In a lawsuit served this week to the Michigan Board of Pharmacy and its chairwoman, Nichole Cover, the plaintiffs claim the current law that issues medical marijuana cards to patients and licenses dispensaries is contradictory to the state’s Controlled Substance Act that classifies the drug as contraband. Because of that, they say its status violates their due process and equal protection rights and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
“It’s not a Schedule 1 drug,” Sinclair told The Detroit News. “It’s been legalized by the citizens and approved by the state. There are thousands that take it and licenses to sell marijuana. That’s why it needs to be corrected in my opinion.”
A Schedule 1 classification refers to substances that have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. It includes drugs such as heroin and ecstasy. The Michigan Board of Pharmacy determines the scheduling.
The lawsuit focus on the 2016 Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act in which the state legislature granted the state permission to license marijuana businesses. The state Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Department’s Medical Marihuana Licensing Board began issuing licenses for businesses to grow, process, transport and sell medical marijuana last spring.
As a result, the plaintiffs that include medical patient Josey Scoggin, physician Dr. Christian Bogner, pharmacist Paul Littler, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws of Michigan Inc. and theMichigan Medical Marijuana Associationclaim marijuana’s Schedule 1 listing is repealed by implication.
Michael Komorn, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, stated: “This is not a controlled substance.” He added “The idea that someone would be growing an opioid … and bringing it to a pharmacy because they were running low on their meds is the scenario that would have to exist in order for marijuana to remain as a scheduled drug.”
Poet and activist John Sinclair has been a cannabis activist in Michigan for more than 50 years. He stated: “For 80 years they’ve been locking people up and taking their possessions and harassing and terrorizing us as citizens because we like to smoke weed,” adding “I want to be part of every effort to completely remove the police from our lives regarding marijuana. They’ve got nothing at all to do with marijuana.”
The lawsuit argues that Michigan laws recognize the medical benefits of marijuana, and yet the Michigan Board of Pharmacy continues to list marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug — a designation that means it has no accepted medical benefits and has a high potential for abuse.
“The Michigan Department of Attorney General is in the process of reviewing and preparing a response to the complaint,” according to a statement from spokeswoman Kelly Rossman-McKinney.
The “absurdity” of the legal conflict between theMedical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Actand the Public Health Code has to be addressed, said Michael Komorn, one of the attorneys behind the case.
“It’s intellectually dishonest,” Michael Komorn ofKomorn Lawsaid.
The Michigan Supreme Court in 1972 noted in the opinion that overturned Sinclair’s conviction that “not only that there is no rational basis for classifying marijuana with the ‘hard narcotics’, but, also, that there is not even a rational basis for treating marijuana as a more dangerous drug than alcohol.”
Federally, marijuana remains listed as a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance and its use remains illegal. The U.S. Attorney General’s office has declined to prosecute states or businesses that have launched medical and recreational marijuana programs. President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Bill Barr, has said he’ll continue that approach — but believes overarching change is needed.
Thinking of Starting a Cannabis or Hemp Business?
Komorn Law has associated our law firm expanding its cannabis and hemp industry services across the globe. If you are thinking about starting a business in this area you will need legal guidance and corporate counsel.
On March 14, 2018 The Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has posted a revised technical bulletin for clarification on testing and accreditation standards.
The bulletin refers to Safety Compliance FacilitiesTesting, The purpose of the bulletin is intended to address requests for clarification on Rule31(6) and (7) of the Emergency Rules filed on December 4, 2017.
This bulletin can be viewed at the following links
Michael Komorn is the leading expert attorney dedicated to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and the Marijuana Tracking Act.
Call Komorn Law PLLC today if you are interested in working in or with the Michigan medical marijuana business industry. We offer expert planning and advice for all MMFLA applicants, employees and related services including Certified Public Accountants and financial institutions.
Combined with Komorn Law PLLC’s expert criminal defense services, we can help you maximize profits, minimize risk and liabilities and ensure that you are in compliance with all of the laws, rules and regulations.
