Court rules THCF clinic is a fraud

[Contrabandit]

just my two cents...

THIS IS FUCKING STUPID, LEGALIZE THE DAMN SHIT ALREADY. there shouldnt be any crime for smoking a damn harmless plant, their is other things on earth that if eaten can kill you, but we cant smoke a harmless benificial plant. the government says it doesnt have any medicinal values, yet says it can be used for medical purposes and offers mmj. they need to quit playing games and end this stupid drug war on mj, their jobs should be catching harmfull people, not harmless citizens. but that would mean that LEO would actualy have to work hard to look good, you know, catching real criminals, like the ones who steal our plants, or rapists and murders. the only reason they wont legalize it is because at that point "man" would not need to be "government dependant" PERIOD. at that point "man" could literaly produce everything on their own, medicine, food, etc etc and they would have to tax you for the air you breathe if you know what i mean. its just funny how they know everything benificial about the plant and somehow make up a way to make it look bad, yet still offer mmj to be legal...government seems a lil bit hypricritical/delusional if you ask me. they dont want everyone to find out that cannabinoids fight cancer cells after causing such an uproar, that would change everything entirely.

its a crazy world these days i tell ya.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!! you know, id hate to put the blame on 1 person, but it can all be traced back to one a**hole, Henry J. Anslinger.. here is some propaganda the cannabis hate monger would spew: An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a dazeâ?¦ He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called â??muggles,â?� a childish name for marijuana.


It makes me sick to think that someone would say horrible things about a plant without understanding anything about it.. But what it really comes down to??? PREJUDICE!!!! Americans back than didn't like Mexicans, and they said the Mexicans are the ones who brought the pot over.. All of our problems in this country really boil down to 2 things, prejudice and greed.. Alot of us are greedy racist jerks, and i don't see that changing anytime soon... Maybe if everyone smoked a bowl of some good old high quality cannabis we could all get along... anyways, sorry for going on and on, but im high!

[justpics]

Going to trial would not be prudent for a patient attempting to bring any defenses since the authorization is void on it's face...not conducive at all.


Motioning for a new trial is not in the way the courts work in cases like this one...you of all people should know this justpics.

new trial? I thought the case was dismissed prior to any sort of trial, and that dismissal (bindover ruling?) was overturned by the circuit court.


It looked like to me that the appellate court was saying that the decision of whether or not these defendants could raise an affirmative defense should have been determined in a trial and not in this motion.


In that context it sounds to me like the real meat and potatoes of this case are yet to come.

[killerweed420]

KW,

You must have missed this part here:
At the time of the preliminary examination Dr. Eisenbud had worked for the past 19 months for The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation (THCF) Medical Clinic. He testified that he is "not from Michigan" and was currently working in six out of the seven states in which he is licensed to practice medicine, although he later suggested that he was working in all seven states.

This is a THCF case, not some other case involving some other clinic or doctors...

This is not the only case which shows the patient-doctor relationship was the view point of the appeal...this is not a political case..it is explicitly a public policy case of the learned professions doctrine...pay attention here please.

THIS CASE EXPLICITLY SHOWS THCF IS GIVING PATIENTS FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTAION!!! THIS WILL SNOWBALL INTO WA...REAL SOON LIKE...

Remember my case in wa. touches all these same legal issues and more!! I don't see any patient with thcf documentation getting any love from our strict wa. courts...do you?? If so please explain how this would work.

So you're saying Eisenbud wasn't licensed to practice medicine in Michigan?
That appears to be the only argument the prosecution could bring before the court. The 2 didn't have there registration cards evidently when they started growing but it appears they met the intent of the law medically.

[wreckinger]

I am sorry sir, but your accusations are completely false regarding The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation. The medical evaluations our doctors conduct and authorizations our doctors sign are 100% completely valid and are in full compliance of every states medical marijuana law they operate in. If you read close enough to the judge's comments you would have noticed that he acknowledged the legitimacy of Dr. Eisenbuds authority to issure a medical marijuana recommendation and comended Dr. Eisenbuds evaluation stating:

"The district court also noted that although Dr. Eisenbud testified regarding defendants' legitimate need to use marijuana for medical purposes, there was no testimony regarding what was a reasonably necessary amount for defendants to possess. The district court concluded that it would simply apply the amount of two and one-half ounces and 12 plants set by § 4 as what was reasonably necessary, [*11] and it granted defendants' motion to dismiss, explaining:

"For that reason, I believe that section 8 entitles the defendants to a dismissal, even though they did not possess the valid medical card, because section 8 says if they can show the fact that a doctor believed that they were likely to receive a therapeutic benefit, and this doctor testified to that [sic]. And Dr. Eisenbud is a physician licensed by the State of Michigan. And that's the only requirement that the statute has. You don't have to be any type of physician, you just have to be a licensed physician by the State of Michigan.

