Since the 1970s the college town of Ann Arbor has enacted some of the most lenient laws on cannabis possession in the United States. These include a 1972 city council ordinance, a 1974 voter referendum making possession of small amounts a civil infraction subject to a small fine, and a 2004 referendum on the medical use of cannabis. Since state law took precedence over municipal law, the far-stricter state cannabis laws were still enforced on University of Michigan property.
In November 2008, the Michigan Compassionate Care Initiative (appearing on the ballot as Proposal 1) was approved by Michigan voters.[3] The measure allowed patients with a physician’s recommendation to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis for treatment of certain qualifying medical conditions.[4] Although it did not explicitly allow dispensaries to operate,[5] it did allow patients or their caregivers to cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants.[4] The measure faced opposition from law enforcement officials and drug czar John P. Walters,[6] but it was ultimately approved by a 63–37 margin, making Michigan the 13th state to legalize medical use and the first Midwestern state to do so.[7]
In February 2013, the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that the 2008 initiative did not allow for the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries in the state. An estimated 75 to 100 dispensaries were operating under this legal gray area at the time.[8]
In September 2016, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a package of bills that among other reforms: (a) allowed the operation and regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries; (b) set a taxation rate of 3% on medical cannabis; and (c) allowed the use of non-smokable forms such as topicals and edibles.[9][10][11]
In November 2017, legalization proponents submitted 365,000 signatures to put a cannabis legalization measure on the 2018 ballot.[12] In April 2018, it was certified that supporters had turned in the requisite number of valid signatures.[13] In June 2018, state lawmakers declined the option to pass the measure themselves, sending it to the November ballot.[14] On November 6, 2018, Michigan voters approved Proposal 1 by a 56–44 margin, making Michigan the 10th state (and first in the Midwest) to legalize cannabis for recreational use.[15]
The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act allows persons age 21 and over to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis in public, up to 10 ounces at home, and cultivate up to 12 plants at home.[16] It also sets up a system for the state-licensed cultivation and distribution of cannabis, with sales subject to a 10% excise tax (in addition to the state’s 6% sales tax).[15] The law went into effect on December 6, 2018,[17] and the first dispensaries opened to the public on December 1, 2019.[18]
Source for above information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Michigan
Court Cases During The Early Medical Marijuana Years That Helped Shape The Current Laws in Michigan
Many things have changed and Marijuana legalization was voted by the people of Michigan in 2018. For Current information go to the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) website
CRIMINAL DEFENSE For over 27 years Komorn Law has been a trusted adviser providing results-focused legal counsel to its clients in all areas of criminal defense. From the first encounter with law enforcement to districts courts all the way to the supreme court. We are advocates of our clients’ rights in cases involving marijuana, drugged driving, DUI, criminal charges, as well as many other case types.
CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSING AND LEGAL COUNSEL If you are starting or have an established Cannabis Business in Michigan. Komorn Law has the legal team you will need. With a 100% success rate in licensing our firm offers legal counsel services with connections and assets in the world’s leading and most refined cannabis industry network.
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.
Lorincz lost custody of his 6-year-old son in part due to this felony.
After reporting on the case over nine months, FOX 17 exclusively reported a shocking email chain that spans months between Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division employees and the Attorney General’s office.
Obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, these emails show debates on how the state’s crime labs changed how they report marijuana. The defense, attorney Michael Komorn and Komorn Law, PLLC, is charging state agencies with directing the lab employees to falsely present results on marijuana products, including cases where plant material is not seen.
The result: felony charges Komorn argues are lies.
Komorn showed evidence in emails that MSP Forensic Science Division is being directed by the Attorney General’s office and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) to change the way marijuana is reported to create felonies. PAAM is a non-profit, which is governed by a board of directors including the Attorney General.
“What is unique about this case is that they [the prosecution] are relying on the lab to report these substances so that they can escalate these crimes from misdemeanors to felonies,” said Komorn.
Documents obtained via FOIA, showcase emails about meetings (for instance, July 2013) and direct communication between MSP Forensic Science Division directors, scientists, PAAM, as well as officials with the AG’s office.
