This article was originally published on the Marijuana Patients Organization site on April 5, 2012.
Interesting times for our medical marijuana law in Michigan wouldn’t you say? Recently the Michigan Supreme Court has decided to hear a case, People V. Compassionate Apothecary. The media has touted this as the case to answer the dispensary issue, while some view this as an opportunity for law enforcement to rid Michigan of a law that 67% of us asked for.
Let us examine what the Court of Appeals decision in August of 2011, the case that the Supreme Court is hearing again, actually did and more importantly what it clarified. Surprisingly it defined the law quite nicely, at least based on real concerns from law enforcement, common sense rationale from government leaders and mirrored sentiment from the average citizen, unless of course you are a convicted drug felon.
The Court of Appeals stated that it can be declared a public nuisance (illegal) for a patient to sell (for compensation) another patient(s) medical marijuana. The court also affirmed that caregivers can receive compensation from patient(s) as written in the act. Why is this so important, and how is this decision in line with public opinion?
After much discussion and debate with politicians, government officials, law enforcement and the average citizen the same concern was raised, “we dont want a dope pusher now under the guise of caregiver”. The act itself states quite clearly, no one shall be a caregiver that has a drug felony conviction and this decision only affirms the public sentiment.
So how did this Court of Appeals decision accomplish what the public at large requested? Simple, the court said nothing more than what is written in the Act itself, a convicted drug felon can become a medical marijuana patient (legally use the drug) but is unable to become a caregiver, thus making it impossible for a convicted drug felon to operate dispensaries and sell to patient(s) for profit.
This decision did what the public demanded, and in a much quicker fashion than the legislature was capable of doing. Unfortunately elements of the existing status quo that seek to destroy the act are misinforming the public and media, stating the decision bans any and all sales. This simply is not true. Perhaps the high court (no pun intended) opted to hear the case in order to combat this “confusion and smoke” that arose from what appeared to be a fair and reasoned decision.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court holds the same opinion as the Court of Appeals and more importantly, the public at large, and asks the question, “why again are they hearing this case?“