Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[aldarlene]

I talked to the public defender in Yeller Dawgs case... He is incarcerated for a bond violation (testing positive for THC) I was told that SECTION 8 does not apply because he was over plants and that disqualified him.

If he would have pled guilty to 1 felony (possession) they would have discussed the other 2 with no jail time.

He also said that the judge will not look at a motion that Ifind, since iI am not an attorney

Edited June 1, 2014 by trix

[Restorium2]

Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

Everyone who has seen a doctor that has evaluated them and recs marijuana as a way to treat a qualified condition.

[t-pain]

yes sec8 is for ANYONE AND EVERYONE with a dr rec.

 

print out the MMMA law so your dumbshit lawyer can read it. keep a copy of that with you at all times.

 

 

A motion is an oral or written request made to the court for a ruling, or an order, on a particular point. A motion can be made before, during, or after a trial. It’s a common court procedure for deciding issues that come up during the course of a lawsuit.
Motions can be made by anyone named in a court case, on either side.

 

well, thats not specifically for michigan. you should call up (or show up and ask) the court clerk and ask them the judges rules for filing a motion.

 

and hey it cant hurt to call some lawyers and find one to help you pro-bono and increase their medical marijuana defense statistics.

Edited January 23, 2014 by t-pain

[aldarlene]

Who should I hire? I have a loan

[MiMedical]

Do a little shopping, And the advice of those here on this forum, here is a google search in Grand Rapids. http://www.bing.com/search?q=grand+rapids+mmj+lawyer&x=0&y=0&form=MSNH14&refig=3826e67682634fc895bf7809e0dc4a67&pq=grand+rapids+mmj+lawyer&sc=0-17&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=

[ozzrokk]

Here is exactly what is in the law. ANY PATIENT AND THEIR PRIMARY CAREGIVER IS ENTITLED TO A SECTION 8 DEFENSE. You are a patient, be it registered or unregistered as soon a doctor signs your certification.

 

It has been upheld that the limits of section 4 do not apply to the particulars of a section 8 defense.

 

 

 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

333.26428 Defenses.

 

 

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

 

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

 

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

 

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

 

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

 

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

Edited January 23, 2014 by ozzrokk

[MiMedical]

"(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau"

 

I don't mean to go a little off topic here, but the employee from wal-mart got fired, so did so many others. Why don't this hold up? Or am I not understanding it?

[MiMedical]

I understand its up to the employer, but if this is "law" then it should trump employers, there was a nurse also, she was allowed to collect unemployment.

 

 

Aldarlene, if you find a lawyer please, ask as many questions as you need. Wright down questions, ask the lawyer, then ask on these forums.

[MiMedical]

Here's a kicker, SC is state and federal, so how can the SC up hold a state law, while it contradicts federal laws..

[MiMedical]

Oooo.. Yea

[t-pain]

The state law does not contradict federal law; it acknowledges it directly in section 2©.

 

well, we'll find out in ter beek v wyoming, wont we?

[ozzrokk]

State has its own Supreme Court and Federal has It's own Supreme Court. Guess which one will win every time? Federal.....

 

Also it is my understanding that the part you quoted is for licensing boards and not actual employers,

[Marijuana Ranch]

420Peace aldarlene...I would call Michael Komorn because it may be more the skill level of your lawyer than who is eligible...

[trichcycler]

maybe, but, do you believe an employer should have the right to a drug free workplace ?  Should employers be forced to hire certain drug users?

something to think about, but may not reflect my personal opinions.

I understand its up to the employer, but if this is "law" then it should trump employers, there was a nurse also, she was allowed to collect unemployment.


Aldarlene, if you find a lawyer please, ask as many questions as you need. Wright down questions, ask the lawyer, then ask on these forums.

[Norby]

Yes, I do.  If you can't tell they are a drug user without a test(meaning their quality of work isn't suffering).  The drug's people use should not be an issue if it's not an issue.  Other than limits for driving, esp. when driving kids, buses, special driving licenses such as weight limit on trucks, etc.  Why should it be different whether I had a couple beers last nite, take sleeping pills to help me sleep, drink coffee, take anti anxiety drugs, pain meds, etc.  I can run my own business while on any drugs if I'm not driving.  I'm not an all or none on this one, just that you shouldn't be fired solely because your "on" a drug.  It's personal because I didn't pursue a career somewhat because of my meds and anxiety triggering it.  Couldn't have a job where I had to "worry" about a drug test or I'd never be symptom free.  Although all the jobs I've ever had never was there an issue with my work and I ran a successful business for 13 years.

 

I don't think a drug screen should ever be a prerequisite to a job.  If you can't pick out who would be a good candidate for your job you should have no help from something that can be faked and is heavily weighted towards mj users over any other drug.  If a "druggie" wants that job they can get that job.  They are very persistent and focused when they put their minds to something.

 

maybe, but, do you believe an employer should have the right to a drug free workplace ?  Should employers be forced to hire certain drug users?

something to think about, but may not reflect my personal opinions.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Norby

[c2288420]

@OP- interview attorneys and find the one that has a successful history in defending cannabis(marijuana) cases. Good luck!

Regards,

C

The hypocrisy of drug testing.   my .02

 

 

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/whos-who-in-drug-prohibition/

 

Mel Sembler

Mel Sembler and his wife Betty founded Straight, Inc., a drug treatment program for youth that used sleep deprivation, starvation, beatings, denial of basic health needs, sexual assault, deprivation of liberty and speech and psychological torture (Straight, Inc. later became Drug Free America Foundation. He was appointed ambassador to Australia by George H.W. Bush and Ambassador to Italy by George W. Bush, and is working for Mitt Romney’s campaign as well as chairing the Scooter Libby Defense fund.

