Jump to content

Schedule 1 No Medical Benefit Inconsistent With Mmma ?


  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Is marijuana's schedule 1 status in conflict with the MMMA?

    • maybe.
      1
    • yes, a drs rec should allow anyone to be protected from arrest and prosecution
      13
    • no, the supreme court will say its high abuse and lacks safety. 2 out of 3 aint bad!
      0


Recommended Posts

333.7211 Schedule 1; placement of substance.
Sec. 7211.
The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

 

333.26422 Findings, declaration.
2. Findings.
Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:
(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

 

people v koon:

When the MMMA conflicts with another statute, the MMMA provides that “[a]ll other
acts and parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of
marihuana . . . .” Consequently, the Michigan Vehicle Code’s zero-tolerance provision,
MCL 257.625(8), which is inconsistent with the MMMA, does not apply to the medical
use of marijuana.

 

ter beek v wyoming:

The Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA not because it generally pertains to
marijuana, but because it permits registered qualifying patients,such as Ter Beek, to be
penalized by the City for engaging in MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. Section
4(a) of the MMMA expressly prohibits this. As such, the MMMA preempts the
Ordinance to the extent of this conflict.

 

 

so, is the PHC in conflict with the MMMA?

anyone with a dr rec is protected from being charged under phc ?

 

 

i think "or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision."  is inconsistent with 

 

333.26423 (a) 3

"(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient's debilitating medical condition."

 

333.26424 (f) and 333.26428 (a) 1 "in the physician's professional opinion, a 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 associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition"

 

and 333.26426 (B)1

 

"(1) The qualifying patient's physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marihuana to the qualifying patient and to his or her parent or legal guardian;"

 

if marijuana was not accepted or had safety issues, physicians would not recommend it.

 

if anyone has any more ideas of how the public health code schedule 1 is somehow consistent with the MMMA, i'd like to hear the arguments. because i want to see this challenged in court and want to be covered on all fronts.

 

people v king says:

 

See MCL 333.7403(2)(d) (making possession of marijuana a misdemeanor); MCL
333.7401(2)(d) (making the manufacture or delivery of marijuana or the possession of
marijuana with intent todeliver it a felony). Marijuana remains a schedule 1 substance in
Michigan’s Public Health Code, MCL 333.7212(1)©, and medical use of marijuana is
not recognized as a legal activity at the federal level. The MMMA acknowledges that
federal law continues to prohibit marijuana use, but justifies allowing limited marijuana
use on the grounds that research suggests that marijuana has beneficial medical uses, the
majority of marijuana prosecutions are made under state law,and states are not required
to enforce federal laws. MCL 333.26422.

 

The MMMA does notcreate a general right for individuals to use and possess
marijuana in Michigan. Possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remain
punishable offenses under Michigan law. Rather, the MMMA’s protections are limited
to individuals suffering from serious or debilitating medical conditions or symptoms, to
the extent that the individuals’ marijuana use “is carried out in accordance with the
provisions of [the MMMA].”

 

i believe this reference to 333.26427 'in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA' means condition, dr rec and following sec7 rules (public place, bus, jail etc).

 

so the court did not look to see if the public health code was inconsistent with the MMMA.

 

lets take larry as example, charged with violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii).

 

 


333.7401
(1) Except as authorized by this article, a person shall not manufacture, create, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture, create, or deliver a controlled substance, a prescription form, or a counterfeit prescription form. A practitioner licensed by the administrator under this article shall not dispense, prescribe, or administer a controlled substance for other than legitimate and professionally recognized therapeutic or scientific purposes or outside the scope of practice of the practitioner, licensee, or applicant.
(2) A person who violates this section as to:
(d) Marihuana or a mixture containing marihuana is guilty of a felony punishable as follows:
(iii) If the amount is less than 5 kilograms or fewer than 20 plants, by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

 

ok, right there in 333.7401 and 333.7403, it says only people authorized by this law 333.7401 are allowed to possess/manufacture marijuana. thats inconsistent with the MMMA. INCONSISTENT

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

It would be helpful to also better establish " under medical supervision." It may actually be in our favor that the legislature tightened the requirements for a bona fide Dr. Patient relationship, as this shows an expectation of follow-up (supervision).

 

i was thinking the same thing. at any rate, its inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it, the way John is going at this, it's the best way possible.. He will (should) be having experts come in and prove that it is a highly addictive and dangerous drug... After all, the defendants are being charged federally so why not take the Feds up on their assumptions? (I mean, can anyone name an expert to literally say it's dangerous??hah!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...