7/20/15 – Michigan law enforcement has thrown down the legal gauntlet against at least three medical cannabis dispensaries this month, including two in the Detroit metro area and one in a small town several hours northwest of the city.
In Detroit proper, the dispensary Detroit Medz was raided on July 14, with police seizing a gun and “drugs” and making an arrest, according to Mlive.com.
In Canton, a suburb west of Detroit, three residents who operate a dispensary that was raided in March were charged with felony crimes last week, including conspiracy to deliver marijuana.
In Shelby Township, far to the northwest of Detroit, local and federal law enforcement agents raided the dispensary Advance Medical Supply on July 10. Police conducted at least four searches and seized three vehicles and at least 10 pounds of cannabis.
The raids and criminal charges come just a few months after eight other dispensaries were raided in northern Michigan. They could be a response by the law enforcement community to a resurgence in the state’s MMJ industry.
Some of the raids may have been sparked by dispensaries not verifying the Michigan residency of customers, Mlive.com reported. But given the gray legal area that dispensaries operate in, how law enforcement deals with such businesses is often left to local discretion.
State police raided eight medical cannabis dispensaries in northern Michigan this week, serving 16 search warrants and seizing an untold number of cannabis plants.
Not a single arrest was made, however, even though law enforcement officials said the eight dispensaries are “suspected of selling marijuana illegally.” Police also seized processed marijuana products and “other evidence” from the homes and businesses that were searched.
The dispensaries were all in Otsego County, some in the town of Gaylord, which is more than three hours north of Detroit. Whether or not any criminal charges will be filed will be up to the county prosecutor.
The medical cannabis industry in Michigan has long been in limbo. The state’s Supreme Court ruled two years ago that dispensaries are illegal, but as many as 250 dispensaries still exist in a quasi-legal status, with some getting protection from local communities that approve of MMJ.
It remains to be seen if the eight dispensaries that were raided will reopen. In some other states that have experienced similar raids, targeted dispensaries actually were able to open their doors again.
State officials on Monday acknowledged they’d omitted hundreds of pages of medical studies from packets supplied to a state review panel slated to consider medical marijuana for treating autism according to the Detroit Free Press.
The panel will reconvene July 31 to reconsider autism, officials said.
“I became aware several weeks ago that we hadn’t received a huge number of documents, maybe six or eight hundred pages,” said David Brogren, 61, a retired insurance agent who treats his multiple sclerosis with medical marijuana.
Brogren notifed state officials of the omission two weeks ago and was assured that the materials would be added to panel members voting packets, he said. Yet, at Monday’s hearing in a state office building in Lansing, “I brought in this thick pile of documents that they still hadn’t given to us” — he got them from the petitioner’s lawyer — “and I tossed it on the table,” said Brogren, who moved recently from Bloomfield Hills to Mason, near Lansing.
Staffers of LARA — the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs — called for a 15-minute recess, met with lawyers from the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, then offered to provide the missing studies if the panel postponed its hearing to July 31 at 1 p.m., panel member Robert Noiva of Rochester said.
Panel members voted 5-0 to postpone as “the only fair thing to do,” said Noiva, associate dean for medical education at Oakland University’s William Beaumont School of Medicine in Auburn Hills.
“Licensing and Regulatory Affairs provided the information we were supposed to provide and David Brogren wanted the department to provide the reference materials cited” in the petition, said LARA spokesman Michael Loepp. The Michigan Attorney General’s Office referred questions to LARA.
4/20/15
Most adults agree with legalizing medicinal marijuana, but they’re a lot more uneasy when it comes to its use for sick kids.
And most by far — 4 in 5 adults — say kids shouldn’t see adults using it.
That’s according to the latest University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, which routinely asks what’s on the minds of the nation’s moms and dads — from how they’re using social media to what they think of new laws and policies.
It’s not surprising that adults are hesitant when it comes to medical therapies that many believe are still unproven, said Dr. Matt Davis, director of the National Poll and professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at U-M Medical School.
“From my experience as a physician, they commonly mention the lack of testing for testing as a reason for their concern,” said Davis, who as a pediatrician at U-M is not allowed to prescribe marijuana for children.
Michigan is one of nearly two dozen states that permit medical marijuana, but it also has stricter rules when it comes to children using medical marijuana.
The Mott poll is the first to examine parents’ views about medical pot for adults compared to their view about its use for children. It drew from responses in November and December of 2,176 adults — both parents and non-parents.
Davis said responses about adult use of medical marijuana were similar to polls elsewhere, offering “reassurance” that it accurately reflects adults’ views about marijuana’s use for children too.
More specifically, the poll found:
■Nearly 2 in 3 parents say their state should allow medical marijuana for adults.
■Just more than 1 in 3 say it should be allowed for children.
