Category: Volume 58 No. 1

The Federal Controlled Substance Act Does Not Preempt the Michigan Marihuana Act

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

Michigan voters approved by initiative the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) of 2008. The election approving the law took place on November 4, 2008. Michigan voters approved the MMMA by a margin of 3,006,820 to 1,790,889 (62.67% in favor and approved by a majority of voters in each of Michigan’s eighty-three counties). The MMMA became effective December 4, 2008. Section 8 of the MMMA permits appropriate medical marihuana patients to interpose an affirmative defense to any offense involving marihuana. Read More …

From Wheat to Marijuana: Revisiting the Federalism Debate Post-Gonzales v. Raich

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

This commentary emanates from my symposium presentation. Thus, this brief monograph, edited from my live remarks will deviate from a traditional full length law review article, but will form the basis for an upcoming full length law review article. My intention in this limited scope is to identify some of the main guideposts towards developing a broader trajectory for state level marijuana reform. More specifically, my observations are intended to illuminate the federalism debate over marijuana reform by presenting a snapshot of law’s complexity that emerges from jurisdictional conflicts. The focal point of current marijuana debate resides on federalism—the separation of state and federal government power. Let us explore the landscape. Read More …

Much Ado About Nothing: Why Rescheduling Won’t Solve Advocates’ Medical Marijuana Problem

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

Recently, the federal government has expanded its enforcement actions against commercialized “medical marijuana” operations. In the wake of those enforcement efforts, the governors of Washington, Rhode Island, and Colorado have petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule marijuana. Specifically, the petition asks the DEA to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The governors contend that such rescheduling will eliminate the conflict between state and federal law and enable states to establish a “regulated and safe system to supply legitimate patients who may need medical cannabis.” Read More …

Caught in the Crossfire: The Dilemma of Marijuana “Medicalization” for Healthcare Providers

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

No plant in American culture is more glorified—nor more vilified—than Cannabis Sativa, known commonly as marijuana. When smoked, or otherwise ingested, marijuana produces psychoactive effects that can include changes in time and space perception, lightheadedness, and euphoria. As such, marijuana is certainly a drug. But is it medicine? This question has fueled debate for decades, and has impacted political ideology, sociology, law enforcement policy, and, not insignificantly, healthcare. This Article explores marijuana’s long, often arduous, path from panacea to pariah, and more recent attempts to resurrect and redefine its reputation. In the process, it examines how healthcare providers have been drafted into the battle and, often unwillingly, have been marched to the front lines. Read More …

Legalizing Fraud in Michigan Contract Law

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

In 1998, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case that dramatically changed the parol evidence rule in Michigan. In UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corporation (KSL), the court reinterpreted the parol evidence rule to hold that because of an express merger clause, evidence of an alleged collateral agreement was inadmissible to change the terms of the contract. Even evidence of fraud was barred in this case. The parol evidence rule bars admission of written or oral evidence that would contradict the terms of the integrated agreement. In most states, however, there is an exception to allow evidence that suggests fraud. The majority opinion in KSL sharply limits this exception. Read More …

Uses of the Class Action Device in Autism Health Benefits Litigation

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

In the past twenty years, a striking rise in the diagnosis of autism has helped generate increasing levels of attention to the disorder within legislatures and courts throughout the United States. A significant subset of both the legislative and judicial interaction with autism involves whether, and how, treatment for the disorder should be covered by health insurance providers. This Note analyzes a collection of recent class action lawsuits in which parents of autistic children challenged insurers’ denial of benefits for Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy, perhaps the most widely accepted treatment for autism. The Note specifically examines the strategic advantages and drawbacks of choosing to litigate a denial of benefits for autism therapy as a class action rather than as an individual lawsuit. Read More …

The Use of Psychotropic Medication in Michigan Foster Care

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

Every year in the United States over 800,000 children spend some amount of time in foster care. Recently, there have been nationwide allegations that certain medications are being used in foster care to manage disruptive behavior rather than to treat genuine disorders. Children are largely defenseless, as they have little say regarding what medication they are given. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that these medications are poorly understood and poorly tracked.
To protect foster care children from being overmedicated and misdiagnosed, additional legislation is needed that provides more stringent and sweeping oversight, and places an emphasis on coupling medical with psychotherapeutic treatments. Additionally, biological parents, whose parental rights have not been terminated, should have a more active role in treatment decisions. Read More …