An excerpt from an email dated Dec. 13, 2013 suggests an AG official influenced the state crime labs on whether it is the lab’s responsibility to determine if THC tested is natural or synthetic; again, this is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.
A technical leader of controlled substances with MSP crime labs wrote an email to colleagues and quoted Ken Stecker, an official with the AG’s office:
“That is my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from. I hope that helps. Ken”
Then, the technical leader of controlled substances at a state lab continues to direct other state lab personnel and write:
“Examiner’s that are identifying food products or other non-plant materials as marihuana without the visualization of any plant material should discontinue this practice. The final identification of all phases of testing can only be marihuana when plant fragments, portions, samples, plant hairs or actual plants are visualized by the scientist. To my knowledge, the only other two laboratories that have expressed this concern are Northville and Lansing.”
Komorn believes this policy change is not science-based.
“This is like a political decision, and somewhere in there they say well Ken Stecker is going to be the consultant on this going forward, and his position is that THC is a schedule 1,” said Komorn.
“That’s not the law. That’s an incorrect, illegal misinterpretation of the law that he then decrees as the policy for the state lab.”
This AG official’s “opinion” was written into lab procedure. Several emails show other MSP lab supervisors and scientists vehemently oppose it.
For example, a MSP Lansing controlled substances supervisor wrote his disagreements with this policy to colleagues, including an excerpt from an email dated Feb. 14, 2014:
“Prosecutor’s rely on our reports to determine what to charge a person with. A report that states delta-1-THC without any other statement would lead a Prosecutor to the synthetic portion of the law since this is the only place where THC is specifically listed. This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual. For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the Division and the Department.”
This supervisor wrote further concerns in an email to many colleagues nearly one year later, dated Jan. 28, 2015, writing in part:
“Upon reading this correspondence I immediately thought about the Guiding Principles training we receive yearly. Under Professionalism it states that “Conclusions are based on the evidence and reference material relevant to the evidence, not on extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.” Whether or not an individual has a medical marijuana card is immaterial to how we report out our results.
When we made the previous changes I made it very apparent that I did not agree with it. One of my concerns was that by reporting out THC instead of marihuana it would lead to Prosecutors charging people with synthetic THC. This appears to be what the agency wants.”
Another MSP Northville lab scientist wrote the following to colleagues, stating concerns with new reporting policy:
“In order to place the actual compound THC in schedule 1, the criteria of ‘synthetic equivalent’ should be met. Since we really can’t do this, there are many of us who feel that these new evidentiary materials containing THC without any botanical morphology characteristics (candy, butter, etc..) should be identified as resinous extracts of Marihuana.
If you are to call it ‘THC,’ at a minimum, a statement should be provided in the additional information stating that the ‘origin, whether naturally occurring or synthetic could not be determined.’ Also, by going out on that limb and calling it THC, you now jump from a misdemeanor to a felony charge.
We’re bringing this up because there seemed to be some concern about uniformity in making these calls. Further, it is highly doubtful that any of these Med. Mar. products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized. This would be completely impractical. We are more likely seeing naturally occurring THC extracted from the plant!”
“The most damning evidence is that their own forensic scientists, when they’re objecting to the way the lab is going to change their reporting policies, calls them out that they can’t do it based on forensic science, and yet they do it anyways,” said Komorn.
Thursday afternoon, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan’s President Michael Wendling responded to FOX 17’s questions with the following statements:
“The Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division sets its own testing and reporting protocols. Neither PAAM nor county prosecutors make those protocols.”
“The MSP Forensic Science Division makes its own decisions relative to the lab protocol. Any decision to report that the source of THC is undetermined does not create a misdemeanor or felony offense. Lab reports document the findings of scientific testing. Those findings, in conjunction with other relevant evidence are considered by prosecutors may be used in when the decision whether to charge a crime and which crime to charge is made.”
“Prosecutors do not receive requests to charge criminal cases from the MSP Forensic Science Division. The MSP Forensic Division reports scientific findings. Prosecutors receive those reports and use them to make decisions regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. Any accusation that the Lab and PAAM are directing lab personnel to report crimes without evidence is untrue. PAAM has no authority over, nor does it direct the MSP Forensic Science Division.”
Yet again in this case, several lab scientists and supervisors expressed they are against this new marijuana reporting protocol.
