Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was reading case files on the Komorn website and went through the Court of Appeals decision in People vs Hartwick ... scary to read how some judges interpret the MMMA ... luckily, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed on the section 4 CoA determinations ... they had CG's basically responsible for knowing everything, and more, than a primary doctor ... maybe the breadth of coverage in the MMMA would better serve the CG and patient if it wasn't soo very broad in it's protections ... sometimes clear and concise wording is better than an attempt at blanket coverage ... any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Related from Boston;

SJC to hear case against ‘unconstitutionally vague’ medical marijuana law

Brian Dowling Sunday, July 30, 2017

The state’s medical marijuana law is unconstitutionally vague and endangers the rights of patients who grow their own weed, according to a case that the Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear.

The case stems from the 2013 arrest of a Framingham man caught in a legal twilight zone: He was permitted by the state to grow medicinal pot in his home, but was collared for distribution when police stumbled upon how many plants he had in his basement.



“This is an area of the law that is unclear, that is unconstitutionally vague, and as a result our client’s rights were violated,” said Hopkinton attorney Allison Callahan, who successfully petitioned the case to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Some medical marijuana patients can grow enough pot for a 60-day supply under vague state rules that do not denote exactly how many plants patients can grow — leaving police and the court system to guess at patients’ intentions.

In September 2013, Framingham police responded to a report of a home invasion. Officers arrived, searched the house and found 22 marijuana plants growing in the basement. The resident who made the call, Joshua Richardson, told cops he had a medical marijuana license with a hardship permit to grow, but he was arrested for unlawful possession and possession with the intent to distribute.

At trial, a police detective told the court that the plants would yield much more than the allowed 10 ounces of marijuana per 60 days. An expert for the defense countered that many of Richardson’s plants would not have yielded usable marijuana for various reasons, such as the unknown gender of the plants, their strain, and the quality of growing conditions. The defense expert said Richardson would have been lucky to get 10 ounces from the plants.

In August 2015, a jury convicted Richardson, who was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

The case before the SJC argues the regulations of the medical marijuana law are “unconstitutionally vague” — they do not state how many plants are too many, in effect leaving patients “open to prosecution if they mistakenly grow too many plants or yield too much marijuana.”

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Create New...