Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bobandtorey

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

83 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by t-pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

t-pain likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

That about says everything ya need to know.  Quit finding and creating ways to hassle, incarcerate or intimidate patients for their money and freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent 

 

We didn't say that but its what we mean ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do commercial landlords still hesitate to rent to marijuana businesses? In addition to the remote possibility of a landlord getting arrested and prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for violating the Federal Controlled Substances Act, landlords face the very real threat of losing their property via a civil asset forfeiture. The federal government can and does sometimes seize property used for cultivating, manufacturing, or selling marijuana. In recent years, the Federal Government has netted at least one billion dollars from seizing personal and real property used for to manufacture or distribute Federally illegal drugs, including marijuana in states where marijuana is legal. Whether you are a commercial landlord or a marijuana business tenant, you need to know what you can do to help fend off Federal intervention, including asset forfeiture.

 

First though, a brief overview of how asset forfeiture works. Forfeiture can be either civil or criminal. Forfeiture of real property used to violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act is governed by 21 U.S.C §§ 881 and 18 U.S.C §§ 983 and 985. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C §881(a)(7):

 

“[t]he following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them … [a]ll real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment.”

 

Since cultivating, manufacturing, and distributing marijuana are Federal crimes, real property used to facilitate the commission of those crimes is subject to asset forfeiture.

 

In civil asset forfeiture cases involving real property, the government actually sues the property itself and the property owner is treated as a third party claimant. Civil forfeitures of real property are initiated as judicial forfeitures, meaning a court with competent jurisdiction must oversee the seizure. The burden of proof is on the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture of real property does not require that the government prove that the landowner is guilty of any crime; it is enough if the government shows that there is a “substantial connection” between the property and the crime alleged. By contrast, criminal forfeiture is against a person only after a conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) for an underlying criminal offense.

 

Nonetheless, 18 U.S.C §983(d) creates what is known as the “innocent owner defense” to asset forfeiture of real property. “An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.” The term “innocent owner” means an owner who (i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or (ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property (emphasis added).”

 

In many states where marijuana has been legalized (either for recreational or medical use) the innocent owner defense is usually not available because the marijuana-legal state mandates that the lease explicitly allow for the cultivation, manufacture, or retail sale of marijuana. And, in most if not all, marijuana-friendly States, having a lease that allows for marijuana activity is a requirement to receive an operational license from the state. So then what can landlords and tenants do to prevent asset forfeiture or Federal intervention altogether?

 

First, as we noted in our post, Marijuana Commercial Leaseholds: Any Resemblance to Regular Leaseholds is Purely Coincidental real property leases that involve a marijuana business should include “escape clauses” listing Federal intervention, changes of Federal enforcement policy, forfeiture threats, and/or Federal enforcement (be it a raid by the DEA or filing of criminal charges by the DOJ) as defaults that constitute lease violations or cancellations.

 

Leases typically contain a permitted use provision to govern the activities that can take place on the leased property. The permitted use provision for a marijuana business should accurately identify the activities allowed on the property. For example, if a tenant is a marijuana retailer, the permitted use provision should reflect this by explicitly permitting “the retail sale of marijuana.” If the permitted use is unclear, tenants run the risk of breaching the lease by conducting an activity not permitted on the property, which itself could invite Federal scrutiny.

 

It is also prudent for a marijuana commercial leasehold to set out a strict code of conduct relating to the use of the property. The typical Commercial Broker’s Association lease provides that any illegal activity on the property constitutes a default so just pulling one of these “off the shelf” is not the way to go. One reliable way to handle the illegality issue is to write a lease that explicitly forbids only those actions that violate state (not Federal) law.

 

Moreover, it is important to include in a marijuana lease provisions relating to hours of operation, the tenant’s treatment of its surrounding commercial neighbors, loitering, odors, the use of hazardous substances at the property, the number of people permitted on the property, and constant compliance with any and all state and local regulatory rules and with the recent Cole Memo from the DOJ.

 

The bottom line: Federal marijuana prohibition and the fluidity of state law marijuana regulatory schemes mean that standard commercial lease agreements are not sufficient to sustain and protect the landlord/tenant relationship involving a cannabis business. You instead need lease that accounts for the realities of running a marijuana business. Or prepare to face the consequences.

trichcycler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you slice it, refusal to permit disabled individuals from treating their conditions is illegal. Protection from discrimination is a civil right, and is spelled out in the laws of the State of Michigan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Do your homework. There will be a quiz. It will not be true/false. It will not be multiple choice. It will be as difficult as you make it.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dthrbweu5s2kwoo5z1o0jtrd))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-220-1976-5&highlight=persons%20with%20disabilities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you slice it, refusal to permit disabled individuals from treating their conditions is illegal. Protection from discrimination is a civil right, and is spelled out in the laws of the State of Michigan.

I do agree Greg.

 

A) If a disabled(?) person agrees to rent property, not to smoke, and not to garden indoors do you believe this tenant can change his mind at will, and begin breaking the lease to accommodate himself in these manners?

 

B) would the tenant need to be certified "disabled" for these protections?

GregS likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Don't work that way.

