I authored the brief that resulted in what was for a time the leading Michigan Court of Appeals case on medical marihuana in Michigan (People v Redden). The Westlaw search query that you want to use is "medical +2 (marijuana marihuana) +2 act & ingest!" (without the quotes).
This search query brings back 8 cases, including the case People v Carruthers, 301 Mich App 590; 837 NW2d 16 (2013). In Carruthers, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that using marijuana brownies violated the law because they did not contain "usable marijuana" under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. The Court reasoned as follows:
“By excluding resin from the definition of ‘usable marihuana,’ as contrasted with the definition of ‘marihuana,’ and defining ‘usable marihuana’ to mean only ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof,’ MCL 333.26423(k) (emphasis added), the drafters clearly expressed their intent not to include resin, or a mixture or preparation of resin, within the definition of ‘usable marihuana.’ They therefore expressed their intent not to include a mixture or preparation of an extract of resin. Consequently, an edible product made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of ‘usable marihuana.’ Rather, under the plain language of the MMMA, the only ‘mixture or preparation’ that falls within the definition of ‘usable marihuana’ is a mixture or preparation of ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant . . . .’” Id.
So to answer your question, the manner in which the marijuana is ingested into the body is not the determinative inquiry. Rather, the dispositive question is whether an ingestible contains "usable marijuana" as defined by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. My understanding is that ingestibles are generally created using resin, which Carruthers says violates the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. According to the holding in Carruthers, an ingestible would not violate the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act if but only if it constituted "a mixture or preparation of ‘the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant . . . .’” Id.
I would also offer the following two caveats. First, be careful relying on legal opinions such as the Q&A at the michigan.gov website because it is impossible to determine who wrote the content or when it was last updated, and it will not constitute a defense if the information is incorrect, which appears to be the case in this instance. Second, the Michigan appellate courts have essentially eviscerated the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and continue to do so with extremely narrow interpretations of that law. So always be sure to err on the side of caution by drawing the most conservative conclusions that you can when interpreting this law or the cases that construe it. While this is not what most medical marihuana clients / users want to hear, it is the reality under the current Michigan judiciary. I hope this of help. Good Luck with your research.
They are under no duty to wait for a lawyer - not even the police have that duty. As for your parents - better check with them before you pull this kind of stunt. If one of your parents gets pulled out of work because you've decided to "stand on your rights" to hide your cell phone, my guess is that you're a dead duck.
Schools have the right to search you and your belongings for contraband. If you will not cooperate, they can call the police and have you subdued.
A school search does not fall under the right to a fair trial - best start reading Supreme Court decisions, little lawyer.