Council to hear from public on location of marijuana dispensaries
DETROIT FREE PRESS
The Detroit City Council has set a public hearing on zoning regulations for medical marijuana shops at 1 p.m. Dec. 17, 2015.
The Detroit City Council today set a public hearing for next month on its proposal to regulate medical marijuana distribution in the city.
The council will hold the hearing at 1 p.m. Dec. 17 on zoning restrictions that will govern where pot dispensaries can and cannot locate in Detroit. It is to be the companion legislation to measures that the council approved in October requiring dispensaries to be licensed by the city and shop operators to be subject to police background checks.
Detroit has seen a proliferation of more than 150 unlicensed and unregulated dispensaries in recent years, and it’s taken a year for city officials to thoroughly research and prepare a regulatory system that will both limit the number of dispensaries and ensure that medical marijuana patients have safe access to the drug, according to Councilman James Tate, who has spearheaded the regulation effort.
Councilman Scott Benson, a vocal critic of the dispensaries who says many of them are merely fronts for recreational put use, sought to have the zoning ordinance changed to prohibit dispensaries from locating in the vast majority of commercial or retail strip malls in the city, but that motion was outvoted.
Councilwoman Raquel Castañeda-López also sought to have the ordinance prohibit clustering of dispensary operations in industrial areas of the city, saying that would hurt residents who live near industrial areas. Her motion also was outvoted.
The zoning ordinance’s restrictions mandate that dispensaries not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, drug-free zones, caregiver centers and liquor stores.
Dispensary owners and advocates of medical marijuana have argued that the city’s restrictions would leave few areas of the city where dispensaries could operate legally, reducing access for people who use marijuana for legitimate medical needs. But residents have flooded public meetings on the issue, saying their neighborhoods have been overrun by pot shops.
In November 2013, Michigan lawmakers revealed the lengths to which they’d go to maintain the state’s secret system of funding election campaign activities.
A Senate committee was meeting in the Capitol to discuss and approve a bill that would double the maximum amount that individuals could contribute to legislative, executive and judicial candidates. The senators were told that the higher limits were unnecessary because 99 percent of Michiganians never give the maximum amount.
Then something puzzling happened. In a rare move, the legislators called a recess midway through the session. A lobbyist in the audience who was friendly with the committee chairman, it was later learned, received an urgent phone call warning that Secretary of State Ruth Johnson had just announced new administrative rules requiring the disclosure of campaign donors in all circumstances.
When the committee reconvened, an amendment was hastily attached to the legislation, which would override Johnson’s decision and preserve Michigan’s “dark money” campaign practices. House and Senate approval of the bill soon followed, as did Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature.
“We don’t have full public disclosure and it’s not because good people failed to do the right thing, it’s because those bastards did the wrong thing. It was a hostile action,” said Rich Robinson, the state’s top campaign watchdog at the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “And the fruits of those actions were tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed campaign cash.”
The shadowy aspects of Michigan’s money-driven politics serve as a key reason why the state ranks last among the 50 states with a grade of F and a numerical score of 51 out of 100 from the State Integrity Investigation, a data-driven assessment of state government transparency and accountability by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity. Michigan received an F in 10 of the 13 categories of government operations that were examined.
The first State Integrity report, released in 2012, gave Michigan a similar score – 58, an F, though the state ranked 44th that time. The two scores are not directly comparable, however, due to changes made to improve and update the project and its methodology.
Stealth campaigns standard procedure
A significant factor in Michigan’s 2015 ranking is its lack of effective disclosure rules for officials in nearly all facets of state government. Conflicts of interest and potential public corruption remain buried in an honor system with no honor.
Thanks to loopholes created by the legislature, big spenders representing special interests can dramatically influence an election without leaving a trace.
Campaigns increasingly rely upon shadow groups that independently pay for so-called issue ads. Those ads praise or demonize a candidate in a manner that’s virtually indistinguishable from a traditional TV spot. But the commercials avoid the magic words — “vote for” or “vote against” — that would require disclosure of the money behind the sales pitch.
The 2013 doubling of Michigan contribution limits set the maximum gift to a gubernatorial candidate at $6,800 for an individual, $68,000 for political action committees and $136,000 for state party central committees. But that’s just a starting point in this multi-layered political parlor game. Unregulated funding for those dominant issues ads derives largely from PACs, super PACs and political party groups that can accept unlimited amounts of campaign cash from across the nation.
At the same time, the office of the secretary of state, Michigan’s top election official, operates as a record-keeping agency, not an enforcement unit. It enjoys no subpoena powers and generally does not initiate investigations.
