A DIFFERENT VIEW ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

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; preemption 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.