Michigan Marijuana

MediSwipe Cashing in on Medical Marijuana Laws


DO YOU QUALIFY FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA?


  DividerCashing In On Medical PO

Cashing in on Medical Marijuana

A small, publicly traded tech company hopes to benefit from Michigan’s medical Marijuana law, otherwise known as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, by offering patients apps to find doctors to write them recommendations, digital identification cards and cashless transactions at marijuana distribution centers.

MediSwipe is relocating its headquarters to Birmingham from Florida this week and plans to open additional work space in Ann Arbor in May — and hire a dozen employees.

(Related: Medical Marijuana & the Patient’s Rights)

It is their hope to capitalize on the growing medical marijuana industry, which some estimates may be $2 billion nationally.

By next year, CEO Michael Friedman hopes to have thousands of customers who can turn to the company to help them navigate laws and paperwork in a similar way that financial services companies help customers file for their income tax refunds each year.

“We want to be known as the H&R Block — or the TurboTax service — of the industry,” said Friedman, who spent last week getting acquainted with the space set to become his new office in Birmingham.

(Related: How to Become a Registered Qualifying Patient)

MediSwipe seeks to offer patients a way to digitally store their medical records and other documents — such a Medical Marijuana Card — which may be required to get medicinal marijuana.

The company will bridge the communication gap between patient and doctors — and help patients make electronic payments at medical marijuana distribution centers.

MediSwipe would make money, Friedman said, by charging fees for the services — most about $20.

Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, who opposes legalizing marijuana, including medical marijuana, urged MediSwipe to be careful.

(Related: How Much Medical Marihuana Can I Posses?)

“If they perform a legitimate service and operate within the confines of the law, there is nothing I can do to stop it,” he said.

229384v1

Michigan isn’t the only state the company is operating in — and the national trend toward allowing marijuana for medical use is driving the company’s plans to expand, Friedman said.

Friedman said the company is moving to Michigan because of its medical marijuana laws and plans to focus on providing services to patients who use marijuana for medical purposes.

The four-year-old company also operates in California, Colorado, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Still, some of what the company wants to do is incumbent on what the Michigan Legislature decides.

A bill introduced last week, for example, seeks to legalize medical marijuana distribution centers. The proposal would let individual communities decide whether to allow such centers — and where they can be located.

But a Michigan Supreme Court ruling was interpreted to ban public facilities that distribute medical marijuana.

“Our whole reason for being is to legitimize the industry — and track transactions,” Friedman said.

Read more: https://www.freep.com/article/20130224/BUSINESS06/302240135/Cashing-in-on-medical-pot-laws

 


 

GET REPRESENTATION NOW


  Divider

Medical Marijuana Bill

New Medical Marijuana Bill Aims to legalize Distribution Centers


A HEALTHCARE ISSUE


Divider

A new medical marijuana bill was recently introduced in the state House of Representatives to legalize the establishment of medical marijuana distribution centers.

(Read more: Minor in Possession)

New Medical Marijuana Bill:

House Bill 4271the Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Regulation Act — would let individual communities decide whether to allow such centers and where they could be located. It was sponsored by state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville, from rural Barry County northeast of Kalamazoo.

 

images (24)

 

(Read more: DUI First Offense)

Callton expressed that he was encouraged by having eight republican co-sponsors to the new medical marijuana bill. Eight Democrats also co-sponsored the bill. Callton stated “I had several more conservatives ask me if they could co-sponsor, but it was too late” to get them listed. The bill will now be assigned to a committee.

On Feb. 8, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a ruling widely interpreted to ban virtually any public facility that distributes medical marijuana. Calton, acknowledged in Lansing as the first chiropractor to be elected to the Michigan Legislature, said that accessing medical marijuana should be considered “a health care issue, not a criminal justice issue.”

(Related: What to do if you are pulled over with marijuana as a medical patient)

Although he voted in 2008 against the statewide ballot proposal to allow medical marijuana use, which voters passed with a 63% majority, he was persuaded by a number of chiropractic patients of the value marijuana has in easing pain, reducing the symptoms of cancer treatment and providing health benefits, especially to elderly people.

GET REPRESENTATION NOW


Divider

marijuana dispensary

People v. McQueen: Supreme Court Rules that patient to patient sales are not protected by Section 4 of the Michigan medical Marijuana Act

February 8, 2013

David Rudoi Esq.

