The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Impact of Marijuana Reclassification on Legal Landscape

On May 6, 2024, the DEA made a groundbreaking decision, accepting the US Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance. This move marks a significant shift in federal drug policy, potentially altering the legal framework surrounding cannabis cultivation, distribution, and use.

Reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III places marijuana alongside substances like acetaminophen with codeine, ketamine, and testosterone, removing it from the category that includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. While federal legalization isn’t on the table, this reclassification acknowledges marijuana’s accepted medical use and low potential for abuse.

However, this change doesn’t impact state marijuana laws in the 24 states, two territories, and Washington D.C. that have legalized adult recreational use or the 38 states permitting medical cannabis. But it does offer substantial tax breaks for businesses involved in marijuana production and sales. Under the current Internal Revenue Code, businesses selling Schedule I substances can’t deduct business expenses, but reclassification would allow for significant tax savings, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Moreover, reclassification opens doors for cannabis companies to access major stock exchanges, attracting investment capital for further growth. Yet, it doesn’t address banking industry challenges. Federal illegality prohibits cannabis businesses from utilizing deposit accounts and other financial services, leaving many operating solely in cash due to banks’ reluctance to engage with them.

Despite reclassification, cannabis remains illegal under federal law, leading to financial service limitations and unresolved conflicts between state and federal laws. For instance, Michigan legalized recreational marijuana, but employers still hold the right to refuse employment or discharge individuals for violating workplace drug policies, unaffected by federal reclassification.

“I guess reclassification to a three is a good start.  It’s better than a one” said Attorney Michael Komorn

The shift to Schedule III also raises regulatory concerns, potentially subjecting medical marijuana to increased FDA oversight, affecting licensing and distribution protocols. However, it doesn’t resolve issues like lack of bankruptcy protection or federal trademark registrations for state cannabis companies.

Cannabis businesses remain ineligible for federal bankruptcy protection due to their violation of the Controlled Substances Act, a hurdle unaffected by rescheduling. Likewise, federal trademark registrations are unavailable due to cannabis’ federal illegality, leaving companies vulnerable to trademark infringement and legal disputes.

While reclassification signifies growing recognition of cannabis companies, its effects are pending. The proposal must undergo review by the Office of Management and Budget, followed by publication in the Federal Register and a 60-day public comment period, possibly leading to further review by an Administrative Law Judge.

The reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III represents a significant step towards legitimizing cannabis businesses and altering the legal landscape. However, its full impact remains uncertain, pending further regulatory and legal developments.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

AP Story

President Joe Biden may potentially ban TikTok, but he aims to offer young individuals, who largely influence this widely-used social media platform, a more lenient government regulation regarding marijuana.

Facing a decline in support from an important left-leaning voting group, Biden has implemented various strategies aimed at garnering appeal among younger voters, a crucial demographic for his upcoming re-election in November.

His recent decision to reclassify marijuana as a less harmful substance aligns with his ongoing efforts to bring about positive change. This move follows his commendable act of canceling student loans for an additional 206,000 borrowers, demonstrating his commitment to addressing pressing issues. Furthermore, his unwavering support for abortion rights remains a cornerstone of his re-election campaign.

Read more here at the AP News: Biden’s historic marijuana shift is his latest election year move for young voters

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

Qualified lower-paid workers who earn a salary but work more than 40 hours in a week will soon be entitled to guaranteed time-and-a-half pay, thanks to a new labor rule announced by the Biden-Harris administration.

This rule will raise the salary thresholds necessary to exempt a “salaried bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employee from federal overtime pay requirements.”

The salary threshold will increase in two stages. The first increase will take place on July 1, bringing the annual salary equivalent to $43,888. This is a significant jump from the current threshold of $35,568. Following this, on January 1, 2025, the threshold will rise again, reaching $58,656.

The Department of Labor has released this information in a blog with stock photos providing clarity on the matter.

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams
Michigan Court of Appeals
No 365299 (04/18/24)

MCL 28.425f permits a police officer to ask a person observed to be carrying a concealed weapon to produce their concealed pistol license (CPL) at any time and for any reason.

Makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime

Further, MCL 750.227 makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime, which can be rebutted by the suspect producing their CPL. Thus, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to  approach a person and ask for proof of a CPL after observing a bulge in the person’s clothing indicative of a hidden firearm.

The trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed.

About it

Michigan Court of Appeals Case No. 365299, People v Williams, centers on a warrantless search and subsequent arrest. The details of the case are not explicitly mentioned in the available information, but the legal reasoning behind the decision is referenced.

The case cites MCL 750.227, which prohibits carrying a concealed pistol without a license. It also references previous cases (Henderson and Williams) that established the legality of a warrantless search under the “automobile exception” when there’s reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The relevant part of People v Williams seems to focus on justifying a traffic stop. The court apparently determined that an informant’s tip about a driver possessing a handgun amounted to reasonable suspicion, warranting the stop. This aligns with the established principle that police can conduct stops based on reasonable suspicion, even if it’s a lesser standard compared to the probable cause needed for arrests or searches.