So, based on that, I find section 8 does apply. And I believe I'm obligated to dismiss this matter based on section 8 of the statute.

Regarding the prosecution's request for a clarification about whether "the doctor's testimony rose to the level of a bona fide physician-patient relationship," the district court stated:

Based on his testimony, he indicated that he -- he read their medical records, he saw them, and I think his total time was about half an hour totally spent with them, which, based on my own personal experience, I don't find inconsistent with my own doctor. So I guess it's a bona fide [*12] relationship."

The judge clearly confirms that Dr. Eisenbud was licensed in Michigan at the time of their appointment and was within the scope of his authority to recommend medical marijuana for these patietns, while establishing that his medical evaluation did meet the criteria of a "bona fide physician-patient realtionship."

As Killerweed mentioned before, the prosecuting argument was weather or not the patients were legal or not because they did not physically posses the state issued license, which is a problem in every state that has a medical marijuana registry AND an affirmative defense argument set up in their MMJ law. Remember, this is not the ruling majority opinion, and the case is still in litigation.

Similar issues are happening here in Colorado where it is taking the state registry 7-8 months to issue licenses, eventhough in the law it states that the patient has to be notified within 35 days otherwise they are to be considered legal.

THCF's protocal has been investigated and approved by state regulatory authorities in 9 states. We follow a protocol developed by the Oregon Health Department and it has been investigated and found valid and meeting current acceptable standards of medical practice in in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, and Montana.

Furthermore, THCF stands behind and defends its patients no matter what the problem or charge may be. We are the only organization to defend patients in a DEA investigation from a grand jury subpoena. The federal court judge wrote at the end of his decision, " ... (THCF) Clinic's records represent the implementation of the State's program and are integral to the success of the program."

The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation has been helping patients obtain a medical marijuana permit nationwide since 1999, helping over 100,000 patients. Now don't you think that an organization that has been around that long and has helped so many people obtain a medical marijuana permit would be under close federal scrutiny, and if there had been any questions or investigations regarding the legitimacy of their practices, THCF would have been shut down long ago? Fact of the matter is that our organization is always up to standard and in complience with current medical marijuana laws for each and every state we operate in.

[gypski]

100K patients @ average $180 a pop is $18 million over 11 years. You better bet your last dollar you better back up every patient you ever signed for regardless of whether a yearly fee was paid to THCF or not, if the signed authorization was for a chronic condition if there is nothing in an individual state's law that requires a yearly renewal. We all know some people have doctor's that won't for their chronic patients, so the patients need to use organizations like THCF among others. It should be patients and patients rights and protection before profits. :twocents:

[killerweed420]

I agree with wreckinger's take on this. Everything the defendants did met the intent of the law and the presiding judge made the right decision. But this is the problem with the system, if the prosecutor doesn't like the judges decision he just shops around and finds a new judge more amenable to his viewpoint. The prosecutor also has the legal ability to have a judge removed from a case with absolutely no evidence that the judge was being biased in any way.
Its a corrupt system but its the only one we have. Get on these juries and help the people being persecuted.

Yeah gypski, I don't like the money issue any more than you do but thats capitalism for you. Its the price we pay for living in a semi free society.

[jamessr]

I am sorry sir, but your accusations are completely false regarding The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation. The medical evaluations our doctors conduct and authorizations our doctors sign are 100% completely valid and are in full compliance of every states medical marijuana law they operate in. If you read close enough to the judge's comments you would have noticed that he acknowledged the legitimacy of Dr. Eisenbuds authority to issure a medical marijuana recommendation and comended Dr. Eisenbuds evaluation stating:

"The district court also noted that although Dr. Eisenbud testified regarding defendants' legitimate need to use marijuana for medical purposes, there was no testimony regarding what was a reasonably necessary amount for defendants to possess. The district court concluded that it would simply apply the amount of two and one-half ounces and 12 plants set by § 4 as what was reasonably necessary, [*11] and it granted defendants' motion to dismiss, explaining:

"For that reason, I believe that section 8 entitles the defendants to a dismissal, even though they did not possess the valid medical card, because section 8 says if they can show the fact that a doctor believed that they were likely to receive a therapeutic benefit, and this doctor testified to that [sic]. And Dr. Eisenbud is a physician licensed by the State of Michigan. And that's the only requirement that the statute has. You don't have to be any type of physician, you just have to be a licensed physician by the State of Michigan.

