LARA-Medical Marihuana Regulation – House Bill 4209-HB4827 and HB4210-FAQ

LARA-Medical Marihuana Regulation – House Bill 4209-HB4827 and HB4210-FAQ

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

 

When can I apply for my license?

 

After December 15, 2017.

 

What does the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board (“the board”) do?

 

The Medical Marihuana Licensing Board is comprised of 5 members, appointed by the Governor (with input from the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House), to administer the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act. This includes reviewing applications, issuing licenses, revoking/suspending licenses, renewing licenses, and investigating individuals who are applying for licensure or complaints received about someone who holds a license.

 

What are the different licenses I can apply for?

 

You may apply for the following licenses:

 

Grower

Processor

Transporter

Provisioning Center

Safety Compliance Facility

 

What costs are associated with a license?

 

Payment to secure transporters for transferring marihuana, as needed;

Annual, nonrefundable fee (of up to $5,000) to be set by, and paid to, your local municipality.

 

These fees are used to offset administrative and enforcement costs associated with the operation of a marihuana facility in the municipality;

 

An application fee per category and class of license;

 

Investigation and processing fees not covered by the application fee;

 

An annual regulatory assessment fee;

 

A renewal fee;

 

Late fees if renewal fee is not paid on time;

 

Provisioning centers will pay 3% on gross retail receipts

 

 

Does my municipality have any involvement with my license?

 

Yes, a municipality (city, township or village) has the following involvement:

 

Must pass an ordinance which authorizes the type of facility you wish to open;

 

May limit the number of each type of facility within the municipality’s boundaries;

Any other ordinances relating to marihuana facilities;

 

May adopt zoning regulations relating to facilities within its jurisdiction;

 

The municipality must receive notice from you that you have applied for any one of the five licenses;

 

May establish an annual fee to be paid by you; the fee can be as much as $5,000.00;

 

Must approve your request to have your license transferred, sold or purchased.

 

Does my criminal history prevent me from obtaining a license?

 

It depends on whether the following are true:

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States (federal law) within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state within the past 5 years.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state within the past 5 years.

 

The Board may take into consideration the following:

 

Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise.

 

What prohibits a person from obtaining a license?

 

An applicant cannot obtain a license if any of the following is true:

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has knowingly submitted an application for a license under this act that contains false information.

 

The applicant cannot be a member of the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she fails to demonstrate the ability to maintain

adequate premises liability and casualty insurance for its proposed marihuana facility (an insurance policy that covers at a minimum of $100,000).

 

The applicant cannot hold an elective office of a governmental unit of this state, another state, or the federal government; is a member of or employed by a regulatory body of a governmental unit in this state, another state, or the federal government; or is employed by a governmental unit of this state. This subdivision does not apply to an elected officer of or employee of a federally recognized Indian tribe or to an elected precinct delegate.

 

The applicant, if an individual, is ineligible if he or she has been a resident of this state for less than a continuous 2-year period immediately preceding the date of filing the application. This requirement does not apply after June 30, 2018.

 

The applicant is ineligible if the Board determines he or she failed comply with section 205(1).

 

The applicant fails to meet other criteria established by rule.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of or released from

incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States (federal law) within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state within the past 5 years.

 

The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state within the past 5 years.

 

What other things may potentially prevent an applicant from getting approved for a license?

 

The Board may take into consideration the following:

 

The integrity, moral character, and reputation; personal and business probity; financial ability and experience; and responsibility or means to operate or maintain a marihuana facility of the applicant and of any other person that either:

 

Controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant.

 

Is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the applicant or by a person who controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant.

 

The financial ability of the applicant to purchase and maintain adequate liability and casualty insurance.

 

The sources and total amount of the applicant’s capitalization to operate and maintain the proposed marihuana facility.

 

Whether the applicant has filed, or had filed against it, a proceeding for bankruptcy within the past 7 years.

 

Whether the applicant has been served with a complaint or other notice filed with any public body regarding payment of any tax required under federal, state, or local law that has been delinquent for 1 or more years.

