Jump to content

Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?


aldarlene

Recommended Posts

Thanks for chiming in Greg, but I believe my comments are clear, to the point and correct.  I really have nothing to add or feel a need to respond.  If you want to know what was said, feel free to go back and read it.  Thanks again for your input.

 

Oh, and thanks again for your 'interesting' viewpoint on Ter Beek.  

 

Dr. Bob

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

Thanks for chiming in Greg, but I believe my comments are clear, to the point and correct.  I really have nothing to add or feel a need to respond.  If you want to know what was said, feel free to go back and read it.  Thanks again for your input.

 

Oh, and thanks again for your 'interesting' viewpoint on Ter Beek.  

 

Dr. Bob

id.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read it?

 

 

Greg an t-pain are right, you are wrong. If you are having trouble reading it, skip to the end!

Perhaps you might like to print the entire paragraph:

 

4. The ordinance is preempted by § 4(a). Under Const 1963, art 7, § 22, a municipality’s 
power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns is subject to the 
Constitution and the law. A municipality is therefore precluded from enacting an ordinance if 
the ordinance directly conflicts with the state’s statutory scheme or if the statutory scheme 
preempts the ordinance by occupying the field of regulation that the municipality seeks to enter, 
to the exclusion of the ordinance, even if there is no direct conflict between the two schemes of 
regulation. A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the 
ordinance prohibits what the statute permits. The city’s ordinance directly conflicts with the 
MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly prohibits: the imposition of any penalty, 
including a civil one, on a registered qualifying patient whose medical use of marijuana falls 
within the scope of the immunity granted under § 4(a). 
 
Oh, and by the way, was the main point being made that they a patient that is operating legally under section 4 cannot be denied the right to continue to do so by a city ordinance.  Section 4(a) has several parts.
 
But for the sake of argument I'll say we both have correct elements in our positions.  Still doesn't mean you can't be fired, and it doesn't change the fact that you can't get your job back by citing 4(a).  So overall, I am standing by my position.  Sect 4(a) has nothing to do with employer/employee relationships.
Edited by Dr. Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the penalty thing was meant to keep MMMA patients from being discriminated.

which is exactly what renters and landlords are doing now, discriminating.

Which is why we must use the pertinent text of the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Act.

 

 

Edited to remove confusing reference to federal laws.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.  The "including but not limited to" phrase maybe opens some more doors?  But which doors?  Let's take the example of a patient who rents a house.  If the landlord won't rent to a patient, does this mean that the patient has been denied a right or privilege?  Myself, I don't see a denial of rights, but maybe a denial of privilege?  But are privileges a factor in the private sector?  Can the private sector grant a privilege?  I don't think so.  It seems to me that rights and privileges are the product of government and not the private sector.

 

If you look at this through the lens of statutory interpretation, you'd want to find some specific language that prevents discrimination, as protection against "discrimination" is kinda the private sector version of protecting rights and privileges.  But the MMMA provides no such protection against discrimination for MMJ use/MMJ status.

For those of us who are disabled, which I believe most of us are, non discrimination in private or public housing, in employment, in education, and in public accommodations and services is indeed a right. The specific language of which you speak is found in Michigan disability law. When we use cannabis to treat our disabilities it is required to be permitted as a medical necessity just as are, say, oxy, lithium, or nitroglycerine. You are right that the MMA does not speak at length to this, but disability law certainly does. It is past time to put those laws to work for us. They can be used peremptorily to forewarn those who would threaten to discriminate, and to recover damages in court from those who do.  

 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (EXCERPT)

Act 220 of 1976

 

37.1102 Opportunity guaranteed; civil right; accommodation of person with disability; undue hardship.

 

Sec. 102.(1) The opportunity to obtain employment, housing, and other real estate and full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public services, and educational facilities without discrimination because of a disability is guaranteed by this act and is a civil right.

 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in article 2, a person shall accommodate a person with a disability for purposes of employment, public accommodation, public service, education, or housing unless the person demonstrates that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

 

History: 1976, Act 220, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 478, Imd. Eff. Jan. 20, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 121, Imd. Eff. June 25, 1990 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Mar. 12, 1998

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we use cannabis to treat our disabilities it is required to be permitted as a medical necessity just as is, say, oxy, lithium, or nitroglycerine. You are right that the MMA does not speak to this, but disability law certainly does.

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act only requires that a reasonable accommodation be made so that a disabled person is able to perform a task that a person without a disability could perform. Such as sitting instead of being forced to stand all day or using a hands free device to speak on a telephone. Medication is not mentioned in any way.