■Four in 5 people say adults shouldn’t be allowed to use medical marijuana in front of children
■1 in 10 said they either have a medical marijuana card or know someone who does.
Some in the audience, including parents of autistic children, labeled the omission an intentional obstruction by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, headed by Bill Schuette, a strong opponent of medical marijuana. Schuette’s staff lawyers initially blocked the autism petition, first filed in May 2014, in a lengthy court fight before dropping opposition in April, said Michael Komorn, a Southfield attorney who successfully argued the case in Ingham County Circuit Court.
Activists are screaming mad at the conduct of officials representing Governor Rick Snyder’s administration during a hearing today to determine if autism should be added to the list of illness that qualify a patient to use medical marijuana in Michigan. The petition, submitted in 2014, contains a summary of 75 peer-reviewed articles on autism and 800 pages of reference material. ”When the panel sat down today, what they had was pieces of the document,” said Southfield attorney Michael Komorn. Pieces apparently selected by the Attorney General’s office, according to statements made on the record by Board officials. What was missing? “The Summary, with the 75 peer-reviewed studies, and the 800 pages of clinical research on autism and cannabis,” Komorn said. Advocates sued the government in Ingham County Circuit Court to force the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) to consider a petition for that purpose submitted in 2014 by Lisa Smith, whose son Noah has autism and other illnesses. Petitions are debated by the Medial Marihuana Review Panel (the Board) under rules established in 2008 by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). A previous petition to add autism to the MMMA was rejected at a Board hearing back in 2013. “We litigated for a year,” to get the Smith petition accepted, Komorn said. The State was represented by the Office of the Attorney General, Bill Schuette. The language of the MMMA requires that each petition properly submitted must be considered by the Board. Schuette’s and LARA’s response was the opposite: we already ruled on that illness and no subsequent petition will be considered. “The Court decided theirs was a wrong interpretation. We won; they had to give us a new hearing on the petition submitted.” A hearing on the Smith petition was held in May of this year. On July 1 a whole new Board was created, per rule changes made in January 2015 by LARA over the objections of citizens and Senators. Some of the members of the new panel had not heard the testimony on the Smith petition taken by the Board weeks earlier. “When the Board assembled today we were expecting a vote yea or nay on the petition,” Komorn related. “Before we were able to begin the conversation it was brought to the attention of the Board as a whole by (Board member) David Brogren that this very comprehensive document with supporting papers was not given in its entirety to the Board, and that the Board should consider the entire package before voting.”The science was scrubbed from the document given to the Board for consideration, Komorn said.“When the Circuit Court made an order that the petition be considered, they meant the whole petition,” Komorn growled. ”(The Court) didn’t change the material submitted, it required the Board to consider the petition filed with the Court.” Of a greater concern is the reason cited for the edited version of the petition being presented. Along with a new Board comes a new leader, and the newly-appointed Board made selecting a new Chair their first priority. When the confusion regarding the petitions was exposed, her reaction was not one that inspired confidence among the hearing’s attendees. “The statement she made on the record was very distressing, that this information was given to the board by the Attorney General, not the Court,” Komorn said. “The Attorney General’s role was referenced by (the Chair), who said, in response to Brogren, this is what was sent to us by the Court via the Attorney General.” “The representative kept referring to the fact that this document is what the Attorney General’s office gave us,” said Jamie Lowell of Ypsilanti’s 3rd Coast Medical Marijuana Dispensary, who attended the hearing. Brogren mentioned on the record that he had given the Board the petition in its entirety two weeks ago. Even after the issue was exposed, Komorn said the Chair seemed more concerned with spin control than she was with establishing proper process.Komorn explained that “she kept insisting that the Board had all the information they needed to make a decision on autism and medical marijuana,” he said, “without seeing any of the science behind it.” Brogren’s objections to considering the issue without all the facts swayed the result and stayed the Board from voting. They will reconvene at a later date to make a final determination on the Smith petition, after receiving the entire document. In addition to being a criminal defense attorney, Komorn is the host of an Internet-base radio program broadcasting weekly for more than four years. The Planet Green Trees Radio Show (PGT) has followed the progress of the autism petition from the start, prior to 2012’s initial rejection. Shows #255 and #257 covered the topic with interviews and behind-the-scenes looks at the tribulations experienced by those advocates who sought a positive result at the July 20 hearing. One of those interviewed by the PGT staff: Dr. Harry Chugani, chief of pediatric neurology at Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit “There was a major flaw in the process of how information was being given to the Board members,” Komorn stated. He challenged the notion that the Attorney General, a noted medical marijuana detractor and a major opponent of the MMMA in 2008, should be filtering information approved by the Court for use by a state agency. “Mind you, the AG had to be sued to bring this information to the Board in the first place,” Komorn emphasized. “Why is it OK for the Director of this Board to rely on them for the information used to make the determination of autism’s validity for inclusion on the medical marijuana program?” As a barometer of governmental efficiency, Komorn gave the Board’s actions today two thumbs down. “This Board is not operating in a way that anyone in the public would appreciate… this behavior should do nothing but bring concern from citizens… I don’t think that anyone that walked out of that room has one bit of confidence in the integrity of the process.” “I’d like to believe in the possibility of a fair hearing, but after experiencing the Attorney General in action over the years I can’t help but believe today’s behavior, creating unnecessary confusion and restriction, is intentionally designed to lead to a negative outcome,” Lowell observed. “I really hope I am wrong.”