As FOX 17 reported, the defense filed several motions in Ottawa County Circuit Court this week. The motions ask for Max Lorincz’s charges to be dismissed, as well as asking the accused organizations’ employees to show cause, or credible evidence to show science backs their protocol, in order to not be held in contempt of court.
Justices: Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh
Reporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. Loomis
Docket No. 158311. Argued on application for leave to appeal October 3, 2019. Decided April 27, 2020.
Syllabus
Christie DeRuiter, a registered qualifying medical marijuana patient and a registered primary caregiver to qualifying patients, brought an action in the Kent Circuit Court against Byron Township, alleging that the township’s zoning ordinance which required that a primary caregiver obtain a permit before cultivating medical marijuana and that the caregiver cultivate the marijuana within a dwelling or garage in a residentially zoned area within the township as part of a regulated home occupation at a full-time residence directly conflicted with – and – was therefore preempted by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (the MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.
DeRuiter cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility at a commercially zoned property she rented in the township; she did not obtain a permit from the township before cultivating the medical marijuana as a primary caregiver.
At the township’s direction, DeRuiter’s landlord ordered her to stop cultivating medical marijuana at the property or face legal action.
When the township attempted to enforce its zoning ordinance, DeRuiter filed the instant action, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the ordinance’s legality; the township countersued, seeking a declaration that the ordinance did not conflict with the MMMA.
Both parties moved for summary disposition, and the court, Paul J. Sullivan, J., granted summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter, holding that the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA and that it was therefore preempted by the act.
The Court of Appeals, HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MURPHY and MARKEY, JJ., affirmed the trial court order, concluding that the MMMA preempted defendant’s home-occupation zoning ordinance because the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA by prohibiting what the MMMA permitted and because the ordinance improperly imposed regulations and penalties upon persons who engage in the MMMA-compliant medical use of marijuana. 325 Mich App 275 (2018).
Byron Township applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 503 Mich 942 (2019).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:
Under the conflict-preemption doctrine, the MMMA DOES NOT nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq., as long as
(1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable inconsistent with regulations established by state law.
MCL 333.26424(b)(2) states that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order for those individuals to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b).
Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, the township’s ordinance limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within the locality did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.
The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana also did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana.
Generally, local governments may control and regulate matters of local concern when that power is conferred by the state.
However, state law may preempt a local regulation either expressly or by implication. Implied preemption can occur when the state has occupied the entire field of regulation in a certain area (field preemption) or when a local regulation directly conflicts with state law (conflict preemption).
A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits; there is no conflict between state and local law when a locality enacts regulations that are not unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law so long as the state regulatory scheme does not occupy the field.
That is, while a local ordinance is preempted when it bans an activity that is authorized and regulated by state law, a local governmental unit may add to the conditions in a statute as long as the additional requirements do not contradict the requirements set forth in the statute.
A court must review both the statute and the local ordinance to determine whether conflict preemption applies.
MCL 333.26424(a) and (b) provide that qualifying patients and primary caregivers are immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the MMMA.
In turn, MCL 333.26424(b)(2) provides that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order to qualify for the immunity.
This requirement sets forth the type of structure marijuana plants must be kept and grown in for a patient or a caregiver to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b), but the provision does not address where marijuana may be grown.
Under Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014), a local ordinance conflicts with the MMMA when the ordinance results in a complete prohibition of the medical use of marijuana; however, The MMMA does not foreclose all local regulation of marijuana.
In that regard, the act does not nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the MZEA as long as (1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.
Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, a local regulation limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within a locality does not conflict with the statutory requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.
In this case, the township’s ordinance allowed for the medical use of marijuana by a registered primary caregiver but placed limitations on where the caregiver could cultivate marijuana within the township.
The ordinance’s geographical restriction added to and complemented the limitations imposed by the MMMA; it did not directly conflict with the MMMA.
While the ordinance went further in its regulation than the MMMA, the township appropriately used its authority under the MZEA to craft an ordinance that did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s provision requiring that marijuana be cultivated in an enclosed, locked facility. The township also had authority under the MZEA to require zoning permits and permit fees for the use of buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.
