Integrity Lost:
An exposé in the search for truth regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and the convoluted efforts to upend patients’ rights
Part 3: The Proposals
I’ll start with SB-0017, which officially kicked off the effort to oppose the people’s will on the MMMA. There was certainly no wasting time, given that it was the first order of business for the New Year, being proposed on January 19. Since it was the precursor to, and duplicates a companion House bill, HB-4397, I won’t list the details here since they are covered later.
As you can see, this offering is the work of Senator Rick Jones (R), District 24, Grand Ledge, and was sent to the same Senate Committee on Health Policy on which he serves, as do some of his colleagues in what resembles a cabal of despots. Not surprisingly, the bill passed through Committee at break-neck pace and was recommended for passage by the full Senate.
A little background on Senator Jones would be fitting at this point: Per his bio, he worked 33 years in law enforcement, 30 years with Eaton County Sheriff Department. He has held the positions of Deputy, Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain before being elected Sheriff in 2000. He has received F.B.I. Executive Leadership Training, and U.S. Department of Justice Correctional Leadership Training. Jones is the current Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a member of the Senate Health Policy Committee.
SENATE BILL No. 17
January 19, 2011, Introduced by Senator JONES and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled "Public health code," (MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211) by adding section 7421.
There should be no question as to where his priorities lie. I would go so far as to suggest that nothing short of total repeal of the MMMA would satisfy Senator Jones.
Listed in chronological order, these are the relevant parts of the new legislative (or should I say, Attorney General) proposals, which will be taken up following the Legislature’s return to service on September 7th. Each proposal is followed up with my own personal assessment, and also in each the unaffected sections of the law have been omitted:
HOUSE BILL No. 4397
March 8, 2011, Introduced by Rep. Callton and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled "Public health code," (MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211) by adding section 7421.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 7421.
(1) A PERSON SHALL NOT ORGANIZE OR OPERATE A MARIHUANA CLUB.
(2) A PERSON SHALL NOT OPERATE A MARIHUANA BAR OR KNOWINGLY ALLOW LAND OR A STRUCTURE ON LAND OWNED BY OR IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PERSON TO BE USED AS A MARIHUANA BAR.
(3) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.00, OR BOTH.
(4) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:
(A) "MARIHUANA BAR" MEANS, SUBJECT 1 TO SUBDIVISION (C), PROPERTY WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ALLOWED TO USE MARIHUANA UNDER THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 TO 333.26430, IF THE USE OF MARIHUANA ON THE PROPERTY IS CONDITIONED ON THE PAYMENT OF A FEE.
(B) "MARIHUANA CLUB" MEANS, SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION (C), AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHO PAY MONEY OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE TO BECOME MEMBERS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO ALLOW MORE THAN 1 INDIVIDUAL TO USE MARIHUANA UNDER THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 TO 333.26430, AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME PRIVATE PLACE.
(C) "MARIHUANA BAR" AND "MARIHUANA CLUB" DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(i) PROPERTY USED AS A HOSPICE LICENSED UNDER PART 214.
(ii) PROPERTY USED AS A NURSING HOME OR SKILLED NURSING FACILITY LICENSED UNDER PART 217.
(iii) PROPERTY WHERE MARIHUANA IS LEGALLY DISPENSED UNDER THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 TO 333.26430.
(D) "PAYMENT OF A FEE" MEANS THE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE. PAYMENT OF A FEE INCLUDES THE PURCHASE OF GOODS OR SERVICES, INCLUDING GOODS OR SERVICES THAT ARE NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF MARIHUANA, AND THE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE TO BELONG TO AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUALS.
My first question is, do we want the government further banning legal behavior, taking place within the sanctity and curtilage of one’s privately-owned property? Free speech issues alone should dictate that this is, at the very least, unconstitutional.
Membership-based, private “clubs” and structured gatherings exist on a grand scale across the country and as a rule, no government agency interferes with their operation or their legal rituals carried out within. The “marijuana bars” and “marijuana clubs” referred to in this proposal provide a means of sharing information and other conversation between members, circulating educational materials, providing legal guidance, and personal bonding between patients among other benign practices. Yes, members may happen to consume their medicine of choice at times; legally, and in a safe setting.