Please note that these laws, rules and regulation forms change and are updated regularly. Always get the latest forms directly from LARA at http://www.michigan.gov/bmmr
Administrative Rule 72 says that before a marijuana plant is sold or transferred, a package tag must be affixed to the plant or plant container and enclosed with a tamper proof seal that includes all of the following information:
• Business or trade name, licensee number, and the RFID package tag assigned by the statewide monitoring system that is visible.
• Name of the strain.
• Date of harvest, if applicable.
• Seed strain, if applicable.
• Universal symbol, if applicable.
Administrative Rule 73 says before a marijuana product is sold or transferred to or by a provisioning center, the container, bag, or product holding the marijuana product must have a label and be sealed with all of the following information:
• The name of the licensee and the license number of the producer, including business or trade name, and tag or source number as assigned by the statewide monitoring system.
• The name of the licensee and the license number including business or trade name of licensee that packaged the product, if different from the processor of the marijuana product.
• The unique identification number for the package or the harvest, if applicable.
• Date of harvest, if applicable.
• Name of strain, if applicable.
• Net weight in United States customary and metric units.
• Concentration of THC and cannabidiol (CBD).
• Activation time expressed in words or through a pictogram.
• Name of the safety compliance facility that performed any test, any associated test batch number, and any test analysis date.
• The universal symbol for marijuana product published on the department’s
website.
• A warning that states all the following: “For use by registered qualifying patients
only. Keep out of reach of children. It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle while
under the influence of marijuana. National Poison Control Center 1-800-222-1222.
Licensees may continue to use any remaining versions of the previous Universal Symbol until they are completely used up.
Licensees are also permitted to choose which Universal Symbol version to use on a marijuana product until any remaining
versions of the previous Universal Symbol until they are completely used up.
The educational session (video above) will include presentations on the following topics:
Keith Lambert, the Director of the Bureau of Construction Codes, will discuss important items to know – and specific steps to follow – when designing and constructing medical marihuana facilities. (missing)
Greg Kozak, an on-site Industrial Hygiene Consultant with Michigan Occupational Safety and Health (MIOSHA), will present an overview of the MIOSHA standards and regulations potentially impacting the medical cannabis industry in Michigan.
Kevin Sehlmeyer, State Fire Marshal, and Brian William, Plan Review Specialist, will provide an overview of National Fire Protection Association standards.
Brandi Branson-Boone, a departmental analyst in the Business Taxes Division of the Michigan Department of Treasury, will be assisting with navigation of the Michigan Treasury Online (MTO) – Treasury’s web services portal.
Two families — including one mom who alleges Child Protective Services took her suckling baby from her breast — are suing the state, alleging discrimination because they are medical marijuana users and poor.
In the lawsuit, attorney Michael KOMORN alleges the faith-based foster care and adoption agencies used by the State of Michigan were “grossly negligent” in opposing and delaying reunification of his clients’ children on the grounds of “poverty and illness” and in violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
The suit also alleges Michigan laws allowing faith-based agencies “to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs are unconstitutional.”
“The mental image of CPS entering a hospital room accompanied by armed men and taking a newborn from a nursing mother’s breast and from the grandmother, shattering three generations of lives because CPS and Holy Cross (Children Services) found this family to be unfit because they were poor, diseased, medical marijuana card holders is excruciating,” Komorn said in the lawsuit filed Dec. 15 in the Court of Claims. “They treated this family the way the poor and leprous were treated until Jesus taught otherwise.”
Plaintiffs in the case are two families — Jennifer BARTLETT, her three children and parents, and Spring Lake residents Max LORINCZ and his wife, Erica CHITTENDON, and their son.
In addition to Clinton-based Holy Cross, defendants are the State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Nick LYON, Executive Director Herman McCALL of Children Services Agency, Holy Cross worker Andrea HAGEN, Bethany Christian Services and its social worker, Kerry JIPPING, and CPS social worker Cody MAYHEM.
