Should Landlords Be Able To Ban Medical Marijuana? Michigan Senate Oks Bill To Amend 2008 Law

[Restorium2]

seems there's two questions in this thread?

 

1)"Should Landlords Be Able To Ban Medical Marijuana?"

 

2)"Do we need to change laws to punish tenants/patients?"

 

I believe landlords can currently disallow smoking of any type, indoor gardening, house plants, pets,

the use of marijuana, or st Johns wort for that matter, on the rental premises.

If a tenant chooses to enter into a rental agreement the possible restrictions may be near unlimited. I don't think anyone here believes a patient should be arrested for smoking in a rented apartment, or breaking a lease by having a cat. Can they be evicted for breaking said lease? sure, happens all the time.

 

Laws to enforce this are attacks on every patient in the registry and undermines our intention. The punishment of the sick, what will they think of next?

Of course they can already ban it in the lease. Just tell the people. But don't take their rights with the Act away because they broke a lease.

[trichcycler]

So someone burns the place down or trashes it from a grow. Sure, you can sue, but collecting on a judgement is not that easy.

My insurance states that their is no coverage from a loss related to marijuana cultivation. Ill try and post a pic since some people have posted this isnt true

thanks for sharing.

maybe you could share the name of your insurance company here? We'll boycott them instantly if they practice this.

 

Having the police arrest the arsonist/slob wont get your money any faster. allstate has paid marijuana loss claims, for example.

[trichcycler]

Of course they can already ban it in the lease. Just tell the people. But don't take their rights with the Act away because they broke a lease.

are you agreeing with me you saucy fella?

[Restorium2]

are you agreeing with me you saucy fella?

yup lol

[matt79]

Cant post a pic....but the policy also states damage done by renters isnt covered.

[matt79]

Lloyds of london

[Restorium2]

Cant post a pic....but the policy also states damage done by renters isnt covered.

Then it's BS. A renters policy is totally different and cost twice as much. There are a lot of slum lord slobs out there that have nasty houses for rent with bad electrical services and little or no insurance whining about marijuana users. 

[trichcycler]

there you have it, nothing to do with marijuana really. It could take a lot of time to find the right tenants in some areas, or even responsible people you could trust with your property. Better luck next time.

[Restorium2]

My welder and air compressor pull more than all my lights.

[matt79]

If someone explains how to post a pic i will do so.

I went with them because they dont base their rates on credit. They were half as much as everyone else, i was paying almost 3k a year with a 5k deductable and ive never had a claim

[matt79]

[t-pain]

Cant post a pic....but the policy also states damage done by renters isnt covered.

you dont have renters insurance then.

[flower pharm]

you dont have renters insurance then.

doh!

[phaquetoo]

First off im a patient and caregiver.

I support the mma but i also support this bill.

I grow in my home that i own. If i rented my home i wouldnt allow someone to grow in it, unless it was a very limited amount of plants and they renovated a room properly that i was able to inspect.

The fact is, growing a large garden is hard on a house. Unless done properly the humidity, spills, and heat can destroy floors and walls. If electrical isnt run properly the house can burn down. My homeowners specifically states that loses from the cultivation of marijuana are not covered.

How many people know someone that had a renter that tore up their house?

Some hillbilly abusing the system wont think twice about destroying your house to turn profit whey they only stand to lose 1000 dollar security deposit.

Lets be realistic.

I would be the landlord from hell!  No one would have a grow in my investment home/homes!  That is my choice and doesnt mean im against mm, obviously im not against it, but I didnt work my arse off for some one to ruin my retirement,,,,,Im positive there are good people out there that would not burn down my home, but im not willing to take that chance, and this guy is right it isnt covered by ins!

 

No one would want me as a land lord, I would be checking my property all the time, if the yard wasnt kept up like I gave it to them they can expect a 10 day notice to quit!!!!

 

Call me what you want, if you dont agree with me  you must be alot younger than me,,,,,and I dont care what others do with there income property's but it aint happening on mine!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

Well stated. I've been in the residential rental market. I don't care if the tenant grows cannabis or parsley indoors. Just don't F-up my house. I can screen tenants and require security deposits accordingly. No need for any new laws.

I agree no law has to be changed, a land lord has rental leases and they can take care of their own, we dont need a law to do that!

 

Personaly I would not allow it, I  have been involved with rentals, right down from detroit rentals to high rise rentals, and you would not beleive the schitt I have seen lmao,,,,,,im so glad it wasnt my property,,,,,there were many I refused to work on because of the crap I see when I walk in the door, as a self employed person, I could not afford equipment for peice of poop rentals and dif equip for zillion dollar mansions like the fords!!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

Good people respect property. Rent to good people and they will respect your property if you respect them, regardless if they grow or not. They are just house plants.

Good people also can turn bad, look at politics cutie pie!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

Yup lots of people turned me down in iron mountain so I had to buy. And im friggin paralyzed with registered service dogs and don't grow.

Thats falls into another law carl,  that one there falls into descrimanation they have to rent to you, even if they have it in there lease, they cant forbid you to have service dogs, you should have taken them to court and they may have bought you that house!

 

I am sorry you had to deal with that!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

and you cant sue the guy who burned down your house because ?

If they had money why would they rent!  You cant get money from a rock,,,,,

 

darn I may make to the 2nd page eventualy.

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

This is a general problem with being a landlord. Bad or improper insurance on the dwelling is another problem. Neither one has anything to do with patients and their caregivers.

 

I do not support recriminalizing growing and smoking for renters. It is exactly like any other type of property damage by a renter and does not require an amendment to the MMMA. Growing and smoking can be done by responsible people on rented property without causing any damage whatsoever.

