Medical marijuana facility partners with rapper

A Michigan medical marijuana facility is partnering with a member of the Grammy-winning rap group Bone Thugs-N-Harmony to cultivate and distribute a new strain of medical marijuana.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 20, 2013 at 7:43 a.m. PDT — Updated: March 20, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. PDT

OTISVILLE, Mich. — A Michigan medical marijuana facility is partnering with a member of the Grammy-winning rap group Bone Thugs-N-Harmony to cultivate and distribute a new strain of medical marijuana.

The Green Oasis and Stanley "Flesh-N-Bone" Howse have agreed to work together on "Phifty Caliber Kush," which they say has a noticeable floral taste and is an effective pain reliever.

The Flint-area dispensary's owner, Anthony Butler, calls the new pot strain "the best of the best."

Flesh-n-Bone Global executive Michael "Tony B." Bernardi tells The Flint Journal ( http://bit.ly/14bKODM) that Howse hopes the product can provide relief for any qualified, verified patient.

Besides distributing "Phifty Caliber Kush," The Green Oasis could begin selling merchandise and possibly host a visit from Howse.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/03/2 … rylink=cpy

Watch Video-

The Oakland County Prosecutor's office is contemplating filing criminal charges against a medical doctor for his involvement in certifying two medical marijuana patients in 2009 - shortly after Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) was implemented.

The protracted case against Robert Redden and Torey Clark was initially dismissed back on June 17, 2009, by former Oakland County District Judge Robert J. Turner. The district court's dismissal was appealed by Oakland County's prosecutor and, since then, the case has been dragging on between various appellate and trial courts.

During an evidentiary hearing held on February 20, Assistant Prosecutor Beth M. Hand, told Circuit Judge Denise Langford Morris that she believes "there is a serious Fifth Amendment problem that Dr. [Eric] Eisenbud faces relative to his testimony that he would be giving here today ... in light of his testimony he gave at the preliminary examination... I believe that Dr. Eisenbud should be advised of his right to an attorney, prior to him testifying, in what could result in criminal charges being brought against him."
During this February 20, 2013 hearing, Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand notified the court that her office is contemplating filing criminal charges against a medical doctor for his involvement in certifying two medical marijuana patients, Robert Redden and Torey Clark.
People v Redden & Clark - MI Medical Marijuana hearing - February 20, 2013

Defense Attorney Michael A. Komorn responded, saying that he was "told [about] this moments ago. The law says you can't prosecute a doctor for making a certification. So I don't know what she's talking about."

While those initial courtroom discussions were taking place, Dr. Eisenbud was in Colorado waiting to testify by way of a video-link. He was unable to hear what was being said because the audio was muted at the direction of Judge Lanford Morris.

Prosecutor Hand continued to elaborate her concerns to the Court, stating that it "is the People's position, after reviewing the medical records as well as the doctor's previous testimony, that he may very well be in violation of MCL 750.492. As well as there is testimony that he gave during the preliminary examination relative to items that were contained in the medical records of at least one of the defendants that is, in fact, not in the medical records - at least the medical records that I was provided by the defendants... MCL 750.492 indicates that 'a health care provider or other person, knowing that the information is misleading or inaccurate, shall not intentionally, willfully, or recklessly place or direct another to place in a patient's medical record or chart misleading or inaccurate information regarding the diagnosis, treatment, or cause of a patient's condition.' There's both a felony for willful disregard of that ... as well as misdemeanor for recklessly violating that. The physician's certifications in this case, as well as the physician's statement are, in fact, part of the defendants' medical records as required by the Michigan Department of Community Health that those items be kept as medical records in part of the physician's file... In issuing the certification, which is now a part of the medical records, there are falsehoods inside of the certification relative to what is contained in the medical records. And therefore [Dr. Eisenbud] is going to subject himself, I believe, to a violation of 750.492."

Judge Langford Morris then expressed that she "wish[ed] that this had been raised prior to today so that the doctor could be advised of the assertions that have just been placed on the record... I think we do need to place it on the record in front of the doctor and, quite frankly, I would want to give him a few minutes to think about it because none of you represent the doctor."

Dr. Eisenbud was then allowed to participate and listen to the proceedings. Judge Langford Morris advised him that "the prosecution has just advised defense counsel today, and the Court just now, that apparently there is some possibility ... that the statements that you may make during your testimony could be utilized against you as a foundation for possible criminal charges by the prosecutor."

