Court Opinion

ID: 9724680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:08:23.15278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:04.570636
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I do not believe that the definition of the term "drug” set forth in § 23 of the amended statute, MCL 431.83(3); MSA 18.966(53)(3), must be read as conflicting with, or having superseded, that previously established by administrative regulation. See McIlmurray v Racing Comm’r, 130 Mich App 271, 280; 343 NW2d 524 (1983), (Bronson, J., dissenting). Thus, as the very learned and experienced trial judge, Hilda Gage, stated:
Dmso is not a "controlled medication” and the rule cannot be read as permitting only the use of the two medications listed. The use of a drug as defined in the rule or use of an unreported "controlled medication” is prohibited and triggers the penalty provisions under the rule. Conversely, the use of a substance which is neither of these is not prohibited.
Therefore, I would affirm the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court.