Allegations: Msp Falsely Reporting Marijuana, Targeting Card-Carrying Patients

[outsideinthecold]

If the lab was improperly and knowingly issuing ambiguous results it hardly matters if the AG had knowledge or not, does it?

 

Plausible deniability doesn't excuse inept, unethical, or illegal behavior, does it?

 

There are many voters and politicians of both parties who would support any effort to prolong a failed prohibition rather than admit they were wrong.

 

Look no further than the Fed's continuing level I status of Cannabis.

[t-pain]

schuette wasted 1.9 million on gay marriage lawsuit himself, showing inept, unethical etc behavior. directly responsible for that.

 

he got no reprimand for that. what makes you think this is any more important?

[outsideinthecold]

Back when I followed our local city, county and state budgets, I calculated the total out-of-pocket costs of Prohibition in Michigan at roughly two billion or two-percent of the state's budget.

 

Schuette's two-million anti-gay marriage rant is peanuts in comparison at four-one hundred thousandths of the budget.

 

Regardless, the majority of voters from either party don't seem to consider either the cost of a program or its consequences going forward.

 

We get the government we deserve.

Edited November 4, 2015 by outsideinthecold

[GregS]

If the lab was improperly and knowingly issuing ambiguous results it hardly matters if the AG had knowledge or not, does it?

 

Plausible deniability doesn't excuse inept, unethical, or illegal behavior, does it?

 

There are many voters and politicians of both parties who would support any effort to prolong a failed prohibition rather than admit they were wrong.

 

Look no further than the Fed's continuing level I status of Cannabis.

Fer crissake knock it off. The lab has been pretty forthcoming about the fact that its findings were not ambiguous. Law enforcement and the courts played fast and loose with the fact that they had no evidence that the substances in question are synthetic. The lab said the origins were unknown; not enough evidence to put anyone in jail for.

[t-pain]

well one of the lab techs said the presence of other cannabinoids meant it was marijuana plant based resin.

 

the prosecutor is definitely at fault.

 

ken stecker is at fault for saying all thc is schedule 1.

 

lab? tough to say. does that make the lab at fault though?

[t-pain]

lots of articles on this, not sure how many of these got posted here

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/11/no_conspiracy_prosecutor_says.html

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/10/prosecutors_crime_labs_circumv.html

 

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2015/11/04/maxwell-lorincz-hearing-set/75168304/

 

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/01/michigan-creates-bogus-crimes-by-conflat

 

http://www.hightimes.com/read/michigan-state-police-lab-falsely-reports-help-prosecutors-get-felony-convictions

 

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/medical-marijuana-patient-alleges-prosecutors-swayed-crime-lab-drug-tests

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/10/its_been_a_nightmare_man_says.html

 

http://fox17online.com/2015/10/29/emails-spell-out-alleged-scandal-in-state-crime-lab-testing-falsely-reporting-marijuana/

 

http://michiganradio.org/post/activists-cry-foul-over-state-police-policy-change-leading-harsher-pot-charges

 

http://fox17online.com/2015/10/28/allegations-michigan-state-police-crime-labs-falsely-reporting-marijuana-creating-felonies-against-card-carrying-patients/

[Alphabob]

Curious how this plays out against the MSC decision outlawing oils and medibles. 

 

I do not have the cases readily available but my recollection was that the State's argument was that the THC in the final product was just a pure chemical and therefore not identifiable as being from a mmj plant, therefore the language that covered "any part of the plant..." did not apply.     While one can with very high end chemical process equipment create a pure THC from a plant, it would seem, as this case highlights that there is plant material in most extracts that we see from our cottage industry.  

 

Perhaps someone more familiar with the detailed specifics of the MSC case could comment.   For example, what chemical analysis was done on the materials (oils/medibles) in that case?   Is there a potential that the State fudged the data to fit their argument?