Dr. Eisenbud responded, stating that "if there is even a possibility of criminal charges against me, I will not testify in this hearing and I will be represented by an attorney... I'm totally surprised. I'm absolutely dumbfounded..."

Judge Langford Morris further notified Dr. Eisenbud that "what [Prosecutor Hand] stated - off the record where you couldn't hear - is that you might be testifying about issuing a certification which may contain falsehoods."

Defense Attorney Komorn interjected, arguing that "I just find it odd and extremely inconvenient for the doctor. I know he took his second day off to be available ... to be told today, moments before that this is what they came up with. It's almost an attempt to thwart what we're trying to get done today. I just can't see it any other way. I think costs should be levied for him, for us, for the payment of this [video conference]. To wait until the last minute is offensive to all that this Court stands for: efficiency, fairness to the parties. It is just beyond belief that we are here talking about this now and he's being threatened - so to speak - and didn't have a chance to talk to counsel before. I just find it outrageous, at this point."

Later on in the proceeding, Prosecutor Hand asserted that the "existence of 750.492 just came to my revelation, Judge, probably several days ago when I learned via an email - I think from one of co-counsel's people that they utilize - I think his name was Eric VanDussen, I think. And [the email] got forwarded to me from various other people about the existence of 750.492. When I read it in conjunction with the medical records I have, as well as looking at the certifications. Judge, I'm ready to go today. This is not to my advantage to adjourn this proceeding... I know it's my obligation, as an officer of the court, to let any witness know when I think that there may be - a criminal charge could be levied against them based on their testimony. And I wont apologize for doing that anytime."

Judge Langford Morris again addressed Dr. Eisenbud, informing him that "Obviously you've heard the prosecutor - you've heard defense counsel. This apparently is something that is relatively new. Quite frankly, I don't ever recall having this as an issue in this court. And I mean in my court and I've been here for over 20 years."

The Redden/Clark case was one of the first instances in which a published appellate opinion was issued regarding the MMMA. The Michigan Court of Appeals' September 14, 2010 opinion contained the following findings of fact: "During the preliminary examination, the prosecution argued that defendants were not entitled to assert the affirmative defense from § 8 of the MMMA because they did not each have a registry identification card at the time of the offense as required by § 4(a) of the MMMA... The prosecution acknowledged that defendants could not have obtained a card previously because the state had yet to begin issuing them. However, the prosecution contended that defendants were required to abstain from marijuana use until they were able to obtain a card. Defendants argued that the plain language of § 8 of the MMMA did not require possession of a card... The prosecution contended that defendants failed to comply with § 8 of the MMMA because they had not shown a bona fide patient-physician relationship with Dr. Eisenbud and also failed to establish that they possessed an amount of marijuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure uninterrupted availability for the purpose of treating their conditions. Defendants argued that they each met the requirements of § 8 because they each had a signed authorization from a licensed physician with whom they had a bona fide physician-patient relationship and who concluded that they each had conditions covered under the MMMA. Defendants also argued that the amount of marijuana was reasonably necessary... As an initial matter, the plain language of § 8 does not place any restriction on defendants’ raising of the affirmative defense. Nevertheless, the prosecution argues that the affirmative defense under § 8 is unavailable to defendants because they did not possess valid registry identification cards at the time of the offense, in violation of § 4."

The Court of Appeals' Redden/Clark opinion ultimately held that the "prosecution contends that this section justifies its position that § 4 must be adhered to in order for a defendant to invoke § 8, because the affirmative defense is only available to a defendant who complies with the other provisions of the MMMA. However, as defendants argue, this position ignores that the MMMA provides two ways in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act. Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in § 8... The plain language of the MMMA supports this view. Section 4 refers to a “qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card” and protects a qualifying patient from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner . . . .” MCL 333.26424(a). On the other hand, § 8(a) refers only to a “patient,” not a qualifying patient, and only permits a patient to “assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana . . . .” MCL 333.26428(a). Thus, adherence to § 4 provides protection that differs from that of § 8. Because of the differing levels of protection in sections 4 and 8, the plain language of the statute establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does not satisfy § 4."

The February 20, 2013 affirmative defense hearing, for which Dr. Eisenbud had been subpoenaed to testify, was adjourned and a new date has not yet been rescheduled by the Court.