The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and DeRuiter did not argue that the requirements for obtaining a permit were so unreasonable as to create a conflict.
To the extent that DeRuiter argued that the immunity provisions of the MMMA contributed to a blanket prohibition on local governments regulating the medical use of marijuana with respect to time, place, and manner of such use, that argument sounded in field preemption; but neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals reached the issue of field preemption, and DeRuiter conceded that her appeal did not concern the issue of field preemption.
The Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
If you are medical marijuana patient or caregiver facing any type of legal action contact attorney Michael Komorn. The Komorn Law firm has a long history of fighting for the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
Under a November 1, 2010 amendment to the city code, Wyoming adopted a new zoning ordinance: “Uses not expressly permitted under this article are prohibited in all districts. Uses that are contrary to federal law, state law or local ordinance are prohibited.” “Uses contrary to federal law” include the manufacture or possession of marijuana, so it is a violation of the ordinance for a city resident to raise or possess marijuana, the city asserts. Violators are subject to injunctions and civil sanctions, including fines.
John Ter Beek, a Wyoming city resident, sued the city, arguing that the ordinance is invalid under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421 et seq. Ter Beek asserted that he is a qualified medical marijuana patient under the MMMA who grows and uses marijuana in his home. By prohibiting the use, manufacture, or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes, the city ordinance is in direct conflict with the MMMA, he contended.
In its answer to Ter Beek’s lawsuit, the city admitted that “the cultivation, possession and distribution of marihuana are subject to the zoning code of Wyoming.” But, the city argued, the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., preempts § 4(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a); since the city ordinance incorporates the federal law by reference, the MMMA cannot preempt the ordinance, the city asserted.
The trial court ruled in favor of the city and dismissed Ter Beek’s complaint, but in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ordinance is invalid under the MMMA and that the CSA does not preempt Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
Under 21 USC 841(a)(1), it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance . . . .” Under 21 USC 812(c)(10), marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance; thus, manufacturing or possessing marijuana is generally prohibited under federal law. “Consequently, these provisions of the CSA when read together with defendant’s zoning ordinance, which makes any violation of federal law an unpermitted use of one’s property, cause any medical use of marijuana pursuant to the MMMA on any property within the city of Wyoming to be a violation of defendant’s zoning ordinance,” the Court of Appeals explained.
“In contrast, the MMMA permits medical use as defined in MCL 333.26423(e), which includes use, possession, cultivation, delivery, and transfer. Further, the plain language of MCL 333.26424(a)provides immunity for a qualifying patient—which plaintiff is acknowledged to be—from being ‘subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege’ ….
We conclude that the civil injunctive relief that could be used to prohibit any medical use of marijuana within the city would constitute a ‘penalty in any manner’ as proscribed by MCL 333.26424(a).”
A city ordinance that purports to prohibit what a state statute permits is void, the appellate court said.
Moreover, the MMMA is not preempted by federal drug laws, the panel declared.
Under Article 6, cl. 2 of the U.S Constitution, Congress has the power to preempt state law. “While there are three types of federal preemption, the only type of preemption at issue in this case is conflict preemption,” in which a state statute is in direct conflict with a federal law, the Court of Appeals stated.
Conflict preemption does not apply in this case, the Court of Appeals held. “[I]t cannot be disputed that state medical-marijuana laws do not and cannot supersede federal laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana,” the panel acknowledged.
But the MMMA is not in conflict with the CSA because the state law will not affect the federal law or its enforcement, the Court of Appeals reasoned. “MCL 333.26422(c) acknowledges that ‘[a]lthough federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law.’
Additionally, MCL 333.26422(b) recognizes that 99 out of every 100 marijuana-based arrests in the United States are made under state law.
Accordingly, the statute declares that ‘changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.’ Id. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the MMMA itself recognizes the federal policy regarding marijuana and acknowledges that state law will not affect the federal law.”
The panel continued, “[C]onstruing MCL 333.26424(a) to grant immunity only from state prosecution and other penalties avoids the absurd result that the MMMA purportedly preempts federal prosecutions, and avoids conflict with the CSA.