 

**I’m not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice** The MSC basically reinforced that you could have any preparation of the flowers directly. If you made a preparation of marijuana butter, that you then made into a preparation of brownies or edibles, you are not covered by section 4 as it does not count as “usable marihuana”  (only section 8 if you meet specific requirements). However, they didn’t say cardholders are not allowed to have any preparation made directly from bud or flower. For example, if you make brownies with the bud directly (and thus there would be chunks of bud in the brownies), or if you use a direct, single step preparation of the flower such as BHO, the resin in your bowl or even cannabis butter by itself, you should be protected under section 4 (assuming your not over weight limits). In fact, the wording of the law is quite clear on this,

 

‘“Usable  marihuana”  means  the dried  leaves  and  flowers  of  the  marihuana  plant,  and  any  mixture  or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant’

 

Notice how preparation is singular, not plural. Any preparation from dried leaves and flowers is covered, preparations are not. This is the technical aspect that the MSC applied. "Any - used to indicate one selected without restriction" and "Preparation - something prepared, manufactured, or compounded".

 

Yes, the state labs 100% fudged their policies to harass law-abiding citizens. By their logic, they could scrap the resin from your bowl, claim origin is unknown and then charge you with a felony for synthetic THC because there’s no “identifiable plant material”. They knew that it was highly unlikely, nearly impossible that any of it was synthetic. Their old procedure had them labeling it as marijuana, because that is the only reasonable origin when multiple cannabinoids or spectroscopic plant material is found. So what they essentially did was go from reporting the most probable origin to the most improbable, simply by claiming the origin was unknown and labeling it as THC (together they are interpreted by courts, lab techs and PAs as “synthetic THC”, and there is substantial evidence of this in the emails). The MSP are treating law-abiding cardholders worse then the FEDs would be... They could have easily reported “THC/CBD/CBN – Schedule 1”, “Marijuana – Schedule 1”, or “I don’t know how to do basic chemistry – please fire me”… Why does the origin even matter? Just report ALL scheduled chemicals found and there wouldn’t be a problem.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

The MSC basically reinforced that you could have any preparation

it was a coa case. never made it to the msc.

[MedicatedJester]

For example, if you make brownies with the bud directly (and thus there would be chunks of bud in the brownies), or if you use a direct, single step preparation of the flower such as BHO, the resin in your bowl or even cannabis butter by itself, you should be protected under section 4 (assuming your not over weight limits). In fact, the wording of the law is quite clear on this,

 

‘“Usable  marihuana”  means  the dried  leaves  and  flowers  of  the  marihuana  plant,  and  any  mixture  or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant’

 

Notice how preparation is singular, not plural. Any preparation from dried leaves and flowers is covered, preparations are not. This is the technical aspect that the MSC applied. "Any - used to indicate one selected without restriction" and "Preparation - something prepared, manufactured, or compounded".

 

 

I appreciate your perspective, but this really falls apart under any logical analysis.  Your premise is that the law is "quite clear" that cannabis butter by itself is legal, but put into a brownie is illegal bases on the singular form of the word "preparation"?  So when does a legal substance become illegal?  You can eat the butter alone?  Can you put it on bread?  We know you can't put it in brownies.  I don't believe have multiple steps in a process moves you from "preparation" to "preparations".

 

My recollection from the COA ruling was that it was focused on any extremely strict imterpretation of the phrase "preparation thereof".  They ruled that the preparation must contain the actual flower/leaves, and if you remove those parts it is no longer a "preparation thereof".

 

Equally stupid and illogical, but then again, the COA has demonstrated a consistent disregard for the will of the people and only look for any remotely plausible reason to rule based on their agenda.  Hence why the Supreme Court continues to overturn their rulings in regard to the Act.

 

In this case, the MSC was duped by the legislature, as they refused the cased based on pending legislation that would clear this all up.  Of course, as we know, the legislature has been sitting on this issue for years trying to figure out how their supporters can profit.

 

The more I have followed this law, the more cynical I have become about our government.  From what I've seen, the only branch of our state government that even seems to be pretending to support the will of the people is the MSC.  They maybe a judicial body made up of conservatives, but in regards to the MMMA they at least has applied law, logic and common sense for the most part.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks for the post

 

Do you know haw many cases the MSC has overturned the C.O.A and i haven't seen any change in the peoples Law so far that any MSC ruling has made  the Law  better for Pt/Gc 

[t-pain]

the msc has reversed in part and confirmed in part the coa rulings in most cases. there were no full 100% reversals of coa opinions iirc.

