Changing the Rules

Lawmakers amend the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act—affecting patients everywhere

The Michigan House of Representatives recently passed new bills that directly affect the rights of patients across the state. Each of these pieces of legislation was designed to amend the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which was voted into law in 2008.

Supporters of the bills believe that the new laws will protect the rights of patients and clarify the initial act to prevent illegal activity and potential abuses. Others, such as Cannabis Patients United and National Patients Rights Association (NPRA), say the new laws—one of which gives law enforcement access to a state-run patient registry—will harm more than help.

“We are extremely discouraged by the thought process behind this proposed legislation,” NPRA spokesman Adam Macdonald says. “It becomes very problematic and dangerous when elected representatives begin a process of selecting what portions of an individual’s private health care information should now become readily accessibly.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union says there are benefits to the new legislation.

Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU office in Michigan, says she worked with lawmakers for a number of years on cannabis reform legislation and, from her perspective, the experience was a positive one.

“I’ve been working on the legislature for a number of years, and at least the lawmakers there went from wanting to repeal the law to understanding the various shades of grey in the law as it pertains to medical cannabis patients,” she says.

One of the bills, HB 4851, deals with the concept of the “bona fide physician-patient relationship” that must exist for a medical cannabis patient to possess a license. The law also requires a doctor to look over a patient’s medical records, assess the patient’s need for cannabis based on an in-person exam and create and maintain accurate medical files for the patient in conjunction with follow-up examinations.

This is all fine and good, but Weisberg points out patients who use highly addictive, potentially dangerous prescription drugs like Oxycontin or Darvocet don’t have to go through the same process, a suggestion that HB 4851 shows bias against medical cannabis.

Another bill, HB 4834, allows law enforcement officials to access a medical marijuana patient database maintained by the Department of Community Health. This scares many patients . . . but Weisberg says there’s a benefit. Before, police officers would arrest patients who were growing cannabis in their home and confiscate their plants, only to discover later that the person was registered with the state as a patient. Now cops can check this beforehand.

And HB 4834 doesn’t give police officers the right to walk into any collective and grab any file they want.

“We ended up with compromises saying that the police had to have reasonable cause, and they could only access the information through a secondary source,” Weisberg says. “Some medical cannabis patients wanted a warrant system, but we all know that police can get around that.”

This “secondary source” means that the medical records of patients who use cannabis can’t be accessed without a warrant.

“It doesn’t give them access to a collective, just to a database that shows whether or not a patient is licensed,” Weisberg says.

Although getting the new MMJ regulations on the books involves some compromises, she says, the end result is a good thing.

“I feel that some pieces went too far, and prosecutors always have more sway than our side, but in terms of working with police and lawmakers, they really did try hard to understand the needs of medical cannabis patients,” Weisberg says.

www.nprausa.com, www.aclumich.org

True Democracy

So what’s the ACLU of Michigan been doing about medical marijuana rights? Plenty. Back in late 2010, the civil liberties group sued the cities of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Livonia on behalf of Linda Lott, patient suffering from multiple sclerosis for 28 years. The suit demanded that these cities invalidate their local ordinances banning medical cannabis. “The people of Michigan voted overwhelmingly in support of compassionate care for patients like Linda Lott whose pain can be eased by the use of medical marijuana,” Michigan ACLU executive director Kary L. Moss said two years ago. “In a democracy, city commissions do not have the power to veto statewide ballot initiatives after they have been approved by the voters and enacted into law.”