Source: The Compassion Chronicles by Rick Thompson at 6:15 AM on July 21, 2015
A blog article from the Metro Times by Larry Gabriel features a quote by Attorney Michael Kormorn.
Some excerpts from the article…
Last week the Detroit Medz shop on Detroit’s west side was raided for “selling marijuana outside the provisions of the state medical marijuana act,” says Sgt. Cassandra Lewis of the Detroit police media relations department. News reports said police found two guns, 4,100 grams (about 9 pounds) of marijuana, and arrested one person — although Lewis says two individuals were arrested that evening.
Lewis says that there were complaints from the community and that police previously had made undercover buys there, although it’s not clear if those undercover buys were made by people with state cards (or fake ones as has been done in the past) or by folks who just walked in with nothing to show.
So far no charges have been announced.
Tate has had Winfred Blackmon and his Metropolitan Detroit Community Action Coalition (MDCAC) riding his ass for several months regarding dispensaries in the city. I went to a couple of meetings early on and have been receiving Blackmon’s email alerts since then. Early on, it was obvious that MDCAC members didn’t want to see marijuana, medical or otherwise, in their neighborhoods. They have an old-school attitude. Early on, their complaints included the fact that most dispensary locations painted their storefronts green — as if that matters.
MDCAC has been pushing Tate, who represents District 1, to do something about what they call “illegal marijuana provision centers.” They’ve been riding city attorney Butch Hollowell too.
Truthfully, the city has been slow to address the issue. I’ve noticed a distinct tendency to avoid talking about marijuana by city officials while places such as Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Lincoln Park, and elsewhere have set up rules regarding dispensaries. Now those cities have not been going through their mayor being indicted and convicted, switching from an at-large to a district city council system, having an emergency manager, and a bankruptcy. However, it would be good from a number of viewpoints to set the rules about dispensaries.
That said, the MDCAC model is not a liberal one. Although over time, as they have come to accept that medical marijuana is not going away, they have lightened up some. Originally, they wanted only one dispensary per council district, which would mean only seven in the entire city. Their current proposal seeks to limit the number of dispensaries and limit their locations to industrial zones, mandates that they cannot be near a church, school, daycare or nursery, and proposes a number of inspections and permits before they can open.
This may be a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil.
“They chose this very uncivilized manner to try to make an example of this one particular facility,” says Southfield-based attorney Michael Komorn, who heads the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. “There is no rule prohibiting [a location near a school], no rule. … Maybe that’s something they should think about doing — regulate this in a way that satisfies the community.”
Maybe the Detroit Medz folks were selling to people who aren’t registered patients, but the rest of this seems to be pure political theater.
Larry Gabriel writes the Stir It Up and Higher Ground columns for the Detroit Metro Times.
On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. (the “MMMA”).
The voters of the State of Michigan, who at that time had no reason to believe a need to prevent misconstruction, misinterpretation, or abuse of its intent, upon this day declare that certain basic rights afforded all the citizens of Michigan are not being recognized for the medical marihuana community, to the extent that the following rights must be decreed, declared, recognized, and adopted, as the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights
All patients possess the following rights, without limitation:
There shall be a presumption that registered patients and their caregivers are in compliance with the MMMA.
The right to be treated reasonably, with dignity and respect, by law enforcement and the government, and by the medical community and private business in general. “Reasonable” should be based in part upon the best available medicine and science, and not upon emotion or politics.
The right to be protected against arrest, prosecution, or any penalty.
The right to be free from searches, seizures, and forfeiture.
The right to equal protection under the law.
The right to privacy, of any and all information related to patient or caregiver status.
The right to the best medical care, and to the best medication in the proper delivery form, to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation.
The right to safe, immediate access to a continuous supply of medication to treat their condition, disease, or debilitation, and the right to a choice of where to obtain that medication.
The right to equal employment.
The right to equal and fair housing.
The right to be protected from denial of custody or visitation of a child.
The right to speak, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.
The right to civil remedies and punitive damages against those who violate any of these rights.
The right to prosecute those who violate the protections of the MMMA.
The right to protection under the Victim Rights Act of Michigan.
