Man Won't Face Jail For Technical Violation Of Medical Marijuana Law

[Michael Komorn]

Unfortunately all too often we are seeing these types of cases reported in the media regarding the MMMA. I take issue with these conclusions.

The law allows each patient 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana and to cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any registered caregiver can have up to that amount for each patient registered to them (with a maximum of six), including the grower, if each person has an MMMA card. In his wife’s plot were an additional 40 plants, but the agents said Delucenay was the one actually cultivating the crop, not his wife. "You can’t do two grow operations in excess of what the law allows," Kimble said.

I patently disagree with this interpretation and firmly believe that the interpretation being used from the People v Bylsma Michigan Supreme Court is wrong. Section 4(d) of the MMMA clearly states that: (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

The facts presented in this case seem to be unequivocal that the accused and his wife possessed a cards, and were in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. There were no assertions in this article to suggest the existence of evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

The State claimed it was a technical violation, so why is it a “good” or “fair” deal to plead to anything other than a technical violation? Why is the only offer available to the accused to plead to a violation of the controlled substance act, when the accused is allowed to possess and engage in the medical use of marihuana?

Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) "is highly complicated, especially for caregivers," Branch County Circuit Court Judge Bill O’Grady told Kevin Delucenay while the latter faced sentencing. While I disagree with this statement, and suggest complicated is a code word for good for the caregiver and bad for the Police, Prosecutor, and the costs associated with a plea to a controlled substance violation. The question that remains is if it is so complicated, why is the accused guilty of anything, other than being confused like everyone else? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but confusion of the law is something very different. Too many patients and caregivers who have relied upon the MMMA to protect them have been ensnared in the criminal justice system because of judicial and prosecutorial confusion. I would suggest that before someone is guilty of any crime, the Judge, Prosecutor and the Police must not be confused about the law.

Read more: http://www.thedailyr...2#ixzz3HZFkElDL 

[Restorium2]

No proven sales: Technical Violation- $500 fine. Move along ...... 

[t-pain]

he got popped on a 750.474 illegal transport according to the article.

[Restorium2]

but the agents said Delucenay was the one actually cultivating the crop, not his wife. 

[Restorium2]

Double technical-$500 fine 

[t-pain]

"During a traffic stop, an MSP trooper smelled the odor of marijuana and found 12 glass jars labeled as varieties of marijuana – nine of them contained marijuana at the time. These were for his registered clients but not properly transported."

 

i am curious how many people have fought 750.474 nonsense as being inconsistent with MMMA...

[Restorium2]

I was not viewing 'this penalty' as a technical violation-$500 fine. I thought that a simple 'fine and move along' would be a step in the right direction. A streamlining for us and the courts. Like a traffic ticket. I think it just might happen some day.

[Habenero]

"During a traffic stop, an MSP trooper smelled the odor of marijuana and found 12 glass jars labeled as varieties of marijuana – nine of them contained marijuana at the time. These were for his registered clients but not properly transported."

 

i am curious how many people have fought 750.474 nonsense as being inconsistent with MMMA...

I would argue that the marijuana in the jars was in a "case."  Hmmm, wonder if'n that would work?

[Willy]

I F yu got a card you should't have to worry about any tickets/bullsheet at all..what the hell is the card for ,, simple.... targeting us ,, if a cop sees the card your in for a shakedown.. period..

[Habenero]

Yeah the transport law is ludicrous. There is no justifiable purpose behind it. It ain't like a beer that you could crack open and suck down while driving.

[bobandtorey]

These cases should not be prosecuted, fines or otherwise. Patients and their caregivers should not be left with a criminal history, nor should they have to remain "in the system" for two years, working a felony down to a misdemeanor, for technical violations of the Act. Viewing this penalty as "technical violation, $500 fine, carry on" is missing the point of this commentary.

Thank you 

 

i agree we as you know spent almost five years working on our felony down and the rest of our life with PTSD 

[bobandtorey]

Yeah the transport law is ludicrous. There is no justifiable purpose behind it. It ain't like a beer that you could crack open and suck down while driving.

I agree but it's the money behind that is the point IMHO that is 

[Restorium2]

I F yu got a card you should't have to worry about any tickets/bullsheet at all..what the hell is the card for ,, simple.... targeting us ,, if a cop sees the card your in for a shakedown.. period..