Former Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer recently concluded that Michigan’s political system is “the Wild West … with no sheriff in town.”
Dark money means justice denied
High-rollers in many states exert undue influence over legislation and executive orders. But in Michigan, campaign cash also taints the judicial system.
Supreme Court justices, are merely “politicians in black robes.”
The independent Michigan Campaign Finance Network reported that since 2000, state Supreme Court campaigns have been awash in nearly $40 million worth of television political advertisements, with the donors kept off the books. A similarly veiled process dominates campaigns for attorney general. In a state where candidates for the judiciary face virtually no professional standards or performance evaluations, critics say the judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, are merely “politicians in black robes.”
The State Bar of Michigan has engaged in attempts to fix this system by demanding full disclosure, to no avail. Jules Olsman, an attorney who serves on the State Bar board, said his clients routinely question the fairness of the state’s judicial process given the steady stream of campaign ads at election time.
“If the judge hearing my case received $10,000 from opposing counsel or their clients, I should have a right to know that,” Olsman said. “At this point, it’s more than a suspicion. It happens all the time.”
Weak or non-existent disclosure laws
The dark money that dominates Michigan politics takes on another definition in the daily workings of state courts, the legislature, the governor’s office and cabinet members. That’s because the state doesn’t require officials to disclose their financial holdings and outside income.
A judge may hear a case involving a lawsuit aimed at a corporation in which he has a financial interest, but the attorneys involved – and the jury – would have no way of knowing. Legislators can influence the outcome of bills that will directly affect businesses back home in which they serve as silent partners.
Recusals remain rare in Michigan courts, and they are even rarer in the state House and Senate. When apparent conflicts of interest arise due to a lawmaker’s occupation, it’s nearly unheard of for a fellow legislator to publicly call for an abstention.
In Michigan, the cozy relationships between well-heeled lobbyists and pliable lawmakers also remain largely in the dark. Under the weak disclosure rules, lawmakers can accept nominal gifts. But it is the duty of the lobbyist, not the lawmaker, to report these gifts.
In addition, state law requires those in the lobbying business to report their activities in such a vague format that the public cannot determine who is influencing whom. Lobbyists do not have to report which legislator or executive branch official they wined and dined unless they spent more than $59 in a month, or $375 in the calendar year, on that individual. Advocates of greater transparency say the top recipients of a lobbyist’s largesse benefit from considerably more than what’s disclosed.
Worse yet, lobbying firms also do not reveal which issues and legislation they advocated for or against.
Robert LaBrant, a veteran business lobbyist, concedes that the disclosure reports essentially “have no meaning.”
Details of scandal kept secret
Another example of the lack of transparency in Michigan government is that the Legislature long ago exempted itself and the governor’s office from the state Freedom of Information Act.
When a sex scandal involving two House members emerged in August, including an elaborate cover-up that allegedly involved misuse of tax dollars, an internal investigation concluded the couple had engaged in misconduct. A public records request by The Detroit News to obtain the investigative report was denied. Instead, the House speaker chose a private law firm to write a 7 ½-page summary of the findings for public consumption.
This lack of openness permeates all levels of state government.
The state lacks a strong “revolving door” law that prevents elected officials and key executive branch administrators from going directly out of a government post and into a job at a lobbying firm. The only restriction in the books prohibits lawmakers from lobbying immediately if they resign before the end of their terms in office.
Cronyism and favoritism are essentially accepted practices in the Legislature, the judiciary and the governor’s office, as all staffers are political appointees – at-will employees who can be hired or fired for no reason at all. Top officials at each state department also are afforded no civil service protections.
The state Ethics Board serves largely as an obscure, toothless agency that does not investigate wrongdoing and, when it does find a violation, merely recommends a punishment to the guilty employee’s department.
State Sen. Steve Bieda has introduced bills since 2003 seeking mandates for personal asset disclosures, campaign finance transparency and the reporting of all gifts. He never came close to success.
“Michigan is an embarrassing outlier on openness in government,” Bieda said. “We need to step up to the plate.”
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – Big questions are still looming over the controversial Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division marijuana reporting policy change: it’s accused of ambiguous crime lab reporting leading to misdemeanor pot charges trumped for synthetic-THC felonies.
Tuesday MSP-FSD officials responded to FOX 17’s investigation: officials stated they stand by their policy change, but they failed to address some of our biggest questions.
Last month, FOX 17 was the first to show you emails accusing the crime labs of falsely reporting marijuana extracts, leading to trumped up felony charges of synthetic pot possession. Tuesday, state police officials released a seven-paragraph statement which explains their 2013 policy change to write “origin unknown” on lab reports where they said they cannot determine if samples are marijuana or man-made THC (mainly in the case where pot plant material is not present).
