Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[Highlander]

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.

 

Walmart Joe wasn't disciplined by a business board or bureau.  He was disciplined by a business.  Big difference. 

[t-pain]

being fired is a penalty. the "disciplinary action" obv does not apply to walmart joe.

[Highlander]

being fired is a penalty. the "disciplinary action" obv does not apply to walmart joe.

 

The MMMA protects patients from a penalty from a business licensing board or bureau.  It does not protect someone from a penalty from a business.  Walmart is a business - not a business licensing board or bureau.  LARA, the Michigan Bar Association, the medical board are all examples of business licensing boards/bureaus.  Under the MMMA, these entities cannot deny a license to a person to practice based on MMJ status.

 

Michigan is an employment at will state, and an employer can fire an employee for any reason except due to religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.

 

An employer can legally fire someone for showing up to work in a car with a Michigan State bumper sticker, for being a member of the NRA, for wearing a red shirt, having cable TV, listening to NPR, using or having access to MMJ, and any other number of silly reasons.  The Walmart Joe case was done before it started. 

 

The link below may clarify:

 

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article612.pdf

[Highlander]

Interesting.  Is employment a "right?"  Is it a "privilege?"  My understanding of rights and privileges is that these are inherent to people under our system of government and that the government of the people protects rights to all and grants privileges to some.  I'm not sure how this translates to the private sector though.  My driver's license is a privilege.  I don't see how my job is a privilege, but I'm open to the concept.  I'm not trying to be difficult; I've talked to more than one attorney who looks at discussions such as this to flesh out a solid legal theory.  So if private employment is a privilege protected under the MMMA, let's formulate a concrete case for it.

[Highlander]

Carry on, just trying to clarify the misunderstanding.

 

Fair enough.  The "including but not limited to" phrase maybe opens some more doors?  But which doors?  Let's take the example of a patient who rents a house.  If the landlord won't rent to a patient, does this mean that the patient has been denied a right or privilege?  Myself, I don't see a denial of rights, but maybe a denial of privilege?  But are privileges a factor in the private sector?  Can the private sector grant a privilege?  I don't think so.  It seems to me that rights and privileges are the product of government and not the private sector.

 

If you look at this through the lens of statutory interpretation, you'd want to find some specific language that prevents discrimination, as protection against "discrimination" is kinda the private sector version of protecting rights and privileges.  But the MMMA provides no such protection against discrimination for MMJ use/MMJ status.

[bobandtorey]

I still don't understand how a homeless person can grow cannabis by our Law ?

[Dr. Bob]

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

 

 

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

Oxycontin is not required to be 'not readily accessible'.  It IS however required to be in the original container with the patient's name on it.  Folks who are legally allowed to possess and use oxy are arrested all the time for just having a couple of tabs in an envelope rather than in the bottle with the patient's name and prescription data.  

 

So yes, I can make the argument all day long.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

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.

No Walmart Joe stayed fired because the company was allowed to fire him for violating federal law.  No one denied him a business, occupational or professional license.  They just exercised their authority as an employer to hire and fire employees for cause.

[GregS]

Interesting.  Is employment a "right?"  Is it a "privilege?"  My understanding of rights and privileges is that these are inherent to people under our system of government and that the government of the people protects rights to all and grants privileges to some.  I'm not sure how this translates to the private sector though.  My driver's license is a privilege.  I don't see how my job is a privilege, but I'm open to the concept.  I'm not trying to be difficult; I've talked to more than one attorney who looks at discussions such as this to flesh out a solid legal theory.  So if private employment is a privilege protected under the MMMA, let's formulate a concrete case for it.

Being fired is certainly a penalty.

[t-pain]

the penalty thing was meant to keep MMMA patients from being discriminated.

which is exactly what renters and landlords are doing now, discriminating.

[t-pain]

The MMMA protects patients from a penalty from a business licensing board or bureau.  It does not protect someone from a penalty from a business.  Walmart is a business - not a business licensing board or bureau. 

the way you read sec4a is so strange, i'm not sure we are even arguing the same thing.

 

by your logic, sec4 would only protect patients from being arrested by a licensing board.

 

its all the darn comma fault!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Ambiguity

Edited May 13, 2014 by t-pain

[Dr. Bob]

the way you read sec4a is so strange, i'm not sure we are even arguing the same thing.

 

by your logic, sec4 would only protect patients from being arrested by a licensing board.

No, not at all.  It only refers to adverse actions by a licensing board.  Licensing boards don't arrest, they license.  And the Act protects your license.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[t-pain]

lets just retype sec4a and see if we can agree on it?

 

Sec. 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

 

heres my offer, lets see yours.