“Moreover, the MMMA’s decriminalization of the medical use of marijuana is not contrary to the CSA’s provisions punishing all medical uses of marijuana. The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law…. This, while Congress can criminalize all uses of medical marijuana, it cannot require the states to do the same.”
The city appealed, and in an order dated April 3, 2013, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Court directed the parties to address “(1) whether the defendant city’s zoning code ordinance, which prohibits any use that is contrary to federal law, state law, or local ordinance, is subject to state preemption by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.; and (2) if so, whether the MMMA is subject to federal preemption by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC 801 et seq., on either impossibility or obstacle conflict preemption grounds. See 21 USC 903.”
Michigan Supreme Court
In a unanimous opinion by Justice MCCORMACK, the Supreme Court held: The federal controlled substances act does not preempt § 4(a) of the MMMA, but § 4(a) preempts the ordinance because the ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA
Docket No. 145816. Argued October 10, 2013 (Calendar No. 8). Decided February 6, 2014.
Amid concerns about minority businesses being left out and general frustration with the pace at which Michigan is moving on both the medical and recreational marijuana fronts, a group of organizations with marijuana business interests is preparing legislation they hope will make significant changes in how the market will operate.
Their sweeping proposal — which will face a tough climb in the Legislature because some changes would require a super-majority vote — would make the “gifting” of marijuana illegal; fundamentally change the caregiver system that has been in place since 2008 when voters legalized marijuana for medical use; reimpose the 3 percent excise tax on medical marijuana that ended on March 6; allow medical marijuana dispensaries to begin immediately selling marijuana for adult recreational use; require people who grow their own marijuana to register any heavy equipment they use with their local community, and allow unlicensed dispensaries to continue to operate through the end of the year.
“We’re not trying to circumvent how recreational will operate,” said Eric Foster, a consultant with Banks & Company in Southfield, which has a number of marijuana business clients. “We’re just trying to accelerate the market and address some of the concerns from local government.”
Besides Banks & Company, the groups involved in developing the bills are the Florida-based Minorities for Medical Marijuana; Cannas Capital, a Muskegon insurance and investment agency that specializes in cannabis businesses; Michigan Economic Stimulus Fund, a Kalamazoo-based cannabis consulting firm and the Lake Newaygo County chapter of the NAACP.
Applicants for marijuana business licenses have been frustrated by the pace and inconsistency in action taken by the state Medical Marijuana Licensing Board. Since the state started awarding licenses last summer, only 121 licenses have been approved. Of those license approvals, 105 — 31 growers, 11 processors, 54 dispensaries, four testing labs and 5 transporters — have paid their state regulatory assessments and actually been awarded licenses. The state has denied 41 license applications, as well as 125 applications seeking preliminary approval.
Minority groups have especially been worried that they’ll be left out of the lucrative market. The state doesn’t keep statistics on the demographics of people who have been granted or denied licenses, but many Detroit-based marijuana businesses have been denied licenses.
The organizations have one potential sponsor in the legislature and is looking for others.
Rep. Ronnie Peterson, D-Ypsilanti, has met with the group and is interested in sponsoring some aspects of the proposal, but said there are other areas that need to be addressed too that aren’t included in the initial plan.
“How do the communities benefit from these businesses beyond the taxes? And we still have no legislation dealing with banking and community reinvestment programs,” he said, referring to the fact that the marijuana business is almost all done in cash, because the federal government still considers marijuana an illegal substance and banks don’t want to risk their license by accepting proceeds from pot sales.
Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, was involved in developing and campaigning for the November ballot proposal that voters approved, legalizing marijuana for adult recreational use. He doesn’t think the legislation has much of a chance in the Legislature. First, several aspects would need super-majority votes from ¾ of both the House and Senate because the bills would change voter-approved proposals, including getting rid of the current caregiver system from the 2008 medical marijuana ballot proposal and eliminating the “gifting” services that have popped up since the legal weed proposal passed last year.
And second, he said, such sweeping changes are premature.
“The citizens just overwhelming passed Proposal 1,” Irwin said. “I think we have an obligation to the citizens to let it work and see how it works before we start talking about changing it.”
He also questions the motives of those pushing the legislation.