 

 

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA")(1) requires an employer(2) to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. "In general, an accommodation is any change in the work environment or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities."(3)There are three categories of "reasonable accommodations":

    "(i) modifications or adjustments to a job application process that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered for the position such qualified applicant desires; or

    (ii) modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position; or

    (iii) modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity's employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities."

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#general

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act only requires that a reasonable accommodation be made so that a disabled person is able to perform a task that a person without a disability could perform. Such as sitting instead of being forced to stand all day or using a hands free device to speak on a telephone. Medication is not mentioned in any way.


 

The ADA is the federal law and prohibits the "illegal use of drugs." You quote Title I, which speaks only to employment. Michigan law, PA 220 of 1976, the Michigan Persons Wih Disabilities Act, protects its citizens without federal entanglements and is the better option. (copy/paste the entire url)

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mjnqb545twsvq345luwvnff3))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-220-of-1976

 

 

 

37.1506a Real estate transaction; prohibited conduct; “covered multifamily dwellings” defined. (exerpt)

 

Sec. 506a.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following in connection with a real estate transaction:

 

(a) Refuse to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person with a disability if those modifications may be necessary to afford the person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises. In the case of a rental, the landlord may, if reasonable, make permission for a modification contingent on the renter's agreement to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.

 

(b) Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when the accommodations may be necessary to afford the person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy residential real property.


 

We can grow our own, just as we can all our other house plants. Landlords cannot refuse that accommodation nor use.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 220 of 1976



37.1103 Definitions.

 

Sec. 103.

As used in this act:

 

(h) “Person with a disability” or “person with disabilities” means an individual who has 1 or more disabilities.

 

That is the definition in its entirety. There are no other qualifiers with the possible exception that:

 

(D, iii, f) For purposes of article 2 (which regards employment only), disability does not include either of the following:

 

(i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic caused by the current illegal use of a controlled substance by that individual.

 

(ii) A determinable physical or mental characteristic caused by the use of an alcoholic liquor by that individual, if that physical or mental characteristic prevents that individual from performing the duties of his or her job.

 

 

 

Wait till you get a load of what that law says about employment. Wowee.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the ADA is that it covers the disability, not the treatment.  Especially self determined treatment.

 

For example if I have severe anxiety and choose to treat my anxiety with alcohol, does my employer let me go because of the anxiety (a potentially protected condition) or because of the alcohol use (my choice of treatment) violates company policy?  Can I claim protection under the ADA for my treatment choices if they are in violation of company policy?  Do I have a justification to drink alcohol while working/driving/etc because it is a 'treatment' of my protected diagnosis under the ADA?

 

Again, no analogy to marijuana other than an illustration of a protected condition vs a treatment of choice.  I do believe this has been addressed by the courts with the same conclusions.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other distinction that needs to be made is that there are accommodations for needs (wheelchair access for example) due to a condition vs treatment for the condition.  My employer may be required under the ADA to put in a ramp for my wheelchair, but do they have to hold my job for a year as I recover from surgery to correct it?  I'm not sure, but I am thinking not.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcohol is not medicine recommended by a doctor. That seems so obvious nobody should have to say it, but here we are.

 

Alcohol is not medicine recommended by a doctor. That seems so obvious nobody should have to say it, but here we are.

Nor is it a controlled substance illegally used under federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, do you believe that a property owner is in violation of law when he/she disallows the indoor manufacturing of medicine intended for the renter (disabled or not)? 

Or, prohibits "smoking" of any kind, precluding an mj patient from smoking his meds ?  I'm not a landlord but have chewed on this for some time. I just don't know the answers.

For those of us who are disabled, which I believe most of us are, non discrimination in private or public housing, in employment, in education, and in public accommodations and services is indeed a right. The specific language of which you speak is found in Michigan disability law. When we use cannabis to treat our disabilities it is required to be permitted as a medical necessity just as are, say, oxy, lithium, or nitroglycerine. You are right that the MMA does not speak to this, but disability law certainly does. It is past time to put those laws to work for us. They can be used peremptorily to forewarn those who would threaten to discriminate, and to recover damages in court from those who do.  

 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 220 of 1976



37.1102 Opportunity guaranteed; civil right; accommodation of person with disability; undue hardship.

 

Sec. 102.(1) The opportunity to obtain employment, housing, and other real estate and full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public services, and educational facilities without discrimination because of a disability is guaranteed by this act and is a civil right.

 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in article 2, a person shall accommodate a person with a disability for purposes of employment, public accommodation, public service, education, or housing unless the person demonstrates that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.


