Michigan’s cannabis market is thriving, with licensed dispensaries reporting record-breaking sales of $276.7 million in July 2023. This surpassed the previous record set in June and contributed to a total of $1.7 billion in cannabis sales for the first seven months of the year, a 37% increase compared to the same period in 2022. Michigan is on track to reach $2.9 billion in sales this year, potentially making it the second-largest cannabis market in the US, after California.
Despite selling less flower in July, higher prices resulted in increased revenue. Flower accounted for 46.5% of adult-use sales, followed by vape cartridges (19%), concentrates (14.7%), and infused edibles (10%). While the average price for flower decreased compared to the previous year, selling more cannabis has helped combat price compression in the industry. Michigan’s demand for cannabis is the highest among adult-use states, with an average monthly spend of $23.42 per capita.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
A federal appeals court has ruled that the ban preventing people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification did not justify disarming individuals based on past drug usage.
The decision is the latest in a series of successful challenges to the long-standing federal prohibition, which is actively being contested in various court cases across the country.
A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Wednesday to toss the conviction of Patrick Daniels, a Mississippi man arrested and sentenced to prison for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana. The panel found that Daniels’ conviction was inconsistent with the “history and tradition” of gun regulation.
“In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the unanimouspanel inUS v. Daniels.
“Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. As applied to Daniels, then, § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.”
RESTORE YOUR GUN RIGHTS – CALL OUR OFFICE – KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550
Kimberly Golden Gore, an attorney for Daniels, similarly said during an oral argument in June that her client was “serving 46 months in a federal facility for having less than half a gram of marijuana, and two firearms that otherwise would have been legal,” arguing that “historical tradition simply doesn’t support that kind of permanent and total restriction on his Second Amendment rights.”
This ruling potentially invalidates the firearms ban for any person who is an “unlawful user” of any illicit drug, not just marijuana.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
Some Michigan government job applicants will no longer be overlooked because of their marijuana use.
The Michigan Civil Service Commission voted unanimously Wednesday, July 12, to partially lift a longstanding ban on hiring state employees who fail pre-employment drug screens for marijuana.
A five-year high of 151 applicants who applied for state jobs failed for the presence of marijuana in 2022, according to data provided by the Office of the State Employer (OSE).
The number more than doubled from 2021 and the state recorded 351 pre-employment failures for marijuana since it was legalized for recreational use in 2018. Of 83 failed pre-employment drug tests this year, 81 were for marijuana.
Marijuana testing will remain in place for a large swath of government employees, including health workers, state police and Michigan Department of Corrections officers. But effective Oct. 1 eliminates the requirement for office staff and those applying for positions that don’t require driving, operation of heavy machinery or handling of hazardous materials.
The change also eliminates current rules that ban applicants who previously failed a drug test for marijuana from applying for another state job for three years.
STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION SPDOC No. 23-06
TO: ALL APPOINTING AUTHORITIES, HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICERS, AND RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS FROM: JOHN GNODTKE, STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 12, 2023 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2-7, DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING, AND REGULATIONS 2.07, DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING, AND 2.10, DRUG TESTING COMPLAINTS BY NON-EMPLOYEES
In the 1980s, the commission adopted a testing policy outside its rules to provide guidelines on drug and alcohol testing of classified employees. In 1998, the commission amended its rules to specifically (1) require preemployment drug-testing of newly hired classified employees, (2) allow reasonable-suspicion and follow-up testing of classified employees, and (3) allow random-selection and post-accident testing of classified employees in test-designated positions. The rules define these test-designated positions as those (1) requiring a commercial driver’s license or operating certain vehicles, equipment, and machinery, (2) with law enforcement powers or allowed to carry a firearm on duty, (3) providing healthcare services, (4) working with prisoners, probationers, or parolees, (5) with unsupervised access to controlled substances, or (6) handling hazardous or explosive materials. Also in the late 1990s, collective bargaining agreements added provisions allowing similar reasonable-suspicion, follow-up, randomselection, and post-accident drug-testing of exclusively represented employees. Federal law also requires preemployment and employee testing of some test-designated positions operating certain vehicles.
