Jan 9, 2023 | Blog, Michigan Marijuana Legislature, Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation, News
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, calling them rushed, recently vetoed 11 bills including three medical cannabis bills, with others related to retirement and tax. The governor did however sign into law six other bills approved by the Legislature.
Two bills that were vetoed: House Bill 5871, which would have amended state law to ease access to medical cannabis products, making them easier to be transferred from one facility to another. HB 5871 would also prohibit a background check of an applicant’s spouse under certain circumstances.
House Bill 5965, on the other hand, would have updated some language and definitions in the state’s Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, such as the title for the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA).
Another medical cannabis-related bill was vetoed. House Bill 5839, introduced by Rep. Pat Outman (R – Six Lakes), would have prevented the CRA from denying a person a license to sell cannabis based on their spouse’s job, including if their spouse works for the state or federal government.
Michigan Advance reports that Whitmer said in her veto letter to the Legislature on Dec. 22 that the bills “were rushed through a lame duck session and need closer examination.”
The Cost of Cannabis
The price of cannabis in the Michigan adult-use market plunged about 75%, from nearly $400 an ounce to less than $100 over the past two years. That drop in price triggered some industry officials to call for a moratorium on cultivation licenses. MLive reports that 2022 was a good year for customers, on the other hand, who are paying prices much lower than normal this year.
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense.
Call Now 248-357-2550
2022 Executive Orders
- Executive Order 2022-9 Declaration of State of Energy EmergencyAugust 27, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-8 Declaration of State of EmergencyAugust 14, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-7 Michigan Committee on Juvenile JusticeAugust 02, 2022
- Executive Directive 2022-8 Supporting and Growing the Semiconductor Industry in MichiganAugust 02, 2022
- Executive Directive 2022-7 Reducing Violent CrimeJuly 26, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-6 Declaration of State of EmergencyJuly 18, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-5 Michigan Parents’ Council Michigan Department of EducationJuly 15, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-4 Unavailability of Interstate ExtraditionJuly 13, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-3 Declaration of State of EmergencyJune 24, 2022
- ED 2022-6 Streamlining PermittingJune 01, 2022
- ED 2022-5 – Reproductive Rights in MichiganMay 25, 2022
- Executive Order 2022-2 Declaration of State of EmergencyMay 20, 2022
- ED 2022-3March 18, 2022
- Executive Directive 2022 – 2March 02, 2022
- Executive Order No. 2022-1: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity Executive ReorganizationFebruary 14, 2022
- Executive Directive 2022 – 01January 04, 2022
News
Komorn Law Social Media
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
2021
BMMR
cannabis
CBD
corruption. prosecutors
dispensary
Driving
DUI
forfeiture
gun rights
hemp
komornlaw
lara
law enforcement abuse
laws
Legalization
marijuana
Medical Marijuana
Michigan
michigan laws
michigan news
MMFLA
MRA
news
police
politics
science
usa news
us supreme court
Your Rights
DISCLAIMER
This 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 and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – 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.
Jul 5, 2022 | Blog, News
In Washigton DC
To declare the existence of an emergency with respect to the need to amend the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999 to allow individuals 21 years of age and older to self-certify that they are utilizing marijuana for medical purposes.
D.C. Council Votes To Let Medical Marijuana Patients Self-Certify Without Doctors, In Workaround To Federal Block On Recreational Sales
The Washington, D.C. Council unanimously approved emergency legislation on Tuesday that will effectively create a recreational marijuana market by allowing people to self-certify themselves as medical cannabis patients and access dispensaries—without needing to get a recommendation from a doctor.
Safety risks for quality and quantity control exist in the gray market the legislation noted, because products aren’t subject to control standards as in the existing medical cannabis program.
Read the legislation here
More Washington DC Marijuana Legislation
Additional Information: , this bill legalizes the possession, consumption, display, purchasing, or transporting of marijuana and
January 10, 2017 : Introduced by Councilmembers Grosso, Nadeau, and R. White
B21-0023
Additional Information: possession, consumption, display, purchasing, or transporting of marijuana and marijuana infused products
January 6, 2015 : Introduced by Councilmembers Grosso, Orange, Evans, and Nadeau
B21-0210
Additional Information: LEGISLATION SUMMARY – Law 21-209 provides access to medical marijuana in the District of Columbia
May 5, 2015 : Introduced by Councilmember Alexander | Act Number: A21-0565 | Law Number: L21-0209
B21-0922
Additional Information: medical marijuana for treatment. It allows individuals with convictions for possession of less than
October 20, 2016 : Introduced by Chairman Mendelson
B21-0025
Additional Information: LEGISLATION SUMMARY – Law 21-14 prohibits employers from testing job applicants for marijuana until
January 6, 2015 : Introduced by Councilmembers Orange, Grosso, and Bonds | Act Number: A21-0067 | Law Number: L21-0014
B23-0102
Additional Information: BILL SUMMARY – As introduced it authorizes the dispensation of medical marijuana and use by
January 22, 2019 : Introduced by Councilmembers Grosso, Nadeau, and Gray
B23-0309
Additional Information: using the results of an agency administered drug test for marijuana as the basis for employment related
May 28, 2019 : Introduced by Councilmembers Grosso, R. White, Nadeau, Gray, Bonds, and Cheh | Act Number: A23-0540 | Law Number: L23-0276
B23-0266
Additional Information: BILL SUMMARY – As introduced it prohibits marijuana testing as a condition of employment unless required by law.
