Jump to content

Michigan Compassion: Michigan Court Of Appeals Decision Impacts Cancer And Pediatric Patients


Recommended Posts

ROYAL OAK, Mich.Sept. 3, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The arrest of John Roberts by the St. Clair County Sheriff for manufacturing concentrated forms of medical cannabis is the result of bold overreach by the Michigan Court of Appeals and undermines the intent of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. John Roberts conscientiously serves the sickest patients with his charitable mission through Michigan Cancer Project. His mission upholds the spirit and fundamental intent of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act by assisting the very sick with the compassionate use of medical cannabis.


 


(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130903/DE73443)     


The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in People v Carruthers has had a profound negative impact on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and Michigan Compassion believes the ruling ignores important details about the Act. The prohibition of concentrated forms of medical cannabis is a direct assault on Michigan's registered patients with the most severe illnesses by stripping their immunity under the Act and forcing a costly legal defense if they are prosecuted.


 


As the world learned in Dr.Sanjay Gupta's CNN special "Weed," the ingestion of cannabis in a concentrated form is proven to be the most effective medical application. The program showed that the medical use of cannabis is also proven to be medically effective to alleviate the severest symptoms of disease and the side effects of powerful pharmaceutical drugs used in treatments.


 


Michigan Court of Appeals ruling surprised not only the medical marijuana community but also the Prosecutor who publicly questioned the scope of the Court's ruling, stating in that "I was kind of surprised they went that far, actually" (Detroit News, 7/12/2013, Court: Weight of marijuana-laced food can't be counted in possession law.)


 


In 2012, the Michigan Legislature passed a package of Public Acts to correct perceived deficiencies in the Act. During the House Judiciary Committee's year-long fact finding mission, the Committee received public testimony on the common use of medical cannabis by ingestion through prepared foods using extractions made with butter, cooking oil or alcohol.


 


Mr. Carruthers was a registered caregiver arrested for possession of brownies made with a butter extraction. The Committee also received testimony of the use of highly concentrated forms used by the sickest patients often as a narcotic substitute to help with the effects of chemotherapy. This included testimony by members of Michigan Compassion.


 


The 2012 Public Acts made no recognition of deficiencies in section 3(k) of the Act, the definition of "Usable marihuana", and no legislation was passed to modify it. 


The Michigan Supreme Court has heavily stressed the "plain language"


 


reading of the Act in its rulings. The Michigan Legislature has demonstrated the same restraint as it addressed the Act in 2012. Michigan Compassion believes that Section 3(k) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act has sustained the democratic process under Michigan Constitution and remains as voted by the citizens.


 


In July 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals not only ruled on a section 3(k) issue, it rewrote section 3(k) to prohibit concentrated forms of medical marihuana. Michigan Compassion believes this ruling is in error. We stress to the Michigan Courts and Legislative Bodies that standards for concentrated cannabis and food prepared with cannabis have been addressed in great detail by many other State's governments and widely appear in documented regulations.


 


 


The legacy of the Michigan Court of Appeals rulings on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act have left this citizen passed initiative in shambles. It has resulted in the arrest and prosecution of registered caregivers and patients who operated under the belief that their activity was protected under the Act. Michigan Compassion asks if it is justice to demand compliance with a Law when the compliance rules have become a moving target?   


 


  


Michigan Compassion is a federally recognized 501©(3) exempt organization. Our Mission is to strive to increase Awareness and Understanding through Education, Information and Advocacy of all of the medical benefits and Healing properties of Cannabis. For more information on Michigan Compassion, a schedule of public meetings and educational materials, visit our website at www.mycompassion.org.


Edited by bobandtorey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MI CoA has  made an egregous abuse of their Official Capacity to criminalize participants of the MI MedCannabis program, with one of the most ridiculous interpretations of  'Marihuana' in its entire history on the planet.

 

 Hopefully it doesnt take US as long this time Bob. Keep the faith, bro ... I know it's tough sometimes, sometimes, can be most of the time.    

Edited by solabeirtan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me

In July 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals not only ruled on a section 3(k) issue, it rewrote section 3(k) to prohibit concentrated forms of medical marihuana.

?

 

How did the ruling prohibit extracts?  It did prohibit foods made with extracts, but I don't see anywhere in what I read that it prohibited the extracts themselves.  I don't just want an answer saying "cause they said it does", but rather where in the ruling, what language, does it prohibit extracts?  They said they couldn't separate the extract from the brownie, and therefore couldn't figure out how much was MJ, but when you have a pure extract, it is all MJ, and therefore you can determine a weight of MJ in a container.

 

So please someone help me understand where it prohibits extracts?  Once again, I see where it prohibits things made with it, but not the pure extract itself.

 

Its like when the law first came out, and everyone said the whole brownie would be counted as weight.  Well if I count my whole preparation as MJ weight (all of the hash or RSO), then there is no discussion about how much is there, no need to "remove the brownie" from the prep before weighing, etc.

