Hb4856 On Lara's Website Will Be Removed!

[bax]

Thank you for contacting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program.

 

I have been instructed by management that the link to HB4856 is in the process of being removed from the MMP website.

 

If you have further questions, please visit our website at www.michigan.gov/mmp or contact our office at 517-373-0395, select option #5, and our staff will be happy to assist you. Office hours are 8:00am to 5:00pm (est) Monday through Friday.

 

Regards,

Melissa M. Peters

Medical Marihuana Program Coordinator

Bureau of Health Care Services

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

 

[solabeirtan]

Your link has been corrupted / spammed also. Thanks anyway, bax!

[solabeirtan]

Be Forewarned though a quite controversial infringement on our preveously granted priviledges has been unduly restricted. Please comply to avoid unnecessary Legal Costs. Untill further Notice:

rescinded by LARA! ?!

 

^{_{Act No. 460}}

^{_{Public Acts of 2012}}

^{_{Approved by the Governor}}

^{_{December 22, 2012}}

^{_{Filed with the Secretary of State}}

^{_{December 27, 2012}}

^{_{EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2012}}

 

 

^{_{STATE OF MICHIGAN}}

^{_{96TH LEGISLATURE}}

^{_{REGULAR SESSION OF 2012}}

^{_{Introduced by Reps. Glardon, Haveman, Agema, Daley, Opsommer, Zorn, Rendon, Kurtz, Johnson, Ouimet, Roy Schmidt, Haines, Jenkins, Lori, Yonker, Horn, Heise, Tyler, Cavanagh, Olson, Outman, Goike, Cotter, Price, Bledsoe, Callton, Knollenberg, Lyons and Jacobsen}}

^{_{ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 4856}}

^{_{AN ACT to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “An act to revise, consolidate, codify, and add to the statutes relating to crimes; to define crimes and prescribe the penalties and remedies; to provide for restitution under certain circumstances; to provide for the competency of evidence at the trial of persons accused of crime; to provide immunity from prosecution for certain witnesses appearing at criminal trials; to provide for liability for damages; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act,” (MCL 750.1 to 750.568) by adding section 474.}}

 

^{_{The   People  of the State of Michigan enact:}}

^{_{Sec. 474.}}

^₍₁₎

^{_{A person shall not transport or possess usable marihuana as defined in section 26423 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.26423, in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel unless the usable marihuana is 1 or more of the following:}}

 

      ^{_{(a) Enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk of the vehicle.}}

 

      ^{_{(b) Enclosed in a case that is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle, if             the vehicle in which the person is traveling does not have a trunk.}}

 

^₍₂₎

^{_{A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.}}

 

 

^{_{This act is ordered to take immediate effect.    NOT}} Maybe

 

^{_{Clerk of the House of Representatives}}

^{_{Secretary of the Senate}}

^{_{Approved by the Governor}}

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by solabeirtan

[bax]

What? That is an actual reply email I received from the MMMP head.

The HB4856 link is being removed because 4856 does not apply to registered patients or caregivers.

I don't know about unregistered patients protections in this case.

 

I sent an email to the atty general office, but I have not yet recieved a reply.

 

I would be happy someone would call and verify this with LARA or the MI AG.

[solabeirtan]

Really ? Ok it's Possible , in that case I misundersood. I'll take off my notice soon as we can confirm this good news. Thanx again bax

!

[ozzrokk]

And I can see that the link IS GONE off the LARA website. Very interested to see how this plays out as it pertains to PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS...... Thanx for sharing.

[CedarSpringsCG]

really?  Really?  They passed a law, obviously aimed at us, on transportation, but then neglected to have it affect us?  Are our legislators really that dense (rhetorical...)?

 

That would be good news, but it was already illegal to transport, so why are we paying these obviously incompetent people to make laws for nothing?  $500 fine and 93 days in jail for a crime that will probably land you 2 years if you arne't a CG or PT...  And it isn't part of our Act.

 

I'd hate to be the guinea pig on this one.  Because our act doesn't specify that you can transport.  Since it doesn't specify that we can, this law could be interpreted as overriding...

[+Malamute]

(f) “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.

[t-pain]

when the legislature started off , the first draft of 4856 said patients.

but we had a lot of good patients and organizations come in and help the legislators fix the bill.

 

now its just another crime against regular folk.

 

you wont be the first test case, there have been numerous patients who got tickets for this moo poo.

hopefully all that harassment will stop quickly and the MSP builliten will explain to police...