[Restorium2]

And then you have Snyder whittling away at any hope of change by appointing 3 MSC justices;

 

http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/columns/george-weeks-snyder-appoints-third-supreme-court-justice/article_549e4418-6a5a-11e5-89ac-a3d5b21147f2.html

[t-pain]

edit: nevermind, i was looking at the reporters photo on that site hahaha doh.

 

According to the Detroit Free Press, Larsen said, “I’m looking forward to joining the court and starting a new chapter in my legal career as we wrestle with some of the most important legal issues facing the state.

[t-pain]

so the police lobbying the legislature.

 

the police (WEMET) asking the crime lab to alter lab reports.

 

the police writing and editing bills in closed meetings with legislators.

 

this is all legal?

[Alphabob]

I appreciate your perspective, but this really falls apart under any logical analysis.  Your premise is that the law is "quite clear" that cannabis butter by itself is legal, but put into a brownie is illegal bases on the singular form of the word "preparation"?  So when does a legal substance become illegal?  You can eat the butter alone?  Can you put it on bread?  We know you can't put it in brownies.  I don't believe have multiple steps in a process moves you from "preparation" to "preparations".

 

My recollection from the COA ruling was that it was focused on any extremely strict imterpretation of the phrase "preparation thereof".  They ruled that the preparation must contain the actual flower/leaves, and if you remove those parts it is no longer a "preparation thereof".

 

Equally stupid and illogical, but then again, the COA has demonstrated a consistent disregard for the will of the people and only look for any remotely plausible reason to rule based on their agenda.  Hence why the Supreme Court continues to overturn their rulings in regard to the Act.

 

In this case, the MSC was duped by the legislature, as they refused the cased based on pending legislation that would clear this all up.  Of course, as we know, the legislature has been sitting on this issue for years trying to figure out how their supporters can profit.

 

The more I have followed this law, the more cynical I have become about our government.  From what I've seen, the only branch of our state government that even seems to be pretending to support the will of the people is the MSC.  They maybe a judicial body made up of conservatives, but in regards to the MMMA they at least has applied law, logic and common sense for the most part.

 

Yes, COA not MSC. However, this is essentially how they interpreted the law but in a more technical aspect. So instead of relying on preparation versus preparations, they just stated that resin was not included in the definition directly and thus a preparation of resin is not covered by section 4. I guess in terms of where it becomes illegal is quite unclear and probably liable to personal interpretation. Could putting cannabutter on bread turn a legal substance into an illegal one? This I'm unsure about, because the cannabutter and bread would not entirely be a new preparation or mixture. I'm sure MSP or a prosecutor would argue that it is.

 

“At his preliminary examination, defendant acknowledged that THC was extracted from marijuana and infused into the brownies. Defendant's counsel at the preliminary exam also stated that the brownies were ‘not made from ground up leaves [of marijuana]’ but rather were made with a THC extract called ‘Cannabutter.’”

 

“By excluding resin from the definition of ‘usable marihuana,’ as contrasted with the definition of ‘marihuana,’ and defining ‘usable marihuana’ to mean only ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof,’ MCL 333.26423(k) (emphasis added), the drafters clearly expressed its intent not to include resin, or a mixture or preparation of resin, within the definition of ‘usable marihuana .’It therefore expressed its intent not to include a mixture or preparation of an extract of resin. Consequently, an edible made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of ‘usable marihuana.’ Rather, under the plain language of the MMMA, the only ‘mixture or preparation’ that falls within the definition of ‘usable marihuana’ is a ‘mixture or preparation’ of ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant.’ Id.”

 

Having plant material that is microscopically visible has nothing to do with it; however, this is something that state labs are depending on to label it as synthetic THC (I believe they are looking for the plant hairs). It is funny how the people against the law say it was poorly worded, leaving gaps in the language. But this is a lie, the law is properly worded but being misapplied by state attorneys and LEO. They say "If you want to change the law then you need to vote or talk to the legislators", but when we change the law they still abuse it in every way possible.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Alphabob

[bobandtorey]

Yes, COA not MSC. However, this is essentially how they interpreted the law but in a more technical aspect. So instead of relying on preparation versus preparations, they just stated that resin was not included in the definition directly and thus a preparation of resin is not covered by section 4. I guess in terms of where it becomes illegal is quite unclear and probably liable to personal interpretation. Could putting cannabutter on bread turn a legal substance into an illegal one? This I'm unsure about, because the cannabutter and bread would not entirely be a new preparation or mixture. I'm sure MSP or a prosecutor would argue that it is.

