Less than a month ago we referred to an article discussing the federal push to 'stymie' medical marijuana dating back to 1996, when medical marijuana first became legal in California.  The article discussed three phases of federal government involvement with state medical marijuana laws.  The first phase of attacks targeted doctors while a second phase took aim at landlords.  After several cases and years of litigation neither method proved successful to overcome California's medical marijuana laws.

Fast forward to present day where Michigan seems to be the stage for the reenactment of the same show:  on April 17, 2011, a Saginaw doctor, Ruth A. Buck, will be indicted on charges of aiding and abetting the distribution of marijuana, a Class I controlled substance under federal law.  Under Michigan law, a licensed health professional may recommend use of marijuana for a a number of "debilitating conditions" listed in the Act.  The wording of the Act carefully avoids reference to "prescribing" marijuana as such a prescription would place a physician in direct violation of federal law.  The federal complaint in Dr. Buck's case questions the due diligence of her patient reviews and alleges that she referred at least one patient to a Bay City dispensary to acquire marijuana.

The series of cases involving California doctors in the late 90's were typically tried and decided on somewhat different claims and grounds.  Some complaints tried to compel the physicians to disclose patient names, or sought to convict doctors as accomplices in the procurement and possession of marijuana.  The United States District Court for Northern California found these tactics to be unconstitutional in the frequently cited case of Conant v McCoffey.

It will be interesting to see if after fifteen years and fourteen states with similar medical marijuana laws, the show first played out in California will come to a different conclusion in Michigan.

J:\Active Folders\MMMA\Blog\MMMA Blog 041411 Doctor in Federal Custody.docx

Hubbard Shareholder and CEO Michael Woodworth recently participated in the MDA Lock-Up in support of Jerry's Kids.  During his stint in lock-up, Mike raised hundreds of dollars to assist MDA in helping area residents with muscular dystrophy.

     On March 24, 2011, the Alpena County Circuit Court determined that "The Health Center," a medical marihuana facility that served 60 clients, acted outside the "medical use" exception provided in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) when it provided a location for qualified patients to sell medical marihuana to other qualified patients. 

     In interpreting what constitutes a "medical use," the Circuit Court found dispositive the fact that the MMMA specifically mentions caregiver-to-patient sales of medical marihuana.  It says that "a registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana."  The receipt of such compensation "shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."  Therefore, the Court concluded that the drafters of the MMMA considered the issue of medical marihuana sales and chose not to include patient-to-patient in the definition.  It found patient-to-patient sales did not constitute the "medical use" of marihuana and "The Health Center," to the extent that it is engaged in prohibited sales, is a public nuisance.  This opinion is at odds with a case out of Isabella County currently awaiting appeal, State v McQueen, which held patient-to-patient sales fell within the MMMA.

     On March 28, 2011, the Office of the Attorney General announced that it filed two amicus briefs in support of Oakland and Isabella County Prosecutors.  The two cases involved are State v McQueen and People v Redden. 

     In McQueen, the Isabella County Prosecutor challenged the legality of a for-profit medical marihuana dispensary.  Schuette's brief urges the Michigan Court of Appeals to hear the case and argues operating the dispensary violates the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) for three reasons: 1) the MMMA does not allow the sale of medical marihuana for profit; 2) the MMMA does not provide for patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana; and 3) the dispensary owners are in possession of an amount of medical marihuana in excess of the legal limit provided under the MMMA.  Therefore, Schuette argues that because the dispensary violates state law, it should be declared a public nuisance and closed to protect public health and safety.

     In Redden, the Oakland County Prosecutor asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review whether unregistered users of medical marihuana are entitled to assert a defense under the MMMA.  Schuette argues that only qualified patients and caregivers registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health are protected by the MMMA.  For more information please read the following press release.