On June 7, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter of State v McQueen.  The Isabella County Prosecutor argued the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) only provides limited exceptions to engage in activity involving medical marihuana.  Specifically contemplated in the act is the caregiver/patient relationship whereby a qualifying caregiver may provide medical marihuana to his or her registered qualifying patients.  It was contended that by creating a system for patients to acquire marihuana from caregivers, the act impliedly prohibits patients from transferring medical marihuana amongst themselves or acquiring it from an unaffiliated dispensary.  Patient-to-patient transfers would eliminate the need for the caregiver/patient relationship, contrary to the intent of the MMMA.  Further, the prosecutor argued that because the MMMA does not mention patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana they are not allowed.

Next to argue was an attorney speaking on behalf of the Attorney General.  The Attorney General wanted the Court to declare that:

1)    Patient-to-patient transfers are not authorized;

2)    Transfers between caregivers and unaffiliated patients are prohibited;

3)    The possession limits provided in the MMMA should be strictly enforced;

4)    The MMMA does not authorize "Sales;" and

5)    The MMMA does not authorize commercial or for profit activity.

Afterward, McQueen's attorney began his argument by conceding that the only permitted uses of medical marihuana are those provided in the MMMA.  He went on to explain that because patients are entitled to the "medical use" of marihuana, the definition of which allows transfers, patients should be allowed to transfer medical marihuana to each other.  This interpretation of the MMMA would allow a caregiver or patient to assist other patients who they are not connected to through the registration process.

The panel went on to question McQueen's attorney about how much medical marihuana his clients possessed to ascertain whether his client might possess more than what is allowed under the MMMA.  Judge Hoekstra questioned whether McQueen was in constructive possession of the medical marihuana contained in the 27 lockers in his store.  This would tend to show McQueen possessed more than allowed.  However, because the issue was not briefed, McQueen's attorney respectfully refused to answer the question.

Although both counsels argued at length about whether patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana are allowed under the MMMA, the expected opinion may not specifically speak directly on this issue.  The Court may limit its opinion to whether the business model and activity performed in the Mount Pleasant dispensary constituted a nuisance and whether it was proper to deny the County's injunction.  An analysis of the Court's opinion will follow when made available.