(NOTE: When Prosecutor Hand stated in court that she had been forwarded an email apparently originating from this reporter, she most likely was referring to an article that was forwarded to her, which this reporter published on February 13, 2013. See: Doctor charged with certifying undercover officers to use medical marijuana )

(An unedited video of the February 20, 2013 hearing in the Redden/Clark case can be viewed at: http://vimeo.com/60272365 )

13 Feb, 2013

In the latest move to curtail medical marijuana activities, the Michigan State Police on Tuesday arrested a prominent physician in central Michigan known for specializing in recommending medical marijuana. Dr. Edward Harwell was today charged with five criminal counts- two counts of making recommendations outside of the bona fide doctor-patient relationship and three counts of falsifying a medical record.

Dr. Edward Harwell, owner of the Triple M Clinics was taken into custody by MSP officers on Tuesday, February 12 and was held overnight without bond at the Wexford County Jail. Charges were announced at his arraignment. Harwell’s bond was set at $20,000.

Revealed in Court today were the details of the charges. On February 5, 2013, Harwell certified two undercover officers for use of medical marijuana without viewing any patient records nor performing a physical examination, according to the charges. Harwell certified another undercover on Tuesday, February 12 and was promptly arrested. Harwell is also accused of listing false medical conditions on the patient’s medical records. The prosecution is being handled by the Wexford County Prosecutor’s office.

Judge Parsons read the following statements while announcing the charges: “…the defendant did unlawfully conspire combine confederate or agree together with a Rosalind K Swafford to verify severe and chronic pain as a specific diagnosis on a physician’s certification… which constituted the debilitating medical condition and did so without establishing a bona fide physician patient relationship and without establishing a factual basis to form the professional opinion that the person was likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana.”

During the bond discussion, Judge Parsons also said, “These are very severe crimes; the abuse of medical use of medicine and prescription of medicines is a danger to the public and the court is therefore going to set a bond higher than usual.” Harwell, through his attorney, entered a Not Guilty plea to all charges.

Harwell’s troubles began in June of 2010, when an article revealed he charged one price to certify patients with medical records and one price for those without them. A sting-style investigation by a local television news team documented the no-records certifications and then took it to their local legislator in November of 2010. That legislator was Republican Tonya Schuitmaker, who became a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee in 2011 and is now the Senate’s President Pro Tempore. She is a former State Chairperson for ALEC, a think tank credited for generating some of the nation’s most conservative public policy.

On August 30, 2012, the Attorney General filed a complaint against Dr. Harwell, alleging Harwell failed to maintain records, require proper documentation and “promotion for personal gain of an unnecessary drug” and “lack of good moral character”. The Complaint cites as evidence a former business manager, referred to as S.H., who retained legal counsel against Harwell; the news story;

LARA subpoenaed the records of several patients that had received their certification from Dr. Harwell at a conference in Whitehall, Michigan, and at the Trpile M Clinics.; Harwell was unable to produce the records. He was accused of six counts: negligence, incompetence, lack of good moral character, promotion of a drug for personal gain, failure to maintain records and failure to respond to a subpoena. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs website lists Harwell as having an open formal complaint filed against him. The complaint sought sanctions against Harwell’s license to practice, not criminal charges.

Dr. Harwell is a graduate of Wayne State University in Detroit and is board certified in nuclear medicine and radiology, according to an online physician’s listing service. Another report lists him as a brain surgeon and a general practitioner. Wexford County is in the northern half of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, near the ski resort and vacation haven of Traverse City. His practice is based out of Cadillac. The LARA complaint states Harwell also owned the Liberty Clinic in Ann Arbor, which has been shuttered for more than a year.

Court proceedings today were recorded by Eric VanDussen, a journalist and videographer known to fight for the right to video medical marijuana court cases. VanDussen has in the past won approval from the Supreme Court of Michigan to record a very unwilling Court of Appeals. The video recording of today’s court proceedings against Dr. Harwell can be found on his homepage, located HERE.- http://vimeo.com/59618851

You can find the original text of LARA’s 2012 complaint HERE.- http://www.thecompassionchronicles.com/ … d-by-lara/

UPDATED: Michigan Supreme Court: Medical marijuana dispensaries not allowed

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 11:34 a.m.

Update: Ann Arbor legislator working on effort to decriminalize marijuana in Michigan

It is illegal to sell medical marijuana through private shops, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Friday in a decision one lawyer called "the end of the road" for the hotly debated issue.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that medical marijuana dispensaries are not allowed.

