Michigan newspaper doesn’t understand affirmative defense
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 9:38 pm | By: Radical Russ
CYH EDITORIAL: ‘No’ on Prop 1, ‘yes’ on 2: Proposal 1 — Medical Marijuana
The following are Record-Eagle endorsements for Michigan’s two statewide ballot proposals.Despite years of anecdotal evidence that smoking marijuana can ease symptoms related to glaucoma, cancer, AIDS and other conditions, the bottom line remains: There is no scientific evidence that it works or, as important, that it works as well or effectively as other existing treatments.
Actually, there is a whole lot of scientific evidence that smoking marijuana works and better than existing treatments. Â Just this year I’ve published three posts on the subject of cannabis vs. neuropathic pain, each referring to separate studies that show inhaled cannabis to be superior to conventional painkillers in treating this “nerve pain”. Â I’ve published three posts on the subject of cannabinoids vs. drug-resistant infections like MRSA (which happen to kill more Americans each year than AIDS) where studies show cannabinoids to be superior to conventional antibiotics as treatment for these infections. Â I’ve published posts on the promise of cannabinoids vs. glioma, a form of brain cancer, where studies show cannabinoids may actually slow the growth of such cancers.
Oh, and this “years of anecdotal evidence” are twelve years and hundreds of thousands of medical cannabis patients who testify that it works.
That fact — not to mention troubling language in the proposal itself — is reason enough to urge a “No” vote on Michigan Proposal 1, known as the Medical Marijuana issue.
Amid all the regulations, however, is a loophole that would allow registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any marijuana-related prosecution.
That’s a deal-breaker that opens the door for almost anyone to assert protections. What is the point of forcing people to register with a doctor and meet other restrictions if anyone can claim Proposal 1 as a defense?
What they are talking about is an affirmative defense. Â It basically means that if you’re busted, you can say to a judge, “I had to break the law because if I didn’t I would suffer needlessly.” Â It would have caused you more harm to obey the law than to break it, and your breaking the law didn’t harm others.
Now, this sort of defense can be mounted in court, even in Michigan, right now. Â In fact, attorney Jeff Blackburn was able to successfully defend an HIV patient under this concept, and that was in Texas, a state not at all friendly to medical marijuana.
But remember, an affirmative defense can’t be raised until you go to court. Â That means this “deal-breaker” would allow anyone to assert this defense, absolutely, against any marijuana charges. Â Which means they’d have to be arrested, taken to the station, booked, fingerprinted, bailed out, attend arraignment, hire counsel or have one appointed, appear before the judge, and lay out the case that your medical needs were so great that you had to have the cannabis (read the proposition for yourself, section 8).
So, if you think that’s a deal-breaker, a loophole that allows just anybody to get away with smoking pot, then you know some pretty stupid judges. Â I don’t think your average baggie-holding college kid or major dope trafficker is going to be able to convince a judge he’s got a medical need. Â The point of having the medical marijuana law and the ID cards is so patients don’t have to go through all the hoops of an affirmative defense. Â The point of having the affirmative defense is so a patient who failed to register isn’t imprisoned for bona fide medical use.
Related posts
waitn for NSL and congrast for spofett.
Fresh Stash V RSS Feed
Loading ...
; is she incognito like me 
, or can...