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to:

1.arrest

2.prosecution

3. penalty in any manner

4. denied any right or privilege

5. including but not limited to civil penalty

6. disciplinary action by a business board/bureau or occupational board/bureau or professional licensing board or bureau

 

it is for this reason that penalty in any manner and civil penalty are both listed that i think penalty means more than just penalty from a business license board.

Edited May 13, 2014 by t-pain

[Dr. Bob]

How's this?  No retyping needed.

 

Sec. 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

 

You are welcome to say that being fired falls under the 'including but not limited to' wording (ie because getting fired is not specifically excluded, therefore it could be considered as a protection under the 'not limited too' qualifier) but I think Joe's case and the case of the Hayes Green Beach nurse (where she got her unemployment but not her job back- and KEPT HER LICENSE) have pretty well clarified things.  

 

For more details see Highlander's excellent posts.  As usual, he is right on the money.  At best you are making the argument a lawyer might try to use for a specific client in a specific circumstance, but as for generalities, I don't think it has much of a chance of working in court.  Just an opinion.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 13, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

The logic being used is very clear:

 

This body cannot do that.... that cannot be done BY this body.  

 

The entire section clearly talks about actions by some specific (business/occupation/professional) boards.

 

A similar part of the Act refers to protection from arrest BY state officials under state law, but federal authorities can still enforce and arrest under federal law.

 

This isn't a legal opinion, it is simply using logic and sentence construction.  It apparently has been vetted by the courts as well.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

Being fired is certainly a penalty.

 

What exactly constitutes a penalty?  Does my mom break the law if she tells me I can't come to Thanksgiving dinner if I'm a MMJ user?

[t-pain]

if she says its because of your mmj use, then yes

 

but theres also no crime or fine for denying a mmj patient some right or privledge. so you would have to sue your mom for damages.

 

this is not legal advice. could be wrong.

[GregS]

What exactly constitutes a penalty?  Does my mom break the law if she tells me I can't come to Thanksgiving dinner if I'm a MMJ user?

Does she?

[bobandtorey]

No Walmart Joe stayed fired because the company was allowed to fire him for violating federal law.  No one denied him a business, occupational or professional license.  They just exercised their authority as an employer to hire and fire employees for cause.

Thanks 

But Joe ended up in Federal court is how it went down

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks 

But Joe ended up in Federal court is how it went down

State court prob would have said the same thing.  Folks are fired for having a card every day, yet there is not one case I am aware of where someone got their job back under this section.  That is because this section has nothing to do with employers, just with boards.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

State court prob would have said the same thing.  Folks are fired for having a card every day, yet there is not one case I am aware of where someone got their job back under this section.  That is because this section has nothing to do with employers, just with boards.

 

Dr. Bob

Wrong again. If you were right TerBeek would have failed. He is not a member of any board. His case turned on the fact that the municipal law provided for illegal penalty. Is being fired not a penalty?

 

"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..."

 

Stay with your ersatz medicine Bob. You are out of your depth otherwise.

Edited May 14, 2014 by GregS

[t-pain]

forget it greg, when you have to refresh peoples' english lessions, you've already lost.

 

anyone who doesnt understand penalty or sec4 can re-read people v koon and ter beek v wyoming mich supreme court opinions.

[GregS]

forget it greg, when you have to refresh peoples' english lessions, you've already lost.

 

anyone who doesnt understand penalty or sec4 can re-read people v koon and ter beek v wyoming mich supreme court opinions.

I understand completely. Dealing with the dumbassest common denominator is a challenge.

[Dr. Bob]

Wrong again. If you were right TerBeek would have failed. He is not a member of any board. His case turned on the fact that the municipal law was an illegal penalty. Is being fired not a penalty?

 

"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..."

 

Stay with your ersatz medicine Bob. You are out of your depth otherwise.

 

Cool...so Ter Beek was upheld because it was a illegal penalty and therefore not allowed?  Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.  I and most other people that actually read the case seem to mistakenly think it had to do with communities not being able to selectively ignore Michigan law and restrict things specifically allowed by Michigan law by citing Federal Law.  

 

That being said, it has nothing to do with the section under discussion.  But thanks for chirping in, your comments as usual added greatly to the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Cool...so Ter Beek was upheld because it was a illegal penalty and therefore not allowed?  Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.  I and most other people that actually read the case seem to mistakenly think it had to do with communities not being able to selectively ignore Michigan law and restrict things specifically allowed by Michigan law by citing Federal Law.  

 

That being said, it has nothing to do with the section under discussion.  But thanks for chirping in, your comments as usual added greatly to the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

id.

Edited May 14, 2014 by GregS