People v. McQueen is not the death blow for all dispensaries in Michigan

On Friday February 8, 2013 the Michigan Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of People v. McQueen. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that all patient to patient sales and transfers of medical marijuana are not covered by Section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Many people see this as the death of medical marijuana dispensaries in Michigan, however, I disagree with this view. Keep in mind that People v. McQueen is not a criminal case and only involves the issue of whether a city can declare a dispensary operated in a way similar to Companionate Apothecary, LLC as a public nuisance and therefore can permanently enjoin its operation.  Due to the fact that Companionate Apothecary, LLC had a model of operation in which they claimed to merely facilitate patient to patient sales the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that it could be ruled as a public nuisance and therefore could be enjoined from operation.

The Supreme Court used cloudy logic in order to rule that patient to patient transfers are not encompassed in section 4 immunity. The Court relied on the text of Section 4(d) to come to its conclusion. The Court stated:  “[t]he text of § 4(d) establishes that  the MMMA intends to allow ‘a qualifying patient or primary caregiver’ to be immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty only if conduct related to marijuana is  ‘for the purpose of alleviating  the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition’ or its symptoms. The Court focused on the “the” contained in section 4(d)’s language to determine that since the transferor is not alleviating their own medical condition or its symptoms by transferring medical marijuana to another than that act is not protected under Section 4.

People v. McQueen did not rule that no dispensary could be protected by Section 4 of the MMMA

There are still conceivable modes of operation a dispensary could adopt which would allow them to be in compliance with Section 4 of the MMMA, and thus, be immune from criminal prosecutions. The case rules that Caregiver to Patient transfers and sales of medical marijuana are protected under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act Section 4 as long as the sale is from primary caregiver to the patient whom he or she is connected through the Michigan Medical Marijuana registry. Therefore, it is possible for a dispensary to operate in such a way that would be in compliance with Section 4 of the MMMA.

 

People v. McQueen does not rule that dispensaries are precluded from asserting Section 8 of the MMMA

The Michigan Supreme Court expressly ruled in section C of People v. McQueen that although a dispensary may not be eligible for Section 4 immunity it may still be entitled to a Section 8 affirmative defense. The court did not expressly rule on whether Companionate Apothecary, LLC would be entitled to a Section 8 defense because this was not a criminal case and Section 8 only applies to “prosecutions involving marijuana”. Since this case was not a “prosecution involving marijuana” the Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 does not apply  to the case at hand and did not analyze whether Section 8 would protect patient to patient sales or transfers of Medical Marijuana.

People v. McQueen ruled that sales of medical marijuana are included in the definition of medical use under Section 3(e) of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. McQueen overruled the Michigan Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the “sale” of medical marijuana fits the definition of “medical use” contained in Section 3(e) of the MMMA. Section 3(e) defines medical use as “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.” The Court of Appeals ruled that since the word “sale” was not expressly included in this definition that all sales of medical marijuana are not protected in any way by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

The Michigan Supreme Court Expressly overruled the Appeals Court on this issue. They ruled that because Section 3(e) included the word “transfer” in the definition of “medical use” it implicitly included “sales” as well. The Supreme Court reasoned that since the term transfer was not defined anywhere in the MMMA the rules of statutory construction require that the dictionary definition should be consulted in order to define “transfer”. The definition that they in turn used for the term “transfer” was : “[a]ny mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, including a gift, the payment of money, release,  lease, or creation of a lien or other encumbrance.”  The dictionary definition of sale that was used was: [t]he transfer of property or title for a price.”  Thus, based on these definitions the Supreme Court reasoned that for a court to rule that that a transfer does not encompass a sale “is to ignore what a transfer encompasses.” Furthermore, the term sale is not expressly excluded from the definition of medical use anywhere in the MMMA.

People v. McQueen Overruled the recent Appeals Court Case: People v. Green

In People v. Green the Michigan Court of Appeals  ruled that uncompensated transfers of medical marijuana were in fact protected under Section 4 of the MMMAPeople v. McQueen effectively overrules that conclusion because even the uncompensated transfer would not be for the purpose of alleviating the transferor’s medical condition or the symptoms of that medical condition. Therefore, the uncompensated transfer of medical marijuana between patients is not protected under Section 4 of the MMMA.

At Rudoi Law we are Medical Marijuana experts and are current on all new case law, if you or a loved one needs advice regarding the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Contact Rudoi Law Today.