So, based on that, I find section 8 does apply. And I believe I'm obligated to dismiss this matter based on section 8 of the statute.

Regarding the prosecution's request for a clarification about whether "the doctor's testimony rose to the level of a bona fide physician-patient relationship," the district court stated:

Based on his testimony, he indicated that he -- he read their medical records, he saw them, and I think his total time was about half an hour totally spent with them, which, based on my own personal experience, I don't find inconsistent with my own doctor. So I guess it's a bona fide [*12] relationship."

The judge clearly confirms that Dr. Eisenbud was licensed in Michigan at the time of their appointment and was within the scope of his authority to recommend medical marijuana for these patietns, while establishing that his medical evaluation did meet the criteria of a "bona fide physician-patient realtionship."

As Killerweed mentioned before, the prosecuting argument was weather or not the patients were legal or not because they did not physically posses the state issued license, which is a problem in every state that has a medical marijuana registry AND an affirmative defense argument set up in their MMJ law. Remember, this is not the ruling majority opinion, and the case is still in litigation.

Similar issues are happening here in Colorado where it is taking the state registry 7-8 months to issue licenses, eventhough in the law it states that the patient has to be notified within 35 days otherwise they are to be considered legal.

THCF's protocal has been investigated and approved by state regulatory authorities in 9 states. We follow a protocol developed by the Oregon Health Department and it has been investigated and found valid and meeting current acceptable standards of medical practice in in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, and Montana.

Furthermore, THCF stands behind and defends its patients no matter what the problem or charge may be. We are the only organization to defend patients in a DEA investigation from a grand jury subpoena. The federal court judge wrote at the end of his decision, " ... (THCF) Clinic's records represent the implementation of the State's program and are integral to the success of the program."

The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation has been helping patients obtain a medical marijuana permit nationwide since 1999, helping over 100,000 patients. Now don't you think that an organization that has been around that long and has helped so many people obtain a medical marijuana permit would be under close federal scrutiny, and if there had been any questions or investigations regarding the legitimacy of their practices, THCF would have been shut down long ago? Fact of the matter is that our organization is always up to standard and in complience with current medical marijuana laws for each and every state we operate in.

If this is scott the manager of the Colorado thcf, you know what I say is true...if you are not then, you have no clue as to what your talking about....your a newbe..

The reason this got appealed is because THCF doctors are not diagnosing patients nor can they, have you read your own website for god sakes?? how about the THCF business plan? how about the articles of incorp.??

There is more to come, not only from this state but, all of them about THCF exploiting patients...slowly but surely...and no court case has been on direct point about THCF, YET!!...newbe!!


i have yet to post the concurring judges opinion, this opinion explains it in broken down details much better.

[killerweed420]

The THCF doctors met all the requirements to authorize MMJ to patients. You don't have to see a patient for an hour every week to have a relationship with the doctor. As I have said I only see my doctor once a year to get my prescriptions for my scheduled drugs. Thats all I'm willing to do. I don't have medical insurance, I pay everything in cash so I have her write me a years worth of prescriptions. Once a year I go in for a blood workup to see how my liver and kidney function is doing, she sees me for about 10 minutes and signs my prescription.
So the appellate judge is just being unreasonable about what constitutes a doctor patient relationship.

[justpics]

I didn't see the appellate judge make any decision or judgement about the doctor patient relationship, except to say that it should be examined in trial.

[jamessr]

CONCUR

O'CONNELL, P.J. (concurring).

I concur with the majority's decision to affirm the circuit court's decision to reinstate the charges against defendants, but write separately because I interpret the statutory defenses at issue more narrowly than does the majority, and also to elaborate on issues raised in the briefs and at oral arguments but not as fully addressed by the majority opinion.