Support groups are common among sufferers of ailments such as MS and an assortment of other maladies, while no one is telling them that they can’t consume their prescribed medicines while at those meeting places. The only unique feature about the particular clubs in question – more often called “compassion centers” - is they happen to be geared primarily toward medical marijuana patients.
Just for the sake of argument and comparison, suppose that Representative Callton or Senator Jones had a notion that having a group of like-minded associates who are members of a “card club” or “wine-tasting club” which requires paying a fee to join, hands out and/or sells a variety of awards and novelty items, and may partake in the consumption of alcohol in these private settings. Suppose that in their view, this was tantamount to being classified as a “bar,” would subject them to rules regarding the operation of a liquor establishment, and thereby represented illegal behavior.
Do these folks have the will to ban all liquor establishments as well? After all, people - including their own colleagues - may be stopping off and consuming alcohol there. “But that’s legal,” you may say. So is cannabis for certified patients in Michigan.
The bottom line is that Government has no place in this scenario, nor does it have any business in trying to regulate this or any other legal behavior taking place in the privacy of one’s dwelling. This type of thing should send chills down the spine of anyone who reveres liberty.
“Marijuana Bar”? Really? Out of what orifice do these people pull this kind of stuff?
I can’t speak for others, but I really tire of government officials pursuing their own personal agendas, while labeling it as “doing the people’s business.” Obviously, their definition of “restore honesty and integrity to public office,” means re-establishing “big government”-style dominance over the citizens.
HOUSE BILL No. 4463
March 22, 2011, Introduced by Rep. Knollenberg and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," by amending section 3 (MCL 333.26423).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old, and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana, and who has never been convicted of a felony. involving illegal drugs.
This amendment would preclude anyone previously convicted of any felony offense from partaking in the process of servicing patients as their caregiver. Language in the MMMA already precludes drug felons from participating in this process, and I fail to see the significance in this amendment.
People that commit and are prosecuted for crimes have already been required to pay a debt to society for their illegal actions - monetarily and otherwise - through the legal proceedings we have established. Once that debt has been paid, they are free, as well as urged, to become law-abiding, productive citizens.
The activity in question is now legal, per our state law. Excluding these individuals from participation is a clear violation of their rights, is discriminatory, and further hinders their ability to become productive, self-sustaining members of society.
HOUSE BILL No. 4661
May 18, 2011, Introduced by Reps. Darany, Lindberg and Santana and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," by amending section 4 (MCL 333.26424).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
4. Protections for the Medical 1 Use of Marihuana.
Sect. 4
(a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility THAT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A CHURCH OR OTHER HOUSE OF WORSHIP; SCHOOL; OR DAY CARE CENTER AS DEFINED IN MCL 324.8303. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.
(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:
(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility THAT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A CHURCH OR OTHER HOUSE OF WORSHIP; SCHOOL; OR DAY CARE CENTER AS DEFINED IN MCL 324.8303; and
(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act OR WHO CULTIVATES MARIHUANA IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.
To sum this bill up, it makes it a felony crime for a patient or caregiver to either produce marijuana for themselves or others, should their growing facility (which in most cases would be their place of residence) happens to fall within 500 feet of a church or other place of worship, a school, or a day care center.
I’m curious to know what this proposal seeks to accomplish. How does the fact that a person may be growing their allowable amount of medicine, within the confines of what has been outlined in the Act, affect a place of worship that lies in proximity to their residence or other private property? This same question can be raised in the case of day care facilities and schools.
Other than the “warm and fuzzy feeling” this small, obviously clueless group may realize personally through this proposal, it’s pointless.
This type of thinking can only be described as that same old, worn-out “reefer madness” mindset, invoking visions of dastardly, ill-intentioned patients breaching the security of schools and day care facilities to “push” their evil product on those poor, defenseless little children found within. The mere thought of such silliness is more than a bit over-the-top. Harry Anslinger’s propaganda machine still churns away, some 70+ years stale.