However, their statement does not address the concerns FOX 17 revealed in uncovered emails from MSP-FSD’s own crime lab employees who wrote to their peers that they do have the science to prove where pot extracts, like edibles and hash, come from.
Here is the MSP statement in full released to FOX 17 on Nov. 17:
“In 2013, the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division (MSP-FSD) changed its policy regarding how marihuana and THC are reported in an effort to standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.
With the influx of synthetic drugs into our laboratory system it became necessary to ensure reporting standards were in place across all labs. As is common practice in this division, involved laboratory managers were given the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes and provide their insight before a final decision was made by laboratory command.
After this discussion period, the decision was made to begin using the phrase “origin unknown” for samples in which it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. It should be pointed out that “origin unknown” does not mean the sample is synthetic THC; it only means the lab did not determine the origin and the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.
For example, if a sample is submitted to the lab that is clearly from a plant-based source, the results will indicate the sample is marihuana. If it is not clear that the submitted sample is from a plant-based source because it is an extract, residue or another compound with no visible plant matter, then the report will indicate whether or not THC — the illegal component of the sample — is present, but the source of the THC will not be identified (“origin unknown”) because the source cannot be scientifically established.
This reporting procedure was further clarified in July 2015 with the amended phrase of “The origin of delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol may be from a plant (marihuana) or a synthetic source.”
The MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science. The allegation that politics or other influence played a role in this policy change is wholly untrue.
As is the circumstance in all criminal cases, the ultimate charging decision rests with the prosecuting authority that makes their decision based upon all the relevant evidence in a case, of which the laboratory report is but one factor.”
Note that in the first paragraph, state police officials write that their 2013 marijuana and THC reporting change was made in an effort to “standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.”
Officials explain that the crime lab was testing an influx of synthetic drugs. Then, as FOX 17 has been reporting, after a discussion, MSP officials changed policy to write “origin unknown” on lab reports for samples officials said are impossible for their lab employees to determine where the THC originates.
Yet again, writing “origin unknown” on lab reports is a resonating point of contention, attorney Michael Komorn, medical marijuana activists, and even crime lab scientists themselves disagree. This is even evidenced within months of uncovered email chains between MSP-FSD employees where crime lab scientists and directors wrote they can prove where marijuana extracts come from based on science and tests available in the crime labs.
But MSP’s argument appears to remain that because there is no pot plant visible in samples like hash and edibles, their labs cannot determine if the THC is natural or man-made: again, the difference between a misdemeanor and felony.
Ultimately MSP officials wrote, “MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science.”
As of Tuesday, MSP officials decline on-camera interviews with FOX 17, including an interview with MSP-FSD Director, Captain Greg Michaud.
Although it is up to the prosecutor to file charges, this crime lab reporting change has severely affected people’s lives, including the father in Spring Lake Max Lorincz who is charged with felony possession of synthetic-THC for having butane hash oil.
Lorincz has lost custody of his son since September 2014 as a result, and he is due back in Ottawa County Court Friday. Lorincz and his family have started a GoFundMe page to raise money to continue fighting their case and comply with court’s orders: including money for transportation to drive to drug tests and counseling all because he is a medical marijuana card-carrying patient.
Stay with FOX 17 for the latest on this investigation.
POSTED 6:03 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2015, BY DANA CHICKLAS
DETROIT (AP) >> People fired in Michigan for using medical marijuana can collect unemployment benefits after the state Supreme Court turned down appeals in two cases.
The court declined to hear appeals that could have overturned a 2014 state appeals court decision.
A brief order was released Thursday. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office had urged the state’s top court to intervene.
It’s a victory for a hospital employee and a furniture repairman who had medical marijuana cards but lost their jobs. The appeals court said there was no evidence they worked under the influence of pot or used marijuana at work.
Michigan employers still can fire workers who use marijuana, even if they have a card. That was settled by a federal court in 2011.
MIRS-Michigan Independent Source Of News and Information Friday Nov 6, 2015
Maxwell LORINCZ, of Spring Lake, says a fingerprint of oil on an empty plastic container led to his arrest on a drug charge on Sept. 24, 2014. Now, a year later, the case that might have started with a fingerprint has spurred a defense attorney to question the state’s protocol for handling some marijuana-related crimes. The attorney is also alleging that the current system allows some cases to incorrectly be heightened to felonies when they should be misdemeanors.