History: 1976, Act 220, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 478, Imd. Eff. Jan. 20, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 121, Imd. Eff. June 25, 1990 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Mar. 12, 1998

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Zap- we are discussing a concept not an example.  Apparently I have to explain the concept- does the ADA cover condition, treatment or both?   Picking apart the specific example, alcohol as a treatment of anxiety, does not add to or shed light on the concept.  Pick deafness and a personal choice to use an amplifier/speaker system that violates noise restrictions in a workplace vs using a hearing aid, I don't care.  Is my personal choice of treatment protected, or is my choice to use aroma therapy recommended by a naturalpath to treat my arthritis in violation of company policy protected?

 

Dr. Bob

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

They aren't?  I am sure the 37 in Muskegon will be very glad to hear that.  Not to mention all the cannabis patients in Michigan that are facing charges.

 

Sorry I confused you with an analogy.  I use them quite a bit.  Since we want more concrete reasoning- Disney is a private company, say they don't allow gum (any gum including nicotine gum) in their parks for sanitation reasons.  Can a smoker with a nicotine addiction demand they allow nicotine gum under the ADA?

 

I guess the approach we use is different.  I tend to look to the obvious wording of laws and make recommendations based on safety and conservative interpretation.  Working for a law office dealing with folks that have run afoul of the legal system I would suspect that you approach these things from trying to justify the actions that got the clients in trouble.  

 

My approach is good for a forum with general advice, yours is best for an individual in a specific set of circumstances.  Both have their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fount  this
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any

 

statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one mus...t prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates

 

from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a

 

statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection,

 

and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental

 

law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does

 

not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society,

 

which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity

 

or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a

 

violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of

 

law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the ADA. It is to Michigan no different than the CSA in terms of authority. Michigan disability law does not threaten us with the insistence that cannabis is illegal for we patients. When, not if, the feds change policy toward the drug, things can change. Till then our protection and remedy is to be found right here at home. The ADA can be used to inform in this instance, but cannot compel.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, do you believe that a property owner is in violation of law when he/she disallows the indoor manufacturing of medicine intended for the renter (disabled or not)? 

Or, prohibits "smoking" of any kind, precluding an mj patient from smoking his meds ?  I'm not a landlord but have chewed on this for some time. I just don't know the answers.

In those cases where the medicine grown is not illegal and that person is disabled I am inclined to say yes, the owner is in violation. Otherwise no. In the event that smoking creates a public nuisance, which it certainly can, accommodation can be found with air filtration, perhaps nothing more complicated than a window air conditioner to filter and recirculate the air in a sealed room, or alternate ingestion methods.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fount  this

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any

 

statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one mus...t prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

 

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates

 

from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a

 

statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

 

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection,

 

and justifies no acts performed under it.....

 

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental

 

law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

 

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

 

Jon Roland:

 

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does

 

not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

 

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society,

 

which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

 

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity

 

or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a

 

violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of

 

law.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment)

 

Be careful Bob. The second source appears to be from a nutcase source.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

every one over looks an important aspect of Ter Beek. The COA defined medical use (again) this time it includes sales! As it was written

There are those of us who understand completely. The determination was first made in McQueen.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps you might like to print the entire paragraph:

 

4. The ordinance is preempted by § 4(a). Under Const 1963, art 7, § 22, a municipality’s 
power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns is subject to the 
Constitution and the law. A municipality is therefore precluded from enacting an ordinance if 
the ordinance directly conflicts with the state’s statutory scheme or if the statutory scheme 
preempts the ordinance by occupying the field of regulation that the municipality seeks to enter, 
to the exclusion of the ordinance, even if there is no direct conflict between the two schemes of 
regulation. A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the 
ordinance prohibits what the statute permits. The city’s ordinance directly conflicts with the 
MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly prohibits: the imposition of any penalty, 
including a civil one, on a registered qualifying patient whose medical use of marijuana falls 
within the scope of the immunity granted under § 4(a). 
 
Oh, and by the way, was the main point being made that they a patient that is operating legally under section 4 cannot be denied the right to continue to do so by a city ordinance.  Section 4(a) has several parts.
 
But for the sake of argument I'll say we both have correct elements in our positions.  Still doesn't mean you can't be fired, and it doesn't change the fact that you can't get your job back by citing 4(a).  So overall, I am standing by my position.  Sect 4(a) has nothing to do with employer/employee relationships.

Disability law does, and so, I think, does 4(a). Working them in tandem would be an advantage.

 

And stop with the arguments that we are not protected. This is a tough game. We don't need you around continually speculating and speaking with only a claim of authority against the MMA and all patients and caregivers. You are neither, but a profiteer.

 

Ya know that thing Lewis Black does when he shakes his head from side to side and flaps his lips?

Edited by GregS
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...
×
×
  • Create New...