What’s next? If you have prescription medicines in your bathroom cabinet will you soon be forced to vacate your place of residence? Perhaps I shouldn’t offer them any ideas…
I question whether the desire and willingness to do something, anything, alleviates some sense of inadequacy or a lack of promising, constructive ideas on behalf of our leaders. Propositions such as this make the point (and make a case for a part-time legislature).
SENATE BILL No. 321
April 12, 2011, Introduced by Senator JONES and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled "The insurance code of 1956," by amending section 3107 (MCL 500.3107), as amended by 1991 PA 191.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 3107. (1) Except as provided in subsection 1 (2), personal protection insurance benefits are payable for the following:
(a) Allowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation. Allowable expenses within personal protection insurance coverage shall not include charges ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(i) CHARGES for a hospital room in excess of a reasonable and customary charge for semiprivate accommodations except if the injured person requires special or intensive care. , or for funeral
(ii) FUNERAL and burial expenses in EXCESS OF the amount set forth in the policy which shall not be less than $1,750.00 or more than $5,000.00.
(iii) THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIHUANA.
(b) Work loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident if he or she had not been injured. Work loss does not include any loss after the date on which the injured person dies. Because the benefits received from personal protection insurance for loss of income are not taxable income, the benefits payable for such loss of income shall be reduced 15% unless the claimant presents to the insurer in support of his or her claim reasonable proof of a lower value of the income tax advantage in his or her case, in which case the lower value shall apply. Beginning March 30, 1973, FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, the benefits payable for work loss sustained in a single 30-day period and the income earned by an injured person for work during the same period together shall not exceed $1,000.00 $4,290.00, which maximum shall apply pro rata to any lesser period of work loss. Beginning October 1, 1974 2011, the maximum shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living under rules prescribed by the commissioner but any change in the maximum shall apply only to benefits arising out of accidents occurring subsequent to the date of change in the maximum.
I thought the whole point of these proposals was to “clean up” the MMMA? Wasn’t the necessity for these proposals based on that premise? One has to wonder whether Senator Jones or his minions have some cozy relationship with the Insurance industry and is this is nothing more than pandering to those interests by singling out – or more accurately stated, discriminating against – medical marijuana users.
SENATE BILL No. 377
May 12, 2011, Introduced by Senators BOOHER, JONES, ANDERSON, NOFS, PAPPAGEORGE, HOPGOOD, HANSEN and PROOS and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," by amending section 6 (MCL 333.26426).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
6. Administering the Department's Rules.
Sec. 6.
(e) The department shall issue registry identification cards within 5 days of approving an application or renewal, which shall expire 1 year after the date of issuance. WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ISSUING A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD INFORMATION CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF THE CARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL MAKE THE INFORMATION CONCERNING REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS AVAILABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS IN A FORM THAT ALLOWS IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL IN CUSTODY FOR POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF MARIHUANA POSSESSION IS A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR PRIMARY CAREGIVER.
Registry identification cards shall contain all of the following:
(1) Name, address, and date of birth of the qualifying patient.
(2) Name, address, and date of birth of the primary caregiver, if any, of the qualifying patient.
(3) The date of issuance and expiration 1 date of the registry identification card.
(4) A random identification number.
(5) A photograph, if the department requires by rule.
(6) A clear designation showing whether the primary caregiver or the qualifying patient will be allowed under state law to possess the marihuana plants for the qualifying patient's medical use, which shall be determined based solely on the qualifying patient's preference.
(f) If a registered qualifying patient's certifying physician notifies the department in writing that the patient has ceased to suffer from a debilitating medical condition, the card shall become null and void upon notification by the department to the patient. WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER THE DEPARTMENT'S NOTIFICATION TO THE PATIENT, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE OF THE VOIDING OF A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.
(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.
(Emphasis added)
(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:
(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.
(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.AND SHALL DISCLOSE OTHER REGISTRY INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (E).