While the case itself isn’t elaborated on, it highlights the legal basis for traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion, particularly when the suspicion involves potential gun possession.

Better have a real good attorney

Underage Workers in Factories Spark Fines, Investigations, and Legislation

Underage Workers in Factories Spark Fines, Investigations, and Legislation

A New York Times report exposed widespread child labor in a Michigan factory, prompting state and federal authorities to take action. The report focused on a Hearthside Food Solutions plant in Kentwood, alleging the presence of numerous underage workers.

Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) and the U.S. Department of Labor launched investigations into the facility.

Additionally, Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) levied over $50,000 in fines against the plant for inadequate safety training and dangerous machinery.

Hearthside initially denied the allegations but has since paid some fines and is appealing others.

Federal and State Collaboration

The U.S. Department of Labor has increased oversight through an interagency task force focused on combating child labor. This initiative allows collaboration with other federal agencies, like the Department of Education, which offers training on child labor identification to school staff.

Strengthening Enforcement

State legislators are proposing bills to improve child labor enforcement and worker protection. One bill increases fines for violating child labor laws, aligning them with federal penalties. It also allows child workers to sue for damages and protects whistleblowers from retaliation.

Another bill proposes a complete overhaul of the work permit system in Michigan. Currently, teens obtain permits through schools. This bill would shift the responsibility to the LEO, creating a centralized database of legal teen workers and their employers. This system would enhance the LEO’s ability to identify potential child labor violations.

Immigrant Advocacy and Underlying Issues

Many underage workers in the exposed case were immigrants. Immigrant advocacy groups support the proposed bills, emphasizing provisions for compensating victims and protecting whistleblowers.

These measures could alleviate stress on immigrant families forced into child labor due to economic hardship.

However, these groups express concern that solely focusing on enforcement might drive children into even more dangerous and unregulated working environments.

As always addressing the (root causes) of child labor, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, is crucial for lasting solutions.

Better have a real good attorney

Understanding Domestic Violence Laws in Michigan

Understanding Domestic Violence Laws in Michigan

Understanding Domestic Violence Laws in Michigan

Domestic violence is a serious issue that can affect anyone, regardless of age, income, or background. If you are experiencing domestic violence in Michigan, it’s important to know your rights and the laws that protect you. This article will explain the key points of domestic violence laws in Michigan.

What is Domestic Violence?

Michigan law defines domestic violence as a pattern of behavior used to control an intimate partner. This can include:

  • Physical abuse: Hitting, kicking, shoving, grabbing, choking, or any other physical force used to harm.
  • Sexual abuse: Forced sexual contact, threats of sexual violence, or any sexual activity that is not consensual.
  • Emotional abuse: Yelling, threats, insults, name-calling, stalking, or any behavior that causes fear or emotional distress.
  • Financial abuse: Controlling finances, preventing access to money, or sabotaging your ability to work.

Who is Protected by Domestic Violence Laws?

Michigan’s domestic violence laws protect a variety of relationships, not just spouses. You can seek protection under these laws if you have been in an intimate relationship with the abuser, even if you never lived together or were not married. This includes:

  • Spouses or former spouses
  • Dating partners or former dating partners
  • People who have a child together, even if they were never romantically involved

What are the Different Types of Domestic Violence Charges?

The severity of the domestic violence crime will determine the charges filed. Here’s a breakdown of some common charges:

  • Domestic Assault: This is the most common charge for domestic violence. It can include causing physical harm, fear of harm, or offensive physical contact. A first offense is typically a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a fine of $500.
  • Aggravated Domestic Assault: This is a more serious charge that applies when the abuser causes serious injuries (requiring medical attention) or uses a weapon. A first offense can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of the abuse. Penalties can range from one year in jail and a $1,000 fine to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
  • Stalking: Repeatedly following, harassing, or threatening someone can be considered stalking. This is a criminal offense, and penalties can vary depending on the circumstances.

Protection Orders

A personal protection order (PPO) is a court order that prohibits the abuser from contacting you or coming near you. It can also order the abuser to leave your home and give you temporary custody of your children.

There are two main types of PPOs in Michigan:

  • Emergency PPO: A law enforcement officer can issue this temporary order if they believe you are in immediate danger. It lasts for up to 72 hours.
  • Regular PPO: You can petition the court for a longer-term PPO. A hearing will be held where you will have the opportunity to present evidence of the abuse. The judge will then decide whether to grant the PPO and for how long.

How to Get Help

If you are experiencing domestic violence, there are resources available to help you. Here are some steps you can take:

  • Call 911: If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
  • Go to a safe place: If you can safely leave your home, do so and go to a friend’s house, family member’s house, or a domestic violence shelter.
  • Contact a domestic violence hotline: There are 24/7 hotlines available that can provide support and information about your options.
  • Talk to an attorney: An attorney can advise you of your legal rights and help you obtain a personal protection order.