 

“At his preliminary examination, defendant acknowledged that THC was extracted from marijuana and infused into the brownies. Defendant's counsel at the preliminary exam also stated that the brownies were ‘not made from ground up leaves [of marijuana]’ but rather were made with a THC extract called ‘Cannabutter.’”

 

“By excluding resin from the definition of ‘usable marihuana,’ as contrasted with the definition of ‘marihuana,’ and defining ‘usable marihuana’ to mean only ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof,’ MCL 333.26423(k) (emphasis added), the drafters clearly expressed its intent not to include resin, or a mixture or preparation of resin, within the definition of ‘usable marihuana .’It therefore expressed its intent not to include a mixture or preparation of an extract of resin. Consequently, an edible made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of ‘usable marihuana.’ Rather, under the plain language of the MMMA, the only ‘mixture or preparation’ that falls within the definition of ‘usable marihuana’ is a ‘mixture or preparation’ of ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant.’ Id.”

 

Having plant material that is microscopically visible has nothing to do with it; however, this is something that state labs are depending on to label it as synthetic THC (I believe they are looking for the plant hairs). It is funny how the people against the law say it was poorly worded, leaving gaps in the language. But this is a lie, the law is properly worded but being misapplied by state attorneys and LEO. They say "If you want to change the law then you need to vote or talk to the legislators", but when we change the law they still abuse it in every way possible.

 

 

Thank you

[Restorium2]

To the science side; What about the THCV that only occurs in natural cannabis? 

 

We already know that you can tell the difference between natural THC and synthetic by looking for THCV. We learned that by comparing natural THC to Marinol which has no THCV. They can even test urine and tell the difference between ingestion of natural THC compared to synthetic. 

[MedicatedJester]

Thanks for the post

 

Do you know haw many cases the MSC has overturned the C.O.A and i haven't seen any change in the peoples Law so far that any MSC ruling has made  the Law  better for Pt/Gc 

 

Like I said, the MSC is definitely a conservative judicial body, and I am not a fan of many of their decisions.  However, unlike the CoA, I believe they are at least trying to interpret the law as opposed to pushing an agenda.  Here are a few decisions that I feel at least, in part, made it better for the pt/cg than what the CoA ruling was:

 

Koon - The CoA essentially rules that you could not have a medical card and a drivers license.  The MSC upheld the obvious - that as stated, the MMMA overruled any conflicting laws.  This, to me, was the most egregious ruling by the CoA.  It is indefensible in any way, shape or form.

 

Hartwick & Tuttle - both were sent back for evidentiary hearings.  Maybe not ideal, but better than the CoA ruling which disallowed them from presenting an affirmative defense.  Tuttle sepcifically was a win because they specified that the violation on one charge does not automatically preclude you from immunity on others.

 

Kolanek - This is the decision that firmly established that Section 4 and Section 8 are two separate and distinct protections.  Specifially they rules that an affirmative defense was available to Kolanek even though his doctor recommendation came after his arrest.

 

You could definitely state that these did not enact "any change in the peoples Law so far that any MSC ruling has made  the Law  better for Pt/Gc"; however, my point was not that the MSC made the law BETTER than it was written (which is not the judicial branches role in government), but instead that the MSC has more fairly interpreted the law than the CoA.

[Restorium2]

If they can test a person's urine and tell if they ingested plant based THC or synthetic THC, how can they not tell the difference easily by looking for THCV? Why would they have to see 'plant hairs'? 

[Restorium2]

Someone needs to present this in the real world. Or we can just keep hammering it on the net. I think I have outlined the answer to the problem. The light at the end of the tunnel. It's very well documented scientific information. 

[+Malamute]

It could be synthetic THCV...