April 23, 2019 : Introduced by Councilmembers T. White, Bonds, Cheh, and Grosso
B20-0409
Additional Information: AKA “Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014″ as renamed by the Committee at mark-up.
July 10, 2013 : Introduced by Councilmembers Barry, Bonds, Evans, Graham, Grosso, Wells, Cheh, and McDuffie | Act Number: A20-0305 | Law Number: L20-0126
B23-0072
Additional Information: marijuana and retail marijuana-infused products. It establishes what actions involving marijuana shall
January 8, 2019 : Introduced by Councilmembers Grosso, R. White, Nadeau, and Bonds
Need more Washington DC marijuana law information? Go here
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving.
Call Komorn Law PLLC and turn your defense into an offense.
Call Now 248-357-2550
Apr 11, 2022 | Blog, News
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address whether federal drug law that criminalizes possession of marijuana invalidates state orders requiring employers and their workers’ compensation insurers to pay for medical marijuana prescriptions for employees injured on the job.
However, before it fully takes on the question, the high court has asked the Solicitor General, who represents the federal government before the high court, for guidance in light of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives federal statutes primacy over state laws.
Five state supreme courts have addressed whether the reimbursement of medical marijuana costs is permissible, with two ruling yes and three ruling no. The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve this split in authority. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a criminal offense, with the exception of when the drug is part of a Food and Drug Administration research study.
The Supreme Court’s involvement is related to two cases from Minnesota — Bierbach v Diggers Polaris and State Auto/ United Fire & Casualty and Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center and — in which injured employees challenged their employers and their insurers for refusing to reimburse them for their medical marijuana prescriptions.
Musta suffered a neck injury in her work at a medical facility while Bierbach was injured in an accident while working for an all-terrain vehicle dealer.
Read More here –> READ IT
Komorn Law Social Media
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
2021
BMMR
cannabis
CBD
corruption. prosecutors
dispensary
Driving
DUI
forfeiture
gun rights
hemp
komornlaw
lara
law enforcement abuse
laws
Legalization
marijuana
Medical Marijuana
Michigan
michigan laws
michigan news
MMFLA
MRA
news
police
politics
science
usa news
us supreme court
Your Rights
DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – 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.
Feb 14, 2022 | Blog, Medical Marijuana, News
February 4, 2022
KOMORN LAW PLLC – Cannabis Law and Business Focused (Past – Present – Future) – Find Out Why by Visiting KomornLaw.com
Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical and recreational purposes. Nonetheless, in recent years, many states have repealed state law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis businesses now
operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the growing disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical marijuana laws.
Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain private individuals and entities involved in the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
In recent years, a significant divide has developed between federal and state marijuana law. On the federal side, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) imposes tringent regulations on the cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as
“marihuana.” (The statute uses an archaic spelling; this Sidebar uses the more common spelling, “marijuana.”) Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative determination that the substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, and “a lack of accepted safety for use … under medical supervision.” Because Congress has made that determination, Schedule I substances may not be dispensed by prescription in compliance with federal law. In contrast, controlled substances in Schedules II through V have accepted medical uses and pose progressively lower risks of abuse and dependence. Unlike substances in Schedule I, those substances may be dispensed by prescription for medical purposes.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10694
Congressional Research Service 2 thru 5
There’s more read the rest here —> Document
Feb 22, 2021 | Blog, News, Recent Victories, Victories Project
Komorn Law is proud to report a significant and relevant case victory directly related to our recent Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion win in the People v. Thue case where as a registered medical marijuana patient cannot be penalized for consuming medical marihuana while on probation.
The Client Issue
Our client was charged with violating his probation for allegedly testing positive for “Marihuana” on 2 occasions. The allegations were based upon a urine test which both indicated the metabolite of Delta-9 THC, Carboxy -11/ COOH-11.
Our client was certified as a medical marihuana patient after the date of the first alleged violation but before the second alleged violation. We had filed several motions, including but not limited to, a “Motion to allow for the Medical Use of Marihauana While on Probation”.
A probation violation hearing began on January 14, 2021, whereby testimony was taken, from the probation officer, and our expert.
Our position and the evidence we presented established that the urine samples indicating the metabolite Carboxy-11 COOH-11, were from a lawful source. The matter was adjourned, mid hearing.
Return to Court
On February 22, 2021 – when we appeared before the court again in person, we were happy to hear the court had read and reviewed the People v,.Thue case, commented on our involvement, and was prepared to rule on the allegations regarding the 2 positive urine tests.
Because of the People v,Thue case our previous position regarding “lawful THC” became moot.
In summary the court found that because of the current valid medical marihuana patient status of my client, he could not be revoked from probation, for either violation. That is to say, that the allegation of his use prior to becoming a registered medical marihuana patient (and the allegation after he became a certified patient) were dismissed.
“Counsel, that is my interpretation of the case” the Court said. To which I replied, I agree that is the correct interpretation.
The Court dismissed both of the violation, and amended the sentencing order to allow for the medical use of cannabis while on bond.
Huge shout out to our client for his courage in wanting to assert his rights and challenge the allegations, the legal defense team at Komorn Law PLLC, and Dr. Land for his expertise in science and assistance in presenting our case.
MK
