COMMENTARY: A different view on medical marijuana By Thomas Lavigne, JD

Saturday, September 3, 2011 11:38 AM EDT

By Thomas Lavigne, JD
Cannabis Counsel PLC Law Firm, Detroit

Your recent article on medical cannabis is very inaccurate in several regards.

Dr. Fredrick Neumann of Sterling Heights is a family practitioner who writes recommendations for approximately 10 percent of his longtime patients. Doctors are already being attacked by forcing them to close their practices and testify in court in order for patients to benefit from the affirmative defense in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, despite the terms which do not require such, but rather just the Physician Certification which tracks the language of the first element of the affirmative defense. This has a chilling effect.

The language of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is the clearest law I’ve read in 22 years of practice. None of the proposed bills help protect patients or doctors, but make a bad situation worse. A bill clarifying that doctors not have to testify to private patient information is absent.

Cannabis has been medicine for 6,000 years. Prohibition of cannabis has lasted only 90 years.

Henry Anslinger was out of a job with the end of alcohol prohibition; Hearst wanted to dominate the paper industry and hemp paper was his biggest threat, so he partnered with Anslinger to rename cannabis marijuana for a racist hue to their anti-competitive attack undercutting his competition in paper.

The press has been a reliable partner in this 90 years of lies in the biggest anti-trust violation in history. As a result we have been clear cutting old growth forest for 90 years to make paper and building materials instead of regrowing hemp every five months, marching our way into global climate change. When public policies are based on a pack of lies, unintended consequences ensue.

Activist judges, and forfeiture-addicted law enforcement and drug courts ignore the plain terms including the definition of “medical use” to include “acquisition;” the superiority clause at 7(e); the Findings and Declaration at Section 2; and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine (for example Michigan criminal courts offered the defense of entrapment before the federal criminal courts because of dual sovereignty; pre-emption is inapplicable given that the Controlled Substances Act expressly does not occupy the field).

Will you follow the 90 years of deceit on this topic or be a real reporter and investigate and report the truth, speaking truth to power? Then again there is way too many advertising dollars from BigPharma going to the corporate media to expect that undue influence to continue.

The corporate media continues to blabber the rhetoric of deceit, such as “pot,” “pothead,” “stoner,” “buzz,” etc.

Moreover, the recent Court of Appeals opinion allows for the assistance of patients in preparing the cannabis in one of the ways it is commonly consumed, at page 16 of the opinion, but the media again reports the lie that this opinion closes all facilities despite the fact that all of the clients of Cannabis Counsel PLC remain open and operating according to the recent Court of Appeals opinion. No sale of cannabis is made, and 4(e) allows compensation for costs, including costs of preparing the medicine to assist patients in using or administering the cannabis.

In the final analysis, the State is in violation of the MMMA for failing to hold hearings within six months of petitions to add conditions. Cards are purposely delayed to feed the forfeiture/war on drugs Bryne grants racket. A state so lacking in compassion lacks the capacity to administer a medical cannabis program, so legalization is the only way to protect patients. That is what we are forced to initiate next, an end to prohibition.


This was in response to an article in The Morning Sun © 2011, a Journal Register Property.


Leave a Reply