 

Whether the applicant has a history of noncompliance with any regulatory requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction.

 

Whether at the time of application the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices.

 

Whether the applicant meets other standards in rules applicable to the license category.

 

Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise.

 

 

Where can I find more information on each type of license?

 

Details on each license category can be found in Part 5 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281.

 

See-  http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-281-2016-PART-5-LICENSEES

 

https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LARA-Marihuana-Act-HB4209-HB4827-HB4210-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf

 

 

For more information visit these sites

 

More Info Regarding House Bills

Marihuana Act Business Development

MMMP.org

Komorn Law

Michigan Medical Marihuana

Medical Marihuana Business Development Legal Assistance

Medical Marihuana Business Development Legal Assistance

On September 14, 2016, the Michigan Legislature succeeded in passing several medical marihuana dispensary legislation acts.

The acts were signed by Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder on September 22,  2016

Komorn Law can assist you with clarification and utilization of these new regulations and protections.

 

To learn more click the link below

Komorn Law Business Development

Oakland County marijuana dispensary claims it was unfairly targeted by police

Oakland County marijuana dispensary claims it was unfairly targeted by police

OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. – The owner of an Oakland County medical marijuana dispensary said he’s been unfairly targeted by police in the form of raids and civil forfeitures.

 

 

Meanwhile, police said they’re just enforcing the law.

The case sits at the forefront of the fight to legalize marijuana in Michigan.

Investigators close to the case said Donald Barnes is a marijuana dealer hiding behind medical marijuana laws, but Barnes said the dispensary raided by police is a nonprofit that he has no ownership in. The legal battle has gone on for almost three years, and Barnes’ money and property is still tied up in a forfeiture battle.

Barnes insists he is the victim of overzealous police.

“It was two days before Christmas, and we started Christmas shopping already,” Barnes said. “They seized the Christmas gifts.”

He claims officials wrongfully raided his business and seized pot, property and bank accounts.

“They seized personal assets, not just my business bank accounts, but they also seized stuff from my home and my personal properties,” Barnes said.

Barnes was eventually given criminal charges.

“They arrested me and told me I was being charged with selling marijuana because I owned a dispensary,” Barnes said.

But police told a different story. They stand behind the raids, forfeiture and criminal charges, saying it wasn’t a medical marijuana operation for the sick but a large-scale pot-for-profit operation.

The two sides ended up in the courtroom, where Barnes scored a victory.

“In this case, the Oakland County Circuit Court, I think, called the Sheriff’s Department on their tactics and pointed out that they clearly had no justification to do what they did to Mr. Barnes or his business,” attorney David Moffitt said.

Moffitt said when the judge invalidated the search by police and dismissed the criminal charges against Barnes, it sent a strong message and should convince police to give Barnes his money and property back.

“You know, if you go around and you frighten people in this fashion and take their assets and tell them (that) if they just let that go then they won’t be prosecuted,” Moffitt said. “If it weren’t being done by people with badges, it would be called extortion.”

Prosecutors and police said the judge’s ruling was wrong. They’re appealing, so the controversy is far from over.

“I mean, this is Oakland County, one of the richest counties in the country,” Barnes said. “There’s not too many people that are going to be able to push them around. They push people around.”

A judge has ruled that $10,000 seized from Barnes be returned to him. A hearing to resolve the rest of the forfeited property was adjourned Wednesday and moved to August.

In some states, property cannot be forfeited until a person is convicted, but in Michigan, the property is taken and returned if a person is found not guilty.

Copyright 2017 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.

 

Donald Barnes says police unfairly seized assets
By Kevin Dietz – Reporter , Derick Hutchinson
Posted: 6:01 PM, April 05, 2017Updated: 6:01 PM, April 05, 2017

 

 

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/defenders/oakland-county-marijuana-dispensary-claims-it-was-unfairly-targeted-by-police

 

Cannabis shops in Colorado are not selling to underage individuals

Cannabis shops in Colorado are not selling to underage individuals

Cannabis shops in Colorado are not selling to underage individuals, according to a study recently published in the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs. In Colorado it is illegal for minors under the age of 21 to use, purchase, or possess marijuana. With the risk of losing a license to sell cannabis, 19 out of 20 retailers evaluated in this study did not sell cannabis to individuals who failed to identify themselves as being 21 years or older.