There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. A card can't make it so you can have 1000 plants. But if you were a few cuttings over then you need to get a fine and move along. If you didn't have a top on your enclosed outdoor grow then you need a fine and move on. If you have a bunch of roachs in your car ash tray you need a fine and move along. If, like this case, you got caught 'being able to access' your wife's plants then you get a fine and move along. That would solve a lot of problems without causing much damage to the patients involved. You are NEVER going to get a 'Carte Blanche' just because you have a card. So we make the penalties less, a $500 fine and move along. You get 3 fines in a 12 month period then you get something on your record. How about that? 

Just recently we see that 'The Card' is good to get you some unemployment if you were fired for testing dirty. One little step at a time in the right direction is how you win. It might not always seem like it but we are winning. Ideas like the fine are how we win. The fine means patients don't go to court or jail. I'm down with that, how about you?

[t-pain]

sure resto.

 

the current laws against marihuana, MCL 333.7401 - 333.7404 are inconsistent with the MMMA.

 

so none of those laws should even apply to anyone with a dr rec.

 

a law would be consistent with MMMA if it said something like

'a MMMA registered patient who has over 12 plants will be fined $50'

that would be consistent with sec4 i think.

[Restorium2]

Exactly. It's like 'The End Zone'. Can't wait to spike the ball and do a happy dance. No forfeiture. No shooting my dog. "Here's your stinking fine. Try to buy some roids with that". lol

[Norby]

Yeah the transport law is ludicrous. There is no justifiable purpose behind it. It ain't like a beer that you could crack open and suck down while driving.

I agree, but even if it was, who cares.  I can take a xanax while driving down the road and they have to prove IMPAIRMENT(not yelling at you, at leo). Mj is another med I take that doesn't impair me as much as a xanax(well I don't take xanax anymore thanks to hi CBD strains).  Not that I should be able to drive impaired either but I should not have to prove I'm not impaired(they assume if in the system you are. not only does tolerance play into it the amount of CBD in your system counteracting THC and your ability level as you become "immune" to lower doses as you increase your meds, it has been proven), they should have to prove I AM impaired.  Just like any other meds people are ALLOWED to take.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Norby

[FactorX]

Agreed.

[Habenero]

I agree, but even if it was, who cares.  I can take a xanax while driving down the road and they have to prove IMPAIRMENT(not yelling at you, at leo). Mj is another med I take that doesn't impair me as much as a xanax(well I don't take xanax anymore thanks to hi CBD strains).  Not that I should be able to drive impaired either but I should not have to prove I'm not impaired(they assume if in the system you are. not only does tolerance play into it the amount of CBD in your system counteracting THC and your ability level as you become "immune" to lower doses as you increase your meds, it has been proven), they should have to prove I AM impaired.  Just like any other meds people are ALLOWED to take.

I agree with u. Just sayin I would like to know the danger that our govt is protecting us from.

[trichcycler]

I think we realize their perceived danger right here daily. Stellar communication at lightning speed in a well managed forum accessible to anyone 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Add that to our obvious break away of their "dumb stoner" stereotypical mantra and consider it maybe just the opposite in truth. They quite well should fear our eyes and ears becoming clearer each brighter day. Our numbers grow, stereotypes are broken, racial lines are invisible, help is always a post away even offered to strangers. The opposite is what keeps brothers and sisters at war and on the path.
 
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.(q?)
 
Fear This !

[t-pain]

reminds me of a question i always wanted to ask in one of these legalization debates.

where the prohibitionist calls us stoners and pot makes you lazy and no good etc.

 

"so, you're losing a legalization fight to a bunch of lazy potheads who live in their parents house?"

 

ehe

[+Malamute]

If we want this fixed, we must add language to the law specifying penalties for infractions of the MMMAct.  Categories. Penalties. etc.

[trichcycler]

why didn't the smarties do this in the first place when the Act was drafted?

[Restorium2]

why didn't the smarties do this in the first place when the Act was drafted?

The way they wrote it points at the task at hand, a separate penalty for card holders. MDCH didn't even let us have cards until almost 6 months after the law was signed. They don't follow the directions in the law in a timely manor. This is just another instance where MDCH/LARA is lagging in the tasks laid out by the MMMA. You can't blame the writers of the law for this. You should thank them for pointing the way towards this.

[Restorium2]

You don't feel that the drafters of the MMMA were working for no penalties for cardholders?

That would be too much to ask for if a card holder went over to the extreme. They had common sense so they pointed only at not using the criminal code for card holders. I think that was well thought out by the writers. There's a lot of instructions in the law that are ignored or called mistakes. The people it instructed are not good at being told what to do so they like to misinterpret those instructions as mistakes by the writers. I think it was well crafted by smarties ......

[trichcycler]

except for the part that requires broken laws maybe,  just to begin helping  themselves or their patients. seeds, clones