RevThad

Sure, it comes from an article in The Midwest Cultivator... Found here TMC asked MSP Inspector Greg Zarotney for clarification on several issues. Inspector Zarotney, of the Field Services Bureau in Lansing, which oversees the patrol and investigative arm of the MSP, is responsible for providing information on enforcement policy to state police posts. TMC: Does your interpretation of the MMMA allow for patient-to-patient transfers of marijuana? Inspector Zarotney: First of all, we are law enforcers. We don’t interpret the law, we read and enforce the law. It’s the courts’ job to interpret the law. We put information out to the field regarding changes to the law. This law doesn’t need too much interpretation regarding transfers of marijuana between patients. If you read from the law, the definition of medical use is straightforward in that it clearly allows for the acquisition, possession, delivery, and transfer of marihuana within the confines of the law. Sixty three percent of the people passed this law, and law enforcement must accept the fact that the law is here to stay and we have to work within the law’s confines.

The funniest part of the whole thing is that it is the prohibition that actually put the big money into cannabis. That is the long and short of it. As a side note, the prohibition of cannabis also is responsible for almost all of the violence associated with the plant, again related to the big money involved in getting around and fighting against said prohibitions...

Neither you nor I speak for all patients, or what they need or want. Some patients do want and or need dispensaries, and therefore they should have that option, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights and protections of the rest of us. Simple as that.

Even the MSP says that patient to patients are covered. To answer your question though, perhaps by legislating exactly what a dispensary is and how they may conduct themselves, it will take the temptation of screwing with such places out of the minds of overzealous prosecutors, and might just save some tax dollars. It might just save some families from being put through the nightmare that our court system has become. Whether or not we want such legislation, it will be coming down the pipe. Attempting to get a consensus in our community on how and what such legislation should deal with before it hits the fan, seems like a smart move, even if later it is proven to be unnecessary.

Thought I would chime in on this great op-ed, and some of the comments in this thread. First off, Michael, excellent job on the op-ed, with the limits placed on you. I feel 600 words is hardly enough to touch on the basics, yet you did a great job of it. Now on to the topic at hand, dispensaries and whether or not there should be legislation to regulate them. Generally speaking, there are 2 opinions concerning dispensaries, 1)They are implicitly allowed under the law and therefore legal; or 2)They are not mentioned in the law and therefore are illegal. Regardless of where your opinion falls as stated previously, one need recognize that future clarification of what a dispensary is and what it is or isn't allowed to do is coming. We as a community need to decide on which side of the issue we will stand. My personal belief is that any regulating and or defining of what a dispensary is cannot impede the rights already given to us under the MMMAct. Which means that it will have to be new legislation and strictly confined to a newly created definition of dispensaries. If one believes dispensaries are not allowed under current law, any regulations included in the new law will not effect the current protections and rights afforded under the MMMAct. In the alternative, if any of the protections or rights provided under the MMMAct are to be modified or limited in an attempt to regulate dispensaries, then a 75% majority in both houses would be required to do so. In the mean time I have my fears of big money flooding into the state attempting to influence such legislation, trying to interfere in the patient/caregiver system we have, and or making it impossible for somebody to grow their own. I do understand however, that there is a need and desire by many to have more choices and availability of medicines. The latter will lead the way for me personally, for now; as I believe allowing patients the most access and availability is always the most responsible and compassionate way. If at anytime the powers that be (government, businesses, etc...) attempt to start limiting that choice, or more importantly interfering in the patient/caregiver dynamic, I would have to reevaluate my position. Just some quick thoughts, hope they make sense.

Garf, it seems the article I promoted earlier is up. Didn't want to push anything else to the front page at the moment. I suppose I could push something up with a time table to drop it off the main... Will try that now.

Just a thought, perhaps this confidentiality thing is one of the grey areas we keep hearing about, from the other side

Please stick to the discussion of points and topics, there is no need for the extra curricular jabbing. I am interested again though in your position on whether a PA would have an obligation to turn over a list of patients and or caregivers to the feds, if they would be allowed to do so, if such an obligation would be considered a violation of state law, and what the consequences would be in either scenario. Thanks in advance for your time in responding.

I agree. I would even go so far as stating that the only folks that would have an interest in disclosing the confidential information in violation of the act would be those on the LEO or PA side and those "civil" servants that are pro prohibition. Good thing that his opinion is not binding, or we would all be back to pre 2008 standards... Edited to add your edit and respond

If there is a bumbling fool around here it would be me... The same argument that some folks are making around here would also allow police to simply ignore the registration card and arrest based on complying with federal law, and then keeping or destroying anything that was seized during that arrest, essentially ignoring the state law completely because they favor the federal prohibition. I may not be the most schooled or eloquent person around these parts, but that to me in itself is a very dangerous and slippery slope to begin down.

I get what you are saying, and we are on the same page of who is included in that subsection... I believe it covers everybody, with the caveat I have already noted. My point is that certain employees of various municipalities may have assumed they weren't covered by that subsection, if not put in word for word. Indeed, the phrase is not necessary, but it does highlight and help describe some of the persons that are covered by the opening clause. This is very much the same as stating that "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was nonessential. I think we all understand how often that clause has been relied upon for various rulings...

Actually the law states "that conduct related to marihuana" may be rebutted, not the relationship of a doctor and patient. If the state of Michigan thinks it is okay to drag doctors into court for the purposes of challenging a recommendation made to a patient (or all patients who use mmj), perhaps we should just move the licensing board over to AG or prosecutors office, and lets do away with the MDCH...

The paperwork submitted to obtain a card surely does prove that it was in the course of a bonafide relationship. A licensed, insured, and bonded doctor must state that in their professional opinion x,y, and z, and further that if such condition ceases they will notify the department... If such certification is accepted by MDCH and they perform whatever checks they do on the status of the doctor's license, it is the state recognizing that the relationship was bonafide, otherwise the state itself is violating the law... no? If the state (read prosecutor) has an issue with certain doctors rubber stamping certifications, there are other avenues to pursue in correcting that issue.

Actually, I think the clause was included for a very essential reason, and it relates directly to what we are discussing. It informs folks that would assume they are immune (for the various reasons discussed the last few days) from such actions that they are included....

Which federal law would a state judge be complying with? Anyways, my point was more toward the ACTIVE communications of the confidential material. As I stated in my earlier post I believe a state court should seal that information, or at the very least have it redacted in the public record, there would be no violation of federal law for doing so, and as some will argue the violation may exist simply by not doing so. Your premise as I referred to it comes from this: To which I submit: Not even a federal grand jury can request such information from the state or a dispensary/clinic in order to proceed against patients... United States District Court, E.D. Washington. In re: The Matter of the GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FOR THCF MEDICAL CLINIC RECORDS No. MJ-07-4071-00. "Under balancing of interests, grand jury subpoenas served by United States on state of Oregon, which operated a medical marijuana program, and on private medical clinic, seeking current addresses and telephone numbers of 17 patients receiving medical marijuana along with specific dosages prescribed to the patients, were unreasonable and therefore would be quashed; compliance with subpoenas would require state to violate its own laws regarding confidentiality of medical records, compliance could deter individuals from participating in state's program, clinic had significant interest in protecting physician-patient relationship, and while United States was seeking the information prove that subjects of grand jury investigation distributed marijuana to the patients in violation of federal law," I can list a few others, and even a SCOTUS ruling or 4 that touch on preemption and the CSA... I digress, can a state judge comply with federal law by dismissing a case and ordering marijuana returned to the patient? subpoenas.pdf