The 1998 rules directed the state personnel director to establish prohibited levels of drugs in regulations. Those regulations—and collective bargaining agreements—called for testing under procedures established under federal law. While the regulations technically allow agencies to request approval to test for any drug in schedule 1 or 2 of the state’s public health code, the default testing protocol used by the state since 1998 has tested for five classes of drugs: marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine. Recent years have seen changes across the country in state laws regulating controlled substances. Michigan voters legalized marijuana’s medicinal use in 2008 and recreational
use by adults in 2018. In light of these changes, commissioners have requested circulation for public comment of potential regulation amendments to end the preemployment-testing requirement for marijuana for classified employees hired into nontest-designated positions. Ending this pre-employment testing for marijuana would not affect the availability of reasonable-suspicion or follow-up testing for marijuana of classified employees, including candidates who become employees. Because of ongoing testing requirements under federal law and safety considerations related to test-designated positions, the proposed amendments would preserve the status quo for pre-employment, random-selection, post-accident, follow-up, and reasonablesuspicion testing for those positions.
The potential change to regulation 2.07, § 4.B.1.b for which public comment is sought is: b. Drugs included. Rule 9‐1 defines drugs as those included in schedule 1 or 2 of controlled substances at MCL 333.7201, et seq. Hundreds of drugs are covered under schedules 1 and 2, but it is not feasible to test routinely for all of them. When a drug test is required, an appointing authority shall require testing for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine, except that an appointing authority shall not require testing for marijuana for a pre‐ employment drug test of a new hire to a position that is not test‐designated. Before If an agency requires testing for other drugs, it must first obtain written approval from the director. A request must include the agency’s proposed initial test methods, testing levels, and performance test program. When conducting reasonable‐suspicion or post‐accident testing, an agency may require testing for any drug listed in schedule 1 or 2.
Staff has identified a related issue determined by rule that would require commission action to modify. Since Proposal 1 took effect in December 2018, approximately 350 applicants for classified positions have tested positive for marijuana in preemployment testing. Rule 2-7.4(b)(1) requires rescission of the conditional employment offer and a three-year sanction from appointment to other state positions in such a situation. While many of these sanctions have since lapsed, a few hundred remain in effect. The commission could adopt rule language allowing amnesty through rescission of continuing sanctions based on a preemployment drug test for a non-test designated position with a positive result for marijuana. Such action would not result in employment for these candidates but would allow them to apply for classified positions rather than waiting three years after being sanctioned.
The potential new rule 2-7.4(c) for which public comment is requested is: (c) Rescission of marijuana sanctions. A person with an active three‐year sanction based on a positive result for marijuana from a pre‐employment drug test for a non‐test‐designated position may request the sanction’s prospective rescission as provided in the regulations.
If such an amendment were adopted, updates could be made to rule references in regulations 2.07 and 2.10 and the following new § 3.E could be added to regulation 2.10: E. Marijuana sanctions. A person with an active three‐year sanction based on a positive result for marijuana from a pre‐employment drug test for a non‐test‐ designated position under rule 2‐7.4(b)(1) can have the sanction prospectively rescinded by email request to MCSC‐OCSC@mi.gov. The request should identify the person’s full name and, if available, the date that the sanction was imposed. Civil service staff shall provide written confirmation of the sanction’s rescission.
Comments on the proposed amendments may be emailed to MCSC-OGC@mi.gov or sent to Office of the General Counsel, Michigan Civil Service Commission, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan, 48909. Comments must be received by June 23, 2023. Attachments
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or DUI. Call Komorn Law and turn the odds in your favor. Call Now 248-357-2550
DISCLAIMER This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.
Jobs with the state of Michigan may no longer require passing drug tests for marijuana to gain employment.
The legalization of recreational cannabis along with hundreds of applicants testing positive for marijuana prior to being offered employment have fed into a proposal to remove the requirement. Drug tests for marijuana would still be required if there was reasonable suspicion or after a workplace accident, under the proposed change.
In a letter sent May 12 from the state personnel director to human resources officers, the Civil Service Commission asks any comments about the potential change be sent to its general counsel for review.
“In light of these changes, commissioners have requested circulation for public comment of potential regulation amendments to end the pre-employment-testing requirement for marijuana for classified employees hired into non test-designated positions,” read the letter.
DISCLAIMER This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.
Michigan’s largest-ever marijuana recall is at the center of a court matter that the public is forbidden from attending.
The case focuses on Cannabis Regulatory Agency accusations that Viridis Laboratories, one of the largest marijuana safety testing labs in the state, produced inaccurate test results related to potentially harmful contaminants, and inflated THC potency data. Viridis has denied the claims and filed its own lawsuit against the CRA, accusing the regulator of abusing its power and unfairly targeting the safety lab.
“Without having the proceedings being published, it’s possible a lot of things may remain hidden from public view and I don’t think that’s democracy,” said marijuana insider Rick Thompson, who is the executive director of theNational Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)of Michigan,
Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office is representing the CRA.
