thousands.  Or you can keep pretending that the law isn't helpful at all and just sit in a corner and cry. 

 

Turns out that working the law properly, to help the most people possible, is a better approach than crying in a corner.

 

But some people would rather cry.  Some people make bad choices.  That is even more absurd.

 

People in Ohio are reading this very story and realizing how absurd it is that people in Michigan will rant  and rave that our MMJ law is unworkable rather than pay 10 bucks and fill out a change form.  Imagine if back in 2007 someone told you that you could give 2.5 oz of MMJ to the next guy if you filled out a form and paid $10???  Would that have been absurd?  Absurdly awesome.  Funny how quickly we forget.

 

It is absurd to sit around and whine and cry that you can't give MMJ to just anybody.  Wipe away your tears and fill out a CG form.  Problem solved.  It is that easy.  A $10 change form fee is less than 1gram of meds at most dispensaries.  So where exactly is the problem?

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said there was a "pass" or "passing" of marijuana medicine? IMO, Paitent A more than likely saw that patient B had medicine that patient A required, so patient A takes medicine from patient B. Patient B takes a minute to collect their thoughts and decides that (s)he will just take back the medicine that was taken by patient A. This cycle of private personal property dispute ensues, all the while, the property is being destroyed until there is no property left. If neither patient asks for law enforcements help in said property dispute, how would they be allowed to get involved? Each patient "taking" the cannabis is well within their rights to aquire medicine and the person the meds were taken from also had a legal right to have meds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we do is to tell people what the law is and that they should stay within the law until we can change it.  You don't get the law changed by ignoring it and getting arrested or going to jail.

Exactly! If you're not sure you're legal then don't do it.

Read the law as written and keep up with the court rulings,no matter how foolish they are, that's how they're going to judge you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember every one of you saying this law is the best thing since sliced bread a few years ago.  If your lack of understanding of what the law allowed has now bittered you to hating this law... I don't know what to tell you.  I still think it is the best thing since sliced bread myself.  It is definitely a highly regulated system with unfortunately somewhat narrow guidelines.  It is what it is.  But it is better than what oh so many states have. First of all it is better than the 30 states that do not have a medical law.  Then It is better than almost half of the other 20 medical states laws.  Take a look at Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire as well as a few others and then decide if you think Michigans law is as bad as it seems everyone is saying here.

 

 I personally would have added a simple clause like:

 

"A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in MCL *******."

 

And then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Some States did that. Most haven't.

 

It's not absurd.  It was purposefully written that way. And well when we; Michigan Residents; actually come up with 1.3 million dollars to pass a ballot initiative which we didn't even do the first time; then we can write the law. :-)

 

Otherwise I do not feel pity that we are allowed to have 12 plants and up to 2.5 oz of cannabis.  I am not gonna sit here and whine that less than .3% of patients have had some issues. And most of those were doing something questionable; outside of the law or relying on Sec 8 defenses. It seems over 99% of the people are not having a problem. That is exactly what the law was meant to do.  Protect as many as possible while allowing some sort of access.

 

 Is it horrible that some patients have got caught up legal battles? Of course.

 

 But did anyone actually think there wasn't gonna be some pushback on the pioneers of medical cannabis in Michigan?

 

 It is actually a lot less than was predicted 5 years ago.

And i would of wrote something like this

 

Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. 

 

Oh i guess they did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are legions of us that have used this law successfully, as it is written.  The only people having a problem are those who wish to commercialize it. I stand by what I have said since day one, "The longer we hold off commercial interests the better we are all off".  Right now every non violent/drug felon in the state is on equal footing.  You can grow your own and save a ton of money, you can grow for others and make a decent supplemental income. You just cannot get rich under the current law. I'll take the current law.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Two stories popped up today from the state of Michigan that remind me of the inevitable tragic absurdities we get by trying to separate patients from "criminals." Wrap your mind around these latest examples of legal bureaucracy facing sick people who just want to use marijuana under theMichigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).

In Nashville, Michigan, there was this patient namedTony Allen Green.  Tony had a valid patient registry card.  Tony had less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana on him, as allowed by law.

Tony has a friend named Al Thornton.  Al was a patient who just applied for a valid patient registry card.  However, under Michigan law, after 20 days his application (along with his doctor's recommendation to use cannabis medically) becomes just as valid as a registry card.

Tony, a legal patient, gave some of his marijuana (less than 2.5 ounces) to Al, a legal patient.  Somehow, police become involved.  They do not arrest Al, for he is now holding less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, but they do arrest Tony, for giving Al less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana.

Now, isn't that silly?  Tony can sit around puffing joint after joint of his 2.5 ounces.  Al could sit right next to him and do the same.  But if either of them pass a joint to the other, it's a crime?