Mark Souder

Republican Congressman Mark Souder represents the 3rd District in Indiana. For many years, he was chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, and used that position to push for harsher drug laws, including authoring the 2006 ONDCP reauthorization act. He was behind the Financial Aid provision that denied students aid based on past drug convictions, and has pushed for the use of bio weapons in the war on drugs. SeeMark Souder, sado-moralist.

 

 

 

Robert DuPont

DuPont was the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and was White House Drug Chief from 1973 to 1978. He is co-founder of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates (BDA) — a company that specializes in workplace drug testing. See this post about his claims that marijuana legalization would be like legalizing speeding and drunk driving.

 

Peter Bensinger

Former DEA head (1976-1982), who went on to become a drug testing pusher with Robert DuPont, focusing on drug testing in the workplace. He’s President and Chief Executive Officer of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates (BDA), and is a major supporter of the DEA museum exhibits. See him attending the Illinois medical marijuana hearing.

[Marijuana Ranch]

420Fact...Michael Komorn 12-0 on section Eight Hearings...

[kingrambo]

The cops found 31 grams inside of my car am I protected under section 4 or 8?

[bobandtorey]

The cops found 31 grams inside of my car am I protected under section 4 or 8?

Maybe but i need more info on what happen 

[t-pain]

The cops found 31 grams inside of my car am I protected under section 4 or 8?

if you presented the policeman with a valid drivers license and MMMP card, you are protected under sec4 for your 31 grams. people v koon and ter beek v wyoming make 750.474 inconsistent with the MMMA and do not apply. dont listen to the prosecutor, dont take a plea. talk directly to the judge.

 

you are protected under sec 8 as long as you have a drs rec and a bonafied relationship with him and the mmj was for medical reasons.

[Dr. Bob]

"(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau"

 

I don't mean to go a little off topic here, but the employee from wal-mart got fired, so did so many others. Why don't this hold up? Or am I not understanding it?

There was no 'business or occupational or professional' license involved.  You can't be denied a business license (for example Denali Healthcare is a medical office with a business license), or an occupational license, or a professional license (my medical license cannot be sanctioned simply because I properly do certifications in accordance with the MMMA).  It does NOT prevent an employer from firing you simply because you use the card outside of work.  Using the card at work is a violation of the MMMA.

 

At least that is my rather clear understanding of the issue.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

if you presented the policeman with a valid drivers license and MMMP card, you are protected under sec4 for your 31 grams. people v koon and ter beek v wyoming make 750.474 inconsistent with the MMMA and do not apply. dont listen to the prosecutor, dont take a plea. talk directly to the judge.

 

you are protected under sec 8 as long as you have a drs rec and a bonafied relationship with him and the mmj was for medical reasons.

Requiring you to make it 'not readily accessible' to the occupants of the vehicle does not restrict your ability to have it.  Sounds like it has nothing to do with Section 4 or Section 8, it has to do with how you transported it.  

 

Beer is legal for most adults.  Beer in a closed container is ok in a vehicle.  Pop the top and you have a problem, which has nothing to do with your possession of the beer.  It has to do with an open container in a vehicle.

 

Section 8 protects patients for their use and possession.  It has nothing to do with how it is transported.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

There was no 'business or occupational or professional' license involved.  You can't be denied a business license (for example Denali Healthcare is a medical office with a business license), or an occupational license, or a professional license (my medical license cannot be sanctioned simply because I properly do certifications in accordance with the MMMA).  It does NOT prevent an employer from firing you simply because you use the card outside of work.  Using the card at work is a violation of the MMMA.

 

At least that is my rather clear understanding of the issue.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I have encountered many people who misinterpret this:

 

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 providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.

 

They interpret this to mean that a business cannot subject them to a disciplinary action (probably not understanding proper grammar and use of commas) without understanding that the above is actually stating:

 

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 licensing board or bureau,or occupational licensing board or bureau,or professional licensing board or bureau.

[t-pain]

Requiring you to make it 'not readily accessible' to the occupants of the vehicle does not restrict your ability to have it.  Sounds like it has nothing to do with Section 4 or Section 8, it has to do with how you transported it.  

 

Beer is legal for most adults.  Beer in a closed container is ok in a vehicle.  Pop the top and you have a problem, which has nothing to do with your possession of the beer.  It has to do with an open container in a vehicle.

 

Section 8 protects patients for their use and possession.  It has nothing to do with how it is transported.

 

 

here is section 4 when you take out the extra words, i think its quite clear.

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege for the possession, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia of marihuana.

 

otherwise its inconsistent with the law. no penalty in any manner for transportation of usable marijuana.

 

much like the zero tolerance dui law does not apply to MMMA dr bob. you do agree with that ruling in people v koon yes? did you read it ?

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/145259%20Opinion.pdf

 

In sum, we conclude that the MMMA is inconsistent with, and therefore

supersedes, MCL 257.625(8) unless a registered qualifying patient loses immunity

because of his or her failure to act in accordance with the MMMA.

 

just replace MCL 257.628 with MCL 750.474...

 

dr bob, i'd love to see you make that argument using oxycontin or vicodin being locked in the trunk

Edited May 13, 2014 by t-pain

[t-pain]

I have encountered many people who misinterpret this:

 

They interpret this to mean that a business cannot subject them to a disciplinary action (probably not understanding proper grammar and use of commas) without understanding that the above is actually stating:

 

penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business licensing board

 

your interpretation is great, except for 'penalty in any manner' which being fired is most definitely a penalty.

 

walmart joe was fired because it was in fed court and feds dont recognize MMMA. simple as that.

walmart has the right to fire someone due to schedule 1 substance according to fed laws. apparently.