Controlled substance laws “hazy”

By Raymond Andre
Posted: Wednesday, September 7th, 2011 at 12:55 am | Last Updated: Wednesday, September 7th, 2011 at 1:01 am
View Comments Comments Print This Article Print This Email This Article Email This Tweet This Article Tweet This Add This Article to Delicious Delicious

I cast my vote for the 2008 presidential election as an absentee. That year, I voted for Nader and both Michigan ballot initiatives (medical marijuana and stem-cell research). I must be the liberal scum that’s threatening “American values” (“U.S. values,” more accurately, if you wish to respect Canada and Mexico — which I do).

I was among the 63 percent majority of Michiganders that approved the ballot initiative legalizing marijuana to treat the chronically ill in our state. This law permits licensed patients with illnesses like cancer, H.I.V. and multiple sclerosis — and their caregivers — to acquire or grow medicinal cannabis to ease the pain of those and other diseases. But political meddling has eroded civil liberties granted by what was a straight-forward law with a simple goal: to lessen suffering.

Recently, an appeals court interpreted the sale of medicinal marijuana at the Compassionate Apothecary, a Mount Pleasant dispensary which took a 20 percent share of the profits of marijuana which patients paid for, on the grounds it created a “public nuisance” in granting services to approved med-marijuana card holders.

The ruling that the apothecary was in violation of state controlled substances laws set a precedence which police across

the state have used as an impetus to raid and close it and numerous other dispensaries. The non-existence of transactions for marijuana leaves card holders in a paradoxical state where it is legal to have and use medical marijuana, but illegal to obtain it through commerce.

The controlled substances laws in the state of Michigan do not bar the sale of marijuana, just the transfer or delivery of the substance, and sale is not included in the Michigan medical marijuana legislation. Transfer and delivery are, however. This is a main point of confusion.

The medicine itself, the three appellate judge panel said, cannot be sold, though the law voters passed in 2008 granted that services provided by caregivers, dispensaries in this case, can be compensated. If not by cash, then what? Perhaps medical marijuana cooperative programs are the solution, or a new model of licensed treatment facility with new legislation for allowable locations where patients could receive care.

Zoning rules might help to alleviate some of the rancor towards dispensaries, allowing them to be naturally incorporated into the society in ways that communities can independently approve. This would also allow those within the margin that did not approve the medical marijuana law their moral victory.

As of yet, lawmakers offer no suggestions to the confusion, only denigration to the sick simply for wanting to ease their pain.

Remember when I said I voted absentee? Well, my travel plans fell through that week.

There is a point to my satirical self-deprecation, though, and it is this: my civil disobedience — voting absentee by choice — it harmed no one.

But this civil-servant “civil disobedience” is denying thousands their legal right to medicine to treat symptoms such as chronic pain, nausea and seizures.

Michigan Attorney General William Schuette championed the recent appellate ruling. He, like most Michigan elected officials, does not like even the possibility of medical marijuana. He has stated this many

times, in many ways, throughout his political career. That is fine. But when two-thirds of a state votes something into law and you quibble and distort a debate, characterizing medical dispensaries as “pot shops” and “drug houses,” that is irresponsible political grandstanding. It is sanctimony.

With this column, I almost assuredly recuse myself from future reporting upon the issue, but I think and hope that this address might be able to demonstrate the fact that your very human rights are being stripped away by cranky, aging hypocrites.

When this issue is published, Sept. 7, you can join the Michigan Medical Marijuana Accociation (http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org) at the state Capitol in Lansing. We can show legislators that the rights voted into law by 63 percent of the state will not be violated.

You may also be interested in contacting your state representatives with your concerns over this obstruction of civil liberties, or send your regards to Mr. Schuette, whom can be reached in the following ways.

INSERT AD HERE
  • Corey Williams

    I realize Ill be in the minority here because college students tend to love their reefer but Raymond Andre’s editorial must be addressed. Nothing gets a pothead more riled up than an attempt to curtail his rights to “blaze a fatty,” so I wasn’t at all surprised when he decided to throw caution and honesty to the wind.

    Mr. Andre stated that the appellate court ruled that marijuana “cannot be sold.” I read the opinion and what it defines are the conditions under which a sale may occur. He continues by stating, “the law voters passed in 2008 granted that services provided by caregivers, dispensaries in this case, can be compensated.” If fact, dispensaries are never mentioned in the MMMA. The MMMA was quite clear, one caregiver could provide for no more than five patients and patients could only have a single caregiver. Those two provisions make the illegality of dispensaries obvious.

    Saying that the controlled substance laws of Michigan do not bar the sale of marijuana just the transfer or delivery of the substance is ridiculous, transfer or delivery of something is an implicit fact of a sale. So, while a transfer or delivery is not automatically a sale, a sale by definition involves a transfer or delivery. Even more to the point, transfer and delivery is exactly what dispensaries do. Whether money was involved in their actions or not, they would still be illegal.

  • R. Andre

    Raymond, here. I don’t want to create a hostile exchange. It was not my intention to endorse the use of marijuana outside of legal medicinal use. I want that to be clear. I neither use, nor wish to espouse the use of, marijuana. OK, now that that’s out of the way lets talk facts.

    I read the appellate ruling, as well. Humans can’t sell cannabis to one another, ergo cannabis cannot be sold, lest we train dolphins to dispense — wait, I may have found our loophole!

    I digress.

    As for ridiculousness of transfer and delivery being illegal while sales not, that is precisely the reaction I hoped to evoke. It is absurd that there are contrary elements of legislation. My aim for this article is a call for clarity.

    Moreover, my point is that, rather than resolving discrepancies between competing legislation, politicians are abusing their power to ideological ends.

    Dispensaries are not mentioned in the law, but, by precedence, fall under the rubric of “caregiver.” Michigan growers/suppliers took a clue from those in California, I imagine, trying to replicate a successful model in a realm of uncertainty. It was, to it seems, an attempt to operate within the constraints of legislation in a way that has worked in similar situations.

    As for the stipulations of the MMMA, many of the dispensaries meet the restrictions of the law. To make the ease of access for patients provided by care-giving dispensaries illegal is to attack the symptom of individual violations rather than the problem: a law written simply, perhaps to simply, that needs to have some contingencies explained.

    Many patients taking medicinal marijuana are suffering from chronic diseases, and growing, I would think, is a strenuous activity that requires foreknowledge of what goes into seeding, sprouting and caring for plants. It’s understandable that someone experiencing chronic pain would not want to — would not be able to — devote precious time to this endeavor.

    With the amount of raids on legal practitioners, any apprehension in considering growing for others should not be surprising.

    So, I ask this: what do we do? It’s unlikely that voters will repeal a popular law passed by a two-thirds majority. Revision is the only viable option.

    I’ve attempted to present some possible alternatives, like dispensary licensing and zoning regulations, or a social co-op situation. I would love to hear opinions. The issue deserves more discussion.

  • Corey Williams

    Primary caregiver is defined differently in the California law. Sale is covered by the catch all of delivery and transfer as it is obvious that a delivery or transfer would occur during a sale.
    Also, Its not a hostile exchange. Im contrary by nature and enjoy a good debate. You write quite well Raymond.