Here is the article reprinted from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune:

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a provision of Colorado’s marijuana legalization law that would have required stores to sell cannabis-themed publications behind the counter, like pornography.

Magazine publishers and bookstores had filed a lawsuit against the state last week, arguing that the measure, passed by the Colorado legislature this spring, should be overturned before it takes effect on July 1.

U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch’s ruling came a day after the state attorney general’s office, which would have defended the measure in court, agreed with the plaintiffs that it was unconstitutional.

“The defendants have conceded the invalidity of the code provision cited in the complaints,” Matsch said in his order granting a permanent injunction.

Colorado voters approved the recreational use of marijuana by adults last fall and charged lawmakers with setting up regulations to sell and tax cannabis products.

Supporters of the behind-the-counter provision said it was aimed at reducing juveniles’ exposure to the material.

But publishers of several marijuana publications, along with local booksellers and newsstands, sued to block it, noting that such restrictions were not in place while marijuana use was illegal.

The Colorado Department of Revenue, which is setting up the law’s regulatory framework, last week announced it would not enforce the rule.

This week Attorney General John Suthers joined the plaintiffs in a motion asking that the measure be invalidated.

“The idea that stores can prominently display magazines touting the joys of drinking wine and smoking cigars, yet banish those that discuss a far safer substance to behind the counter, is absolutely absurd,” Tvert said. “It is time for our elected leaders to get over their reefer madness.”

The man whose arrest for driving after using medically prescribed marijuana led to upheaval in state law has been arrested again, this time for drunken driving and criminal sexual contact.

Traverse City police arrested Rodney Koon, 51, of Thompsonville on May 31 for drunken driving and criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, which involves unwanted touching for gratification. Police allege Koon left the scene of the alleged assault on Walnut Street, then drunkenly drove to a nearby residence on Webster Street.

Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Bob Cooney charged Koon on Monday with operating a vehicle with a high blood-alcohol content above 0.17. Koon’s preliminary breath test measured 0.28, more than three times the .08 limit for drunken driving.

Cooney said the criminal sexual conduct allegation remains under investigation. He declined to release details about the incident.

Police said they arrived at the Webster Street address about five to 10 minutes after the initial call. They said Koon admitted to having from two to four shots of vodka, the last about two hours earlier. They said Koon showed obvious signs of intoxication and could not complete any of four sobriety tests.

Koon, a medical marijuana patient, was arrested in 2010 after he admitted to driving after using marijuana about five hours earlier. He subsequently was charged with driving while intoxicated.

The Michigan Supreme Court last month invalidated Michigan’s “zero tolerance law” that allowed law enforcement to bring charges against a person with any amount of marijuana in their system. The court ruled county prosecutors would have to show Koon, or any certified medical marijuana user, is under the drug’s influence.

Cooney formally dismissed the 2010 charges against Koon on May 30.

http://beyondchronic.com/2013/03/granny-storm-crow-lists-1000-pages-cannabis-research-links/

Attorney At Law Magazine Article About Neil Rockind of Neil Rockind, P.C.

Attorney At Law Edition Featuring Rockind, P.C. and Moss & Colella, P.C.

TRAVERSE CITY — Local authorities dropped criminal charges against a Williamsburg man whose 2010 arrest spurred statewide changes for medical marijuana patients who drive with the drug in their system.
Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Bob Cooney on Thursday formally dismissed operating while intoxicated charges against Rodney Koon, 51, following a Michigan Supreme Court decision this month. The court’s ruling effectively dismantled a state law that dictated a “zero tolerance” approach to medical marijuana users like Koon.
“With the Supreme Court’s decision, you have to prove the person is under the influence,” Cooney said.
Michigan’s zero tolerance stance prompted former Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Alan Schneider to charged Koon in 2010 with driving under the influence. Koon was pulled over for speeding and told sheriff’s deputies he smoked marijuana about five hours beforehand.
That led to a three-year court battle that began when 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers ruled Koon’s status as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient gave him protection under Michigan’s voter-approved, 2008 medical marijuana act.
A state appellate court panel overturned Rodgers’ decision before the case headed to the state Supreme Court, whose members ruled medical marijuana patients are protected as long as they don’t drive “under the influence.”
Cooney could have pressed ahead with the charges but would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Koon was driving under the influence.
“I have to believe there’s a reasonable likelihood a jury will convict under the new standard,” Cooney said. “This is a case where the evidence for driving under the influence was sparse, but there obviously was the presence of THC.”
Koon expressed relief when he heard charges had been dropped.
“I feel that for once the judicial system played out their role in a proper manner,” he said. “I’m happy to see it, but it does take a long, long time.”
Cooney said the Supreme Court had a “tough call” and said he respected the decision, but he voiced public safety concerns.
“I hope the decision prompts the Legislature to include some definition of ‘under the influence’ under the (Michigan Medical Marihuana Act) that will better protect the safety of the public while respecting medical marijuana patients,” he said.

http://m.freep.com/localnews/article?a=2013305280042&f=1232

Or the LSJ’s version

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130528/NEWS04/305280014/BREAKING-Ex-Michigan-Supreme-Court-Justice-Hathaway-sentenced-1-year-1-day-prison-fraud?nclick_check=1

Michigan: Medical Marijuana Act Trumps Per Se Driving Law
by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
May 22, 2013

A Michigan traffic safety law that prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle by persons who possess any presence of THC in their blood, regardless of whether or not they are behaviorally impaired by the substance, may not be strictly applied to state-qualified medical cannabis patients. So decided the Michigan Supreme Court on Tuesday in the case People v Koon.