The Barry County Circuit Judge agreed that was silly.  Section 4 of the MMMA clearly allows patients to have 2.5 ounces.  They were both legal patients. The judge dismissed the marijuana delivery charge against Tony.

Prosecutors appealed the dismissal.  As they read Section 4, they could only find protection for Tony's and Al's possession of marijuana.  They didn't see anything protecting the delivery of marijuana.  The Court of Appeals, however, upheld the Barry County judge's dismissal, writing, "the MMMA does not place any restrictions on the transfer or delivery of marijuana between adult patients, and we decline to read any such restriction into the act."

Unfortunately for Tony, the Supreme Court of Michigan disagreed.  They have now reinstated the delivery charges against Tony.  The Court relies on its February decision in the case of Michigan v. McQueen where they held, "immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee's use because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of relieving the transferor's own condition or symptoms."

Got that?  Tony can puff joints all day from his 2.5 ounces because that benefits him medically.  But giving marijuana to Al does not benefit Tony medically, so that transfer is a crime.  Although Al can then go ahead and puff the joints Tony gave him, because that benefits him medically and isn't a crime.

Then there's the case of Benjamin Curtin Walburg.  Four years ago, police caught him growing 25 marijuana plants.  Ben didn't have his medical marijuana card, so he was charged with possession and manufacture of marijuana, a felony that could put Ben behind bars for seven years.

Ben argued that he suffers from severe anxiety and insomnia and he had a recommendation from his doctor for medical cannabis use.  Michigan had just passed the MMMA a few months prior to Ben's arrest.  That was enough for Ottawa County Circuit Judge Edward Post to dismiss the charges against Ben.

Prosecutors appealed the dismissal, arguing that despite Ben's recommendation, 25 plants was more than twice the twelve plant limit written into the MMMA.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the prosecutor that only 12 plants are allowed under MMMA.  The Court noted Section 8 of the MMMAwhich provides an affirmative defense for a patient who is "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."  As the Court noted, "unfortunately, the Legislature neglected to define the term 'reasonably necessary' within the statute, leaving it open to interpretation based on the individual circumstances of each case."

So the Court of Appeals upheld the Ottawa judge?  No.  The Court sent the case back to Ottawa County so that court could give their interpretation based on the individual facts of the case.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled on the cases of People v. Kolanek and People v. Kingwhich clarified that a person must have their medical marijuana registry card or doctor's authorization before they possess or grow marijuana and must display their card or recommendation at the grow site to qualify for any medical defense.  Therefore, Ben could still face the felony manufacture charge in Ottawa County.

Thankfully, the Ottawa County Prosecutor decided to cut Ben some slack, since the law was so unclear just months after passage.  He allowed Ben to plead guilty to misdemeanor possession with no jail or probation.  So, yes, Ben has to check "Have you ever been convicted of a drug-related crime?" on any employment applications and his shot at some government jobs and security clearances is gone... but at least he's not in prison.

Those are just two patients whose lives were turned upside down for the past four years while Michigan courts tried to make sense of their program to separate patients from "criminals."  Two patients who ended up being "criminals" anyway.  Wouldn't it just be easier to legalize marijuana for all adult uses and stop trying to determine who's healthy enough (or didn't follow the rules properly) to put in a cage over pot?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/medical-marijuana-michigan_b_3474514.html

Bob 2 or 4 people sharing a needle doing heroin is ilegal, not becuase they are sharing the needle, but because they are sharing and illegal drug, mm is only legal to a pt and c.g, pt's can not share their mm with another pt, unless they are also their c.g!

 

I dont know any easier way to say this, you can not share your mm with anyone, unless it falls withing the law! sux but that is the way it is, im sure if we let them leo would just as soon get rid of the law all together, no sense in whizzin on things that are not legal!

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob 2 or 4 people sharing a needle doing heroin is ilegal, not becuase they are sharing the needle, but because they are sharing and illegal drug, mm is only legal to a pt and c.g, pt's can not share their mm with another pt, unless they are also their c.g!

 

I dont know any easier way to say this, you can not share your mm with anyone, unless it falls withing the law! sux but that is the way it is, im sure if we let them leo would just as soon get rid of the law all together, no sense in whizzin on things that are not legal!

 

Peace

Jim

I agree Jim

 

i did not put the post up for me or anyone i put it up so that we all can talk about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, if you are at home on your property or somewhere otherwise free of potential LEO do what we have always done.  You just need to be aware that out in the public eye this will get you in a bit of a bind, just like it always has.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Published Opinion of the Court of Appeals, __ Mich App __ (2012)

This case addressed the probable cause analysis in light of the MMMA. Here, the defendant’s former roommate contacted and informed police that he saw grow lights, ventilation fans, and small marihuana plants growing their residence. The officers conducted trash pulls from the house and found marihuana.