Okay, this one has “big brother” written all over it. If I’m prescribed any pharmaceutical drug, my name and other personal information isn’t immediately turned over to the State Police, nor should it be. THIS IS NOT A POLICE STATE, although it’s quite obvious that some would have it so.
There is a procedure under state law, where in an effort to stop people from receiving multiple prescriptions from more than one doctor for Schedule 2, 3 and 4 prescription drugs, the related information is reported to the MAPS system. The information is then available to law enforcement in a bona-fide investigation, but the only thing that would prompt an inquiry is the patient being investigated. The obvious difference is that this proposal requires an immediate, automatic report to law enforcement where there is no such notification made for dangerous prescription medicines.
Unless a person is convicted of a crime, they are afforded the presumption of innocence in this country and are Constitutionally-protected from being treated as criminals, absent any proof of wrongdoing. This is off-the-charts for being wrong and unjust but looking to where it originated, is par for the course.
I wonder if Senator Booher has ever read that pesky little thing called the Constitution? He might want to pick up a copy.
SENATE BILL No. 418
June 8, 2011, Introduced by Senators JONES, MARLEAU, MEEKHOF, ROCCA, BOOHER, PROOS and SCHUITMAKER and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," by amending section 7 (MCL 333.26427).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
7. Scope of Act.
Sec. 7.
(D) NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
(E) (d) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marihuana to avoid arrest or prosecution shall be punishable by a fine of $500.00, which shall be in addition to any other penalties that may apply for making a false statement or for the use of marihuana other than use undertaken pursuant to this act.
(F) (e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.
Quite possibly the most egregious of the lot, as I read it, this bill appears to put a buffer zone between the state, and those patients or caregivers that may have had their rights violated, whether accidentally or due to the zealous behavior often seen perpetrated on citizens where drugs, or in the case of cannabis, even natural products are concerned.
Let me give you an example: Let’s say you are “Mr. Wheelchair-bound Medical Marijuana Patient,” and you’re sitting in your living room late one evening, puffing on your medicine. Earlier that day, your neighbor, “Mr. Nosy Peeping Tom” calls the authorities to say, “My neighbor is growing pot in his basement.” The authorities, rather than pay a congenial visit to ask if he indeed is growing marijuana in his basement and whether he has the pertinent paperwork authorizing this activity, they instead send in the local drug task force - by far the most common method of “investigation” in drug-related cases.
In their haste, they crash through “Mr. Wheelchair-bound Medical Marijuana Patient’s” front door, knock him to the floor, while training high-powered, lethal weapons at his head. Perhaps they shoot him, or they shoot the pets; the wife; the kids.
Of course, it was done “to insure the safety of the officers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…” We’ve all heard and seen it play out many times before, and besides, why be respectful and courteous when “commando-style” is so much more fun?
Oopsy… Legit patient. But not to worry.
Voilà: Immunity!
I may be misinterpreting the language and intent of this bill. However, given the precedent previously set by the courts and reasserted by AG Schuette in the recent court case, People v. Compassionate Apothecary, it sure looks to me like a “safety net,” which would protect the state from any liability in scenarios such as this, when considering the “plain and unambiguous” language of this proposal.
"The object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it. In the case of all written laws, it is the intent of the lawgiver that is to be enforced. But this intent is to be found in the instrument itself. . . . 'Where a law is plain and unambiguous, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the [lawgiver] should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently no room is left for construction.”
Although my example may appear a bit extreme, in many reported cases from across the nation it’s not far out of the realm of possibility nor far removed from actual events.
Either way, if a citizen’s rights are violated, the responsible party needs to be held accountable and liable for damages. This appears to do just the opposite by providing shelter from such responsibility. I suppose it’s just a sign of the times, where personal responsibility has increasingly become more of an inconvenience than a desirable quality.
For some good examples, see this powerful story, as told by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Freedom Watch: Watch the disturbing video full length:
Another example. Or these: Article. Video.