 

;-p

[Restorium2]

They have been using the THCV test as a gotcha for decades. People with prescriptions for marinol tried to get away with using marijuana and they found a way to tell the difference. It's about time the tables get turned on that one. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Restorium2

[t-pain]

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/14/michigan-prosecutors-lab-falsify-medical-marijuana-results/

 

another great article. focusing more on the prosecutors now

[knucklehead bob]

LANSING — Michigan ranks last in a national study of state ethics and transparency laws and safeguards, set for release today, partly due to its weak public records law and an absence of laws requiring personal financial disclosures by lawmakers and top state officials.

 

In all, 11 states received failing grades of F in the study, but Michigan's rating was last in the study by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity, two nonprofit organizations that promote government transparency and ethics.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/michigan-ranks-last-laws-ethics-transparency/75288210/

[Alphabob]

To the science side; What about the THCV that only occurs in natural cannabis? 

 

We already know that you can tell the difference between natural THC and synthetic by looking for THCV. We learned that by comparing natural THC to Marinol which has no THCV. They can even test urine and tell the difference between ingestion of natural THC compared to synthetic. 

 

You can read the emails here (https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/02/michigan-creates-bogus-crimes-by-conflat) https://d1ai9qtk9p41kl.cloudfront.net/assets/db/14463929737159.pdf

 

Here is the discussion on actual science:

“For those that want to identify the extracts of marihuana in food products without visible plant material, which components do you feel would be required? Would identifying THC alone be enough or a combination of THC, CBN and/or CBD? A possibility to clarify results would be to show the components identified (THC, CBD and/or CBN) in the results section…” - Kyle Hoskins

 

“Is morphology necessary to identify the resin/extract? If hash or hash oil is prepared perfectly there will not be any hairs and we should resort to other methods to identify.” - George Chirackal

 

“If an analytical requirement is to be established, I would think it appropriate to require identification of at least three cannabinoids, one of which shall be THC, and two of CBC, CBD, CBN or CBG. Given that CBN is a result of the oxidation of THC, the identification of THC and CBN, by themselves and in the absence of plant material, only really supports the presence of THC, … If no plant material is visualized, can we know if it was marihuana or an extracted oil that was used to prepare the product? Does that matter in formulating a statement for the report? What is the qualitative uncertainty regarding the immediate source of the cannabinoids in question?” - Elizabeth Gormley

 

“Lately, the majority of medibles cases that I have done have had only a THC peak, so the proposal from Elizabeth would not be helpful at addressing the concerns of the Lansing analysts. I understand their position that by reporting THC instead of marihuana, we are possibly influencing the sentencing severity, as THC has a significantly higher penalty than marihuana.” - Dale Gooden

 

“I've had this conversation personally with Brad, Kyle, and George. All three agree with the (sensible) argument that other cannabinoids *can* be manufactured synthetically, just as THC can be. Is it likely that someone went to the trouble to manufacture THC and two other cannabinoids, mix them up, and bake them into a pan of brownies? Of course not. That doesn't mean we should change the results to show we found Marijuana. We didn't, because Marijuana is a plant, and we didn't find plant parts.” - John Bowen

Their actual arguments become irrelevant when you read the MMMA:

4(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.”

 

3(f) “‘Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.”

 

So there must be a presumption that the substance confiscated from a cardholder is legal UNLESS there is evidence that it was not for the purpose of alleviating the patient’s qualifying condition or that the conduct was not in accordance with the MMMA. However, the labs cannot know if someone is a cardholder. This ends with one of the better emails,

 

“We are encountering a significant amount of THC wax and oil. These products are illegal and not covered under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. We have had a couple issues with the lab tests coming back as marijuana instead of delta1-THC. If we were to seized the wax/oil from a card carrying patient or caregiver and it comes back as marijuana, we will not have PC for the arrests. Bill Evans spoke to lab personnel and was advised that if a "speck" of marijuana plant material is found in the oil, the test will come back as marijuana and not delta1-THC. Is there a way to get this changed? Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana.” - Andrew Fias

 

These products are illegal and not covered by the MMMA says a state police lieutenant with West Michigan’s regional drug task force; but if you report them as what they actually are, there will no longer be probable cause for arrest? Is this perhaps due to them being legal and covered by the MMMA? It seems that the policy for LEO should have been not to arrest legal cardholders in the first place, as the labs were apparently forced to cover for them. I wonder where they get their policies and legal advice from...

Edited November 15, 2015 by Alphabob