“There is a certain group of deep-pocketed people and people from out of state who are already invested in the cannabis industry who want the Legislature to build a little walled garden so that they can make a lot of money off of Michigan consumers,” he said. “Anytime you have the Legislature trying to rope off an industry for a small group of people, I find that very dangerous.”
Some lawmakers tried to change the marijuana legalization law after the election, by outlawing home-grown marijuana, but the measure never came close to having enough support and never got a vote.
Medical marijuana caregivers would go away
The biggest change would be scrapping the caregiver system, which was created after the 2008 vote to legalize medical marijuana and allows each registered caregiver to grow up to 72 plant for six medical marijuana cardholders. The proposal would get rid of that category in favor of less expensive transitional licenses for smaller marijuana grow operations, and potentially open the market up to more minority business owners.
In Michigan, there are more than nearly 293,000 medical marijuana cardholders and 41,440 registered caregivers. The caregivers have been selling their excess marijuana to dispensaries, but after March 31, the caregivers will only be able to sell their overages to licensed growers and processors.
Peterson said it would be beneficial to allow caregivers to more easily transition to the licensed market without having the same regulatory expenses – a $6,000 state application fee, a $10,000 regulatory assessment and the ability to show $250,000 in assets. “These small shops should be able to compete with some type of entry level license because having to show $250,000 or a half a million in assets isn’t fair.”
Irwin said, however, that the November ballot proposal already created another class of license for “micro businesses,” that don’t carry the same large expenses.
This proposal would require a ¾ vote because it changes the 2008 ballot proposal on medical marijuana.
The proposed legislation would also allow unlicensed dispensaries that are awaiting a license from the state to continue to operate through the end of 2019. But those dispensaries, which have faced a variety of deadlines to get a license or shut down, are now facing a hard March 31 deadline.
3 percent excise tax would be revived
Foster said the 3 percent excise tax on medical marijuana should be reinstated as an incentive to communities to allow legal medical weed businesses in their towns because a portion of those revenues would come back to the communities. The language to remove the tax was included in the Legislature’s 2016 laws that regulated and taxed medical marijuana and stipulated that if recreational marijuana was legalized, the excise tax on medical marijuana would disappear. Medical marijuana is still subject to the state’s 6 percent sales tax. When recreational marijuana becomes commercially available for sale early next year, it will carry a 10 percent excise tax, along with the 6 percent sales tax.
Irwin said it will be a hard sell to convince lawmakers to reimpose a tax on those using medical marijuana.
‘Gifting’ of marijuana would be eliminated
In an attempt to tamp down the black market for marijuana, the proposed package would make “gifting” of marijuana illegal. Under the November ballot proposal, individuals can grow up to 12 plants for their personal use. They can give that product away, but not sell it. As a result, “gifting” services, which skirt the letter of the law, have cropped up across Michigan in which a person can pay $55 or more for a muffin and some juice or a T-shirt and get a gram of marijuana or a vape cartridge as a gift.
This also will need a ¾ vote in the Legislature because it changes a provision of the November ballot proposal.
Recreational marijuana sales would start immediately
The state has until December to come up with the rules and regulations that will govern the recreational marijuana market and then begin to accept applications for licenses for marijuana businesses.
But under the legislation that’s being drafted, medical marijuana dispensaries would be able to immediately begin selling recreational marijuana to people 21 and older, even before the regulations are developed by the state, Foster said.
That could pose problems for the state. In other states where recreational marijuana is legal, there are different standards and dosages for medical and recreational marijuana. Those standards haven’t been developed yet for the recreational market in Michigan.
Citing safety concerns, Peterson said he’s in favor of another provision in the proposed package that would require home growers to register any heavy equipment they use to grow marijuana with their local community.
“Particularly in urban cities, you could have five or six people growing in one block,” he said. “I’m very concerned about that.”
Foster said the bills are expected to be drafted and introduced in the next couple of weeks once sponsors have been identified.
The state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is taking a wait and see attitude on the proposals.
“We appreciate and evaluate input offered from all stakeholders,” said LARA spokesman David Harns. “If the proposal is introduced into the legislative system, we’ll take an in-depth look into it at that time.”
Kathleen Gray covers the marijuana industry for the Detroit Free Press. Contact her: 313-223-4430, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal.
——-
Let the circle of greed and control begin to close to completion.