In some documented recent events, being used as a means to justify the excessive use of force, allegations have been made such as that during these raids on even medical marijuana patients, weapons were found and seized so in theory, the situations constituted a threat to officers.
Being a life-long NRA member and gun rights advocate, I’m keenly aware that in this country we possess and hold sacred, a well-established right to keep and bear arms, particularly in our home or place of business. “Grand Dad’s old shotgun” or one’s hunting rifles in the closet or gun cabinet is entirely acceptable and common. They do not constitute a dire emergency nor do they present an imminent threat to anyone other than those who mean to harm.
I’m aware of no instance where, in the raids on patients, cooperatives or dispensaries, these legally-possessed weapons were employed. As I understand it, quite the opposite was true. These raids were met with cooperation, compliance and respect. This leaves no doubt as to the true intent, which is a contentious and perverse application of federal gun laws relative to their use in perpetrating a crime. This is a typical albeit underhanded tactic employed by prosecutors in an effort to maximize punishment. They were given a tool having a purpose, and they’ve intentionally exploited it.
Neither do baby “guard alligators,” caged and on a shelf, pose a threat as claimed by Oakland County Sheriff, Mike Bouchard’s troops, with this ridiculous attempt to sensationalize a story. See the ferocious, menacing creatures and related news article.
In the theater of satire, this is a tough act to follow. It’s the stuff of late-night comedy or even an SNL skit. However, for those forced to bear the brunt of such actions, it is no laughing matter.
Speaking of satire, Senator Tory Rocca (R), District 10, a co-sponsor of SB-0418, has the following to say, taken directly from his bio: “Rocca is an independent voice for the citizens he represents, not beholden to special interests but to the interests of those he represents...” “…Rocca believes a change in direction is needed in Lansing for a state government dominated by special interests….” “…Rocca believes public servants should be held accountable to their constituents and has practiced what he's preached...”
Yes, I can clearly see that, Senator Rocca, that’s why you oppose 63% of them.
SENATE BILL No. 506
June 21, 2011, Introduced by Senators KAHN, JONES, COLBECK, NOFS, GREEN, MARLEAU, BRANDENBURG, ROCCA, PROOS, SCHUITMAKER, PAPPAGEORGE, BOOHER, MEEKHOF and JANSEN and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," (MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430) by adding section 3a.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 3A. (A) FOR PUR 1 POSES OF THIS ACT, A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT BONA FIDE UNLESS THE PHYSICIAN HAS DONE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) TAKEN A MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE PATIENT.
(2) PERFORMED A RELEVANT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.
(3) REVIEWED PRIOR TREATMENT AND TREATMENT RESPONSES.
(4) OBTAINED AND REVIEWED RELEVANT DIAGNOSTIC TEST RESULTS.
(5) DISCUSSED ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, ALTERNATIVES, POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, AND THE EXPECTED RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT THE PATIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT INFORMATION.
(6) PROVIDED FOR MONITORING THE PATIENT TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSE TO AND ANY SIDE EFFECTS OF THE TREATMENT.
(7) CREATED AND MAINTAINED RECORDS FOR THE PATIENT.
(8) NOTIFIED THE PATIENT'S PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN, IF ANY.
(B) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THIS ACT, IF A PHYSICIAN'S WRITTEN CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED IN SUPPORT OF A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING A BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (A), BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
(1) THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS NOT VALID AND PROVIDES NO DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.
(2) THE CERTIFYING PHYSICIAN MAY NOT ASSERT ANY PROTECTION OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT IN A CIVIL ACTION OR IN A PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY OR LICENSING PROCEEDING.
Most people involved in the movement to promote the acceptance of, and the option to have safe and reliable access to cannabis for medical use, as well as those patients seeking the benefits of such use, will acknowledge the value in having a thorough medical exam and review of records prior to any physician’s recommendation. Only the disingenuous would argue against such a notion. Overall, this sort of relationship with a physician is undoubtedly in the best interest of the patient and could be achieved absent any government mandate.
Ideally, the recommendation to use cannabis should be borne out of a patient’s established relationship with a physician. Therein lies the problem.