 

--Cedar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the ruling prohibit extracts?  It did prohibit foods made with extracts, but I don't see anywhere in what I read that it prohibited the extracts themselves.  I don't just want an answer saying "cause they said it does", but rather where in the ruling, what language, does it prohibit extracts?  They said they couldn't separate the extract from the brownie, and therefore couldn't figure out how much was MJ, but when you have a pure extract, it is all MJ, and therefore you can determine a weight of MJ in a container.

 

because they could find no visible trace of usable flower or leaf, the extract used by cartutthers was illegal.

 

yes, the COA opinion will be reversed, because the CoA is full of idiots.

 

the real question is why they didnt get a super high powered electron microscope and look at the thc molecules which exist on the dried leaves and flowers of the plant, and presumably inside of carruthers brownies?

 

i think the CoA only banned carruthers' extract. since extracts and edibles are of course protected in the act.

the problem is that no one actually took the time to read all 18 pages of that crap.

the newspaper reports are also of poor quality, with some even saying all edibles were banned. even tho the opinion clearly states that edibles are allowed.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they could find no visible trace of usable flower or leaf, the extract used by cartutthers was illegal.

But part of what they said was a scientist/Lab worker was unable to separate the brownie from the cannabis.  Like I said before, if you want to count all of the weight then no separation required, then the extract itself is not illegal.  It is the extract prepared into something else, where you don't want it all weighed as cannabis preparation.

 

So what the ruling really said was because there were no leaves/plant materials identifiable, that it wasn't protected.  However, pure extract is identifiable as prepared "usable marihuana".  The problem comes in when you can't determine brownie from cannabis, but only want part of it counted as weight.

 

I want all of mine counted (pure extract) as weight.  So, my extract, with no leaf or plant, is not illegal until I add it to something, and I don't want it all counted as weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it is easy to call a CoA justice an idiot because they didn't rule the way you wanted them to.

 

Calling people names does not overturn rulings.

 

Can ANYONE see the reason they ruled the way they did?  I can clearly see it.  I don't agree, but I can see the argument they are using.  The first step is to acknowledge the reasoning behind their decision, then show why specifically that reasoning was wrong and why an alternative interpretation 'makes more sense'.

 

Too often folks that don't agree with a decision simply ignore it and end up getting arrested like our friend John.  You need to see the reasoning and figure out how to fight it, and in the meantime how to follow it because it is the law.  Wonder if folks are sprinkling leaves on their cannabutter yet?

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it is easy to call a CoA justice an idiot because they didn't rule the way you wanted them to.

 

Calling people names does not overturn rulings.

 

Can ANYONE see the reason they ruled the way they did?  I can clearly see it.  I don't agree, but I can see the argument they are using.  The first step is to acknowledge the reasoning behind their decision, then show why specifically that reasoning was wrong and why an alternative interpretation 'makes more sense'.

 

Too often folks that don't agree with a decision simply ignore it and end up getting arrested like our friend John.  You need to see the reasoning and figure out how to fight it, and in the meantime how to follow it because it is the law.  Wonder if folks are sprinkling leaves on their cannabutter yet?

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

The only reason I can see for their decision is pure biased against marijuana. There is no understanding or justification for THIS ruling. I have not met one person yet that can say they agree with this decision AT ALL. I cannot see where they may be coming from.

 

Edited to add that I would like to know what it is that you think MAY even make any sense of this ruling Dr. Bob.

Edited by ozzrokk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But part of what they said was a scientist/Lab worker was unable to separate the brownie from the cannabis.  Like I said before, if you want to count all of the weight then no separation required, then the extract itself is not illegal.  It is the extract prepared into something else, where you don't want it all weighed as cannabis preparation.

 

So what the ruling really said was because there were no leaves/plant materials identifiable, that it wasn't protected.  However, pure extract is identifiable as prepared "usable marihuana".  The problem comes in when you can't determine brownie from cannabis, but only want part of it counted as weight.

 

I want all of mine counted (pure extract) as weight.  So, my extract, with no leaf or plant, is not illegal until I add it to something, and I don't want it all counted as weight.

 

 

They HAVE ruled that extracts do not carry section 4 card protections. There is NO mistaking about that. Please be careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They HAVE ruled that extracts do not carry section 4 card protections. There is NO mistaking about that. Please be careful.

I'll ask again, please refer to the ruling and show me where THEIR language says extracts do not carry Section 4 protections.  They said the extracts in THIS EXAMPLE OF BROWNIES does not carry section 4 because a scientist was unable to separate them, but they did NOT say extracts themselves are illegal.

 

And I can see where you could interpret their ruling as to say all edibles are illegal, or blah blah, but where, please somewhere tell me, where in THEIR language, not yours, not a blog, not a news report, did they say extracts are illegal?  They didn't.  I can't find it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask again, please refer to the ruling and show me where THEIR language says extracts do not carry Section 4 protections.  They said the extracts in THIS EXAMPLE OF BROWNIES does not carry section 4 because a scientist was unable to separate them, but they did NOT say extracts themselves are illegal.