 

When you're looking for a rental usually you don't have money to sue someone.

 

No attorney will for free help me sue a homeowner, there's "nothing " there to get.

 

This is consistent in any area I've lived unfotunately. So I bought instead :)

 

If anyone is aware of someone in a wheelchair with service dogs that won such a case I'd be interested in learning more.

 

 

Have A Great Day Community :) stay positive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking about it.....I guess if a landlord doesn't want to rent to someone they most likely will not have to. Credit, demeanor, habits, looks even are used to discriminate against all types of individuals unfortunately, even though its wrong, even though there are laws against it....still happening  We don't need more discriminatory laws imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree Greg.

 

A) If a disabled(?) person agrees to rent property, not to smoke, and not to garden indoors do you believe this tenant can change his mind at will, and begin breaking the lease to accommodate himself in these manners?

 

B) would the tenant need to be certified "disabled" for these protections?

It is illegal to prohibit legitimate medical treatment to begin with, at the onset of a lease agreement, or at any time subsequent. If a landlord requires a patient to sign off on their medical rights, the civil right is not somehow magically evaded, and yes, I believe that a patient can disregard any prohibition from use at any time for any reason. It would be interesting to see the case if a landlord would try to evict a determined patient because of medical use, which is protected from just this kind of thing in both MMMA and civil rights law. Please read the law that was posted and tell me if and where you find otherwise. The definition of disability is clearly delineated in the disability law. Beyond that there is no required certification.

 

(d) Except as provided under subdivision (f), “disability” means 1 or more of the following:

(i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic:

(A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's qualifications for employment or promotion.

(B) For purposes of article 3, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from a place of public accommodation or public service.

© For purposes of article 4, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from educational opportunities, programs, and facilities at an educational institution.

(D) For purposes of article 5, substantially limits 1 or more of that individual's major life activities and is unrelated to the individual's ability to acquire, rent, or maintain property. 

(ii) A history of a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i).

(iii) Being regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). (italics mine)

Edited by GregS
Timmahh likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks i do agree but we have seen many times Laws that have definition and are clearly delineated i like the one that say's if you have a mmj  card you can't be arrested Law 1 of 2008 comes to mine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is illegal to prohibit legitimate medical treatment to begin with, at the onset of a lease agreement, or at any time subsequent. If a landlord requires a patient to sign off on their medical rights, the civil right is not somehow magically evaded, and yes, I believe that a patient can disregard any prohibition from use at any time for any reason. It would be interesting to see the case if a landlord would try to evict a determined patient because of medical use, which is protected from just this kind of thing in both MMMA and civil rights law. Please read the law that was posted and tell me if and where you find otherwise. The definition of disability is clearly delineated in the disability law. Beyond that there is no required certification.

 

(d) Except as provided under subdivision (f), “disability” means 1 or more of the following:

(i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic:

(A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's qualifications for employment or promotion.

(B) For purposes of article 3, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from a place of public accommodation or public service.

© For purposes of article 4, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from educational opportunities, programs, and facilities at an educational institution.

(D) For purposes of article 5, substantially limits 1 or more of that individual's major life activities and is unrelated to the individual's ability to acquire, rent, or maintain property. 

(ii) A history of a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i).

(iii) Being regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). (italics mine)

Thanks again 

 

I can see it now after someone is sitting on the curb with all there belongings next to them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how they can lump together smoking and growing.  I live in a rental property that permits

smoking.  But if this passes, they will be allowed to permit tobacco smoking but ban Cannabis smoking.  How

does this make sense from a damage perspective?

 

(3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO 22 ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES

OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF 23 THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING

MARIHUANA IS IN THE 24 WRITTEN LEASE.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mxlcldxifkr3mljkwv1if43h))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2015-SB-0072

 

They are using paranoia about grow damage to pass a usage prohibition and no-one seems to be

be paying attention to this.

 

Is this not a big deal?

Edited by iwombat
trichcycler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the gateway to widespread concentrate use. Tobacco tolerant landlords now will not be able to deduce the difference between a Marlboro with and without special sauce. :hair:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how they can lump together smoking and growing.  I live in a rental property that permits

smoking.  But if this passes, they will be allowed to permit tobacco smoking but ban Cannabis smoking.  How

does this make sense from a damage perspective?

 

(3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO 22 ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES

OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF 23 THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING

MARIHUANA IS IN THE 24 WRITTEN LEASE.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mxlcldxifkr3mljkwv1if43h))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2015-SB-0072

 

They are using paranoia about grow damage to pass a usage prohibition and no-one seems to be

be paying attention to this.

 

Is this not a big deal?

 

I agree they are against people using cannabis no mattel how sick someone is or poor it's  all a mess all i can say is 

 

Free The Weed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation that lets landlords prohibit medical marijuana patients from growing or smoking the drug on leased residential property.

The law enacted Tuesday adds another exception to a 2008 voter-approved law that legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

That law already does not require insurers to reimburse people for medical marijuana, nor does it mandate that employers accommodate employees' use of the drug for medical purposes.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/10/medical-marijuana-rentals-michigan/96420404/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0