For an assortment of reasons, a patient may not have an established physician-patient relationship, such as having no health care coverage (a frequent cause), being transient, and so on. However, the most predominant is that many physicians, being “employees” of a larger corporatized health care system, are not allowed by their employers to utilize the option of recommending cannabis. Such is the case with my own family physician, with whom I’ve had a very long-term relationship.
Having been a strong advocate for alternative medical treatments for several years, and although I’m not a medical marijuana-using patient, my family doctor and I have had many a conversation about alternative treatments and therapies, and though sometimes met with annoyance on my doctor’s part, I’ve elected to use them on as many occasions as possible. Likewise, we’ve had many general discussions on the use of cannabis, the efficacy of such use, and the wide variety of applications where such use can prove beneficial as a safe, effective treatment.
Off the record, my doctor agrees with me. In an official capacity, this same doctor reported to me that, upon enactment of the MMMA, their large health care system of affiliation put out a sternly-worded dictum, not specifically forbidding the recommendation of cannabis, but ordering that it be a “last-resort” option and ONLY to be exercised after ALL other treatment options have been thoroughly exhausted. Likewise, several other patients, whose doctors are also employed by large health care systems throughout the state, have been informed by their doctors that they are not allowed to exercise the option of recommending cannabis products for any reason.
Other patients report that they continue to face similar obstacles and restrictions. For example, chronic pain sufferers who undergo pain treatment therapy (read: powerful prescription drugs) have been forced to make a choice: if you want to stay in the program, no cannabis use is allowed. You can do one or the other, but not both, even in a supplementary role.
Worthy of note are the recent poll results, published by FOX News/WebMD, indicating that pain plagues most American adults, and that more than half of Americans suffer from chronic or recurrent pain.
Physicians, like my own, would rather avoid the scrutiny of such recommendations and/or the potential wrath of their employers should they either oppose these policies or exercise their own professional judgment by going against the strict mandates that have been unreasonably placed upon them.
While media pundits such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al, and an array of Republican legislators at both the state and federal level repeatedly sound the warning sirens, reeling at the sheer horror of the prospect that government officials could decide who our doctors should be, and against government’s intervening in the sanctity of doctor-patient relationships, this group of senators have proposed just such an imposition with Senate Bill 506.
Once again, the words of AG Bill Schuette in this regard:
“You know I’m opposed to that big government, big spending, boondoggle that wants to separate you, us, from the doctors. That big spending, big government boondoggle wants to have the government choose your physician instead of you, and I think that is wrong.”
But then, who holds Bill Schuette to his words? He may again change his stance tomorrow.
By what authority do these legislative busybodies determine what constitutes a “bona fide physician-patient relationship”? The lead sponsor of SB-506, Senator Roger Kahn (R-Saginaw Township) is a Cardiologist and M.D. How impartial and objective could we possibly expect Senator Kahn to be considering such strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry, which is fervently opposed to medical cannabis? Senator Kahn recently argued his points with a colleague in the medical industry.
Senator Kahn also has an affiliation with Synergy Medical, whose assistant director of Family Medicine at Synergy Medical Education Alliance in Saginaw, and Director of hospice and palliative care at Hospice of Michigan in Saginaw Township., Dr. William Morrone, had his own negative opinions published regarding Proposal 1.
A co-sponsor of SB-0506, Senator Patrick Colbeck (R), District 7, has displayed in his bio that he plans to “…restore honesty and integrity to public office.”
He certainly does have his work cut out.
I’m confused by all of this double-talk, and so I ask the question: Where exactly do these ideologues stand in this regard? Do they believe that government officials shouldn’t concern themselves with from whom a patient seeks medical advice and treatment, or do they instead hold the nanny-state view that government knows best and should not only suggest, but mandate by law what constitutes a valid doctor-patient relationship or determines which doctors you are to entrust your care to? Is there any limit to the hypocrisy?
This is a dangerous precedent for our lawmakers to set; very ominous indeed.