 

This legislation is simply prejudicial to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

I am in no way endorsing changing the law for rentals, rentals have leases and can already take care of this on their own, we dont need to change our law to accomidate any one, If landlords dont want something to happen in there home they put it in the lease!

 

It is that simple,,,,,,,no change to our mm law!

 

Peace

[rockinsteady]

LANSING, MI -- Landlords would be granted clear authority to ban medical marijuana use on their property under legislation approved Tuesday by the Michigan Senate.

The legislation, approved in a 34-3 vote and now headed to the House for further consideration, requires a three-quarters majority support in each chamber because it would amend Michigan's voter-approved medical marijuana law.

Sponsoring Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said the bill would simply codify a 2011 opinion from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who determined that apartment owners can prohibit the smoking or growing of marijuana without violating the medical law.

"That's already law under his ruling, but it's very confusing," Jones said. "A lot of judges and police aren't clear on it."

Landlords deserve the option to ban medical marijuana because individuals who smoke in an apartment building can bother other tenants and those who grow plants indoors can cause property damage, according to Jones.

"I have had two homes totally destroyed in my district that were turned into grow operations," said Jones. "They were basically turned into greenhouses."

Sen. Rebekah Warren, one of three lawmakers to vote against the bill, said it was important to keep in mind that the legislation would apply only to registered patients.

"This is people's medicine we're talking about. And when you're talking about rental housing, this is where people live," said Warren, D-Ann Arbor. "So what we did today -- not me, I voted against it -- is say that people can't take their medicine in the place that they reside. That's a challenge."

...

.

.

.

 

If the law codifies a 2011 opinion from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, which applies to "public places", then it would not apply to rental houses since these are not public places. So, the law goes further than the 2011 opinion on what can be prohibited in apartment residences, extending the rule to rental houses which I suppose have "landlords", too.

 

Did anyone else notice that they are using the above opinion, and the MMM Act itself, which prohibits smoking in public places, as a reason to allow landlords to prohibit smoking (or growing) in rental homes, which are not public?

Edited March 15, 2015 by rockinsteady

[t-pain]

the third part of that AG opinion you linked to talks about property owners banning smoking via lease agreements.

[rockinsteady]

But the opinion uses the MMM Act as reasoning for allowing any landlord of "other similar facility" prohibit smoking in a rental house.

 

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your third question, that an owner of a hotel, motel, apartment building, or other similar facility can prohibit the smoking of marihuana and the growing of marihuana plants anywhere within the facility, and imposing such a prohibition does not violate the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26421 et seq. 

 

So the opinion did the extending, rather than the law. It just seems odd to keep refering back to the MMM Act "public places" as some sort of starting point to calling the whole world a "public place". All while refering to the MMM Act for some reason.

 

How did the opinion take that leap and get away with it?

[t-pain]

it hasnt. otherwise you'd see police getting away with arresting people smoking in their cars or on their lawns.

 

those cases keep getting tossed out of court. schuette really is a dumbshit, and he was a judge!

 

recently he said apartment / hotel lobby were 'public places' again, i forgot in what article.

the strange thing is that in colo or wash, hotel lobbies are public places in thier marijuana law, so thats possibly where this nonsense keeps coming from.

 

or maybe its some straight up bs about where police can arrest you for being intoxicated in a "public place" via some case law.

Edited March 15, 2015 by t-pain

[ozzrokk]

It appears Schuettee will use anything in anyway to get his point across and that point is that he hates marijuana and could care less that there was a law passed. He will just try and use it against patients and caregivers.

[mibrains]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28io2kinizpjhk4qomcgycgehz%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2015-sb-0072

 

1/29/2015 SJ 7 Pg. 91 INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RICK JONES

1/29/2015 SJ 7 Pg. 91 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 REPORTED FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IMMEDIATE EFFECT

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 SUBSTITUTE S-1 CONCURRED IN

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/10/2015 SJ 23 Pg. 267 PASSED BY 3/4 VOTE ROLL CALL # 41 YEAS 34 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 267 received on 03/10/2015

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 270 read a first time

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 270 referred to Committee on Judiciary

 

Senate Bill 72 (Substitute S-1 as reported)

Sponsor:  Senator Rick Jones

Committee:  Judiciary

 

 

CONTENT

 

The bill would amend the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act to do the following:

 

 --    Prohibit smoking medical marihuana on private property in violation of a prohibition established by the property owner.

 --    Specify that the Act could not be construed to require a private property owner to lease residential property to a person who smoked or cultivated marihuana on the premises, if a written lease prohibited smoking or cultivating marihuana.

 

The Act authorizes the possession and use of limited amounts of marihuana by individuals suffering from certain conditions who have been issued medical marihuana registry identification cards. The Act provides, however, that it does not permit any person to smoke marihuana on any form of public transportation or in any public place. The bill also specifies that the Act would not permit a person to smoke marihuana on private property in violation of a prohibition established by the property owner.

 

In addition, the bill states that nothing in the Act could be constructed to require a private property owner to lease residential property to a person who smoked or cultivated marihuana on the premises, if that activity were prohibited in the written lease.

 

(Under the Public Health Code, possession of marihuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year's imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $2,000. Use of marihuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $100.)

 

The bill would take effect 90 days after its enactment.

 

MCL 333.26427                                                       Legislative Analyst:  Patrick Affholter

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

The bill would have an indeterminate, but likely negligible, fiscal impact on State and local government. The bill would clarify and potentially expand the areas in which medical marihuana use is prohibited under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. This could result in a marginal increase in the number of individuals found in violation of the Public Health Code provisions outlawing the possession and/or use of marihuana. There are no data to indicate how many offenders this would affect, but the resulting misdemeanors could lead to a marginal increase in incarceration costs for local units and/or community supervision costs for the State.

 

Date Completed:  2-11-15                                                    Fiscal Analyst:  John Maxwell

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.