Jump to content

Father Fighting To Use Medical Marijuana Concentrates Not Protected Under Law


YesMichigan
 Share

Recommended Posts

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – A Spring Lake father already served jail time and is due back in court for another felony charge of medical marijuana concentrates possession, despite having a medical marijuana card.

Max Lorincz told FOX 17 has suffered years of pain from a long list of ailments, including herniated back discs and severe celiac disease. Yet when he started to use prescribed medical marijuana edibles and concentrates, his pain faded.

Here’s the hook: even though Lorincz has a medical marijuana card and thought he was following the law, marijuana concentrates are not necessarily protected under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

“If nobody stands up for this and it just keeps going the way it is, how many more people are going to get thrown under the bus just for using their prescribed medicine?,” asked Lorincz. “It’s just ridiculous.”

Lorincz said he is fighting for his health and the freedom to take the prescriptions that take his pain away: medical marijuana edibles and concentrates, like butane hash oil.

“When I got on the edibles, it was able to calm my stomach down enough and get things under control better than any medications they’d prescribe me,” said Lorincz.

Recently Lorincz was charged with felony marijuana concentrates possession. As he awaits court, the judge ordered him to be drug tested. Now he said he is forced back on powerful painkillers; pills Lorincz said make him feel like a zombie.

“I’ve had to go back to the narcotic pain medications and it’s just terrible,” said Lorincz.

But here’s another problem: under the current Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, “usable marijuana” is defined only as the dry leaves or dry flowers of the plant. Under its section four, users are protected to have up to 2.5 ounces of “usable marijuana,” not concentrates like Lorincz depends on.

“Concentrates are not presently defined under the Act and therefore, according to the People v. Carruthers, don’t qualify for section four immunity,” said Nicholas Vander Veen, attorney with Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge.

“However, users of medical marijuana can find affirmative defenses under section eight of the Act, and they meet a certain set of factors, they’ll be able to prove their innocence via that method.”

Lorincz said he filed for section eight immunity, but the case is now in the hands of his court appointed lawyer and the court system.

“The doctor is telling me one thing, the judge is telling me another,” said Lorincz.

“When I follow my doctor’s recommendations that’s when my health started to get better; going back and following what the judge is saying, my health is just deteriorating ever since. So it’s a scary road I’m going down, but I have to comply with what they’re asking and I just don’t know what else to do.”

There is legislation pending that would amend the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act to include perhaps a more specific definition of “usable marijuana.” However, this House Bill 5104 has been hung up for months, after the Michigan Senate referred it to a committee last August.

 

http://fox17online.com/2015/02/25/father-fighting-to-use-medical-marijuana-concentrates-not-protected-under-law/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here’s another problem: under the current Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, “usable marijuana” is defined only as the dry leaves or dry flowers of the plant. Under its section four, users are protected to have up to 2.5 ounces of “usable marijuana,” not concentrates like Lorincz depends on.

 

“Concentrates are not presently defined under the Act and therefore, according to the People v. Carruthers, don’t qualify for section four immunity,” said Nicholas Vander Veen, attorney with Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge.

 

What a load of utter and complete crap. Concentrates are absolutely defined under the Act perfectly. What is wrong with the world? How is it that the writer of this article was allowed to completely ignore the wording of the Act? What the is going on?

 

If the writer needs a refresher on what the law says they can read my signature. I suppose this is the case that needs to move forward. Time to figure out how to support this gentleman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.miottawa.org/Courts/Prosecutor/

 

There is a link to the Prosecutor of the case since the author didn't want to mention the person alleging to represent "We the People" in this case.

 

I see Eric Van Dussen has gone after the Prosecutor before for assaulting the rights of MM patients in Ottawa County previously.

 

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20110529/News/305299915

 

Of course the Prosecutor is a Republican in a County that is as Red as it gets but yet did overall vote in favor of the MMMA in 2008.

 

"Ottawa County is a stronghold of the Republican Party. The last Democratic Party candidate to carry the county was George B. McClellan in 1864.[14]

The county voted against stem-cell research, but narrowly favored the legalization of medical marijuana and voted to allow the sales of beer and liquor on Sundays.[18]"

 

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_County,_Michigan

Edited by YesMichigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, users of medical marijuana can find affirmative defenses under section eight of the Act, and they meet a certain set of factors, they’ll be able to prove their innocence via that method.”

 

they meet a certain set of factors,>>>>>>> Sure this guy must mean no one will be able to even tell a jury he has a card 

 

i hope he comes here so we all can support him and the things that faces him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Concentrates are not presently defined under the Act and therefore, according to the People v. Carruthers, don’t qualify for section four immunity,” said Nicholas Vander Veen, attorney with Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge.

 

Just received a letter back from this Attorney. He is not Mr. Lorincz's attorney and a proponent of HB 5104.

 

The Patient in this case will be on planet green trees tonight. I want a mountain of support letters nationally on the Ottawa County prosecutor's desk (I intentionally made sure the p was not capitalized) in defense of the Defendant and the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Act.