HOUSE BILL No. 4850
June 30, 2011, Introduced by Reps. Walsh, Haines, Crawford, Callton, Olson, MacGregor, Horn, MacMaster, Knollenberg, Moss, Tyler, Kowall, Heise, Cavanagh, Haveman, Liss, Cotter, Price, Outman, Goike, Rendon, Bledsoe, Agema, Daley, Lyons, Meadows, Kurtz and Jacobsen and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled "Michigan medical marihuana act," by amending section 4 (MCL 333.26424).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
4. Protections for the Medical 1 Use of Marihuana.
Sec. 4.
(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. TO WHOM HE OR SHE IS CONNECTED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S REGISTRATION PROCESS. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.
(l) A HOLDER OF A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS INELIGIBLE TO ASSERT A DEFENSE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN A PROSECUTION UNDER THIS OR ANY OTHER LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PERMANENTLY REVOKE THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IF THE INDIVIDUAL DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) TRANSFERS MARIHUANA, IF THE TRANSFEROR IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE TRANSFEREE AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.
(2) ACQUIRES MARIHUANA FROM A TRANSFEROR WHO IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL'S PRIMARY CAREGIVER AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.
Wait just a minute here… Since the time that the MMMA was passed, these people have insisted that, per the MMMA in its present form, the only behavior that is protected concerning the transfer or delivery of marijuana to a patient would be the transfer or delivery that takes place between a patient and their own designated caregiver.
This line of thinking was just recently upheld by Schuette’s former allies on the Michigan Court of Appeals (how nice that they maintain such allegiance to their old crony, in spite of his own earlier published opinions stating just the opposite).
This being the case, why do our lawmakers now feel compelled to change the language of this law to make it say what they have always wanted it to say, and have argued all along that it did say?
Is that what “cleaning up” this law really means? To make it coincide with the positions they’ve taken earlier? That sounds like the old axiom, “the tail wagging the dog.”
This particular bill doesn’t pass the “smell test.” It is revealing of the greater effort to turn the MMMA into something not designed to do what was intended, but to upend that which the voters have specified as their wish.
In my own case, although miffed at his being a co-sponsor on HB-4850 (we’ll be talking about it), and putting partisanship aside, I must say that I know Rep. Horn, and he’s a good man. He is symbolic of the type of person you would want as a representative: he’s personable, makes himself available to constituents but most importantly, he listens and he’s been responsive in my case. Rep. Horn advised me that he has been contacted by a couple medical marijuana patients about problems they’ve experienced with the registry system, and stated that he has contacted the department on their behalf. He urges other patients to do the same.
A couple of years back, in a conference that I had arranged, Ken Horn went so far as to meet with former Bath Township, MI police officer, Howard Wooldridge, founder of COPS (Citizens Opposing Prohibition) to discuss Howard’s views in advocating an end to the drug war as we know it, and a more sensible approach toward drug abuse in this country.
I doubt that Rep. Horn is a “lone wolf,” and have to believe that other districts have representatives of comparable nature. I also suspect that several of the people reading this article seldom, if ever, engage their representatives (if they even know who they are), bother researching important issues, or regrettably, even take time to vote. That’s inexcusable.
Bear in mind that though they may have the best of intentions, our representatives are surrounded on a daily basis by those who may be of lesser integrity or have a questionable agenda to move forward, which proves the importance of establishing a close, personal relationship with them. We citizens need to keep these people grounded in the communities they serve, and more focused on the concerns of the individual. “We, the People” must work to persuade our elected leaders that our rights “shall not be infringed,” by taking them to task for their actions when they impose upon that which we hold dear.
Our legislators are not infallible. The important thing is that when they fail us, that they seek redemption for those misdeeds in some way. Ask former Republican Congressman-turned Libertarian presidential hopeful, Bob Barr, author of the infamous Barr Amendment, who since turned to being a strong advocate for an end to the “War on Drugs.”
Next up Part 4: Dispensaries, cooperatives, and our duty as citizens
info@review-mag.com
989-780-4162
Sep 02, 2011
Comments (0)