In a 4-1 decision, the state's highest court affirmed an Appeals Court finding that Michigan's 2008 medical marijuana law does not allow people to sell pot to each other, even if they're among the tens of thousands who have state-issued marijuana cards.

"The Court of Appeals reached the correct conclusion that defendants are not entitled to operate a business that facilitates patient-to-patient sales of marijuana," the court's majority wrote…..

Jan. 30, 2013 12:01 PM ET

Mich. court: No crime in sharing medical marijuana

HASTINGS, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan appeals court says there's nothing illegal about a medical marijuana user providing a small amount of pot to another registered user at no cost.
….

Michigan Senate leader expects busy lame-duck session

6:09 PM, October 16, 2012 

The Michigan Legislature is preparing for a heavy lame-duck session during which it could address medical marijuana regulations,….

…. Other issues under consideration, he said, are changes aimed at clarifying the voter-approved medical marijuana law. One bill seeks to better define the type of doctor-patient relationship needed before medical marijuana use could be certified. Another would let law enforcement officers obtain medical marijuana patient information.

The marijuana legislation is driven by "the fact that medical marijuana was voted in, but (authorities) didn't have a way to regulate it — and still don't have a way to regulate it," he said.
….

Oct 11, 8:06 PM EDT

Mich. Supreme Court hears medical marijuana case

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in one of the most significant legal issues since voters approved medical marijuana - the legality of dispensaries.

The justices are faced with a case that involves the shops where people with medical marijuana cards sell homegrown pot to people who don't grow their own.

But the state appeals court last year said there's nothing in the 2008 law that allows a Mount Pleasant shop to let its members sell marijuana to each other…..

Michigan Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Charges State Registry Is Not Complying With State Law

Posted: 09/27/2012 11:47 am EDT Updated: 09/27/2012 11:59 am EDT

A lawsuit filed last week in Ingham County Circuit Court charges that the state agency responsible for issuing Michigan's medical marijuana registry identification cards is violating the law by not properly carrying out its legal responsibilities.

The suit, filed Sept. 19 against Steven H. Hilfinger, Director of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), and Rae Ramsdell, Director of the Bureau of Health Professions with LARA, alleges that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program (MMMP), which they oversee, is not acting in accordance with the state's marijuana act passed in 2008. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is Martin Chilcutt, a U.S. Navy veteran in his late seventies, who is the founder of a group called Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access.

The suit requests a writ of mandamus, a court order used to force government officials to perform their duties. Those who don't comply risk being found in contempt of court.

And it charges that the MMMP program has not established a review panel to add new medical conditions to a list allowing qualified patients to legally use pot according to the timeline set forth in state law; has not issued registry cards in a prompt manner; and has failed to issue annual reports.

There are currently 130,965 active patients and 26,896 active caregivers registered with the MMMP.

In order to get an ID card an applicant must send the registry written certification from a physician of a qualifying condition; a form providing information about themselves, their physician and, if necessary, a caregiver designated to handle and grow plants for them; a copy of photo ID; and a processing fee. Applications are supposed to be approved or denied in 15 days. There are roughly a dozen conditions or symptoms, such as Chrohn's disease, cancer and severe chronic pain, that would qualify a person to become a patient under the program.

In an interview last August, attorney Matt Abel of Cannabis Counsel, PLC, the law firm now filing the suit, told The Huffington Post that state had not yet set up the program's required review panel and because of that was at least two years behind in issuing recommendations to add new conditions to the program. According to a state statute that took effect in April 2009, a review panel is supposed to issue a recommendation to the Department of Community Health within 60 days of a petition being received; the department's director is supposed to approve or deny a petition within 180 days of it being filed with the department.

The MMMP has also struggled to issue registry cards to patients in a punctual manner. In March of last year the program got bogged down with a substantial backlog after it received over 16,000 applications in one month. The agency had to purchase new equipment to keep up with the influx.

Attorney Thomas Lavigne filed the lawsuit against the MMMP. He said medical marijuana advocates decided to appeal to the courts after efforts to press the matter with the agency and state legislators went nowhere.

"They're failing to uphold their duty to follow the law by issuing these cards in a timely manner and their time limits have long passed. It should be a no-brainer," he said. "It's just part of a larger pattern of complete disregard for patient and caregiver rights by the state apparatus on every level."

State Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) supports the use of medical marijuana for chronic pain and cancer treatment but says the law is unclear and has sponsored a state senate bill that would outlaw its use by glaucoma patients.