Lorincz says that because of what happened to him, the lives of he and his wife have been destroyed and his 6-year-old son has been in foster care for a year.
“There couldn’t have been a more terrible thing to happen in my life,” Lorincz said in an interview this week.
Lorincz’s attorney is Michael KOMORN, who specializes in medical marijuana cases. Through investigating Lorincz’s case, Komorn has called in laboratory experts and obtained internal Michigan State Police (MSP) emails between laboratory workers and an employee of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM).
The debate focuses on THC, the chemical responsible for many of marijuana’s psychological effects.
The documents show an internal debate between MSP employees about how cases involving THC extracts that contain no visible marijuana plant matter should be handled. And they show a PAAM employee providing guidance to MSP workers on the subject.
The findings, Lorincz’s legal team alleges, show that law enforcement authorities have made a concerted effort to “bend the science.”
The way the science has been bent, the team says, allows THC oils or solids where no plant matter is visible to be considered synthetic, meaning they could bring a felony charge under Michigan law.
Normally, if the THC clearly came from a plant, it would bring a misdemeanor charge.
The allegation is that in some instances where law enforcement isn’t certain whether the THC came from a plant, authorities have been able to use the MSP protocol, which some outside forces had input on, to go ahead and pursue the synthetic felony crime. That’s what Komorn says happened to Lorincz.
But both the MSP and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) deny any concerted effort to heighten criminal penalties has taken place.
Shanon BANNER, spokesperson for MSP, said in a statement that the department “wholly refutes” the claims being made by Komorn.
“Turning an internal debate among colleagues into a multi-level conspiracy is a diversionary tactic used to distract from the facts of the case,” Banner said. “The bottom line is the professionals of MSP-FSD (Forensic Science Division) would never allow politics to trump science.”
Some medical marijuana users prefer to consume marijuana in oil form or in solid foods, involving THC extracts. However, the items aren’t considered usable drugs under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
The question that Komorn is focused on is how the MSP crime lab and prosecutors decide whether the THC in those forms is synthetic or from a plant.
In some cases, no plant matter is visible, and, according to emails obtained by Komorn, there’s been a disagreement among MSP lab workers about how to define the drugs in reports in those instances.
In an October court filing, Kormon pointed to an email from Ken STECKER, an employee of PAAM. Stecker advised MSP workers, “That in my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from.”
However, one MSP worker, Bradley CHOATE, wrote in 2014 that simply saying that THC was found “without any other statement” would lead a prosecutor to the synthetic portion of state law because that’s the place where THC is listed in state law.
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual,” Choate wrote. “For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the division and the department.”
Eventually, after the internal debate, the department settled on the idea of listing the origin as unknown in situations where no plant matter was visible and the origin couldn’t proven.
That has essentially left the decision up to prosecutors to draw their own conclusions, according to lawyers.
“The new reporting procedures implemented in 2013 ensure that MSP-FSP is only reporting what it can scientifically prove,” Banner said in a statement.
According to a statement from Michael WENDLING, president of PAAM and St. Clair County’s prosecutor, PAAM has already met with staff from the Senate Judiciary Committee to request changes to a medical marijuana bill in the Legislature.
“The change requested by PAAM would decrease the penalty for synthetic marijuana to equal that for plant marijuana,” the statement said. “This request was made prior to recent press coverage on this issue.”
That change would likely settle the dispute.
Wendling also stated that PAAM didn’t direct MSP to change its policy to increase potential charges, as some have alleged.
On why Stecker was emailing MSP workers about the issue in the first place, Wendling said Stecker, a marijuana expert, was simply responding to requests about his opinion.
“It is common practice to consult with prosecuting attorneys to ensure compliance with state law,” Banner said.
Stecker did email from what was apparently an Attorney General (AG)-based email address, according to the documents. But according to the AG’s office, he’s never worked there.
Questions about why he had the email address were referred by the AG’s office to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.
Komorn himself has questioned why Stecker advised MSP on the subject.
“I’m a lawyer. He’s lawyer. I want to talk to the lab. I want to tell them how I want the results reported,” Komorn said.
As the debate continues, other prosecutors have taken note of what’s happening with the ongoing Lorincz case.
Chris BECKER, chief assistant prosecutor in Kent County, said his county has decided to treat oil cases where there is no plant material visible as plant marijuana, not synthetic.
Counties that see it differently aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong, Becker said.
“There’s different ways to interpret it,” he said. “Different counties can interpret it differently.”
As for the allegation that PAAM was working with MSP to change the policy, Becker said nothing could be further from the truth.
“The state lab is its own entity,” he said. “There is no grand conspiracy.”