 

How many reasonable people would say that BHO is not a preparation of marihuana? They are hiding like little children behind the faulty semantics contained in Carruthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YesMichigan i agree 

 

Lets send those Letters out someone could write one  on here for others that need help  they could copy some of it and put their own letter together 

 

I have a letter written when I mistakenly thought the lawyer in the article was Mr. Lorincz's attorney because I was concerned that he was stating openly that his client was guilty of a felony based on Carruthers. He replied quickly and was very complimentary towards my writing style and depth of argument. I can polish that and send it off to anyone who wants to PM me. I have a few reasons why I think the case is crap and Section 4. That it is already being discussed Section 8 has me grinding my teeth to nubs.

 

My PM is always open if anyone wants my assistance using words to convey their point. I know a few of them and can even pronounce many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BHO is a preparation of flowers.  PERIOD.

 

Just as Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice is a Mixture or Preparation of Oranges.

 

This case needs to be exposed nationally. Prosecutors and Judges being obtuse to plain language because they don't support the Act is a violation of their sworn obligation to serve The People.

 

The presence of the word "any" should eliminate any roadside arrests for mixtures or preparations if within weight restrictions. Concentrates are expressly permitted by the Act. Judicial activism and furtherance of racist policies is the only reason the faulty ruling and circumstances of Carruthers are being allowed to appear as relevant precedent to Mr. Lorincz or other MMMA cardholders engaging in the same medicinal relief method.

 

Full Definition of ANY
1

:  one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

 

a :  one or another taken at random <ask any man you meet>

 

bevery —used to indicate one selected without restriction

 

Full Definition of EVERY
1

a :  being each individual or part of a group without exception

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice is a Mixture or Preparation of Oranges.

 

This case needs to be exposed nationally. Prosecutors and Judges being obtuse to plain language because they don't support the Act is a violation of their sworn obligation to serve The People.

 

The presence of the word "any" should eliminate any roadside arrests for mixtures or preparations if within weight restrictions. Concentrates are expressly permitted by the Act. Judicial activism and furtherance of racist policies is the only reason the faulty ruling and circumstances of Carruthers are being allowed to appear as relevant precedent to Mr. Lorincz or other MMMA cardholders engaging in the same medicinal relief method.

 

Full Definition of ANY
1

:  one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

 

a :  one or another taken at random <ask any man you meet>

 

bevery —used to indicate one selected without restriction

 

Full Definition of EVERY
1

a :  being each individual or part of a group without exception

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

 

 

Thanks 

 

Of course i agree but this isn't the first person it's happen too all most of us can do is tell as many as you know if they live in a bad county as far as Leo goes just be on the watch and grow only what you have cards for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good advice there Bob. Following it would preclude many from ever meeting leo in the first place maybe? regardless of what county they live in MI.

 

Mr. Lorincz called EMS for his wife who had a medical situation in progress. He had acquired his preparation from a neighboring County. He had a "fingerprint's" worth .01 of a gram according to his interview with Mr. Komorn on PGT.

 

The apparatus will find a way to open all doors in time it is patient like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey yesmichigan, you read mmma section 6h4 recently? time to educate yourself on that one :)

 

333.26426  (h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

(4) A person, including an employee, contractor, or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

Who is disclosing confidential information in violation of the Act here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(1) Subject to subdivisions (3) and (4), applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

 

you mentioned patients last name ;P

 

yea we've all done it when referencing cases... but we shouldnt do that.

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

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(1) Subject to subdivisions (3) and (4), applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

 

you mentioned patients last name ;P

 

The article mentioned patient's last name.

 

Nice try though but you need to understand what the law says better.

 

I apologize, the last name was NOT used on PGT - I re-listened to make sure I was correct. I edited out my erroneous comment and deleted it so it could not be read and propagated.

Edited by YesMichigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the last version of lara's rules had this: http://web.archive.org/web/20130112203236/http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/AdminCode/104_45_AdminCode.pdf

 

 

Rule 333.121 Confidentiality.

Rule 21. (1) Except as provided in subrules (2) and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical marihuana

program information shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure in any form or manner. Program

information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(a) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients.

(b) Information related to a qualifying patient's primary caregiver.

© Names and other identifying information of registry identification cardholders.

(d) Names and other identifying information of pending applicants and their primary caregivers.

(2) Names and other identifying information made confidential under subrule (1) of this rule may

only be accessed or released to authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official

duties of the department pursuant to the act, including the production of any reports of non-identifying

aggregate data or statistics.

theres that "any" word again...

 

but hey, what do i know ?

 

just because sec6h4 isnt being enforced by prosecutors does not make it any more legal to break the law.

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

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

(1) Subject to subdivisions (3) and (4), applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

 

you mentioned patients last name ;P

 

yea we've all done it when referencing cases... but we shouldnt do that.

 

I didn't violate any of his confidentiality in regards to your bold items as I have no access to them. Information I have is public domain and thus I have no responsibility or duty of confidentiality. There is no expectation of privacy as the patient has made the knowledge I presented here a matter of documented public record.

 

Of course you already wrote Fox17 to tell them about their breach also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've written many newspaper and reporters to tell them about the law.

 

i am not chiding you sir. i am only trying to keep people out of trouble. the MMMA law does not provide for disclosing patient information, "as long as its already been documented public record" or any other excuse you can come up with.

 

you are free to ignore my advice on the subject if you want.

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...