On November 4, 2008, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., was passed by referendum and went into effect soon thereafter. It is without question that this act has no effect on federal prohibitions of the possession or consumption of marijuana. 1 The Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 [*36] substance, 21 USC 812(c), meaning that Congress recognizes no acceptable medical uses for it, and its possession is generally prohibited. See Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27; 125 S Ct 2195; 162 L Ed 2d 1 (2005); United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op, 532 U.S. 483, 490; 121 S Ct 1711; 149 L Ed 2d 722 (2001). As a federal court in Michigan recently recognized, "It is indisputable that state medical-marijuana laws do not, and cannot, supercede federal laws that criminalize the possession of marijuana." United States v Hicks, F Supp 2d , 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68920 (No. 07-20176, ED Mich, 2010); 2010 WL 2724286 at *3, citing Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 29 ("The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."); United States v $ 186,416.00 in US Currency, 590 F3d 942, 945 (CA 9, 2010) ("The federal government has not recognized a legitimate medical use for marijuana, however, and there is no exception for medical marijuana distribution or possession under the federal Controlled Substances Act"); United States v Scarmazzo, 554 F Supp 2d 1102, 1109 (ED Cal, 2008) ("Federal law prohibiting the sale of marijuana is valid, despite [*37] any state law suggesting medical necessity for marijuana"); United States v Landa, 281 F Supp 2d 1139, 1145 (ND Cal, 2003) ("our Congress has flatly outlawed marijuana in this country, nationwide, including for medicinal purposes."). Accordingly, the MMMA has no effect on federal law, and the possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even if it is possessed for medicinal purposes in accordance with state law. Hicks, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68920, 2010 WL 2724286 at *4, citing Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 27 ("The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose").

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 "Marijuana" and "marihuana" are both acceptable spellings for the name of this drug. The spelling "marihuana" is used in the Public Health Code, MCL 333.1101 et seq., but "marijuana" is the more commonly used spelling and so will be used throughout this opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Further, the MMMA does not create any sort of affirmative right under state law to use or possess marijuana. That drug remains a Schedule 1 substance under the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7212(1)(c), meaning that "the substance has a 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 [*38] supervision," MCL 333.7211. The MMMA does not repeal any drug laws contained in the Public Health Code, and all persons under this state's jurisdiction remain subject to them. Accordingly, mere possession of marijuana remains a misdemeanor offense, MCL 333.7403(2)(d), and the manufacture of marijuana remains a felony, MCL 333.7401(2)(d).

Perhaps surprisingly, the purpose of the MMMA is a bit less revolutionary than one might suspect. MCL 333.26422(b) states as follows:

Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law. Although these individuals are still violating the Public [*39] Health Code by using marijuana, the MMMA sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking. In so doing, the MMMA reflects the practical determination of the people of Michigan that, while marijuana is classified as a harmful substance and its use and manufacture should generally be prohibited, law enforcement resources should not be used to arrest and prosecute those with serious medical conditions who use marijuana for its palliative effects. 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Again, all individuals who possess, use, or manufacture marijuana in this state, including qualifying patients who have been issued a valid registry identification card and their primary caregivers, are violating the federal Controlled Substances Act and are still subject to arrest and punishment for doing so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Accordingly, the MMMA functions as an affirmative defense to prosecutions under the Public Health Code, allowing an individual to use marijuana by freeing him or her from the threat of arrest and prosecution if that user meets all the requirements of the MMMA, while permitting prosecution under the Public Health Code if the individual fails to meet any of the requirements [*40] set forth by the MMMA. 3 See MCL 333.26422(b); MCL 333.26427(5)(2)(e).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Of course, because the MMMA protects against enforcement of the Public Health Code under only limited circumstances, an individual who is using marijuana must satisfy all the requirements of the MMMA or else remain subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the Public Health Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The problem, however, is that the MMMA is inartfully drafted and, unfortunately, has created much confusion regarding the circumstances under which an individual may use marijuana without fear of prosecution. Some sections of the MMMA are in conflict with others, and many provisions in the MMMA are in conflict with other statutes, especially the Public Health Code. Further, individuals who do not have a serious medical condition are attempting to use the MMMA to flout the clear prohibitions of the Public Health Code and engage in recreational use of marijuana. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and trial court judges attempting to enforce both the MMMA and the Public Health Code are hampered by confusing and seemingly contradictory language, while healthy recreational marijuana users incorrectly view the MMMA as a de facto legalization [*41] of the drug, seemingly unconcerned that marijuana use remains illegal under both state and federal law.