Although he wouldn't comment directly on the lawsuit, Jones was supportive of LARA's work with the medical marijuana program.

"It is my understanding that the cards are being produced much faster," he said. "I do know that initially when the program first started they were slow, but it's my understanding they're now being done in a timely fashion."

Jones also said he was puzzled by the claim medical marijuana advocates were upset about not having access to reports from the MMMP.

"There's been information published in the newspapers -- how many cards there are and what percentages of different afflictions that they're being issued for. I think the information is available," he said. "I don't understand this group's inability to find what they want."

LARA spokeswoman Lori Donlan told The Huffington Post in an email that the state's medical marijuana program currently complies with the Michigan statute that concerns issuing cards in a prompt manner. She said all applications are reviewed and approved within 15 days of receipt; denials are issued and sent out in 15 days; and cards are printed and sent out within 24 to 48 hours.

In reference to the medical marijuana review panel, Donlan said the department still needs to include two more people on panel, but will schedule a meeting for before the end of the year. She added that the department willingly provides information on request and said a report will be put together "by fiscal year" and posted in the coming months.

"It was difficult to create annual reports at a time when the department had a significant backlog of applications to review and process," she said.

"When creating a new program it is difficult to estimate the number of participants and with the high volume of applications combined with the challenges in processing thousands of requests per month, the department has worked through these issues."

LARA had no comment about the recent lawsuit, which they said was being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office.

By Kathy Gibbons | Advance Newspapers
Wednesday, September 05, 2012,

WYOMING, MI -- The City of Wyoming will appeal a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that voided the city’s ordinance regulating the use of marijuana.

Mayor Jack Poll announced the council’s intent to appeal by reading a prepared statement following the public comment portion at the end of a council meeting Tuesday night.

“We feel that the Michigan law, as written, is very unclear," Poll said, reading the statement. "Unlike regulations for drunk driving, this law does not establish standards or tests for marijuana consumption."

“The law has the potential to create unsafe conditions on our roads. Without definite guidelines, it is impossible for our already busy police department to enforce.”

Last year, the council initiated a ban on marijuana in Wyoming, saying that it can only be distributed safely by pharmacists – not by licensed marijuana caregivers, as allowed by Michigan law.

Attorney John Ter Beek, an attorney and medical marijuana patient, filed suit in Kent County Circuit Court against the city in November 2010, saying that the council’s decision trampled the rights of state voters who approved medical marijuana in 2008.

The suit also said the decision violated the second article of the state constitution, which guarantees citizens’ rights to pass initiatives that amend state law.

Kent County Circuit Judge Dennis B. Leiber ruled in 2011 that the federal law against marijuana use trumps the state’s medical marijuana act. Ter Beek appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with him about a month ago.

Now Wyoming said it will file an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court by a deadline of Sept. 11. City Manager Curtis Holt estimated the cost of filing the appeal will be about $5,000.

“We certainly hope that the Supreme Court will hear the case,” said Poll. “That’s the first step.

“If they won’t hear the case, then it’s over.”

Contacted by phone after the board meeting, Ter Beek said he had not yet heard of Wyoming’s decision and was disappointed that the pending announcement hadn’t been made public before the meeting.

“I wish they would have put it on the agenda so I could have been there,” he said. “This is typical of the Wyoming City Council, doing things backhanded and sneakily so the public doesn’t really get a chance to say their piece.”

Ter Beek plans to watch for what comes next.

“I don’t think it’s going to be successful and I think that if they want to continue their political careers by being defined as a failure, then that’s fine, especially in light of the fact that they’re spitting on 63 percent of the voters,” Ter Beek said, referring to the number of voters statewide who supported the medical marijuana initiative; 59 percent of Wyoming voters also approved it.

“I’ll just wait and see what the Michigan Supreme Court does. I’ll be surprised if they even accept it for appeal.”

UPDATE: Court overturns Wyoming's ban on medical marijuana
7:01 AM, Aug 2, 2012 

Update at 11:00 P.M. (WZZM) - Now that he's won in court, Wyoming resident John Ter Beek says he will start growing marijuana in his basement as soon as possible. ??

"I follow the law," he says. "The law says I can grow, so I'm going to grow." ??

In 2010, when Wyoming banned the cultivation and use of medical marijuana in the city, state certified patient John Ter Beek sued the city. After losing in Kent County Circuit Court, Wednesday Ter Beek learned the state court of appeals unanimously supported his case. ??"I'm very happy the appellate court took a close look at it," he says. ??