 

And I can see where you could interpret their ruling as to say all edibles are illegal, or blah blah, but where, please somewhere tell me, where in THEIR language, not yours, not a blog, not a news report, did they say extracts are illegal?  They didn't.  I can't find it. 

 

 

Let me ask you this. If they cannot find it in the brownies how in the hell can they find it in your extract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had it explained to me...  I digress.

 

 

As noted, the MMMA separately defines “marihuana” and “usable marihuana.” Notably,
the definition of “marihuana” includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin
extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture,
or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” The definition specifically excludes the “mature
stalks” of the plant “except the resin extra

By contrast, however, the definition of “usable marihuana” under the MMMA does not
include “all parts” of the cannabis plant. More to the point, it specifically does not include “the
resin extracted from” the cannabis plant. Nor does it include “the resin extracted” from mature
stalks of the plant. Further, it does not include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds

 

Now that I read that, I understand what they are saying and how extracts are illegal.  I don't agree with it.

 

We need to support the bill to make extracts legal.  We should all contact our representatives and tell them that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you found your answers Cedar.......... Carruthers is currently in the process of taking this ruling to the SC and that should fix the problem. Feel free to get behind the effort. We need all the help we can get. See this thread for more info and how you can help.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/44012-funding-the-carruthers-appeal/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it is easy to call a CoA justice an idiot because they didn't rule the way you wanted them to.

 

Calling people names does not overturn rulings.

 

Can ANYONE see the reason they ruled the way they did?  I can clearly see it.  I don't agree, but I can see the argument they are using.  The first step is to acknowledge the reasoning behind their decision, then show why specifically that reasoning was wrong and why an alternative interpretation 'makes more sense'.

 

Too often folks that don't agree with a decision simply ignore it and end up getting arrested like our friend John.  You need to see the reasoning and figure out how to fight it, and in the meantime how to follow it because it is the law.  Wonder if folks are sprinkling leaves on their cannabutter yet?

 

Dr. Bob

as long as they count it as there 2.5 oz thing it will be OK for them Imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just Trying to be helpful guys. here is the  place Usable Marijuana is determined/defined:
 
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
 
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

AN INITIATION of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.[/size]

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
 
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
333.26423 Definitions.
 
 
3. Definitions.
Sec. 3. As used in this act:
(e) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code,
1978  PA 368, MCL 333.7106.*
 
(k) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 
...no grey yet, but here is where it begins! prior to getting to k. we see they refer to in e.   back to an old 1978 definition. Apparentley to clarify their use of the archaic word/term "Marihuana" . However they decide to base their entire opinion on its definition of Marihuana which erroneousley only includes cannabis sativa, no indica or ruderalis and circa 1978 It seems clear to me that they were just clarifying there use of the TERM marihuana for Cannabis. This also seems to be designed in to be a contentious issue as is the Term Marihuana.
 
 !978 HAhahahhhaaaa 35 yrs ago ! different times !  How different check it out coupla 78 hits.   Freak out !



 
*
Section 333.7106
PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 368 of 1978[/size]




333.7106 Definitions; I to M.[/size]
 
Sec. 7106.[/size]
(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except [does include] the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. Edited by solabeirtan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I don't agree doesn't mean they're not idiots.

 

Maybe not so much stupid as just plain malicious. The law clearly states "any mixture or preparation thereof".

 

You know it is easy to call a CoA justice an idiot because they didn't rule the way you wanted them to.

Edited by Wild Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their reasoning was that it had to be a direct preparation of the flowers and/or leaves and as a result there would be visible flowers/leaves in it.  The example that comes to mind is the old 'pot brownie' where you mixed leaves in the batter and cooked it.  Again I don't agree with that, I don't think it is a 'direct' preparation, it is 'preparation' which in my opinion includes extracts and oils.  We need to make that argument- not only that extracts are included in usable, but that preparations don't need to be direct.

 

Until that argument is made, we need to learn from the decision- because that is the way the law is being interpreted, right or wrong.  They want visible flower/leaf material, make sure your butter is liberally coated with leaf/flowers.  Enough that ANYONE can see they are clearly parts of a cannabis plant.  Not just any part, but leaf and flower.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They misinterpreted the definitions, particularly  e. [re: use of the term Marihuana.] Which was only meant to clarify what was meant by the term Marihuana which references the MCL description of 1978. [35 yrs ago] They decided to use its entire description from 1978. Then they misinterpreted this sentence here:

 

MCL333.7106

(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except [does include] the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

 

see my last post, prev pg for mo details 

 

I can see how it is confusing, however impo it was only there to clarify the colloquial term 'Marihuana' which is 
Cannabis Sativa according to the 78 description. 

 

MI v Carruthers Case

 

MMMA Act of 2008

Edited by solabeirtan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...