In this opinion, I will attempt to cut through the haze surrounding this legislation. In so doing, I note that neither my opinion, nor the majority's opinion, constitute attempts to make the law. We are simply interpreting an act passed by the people of this state. It is up to the Legislature to revise this act as it sees fit. 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 I have no doubt that in the minds of some voters in this state, legalizing marijuana would be good public policy. Others who approved this act were under the impression that the act's specific purpose was limited to permitting the use of medical marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions. Still others voted against this change in the law. Whether the decriminalization of medical marijuana is a good or bad idea for this state is a question of public policy for our state legislators, the executive branch, and the citizenry to ponder. It is not for the courts to set public policy. This Court's responsibility is simply to interpret this act. Citizens of this state wishing for revision of the MMMA should take such appropriate action [*42] as attending the public hearings on pertinent pending legislation or communicating with their elected representatives.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I. GUIDANCE IS NEEDED

In light of the majority opinion's resolution of the issues in this case, one might ask why this concurrence is of any importance. The answer is simple: delay and neglect in addressing the proper scope and application of the MMMA invites and perpetuates error. Judges bear the onerous responsibility of applying, interpreting, and shaping the law, and we neglect this responsibility when we fail to explain, with well-reasoned analysis, our agreement or disagreement with pertinent points of law. Failure to engage in the debate hinders our hunt for a statute's intended purpose and generally stifles the formation of sound legal principles. If we all gently withdrew our voices from the arena of competing ideas, then mistakes would go unchallenged, and the process of correction could suffer nearly insurmountable setbacks.

This case proves the rule. At oral arguments and in their briefs, both parties raised numerous questions regarding the proper interpretation of the provisions of the MMMA. It was made clear that many provisions of this act are subject to [*43] multiple interpretations, and that obfuscating words and phrases in the MMMA have caused much confusion on the part of both law enforcement officials and defense attorneys wishing to advise their clients of their rights and protections under the law. Defense counsel was particularly concerned that the law was not specific enough for him to advise his clients on both the strictures of the MMMA and the ramifications of certain provisions. The prosecuting attorney noted that he was unable to advise municipalities, townships, police, and others regarding whether particular conduct was permitted or prohibited under the act. More generally, in the absence of clear direction from the appellate courts, many citizens believe that the MMMA supports and legitimizes the marijuana business.

As defense counsel emphasized at oral arguments, this Court could take a case-by-case approach to resolving all the issues found in the MMMA, addressing particular provisions piecemeal and in isolation over years and leaving defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement, entrepreneurs, cities, municipalities, townships, and others in a state of confusion for a very, very long time. 5 Or, in one well-thought-out opinion, [*44] it could interpret the essential provisions of this act, providing a framework for future application of the new statute and giving fair notice to all regarding the scope of acceptable conduct under the MMMA. Counsel for both parties advised this Court against interpreting the MMMA in a piecemeal fashion because of the confusion that would persist. I agree, and this opinion is my attempt to establish the framework for the law and address those issues not resolved by the majority opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Under this piecemeal approach, each case would address a separate, specific issue involving the MMMA. The lower courts of all 83 Michigan counties would then opine on each issue (in some cases arriving at different results). The cases would be appealed to this Court, which would in response issue published opinions binding all trial courts in the state. While this may be an efficient and orderly process for some areas of the law, I suspect that the confusion regarding the circumstances under which an individual using or possessing marijuana is protected from arrest or conviction could result in some citizens losing both their liberty and their property. I am reminded of a statement often attributed [*45] to the eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In this case, the "evil" at issue is the loss of liberty or property suffered by individuals, who honestly believe they are in compliance with the MMMA, at the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement officials who honestly believe that they are properly enforcing the clear provisions of the Public Health Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I also agree with counsel that it is the responsibility of this Court to interpret this law in a way that gives fair notice to all concerned regarding what conduct is allowed and what conduct is prohibited under this law. Without some guidance from the appellate courts, the lower courts will continue to stumble about. The system of justice will become hopelessly unpredictable and intolerably frustrating for the people it was established to serve. Right or wrong, we all have the duty to interpret the law to the best of our ability. Any delay in this process frustrates those citizens who are making a good faith effort to adhere to the law.
II. ONE STATUTE, COMPETING GOALS

Proposition 1 of the 2008 ballot, which presented the MMMA to the people of [*46] this state for a vote, described the proposed MMMA as purporting to do the following:

Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.

Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.

Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

Yet, in its summary of the intended effect of the MMMA, this ballot proposal obfuscated the more confusing and contradictory aspects of the actual legislation. The statutory language creates a maze for the reader, making the statute susceptible to multiple interpretations.