In 2008, 63 percent of Michigan voters approved the use of medical marijuana. The court of appeals says Wyoming and other municipalities cannot overrule the people…..

….Wyoming Mayor, Jack A. Poll issued a statement Wednesday: "We haven't had a chance yet to review the ruling overturning the City's ban on marijuana. Right now I'm not aware of which parts of our ordinance were overturned. Our attorney, Jack Sluiter, is looking into it and I expect to hear from him with regards to what our next steps will be. We will, of course, comply with what the court tells us to do, although we feel that Michigan's law, as written, does not give enough guidance to public safety departments."

Michigan voters approved medical marijuana use in 2008. Federal law still prohibits the sale and cultivation of the drug.

Township Acts to Shut Down Local Business' Marijuana Growing Operation

Eagle One Alloys Group LLC was recently found to be growing medical marijuana from its business address, violating Macomb Township's moratorium on such activity in commercial zones.

By Jenny Whalen
Email the author
June 14, 2012

The Macomb Township board of trustees took action Wednesday to close a local business found to be growing medical marijuana in direct violation of the township's moratorium on such activity.

In April 2011, trustees voted to initiate a moratorium on the issuance of any permits, licenses or approvals for the sale or dispensation of medical marijuana within township limits. While the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act allows registered medical marijuana patients or their caregivers to cultivate up to 12 plants in an enclosed, locked facility, Macomb's moratorium prohibits businesses from growing or selling medical marijuana in commercial zones.

Upon learning that Eagle One Alloys Group LLC, located at 51145 Milano Drive, was growing medical marijuana, Supervisor Mark Grabow asked and was granted authorization by the board to pursue legal action to close the business.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article reported Personal Touch Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning to be the business located at 51145 Milano Drive. However, Patch has since learned Personal Touch moved from this location and was replaced by Eagle One Alloys Group LLC , which is the business the township intends to close.

Court: Med marijuana law protects patients from prosecution

4:50 PM, May 31, 2012 

LANSING, Mich. (Detroit Free Press) -- The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising out of the use of medical marijuana, said Thursday that the voter-approved law provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card.

In a pair of cases out of Oakland and Shiawassee counties the court ruled unanimously that lower court interpretations of the marijuana statute had been too restrictive…..

Mich. Supreme Court makes 1st medical pot rulings

JEFF KAROUB, Associated Press
Updated 07:51 p.m., Thursday, May 31, 2012

DETROIT (AP) — In its first medical marijuana ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court said Thursday that a man arrested for drug manufacturing deserves another day in court to defend his outdoor, locked chain-link dog kennel as a legally proper facility in which to grow his pot.

The state's highest court unanimously ruled that the law approved by voters in 2008 contains plainer language and broader protections than the way in which it was interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said that Larry King's kennel didn't qualify has a place to keep marijuana. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and said the Shiawassee County resident who had a valid medical marijuana card was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter…..

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/M … z1wVDmkw5E

May 13, 2012

Medical marijuana appeal goes up in smoke

Associated Press

PETOSKEY — A northern Michigan man approved for medical marijuana had a card but not a fence.??The state appeals court has affirmed the drug conviction of Lewis Keller of Emmet County. Police found 15 marijuana plants outdoors on his property. There was some fencing material nearby but it was not made into a proper fence.??Under Michigan’s medical marijuana law, card holders can grow 12 plants, but the marijuana must be in a secure place. Keller says he knew he was over the limit but didn’t know the plants had to be secured.??The appeals court says the marijuana could have been accessible to anyone passing by.

Michigan House passes bills to change medical pot law

JEFF KAROUB,Associated Press
5:25 p.m. EDT, May 3, 2012

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan House on Thursday passed a package of bills aimed at clarifying the state's voter-approved law allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

The House passed four bills — including the first legislation that would amend the 2008 law — and they now go to the Senate.

One bill seeks to better define the type of doctor-patient relationship needed before medical marijuana use could be certified. Another includes requirements for photographs to be included on identification cards that people certified to use medical marijuana must carry. The legislation also calls for creating a 15-member panel of physicians and others to review petitions requesting to add medical conditions to the list for which the use of marijuana is approved.

Backers have argued the 2008 law wasn't clear and contained loopholes. Critics say the proposed changes might make the drug harder to get…..