In a unanimous opinion, the Court determined that legal protections extended to state-qualified patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, enacted by voters in 2008, supersede the state’s zero tolerance, internal possession law. As a result, the Court determined that state prosecutors must establish that authorized patients charged under the statute are actually impaired by their cannabis use in order to gain a DUI criminal conviction.

According to the syllabus of the Opinion:

“The MMMA [Michigan Medical Marihuana Act] does not define what it means to be ‘under the influence,’ but the phrase clearly contemplates something more than having any amount of marijuana in one’s system and requires some effect on the person. Thus, the MMMA’s protections extend to a registered patient who internally possesses marijuana while operating a vehicle unless the patient is under the influence of marijuana. The immunity from prosecution provided under the MMMA to a registered patient who drives with indications of marijuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana inescapably conflicts with MCL 257.625(8) [the state's zero tolerance per se DUI law], which prohibits a person from driving with any amount of marijuana in her or system.”

The state’s zero tolerance per se drug law remains applicable to non-patients. Under such laws, motorists are guilty per se (in fact) of a criminal traffic safety violation if they engage in the act of driving while detectable levels of certain controlled substances or, in some cases, their inert metabolites (byproducts) are present in the defendants’ blood or urine. Proof of actual impairment is not a requirement for a conviction under the law.

To date, ten states — Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin — have enacted legislation imposing zero tolerance per se thresholds for the presence of cannabinoids and/or their metabolites. (State-authorized medical cannabis patients in Arizona and Rhode Island are exempt from prosecution under these per se statutes unless the state can provide additional evidence of psychomotor impairment.)

Five additional states impose non-zero-tolerant per se thresholds for cannabinoids in blood: Montana (5ng/ml — law takes effect on October 1, 2013), Pennsylvania (1ng/ml), Ohio (2ng/ml), Nevada (2ng/ml) and Washington (5ng/ml). Most recently, Colorado lawmakers approved legislation stating that the presence of THC/blood levels above 5ng/ml “gives rise to permissible inference that the defendant was under the influence.” State-qualified patients in Colorado, Montana, and Nevada are not provided legal exemptions from these statutes, although legislation is presently pending in Nevada to do so.

NORML believes that it is inadvisable to infer behavioral impairment based on the presence of blood/cannabinoid levels alone — a position that we outline here, here, and in public testimony here.

Such caution is similarly expressed by the United States National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, which acknowledges: “It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. … It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone.”

A 2013 review of per se drugged driving laws and their impact on road safety found “no evidence that per se drugged driving laws reduce traffic fatalities.”

Koon Opinion

Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, judgment of the Grand Traverse Circuit Court reinstated, and case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

In a unanimous opinion per curiam, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal and without oral argument, held:  Under the MMMA, a qualifying registered patient is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the act, provided that the patient possesses an amount of usable marijuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces. The statutory definition of “medical use” includes internal possession. Therefore, the MMMA shields registered patients from prosecution for the internal possession of marijuana, provided that the patient does not otherwise possess more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana. MCL 333.26427(b), however, provides a list of activities that are not protected by the MMMA, which includes driving while under the influence. Engaging in those activities removes a registered patient from the MMMA’s protection because the patient is no longer acting in accordance with the MMMA. The MMMA does not define what it means to be “under the influence,” but the phrase clearly contemplates something more than having any amount of marijuana in one’s system and requires some effect on the person. Thus, the MMMA’s protections extend to a Michigan Supreme CourtLansing, MichiganSyllabus Chief Justice: Robert P. Young, Jr. Justices: Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. registered patient who internally possesses marijuana while operating a vehicle unless the patient is under the influence of marijuana. The immunity from prosecution provided under the MMMA to a registered patient who drives with indications of marijuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana inescapably conflicts with MCL 257.625(8), which prohibits a person from driving with any amount of marijuana in her or system. Under the MMMA, all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the MMMA do not apply to the medical use of marijuana. Consequently, MCL 257.625(8) does not apply to the medical use of marijuana. The Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that defendant could be convicted under MCL 257.625(8) without proof that he had acted in violation of the MMMA by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.  Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, judgment of the Grand Traverse Circuit Court reinstated, and case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

PE Transcript Redacted

As I have said before, “this is what I do.” Not everyone can do this sort of stuff but I can and am proud to do it in defense of a medical marijuana client.