The MMMA is based on model legislation provided by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group organized to decriminalize [*47] both the medical and recreational uses of marijuana. The statutory language of the MMMA was drafted by Karen O'Keefe, the Director of State Policies at the MPP in Washington, D.C. 6 Interestingly, the confusion caused by reading the statute piecemeal and out of context has seemed to work to the advantage of those who share the MPP's wish for outright legalization of marijuana. Taking advantage of the MMMA's confusion, proponents of liberalized marijuana regulations claim that the MMMA legalizes shops that sell marijuana, collective growing facilities, and the cultivation and sale of marijuana as a commercial crop. Further, those individuals who primarily wish to use marijuana recreationally are taking advantage of "pot docs" who will give them written certifications for medical marijuana without bothering to establish either a bona fide physician-patient relationship or the existence of a terminal or debilitating medical condition.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 On its website, the MPP advertises its involvement in the ballot initiative, noting, "Michigan passed MPP's ballot initiative to permit terminally and seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with their doctors' approval . . . ." Our History [*48] (accessed September 10, 2010).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In looking at the specific provisions of the MMMA, it is important to remember that this act is based on a premise, namely, that marijuana can be used for medical purposes that is in obvious contradiction to the Public Health Code. By classifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance under the Public Health Code, the people of this state, through their elected representatives, have determined that marijuana "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." MCL 333.7211. This clearly contradicts the rationale for the MMMA, which indicates that provisions should be made to permit seriously ill individuals to use medical marijuana without fear of arrest because "[m]odern medical research . . . has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions." MCL 333.26422(a).

The obvious solution to this problem would be simply to amend the Public Health Code to make marijuana a Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 substance. 7 With such an amendment, [*49] state law would not prohibit a licensed prescriber from prescribing marijuana if, in the prescriber's professional opinion, this drug would effectively treat the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions. MCL 333.7303a. Curiously, however, the MMMA has no provisions to repeal the contradictory portions of the Public Health Code, or to ensure the controlled, monitored distribution of marijuana to seriously ill individuals in accord with the well-tested provisions of the Public Health Code. 8 Instead, it creates a new system, untested in this state, in which a physician merely "certifies" that an individual would likely "benefit" from using marijuana to alleviate pain, nausea, or other symptoms, while leaving it to the patient to register under the act and to self-regulate the quality and quantity of marijuana the patient uses.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 A substance may be included in Schedule 2 if the substance has a high potential for abuse and such abuse may lead to severe psychic or physical dependence, but the substance also has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." MCL 333.7213. [*50] A substance may be included in Schedule 3 if the substance has a potential for abuse less than a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 substance and abuse of the substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence, but the substance also has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." MCL 333.7215.8 Critics might argue that reclassifying marijuana under the Public Health Code would be ineffective because it would require doctors to ignore federal provisions banning them from prescribing marijuana. Yet it is important to remember that the entirety of the MMMA stands in conflict with federal law. Accordingly, such criticism would less likely stem from a desire to adhere to federal law than from a desire to steer the risk associated with breaking federal law away from those perceived as less willing to take that risk. The catch-22 here is that doctors would not, and should not, put their medical license at risk.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Accordingly, the confusing nature of the MMMA, and its susceptibility to multiple interpretations, creates an untoward risk for Michiganders. 9 Reading the statute carelessly or out of context could result in jail or prison time [*51] for many of our citizens. Until our Supreme Court and the Legislature clarify and define the scope of the MMMA, it is important to proceed cautiously when seeking to take advantage of the protections in it. Those citizens who proceed without due caution will become test cases and may lose both their property and their liberty. 10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9 At the preliminary examination in this matter, the learned Judge Robert Turner, a veteran of many years on the bench, stated that the MMMA, "is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen in my life." In interpreting this act, Judge Turner assumed that the sole purpose of it was to set forth the rules and regulations for the use of medical marijuana in Michigan, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the act is being used as a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in Michigan. It is well crafted in its obfuscations, ambiguous language, and confusingly overlapping sections.10 Until our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of this act, it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law. I again issue a stern warning to all: please do not attempt to [*52] interpret this act on your own. Reading this act is similar to participating in the Triwizard Tournament described in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: the maze that is this statute is so complex that the final result will only be known once the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review and remove the haze from this act.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THIS IS A LONG SECTION..TIS IN MULTIPLE POSTS.