Kassie KRETZSCHMAR, a spokeswoman with Holy Cross, was not able to comment on Thursday because the agency had not seen the lawsuit.
A spokeswoman with Bethany Christian Services was working to get a comment from officials late Thursday.
According to the lawsuit, Bartlett’s children were removed from the family after a houseguest was killed in January 2016 when his gun accidentally discharged while her children were present.
Bartlett took her children to her parents’ home for safety while police investigated the case as a murder prior to blaming her boyfriend, who had spent time in jail.
Mayhew went to the children’s grandparents’ home and told Bartlett that the children were going to be removed because Bartlett “was not showing proper emotions and was making poor life choices,” the lawsuit alleges. Mayhew then drug-tested Bartlett, who tested negative, and she questioned the grandparents,’ who she said “were medical marijuana cardholders.”
Bartlett’s children were removed after a hearing in January 2016 and placed with Holy Cross.
Hagen, who was the Bartlett family’s caseworker, told the court the children shouldn’t be placed with her parents’ because her father had a 27-year-old conviction for use of half of a marijuana joint.
Drug officers later interviewed Bartlett to try to tie her and her boyfriend to drug trafficking in Detroit, which she denied. She was later charged with maintaining a drug house. She was eventually released on bond, but rearrested and charged with possession of drugs found in her dead guest’s pockets as well as conducting a criminal enterprise.
The lawsuit alleges that Hagen maintained Bartlett’s parents would not be good placement for her children because they “had a bad attitude” and were “uncooperative.” She also publicly revealed medical information about the grandmother in violation of federal privacy rules, the suit alleges.
Bartlett, who was pregnant, was released from jail in November 2016. A few hours after giving birth, a CPS worker saw her breastfeeding the baby and returned later with a court order and the police.
CPS “took (the) baby . . . from her mother’s breast and took her away, placing her with Holy Cross,” Komorn alleged.
After more than a year in foster care, Bartlett’s children were returned to her and the case closed in June 2017.
Komorn noted in the lawsuit that Hagen was “recently disciplined” by the Department of Health and Human Services for “misrepresenting health issues” of Bartlett’s parents “to justify placing the children with Holy Cross,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Lorencz and Chittendon were not told that they could opt-out of a faith-based agency. When they learned they could, they sought a court order dismissing Bethany.
The lawsuit further alleges that Jipping testified at a hearing that “marijuana, even legally used for medical conditions, makes a parent unfit.” The caseworker acknowledged, however, that there was no evidence to prove drug abuse or that Lorencz was not in clear mind around his son when using medical cannabis.
Komorn further alleges that once Bethany Christian Services no longer had the pending criminal charges to use against his client, they “made other ridiculous claims” to keep his client’s son in foster care, including that he “plays lots of video games, his family is poor and his mother is ill.”
“Court hearings revealed that the behavior shown by Bethany Christian Services, including asking the child himself to choose between his parents and other living options, was contradictory to state procedures regarding foster care,” Komorn wrote in court documents. “The caseworker explicitly testified that she had not read or followed the (CPS’) policy. Instead . . . she follows Bethany Christian Services’ policy.”
Farmington Hills, Michigan
Michael A. Komorn focuses on medical marijuana representation. He is the president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 32,000 members, which advocates for medical marijuana patients and caregiver rights. Mr. Komorn is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marijuana patients and caregivers. He is a member of the Criminal Law and Marijuana Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan.
Property seized in the execution of a search warrant can be subject to civil forfeiture. Recovering this property requires a unique balancing of your client’s interests especially when they are facing potential criminal charges.
Gather critical information from the search warrant and intent to forfeit
Establish standing by providing evidence of ownership
Advise clients on potential out-of-pocket costs including storage or impound fees.
Michael Komorn and Jeff Frazier talk to Rachael Sedlacek (Preview)