In addition, the study concluded that the rate of compliance to underage marijuana laws was potentially higher than that of retailers selling alcohol.

To record their findings, the researchers simply had a “observer” and a “buyer” enter a store once between the hours of 11 am and 5 pm on four weekdays in August of 2015. The observer would walk in first and subtly take a look at the surroundings inside. Then the underage looking “buyer” would enter the store and try to buy cannabis. The buyer did not produce identification if asked. And the buyer would say he or she did not have enough money and leave the store, if the attendant was willing to sell cannabis. The observer would document everything that happened.

One of the researchers, Senior Scientist at the Prevention Research Center, Robert F. Saltz, Ph.D., stated that neither the observer or the buyer were underage.

“Everyone was over 21 but judged by others to appear younger than 21,” Dr. Saltz wrote in a email. “We couldn’t send in actual underage people because that would be unlawful in many places.”

Only one out of the 20 outlets (5 percent) was willing to sell cannabis to a individual who did not produce identification. All of the store clerks asked for identification, nonetheless. And every store had posted signs reading that identification was required for entry.

“[A]pproximately half had signs that only individuals 21 years of age or older could enter (55%) and how to properly use marijuana edibles (50%),” the report reads.

Dr. Saltz recommends that while law enforcement agencies ensure that retailers comply with underage restrictions, retail clerks should be trained to keep cannabis out of the possession of minors and children.

“Regular and routine enforcement alongside staff training (with occasional “boosters”),” Dr. Saltz wrote. “One of the reasons we are developing online, web-based training is that staff turnover may be very high (it is for alcohol servers) and so training should be available continually as new staff come on line.”

The researchers went on to conclude that minors may not be buying cannabis directly from retailers; however, further research should be conducted to determine whether minors are accessing marijuana by having people who are of legal age buy it for them.

“This is an entirely new market and I don’t think we know yet how it may evolve and what kind of products or promotions might appear in the near future,” Dr. Saltz wrote. “For some time, research on marijuana/cannabis was difficult, so we’re playing a bit of “catch up” at this point.”

Read more at http://housely.com/colorado-cannabis-retailers-dont-sell-to-minors-study-finds/#PGpKrIvf2sHBaMys.99

Clio marihuana dispensary fighting Genesee County Prosecutor’s office in court

Clio marihuana dispensary fighting Genesee County Prosecutor’s office in court

CLIO (WJRT) – (04/25/16) – A Mid-Michigan marihuana dispensary is fighting the Genesee County Prosecutor’s office in court after FANG shut them down.

The owner of the Clio dispensary says warrants weren’t valid and he wants his business back open.

 

Attorneys from both sides were in Judge Hayman’s court Monday afternoon. The raid happened in January when the Genesee County Prosecutor’s office filed an emergency injunction to close down a facility called Clio Caregiver Connection.

 

A counter claim was filed against the Prosecutor’s Office, saying the county failed to meet legal requirements to participate with FANG.

 

The defense also argues that the recent dispensary raids and padlocking efforts by FANG were and are illegal.

 

“I don’t write the laws. I just enforce them. Dispensaries are not allowed. The word dispensary does not even appear in the medical marihuana act,” said Prosecuting Attorney David Leyton.

 

“There’s never been any complaints from anyone. He’s loved by all of the patients that’ve gone in there. They’re all unhappy that this was forced down. And it’s just an overreach by FANG,” said Clio Caregiver Connection Attorney Michael Komorn.

 

Komorn_Clio_Dispensary_01

 

The case is in its early stages. Both sides will return to court to discuss it again on May 16.

 

By: Caresse Jackman – Updated: Tue 1:27 PM, Apr 26, 2016

 

Watch the Report