Edited August 8, 2013 by t-pain

[solabeirtan]

Trying to add a bit more credibilty to bax op. I just talked to  Melissa and she remembered responding to an email [yours obviously] and that it is being taken off. She maintains her authority doesn't permit her to comment on policy rulings,

 

but   yes it is being removed from the website, etc... 

 

stay safe! 

[Kingdiamond]

Ive read this 3 times still not getting what it means still half asleep I guess is it that we no longer have to place our personal and patients medicine in the trunk?

[solabeirtan]

That's the gist of it bro, I had the same problem earlier. So I had to call in, worked my way to MP herself, to verify unofficially I guess, that is the deal. Only thing concrete is its being removed from their website, as our OP was gracious enough to enlighten us with earlier ... 

[ozzrokk]

That is what it should mean King D but wonder if that is what it really would mean or be interpreted in court or on the street. The reality is many have said it should not apply to us as it did not amend the MMMA of 08. Now LARA has recognized that it was not part of the MMMA of 08, therefore removing it from the MMMP website. I only wonder if the street police and courts will EVER GET THE MEMO........

[t-pain]

Trying to add a bit more credibilty to bax op. I just talked to  Melissa and she remembered responding to an email [yours obviously] and that it is being taken off. She maintains her authority doesn't permit her to comment on policy rulings,

 

i dont get the secrecy. its a public government policy for the public.

 

i guess you could also ask steve arwood or the office of communications at lara.

contact info : http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-28077_28079-215520--,00.html

 

 

Mission:

Ensures that key information is communicated to both the internal and external customers of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

if you get no reply, could someone file a FOIA request for the info?

its not good to hide information.

[bobandtorey]

That is what it should mean King D but wonder if that is what it really would mean or be interpreted in court or on the street. The reality is many have said it should not apply to us as it did not amend the MMMA of 08. Now LARA has recognized that it was not part of the MMMA of 08, therefore removing it from the MMMP website. I only wonder if the street police and courts will EVER GET THE MEMO........

I am sure someone will get to the bottom of this MEMO and we may get to here from some judge one day 

[GregS]

What? That is an actual reply email I received from the MMMP head.

The HB4856 link is being removed because 4856 does not apply to registered patients or caregivers.

I don't know about unregistered patients protections in this case.

 

I sent an email to the atty general office, but I have not yet recieved a reply.

 

I would be happy someone would call and verify this with LARA or the MI AG.

Does this mean that it is being taken out of the Michigan Codified Laws (MCL), or just from the web page?

 

Unregistered patients and caregivers continue to have protection under the AD.

 

4856 (now that it has been enacted is to be cited as Public Act 406) is being challenged, if we have it our way, in the 34th Circuit Court. My bet is that it must fail.

 

Any takers?

Edited August 9, 2013 by GregS

[t-pain]

its pretty clear from the title of the thread and the email from LARA that this is just removing a link from the mmmp website.

since it does not apply to registered patients.

 

someone needs to verify that 4856 doesnt apply to patients with the AG.

since it would be nice to have an official answer, instead of just some website link removal.

Edited August 9, 2013 by t-pain

[Kingdiamond]

That is what it should mean King D but wonder if that is what it really would mean or be interpreted in court or on the street. The reality is many have said it should not apply to us as it did not amend the MMMA of 08. Now LARA has recognized that it was not part of the MMMA of 08, therefore removing it from the MMMP website. I only wonder if the street police and courts will EVER GET THE MEMO........

Yes I wonder how many  leos will still write illegal transport tickets id also like to know what this does for those already facing charges for this part of the law.

[GregS]

Yes I wonder how many  leos will still write illegal transport tickets id also like to know what this does for those already facing charges for this part of the law.

And we will laugh.

[Chauncy Gardner]

(f) “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.

 

Aren't there  different definitions now for " marijuana" as opposed to "usable marijuana".  Does this section mean that "medical use" refers to the CSA definition of marijuana? Under that definition, edibles are "marijuana" not "usable marijuana"

[t-pain]

dont bring that stupid CoA opinion in this thread.

 

this si a celebration thread.

[+Malamute]

Just because a link is removed means nothing.

[t-pain]

it gives anyone with this misdemeanor a thing to point at.

'lara even removed it ...'

[shishka]

Just keep your meds out of reach and in the trunk if you have a trunk.

 

Is that really too much to ask?

[GregS]

And remember boyzngrrlz, inaccessible means, "I just ate the last one officer."