The officer included those facts in a search warrant affidavit. The affidavit did not contain any statement as to whether the defendant was a medical marijuana patient. The search warrant was approved and the search was executed. Officers found 8 marijuana plants and 2 grams of marijuana.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and for a evidentiary hearing. Defendant argued the facts included in the affidavit failed to establish probable cause that a crime was committed because the MMMA made it legal to possess and grow certain amounts of marijuana.

The trial court agreed and found the affidavit did not contain sufficient facts to establish probable cause. Specifically, the trial court found that due to the MMMA’s passage, the search warrant affidavit had to provide specific facts that the possession of the marijuana alleged in the affidavit was not legal under the MMMA.

However, despite that ruling, the court found that the evidence should not be suppressed based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, but for a different reason. Specifically, the appellate court found the facts in the affidavit established the necessary probable cause, despite the passage of the MMMA. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the appellate court found the MMMA did not make the possession or cultivation of marijuana “legal.” Instead, the found that any possession of marijuana continues to violate the Public Health Code and is indicative of a criminal act sufficient for a probable cause finding. The court held:

 

 Thus, we conclude that to establish probable cause, a search-warrant affidavit need not provide facts from which a magistrate could conclude that a suspect’s marijuana-related activities are specifically not legal under the MMMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I can say about any of this is the Michigan Supreme Court has final say on what a law means.  Unless you are foolish enough to appeal to federal court.

 

P2P for free sounds fine to me, it sounds fine to a lot of people.  How does it sound to the MSC?  Do what THEY think it means, not what I or anyone else thinks it means.

 

You want to share with a friend, share your knowledge and teach them to grow their own.  Or share your caregiver.  The CoA said it was ok for Green to share.  The SC appears to have voided that. Therefore it is not ok to share, despite what you think the law means.  

 

Understand how the system work, follow the money (ie the guys that can put you in jail because they decided something meant 'this' and you thought it meant 'that'.).  I've often said, it the SC rules I have to fill out certs in purple ink and hop on one foot, I will do it to take care of my patient, and be able to produce a DVD of me doing it if the case is questioned in court.

 

Isn't it great we have access to this wonderful medicine?  Yes, we have to jump through some hoops, BUT WE CAN DO IT AND GET THE MEDICINE.  Now we just let time go by until the mindset that marijuana is some sort of drug of abuse changes.

 

Activists sitting in jail because they think 'the SC got it wrong' and doing what THEY think the ruling SHOULD HAVE BEEN is not helping, unless the federal appeal is worth risking having the entire act invalidated.

 

Play the system, change it from within.  Pick your battles, when the MSC rules, that question is answered, move on to the next one.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 8 means you ask for the mercy of the court because you think you can justify what you were doing.  You can argue that you need 12 + x number of plants because you are a cancer patient and needed oil.  You can argue that your grow was secured because you were present and the house was locked even if the grow room wasn't.  You can argue that you were evaluated and qualified to use even if you didn't send the paperwork in.  You can make any case you want and take your chances.  But if you want to have a chance at success, don't argue a point the SC has already settled-  just because you don't agree with their ruling doesn't change the fact they ruled and it is now law.  The result is simply frustrations, further restrictions, and the opportunity to risk the entire act by appealing it to the feds.

 

Section 8 is alive and well, but that doesn't mean you can do something you have been specifically told you can't do in a SC ruling.

 

Again, not a lawyer, and my personal opinions are mine and based on establishing an element of safety for my patients by being clearly within the law.  If you want to be a test case, joust at whatever windmill you wish.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, never forget the fact that the CoA ruled p2p for no compensation was ok.  The dispensary issue was pushed, the SC ruled against it and took the opportunity to trash our CoA ruling in the process.  That is a risk you take with every case you fight up the chain.  Pick them carefully.

Edited by Dr. Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec. 8 means that: "(a) Except as provided in section 7(b), 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."

 

Strange is the twist that would represent it as something else. Why would anyone do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec. 8 means that: "(a) Except as provided in section 7(b), 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."

 

Strange is the twist that would represent it as something else. Why would anyone do that?

 

Got any Patients ? Conservatism isn't all bad.  Is it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Watt," my butt!  

 

Free advice. Wannna pay for someone elses opinion, call a Lawyer. Wanna stay healthy, safe and medicated, listen to the Doc.

And what do I do if I have a medical condition, one that meets the required guidelines for mj use and for which the Doc has certified, that lands me in the hospital?

 

Who do you call? A lawyer??

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...