Jump to content

dwkl

Administrators
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by dwkl

  1. Lansing — Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray has lifted a portion of the state’s widespread marijuana recall, saying a segment of it was “in all likelihood based upon an arbitrary decision.” On Nov. 17, the Marijuana Regulatory Agency recalled products tested by Viridis Laboratories and Viridis North because of allegedly “inaccurate and/or unreliable results of products tested.” Viridis Laboratories, which said the recall affected about 60% to 70% of the state’s on-shelf cannabis products, sued, contending the move by the state was “unjustified, prejudiced and retaliatory.” Murray’s opinion Friday said the regulatory agency relied on retesting of product tested at Viridis, which is located in Lansing, but not Viridis North, which is located in Bay City. Read the rest of the story here The post Michigan judge lets some marijuana in massive recall return to shelves appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  2. *This section is based in large part on a paper prepared for the Commission by Jane Lang McGrew, an attorney from Washington, D.C. In 1920, the national policy of Prohibition began. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution had been officially ratified: It sought, by law, to make the whole Nation into enforced teetotalers and to put an end to all evils associated with drinking. It sought to eradicate a taste deeply rooted in the habits and customs of a large part of the population through outlawing the business that ministered to its satisfaction (Hu, 1950: 48). 1650-1750: THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS In fact, it started earlier. “Ministers shall not give themselves to excess in drinkinge, or riott, or spending their tyme idellye day or night,” ruled the Virginia Colonial Assembly in 1629 (Cherrington, 1920:16). Massachusetts ordered that no person shall remain in any tavern “longer than necessary occasions” in 1637, while Plymouth Colony in 1633 prohibited the sale of spirits “more than 2 pence worth to anyone but strangers just arrived” (Cherrington, 1920: 18). This sampling of the earliest colonial laws is representative of the attempt, continued since those times, to control excessive consumption. Excessive drinking, it was considered, produced behavior unseemly in some, such as ministers, and dangerous in others, such as Indians. But drinking per se was not frowned upon. Indeed, when the Puritans set sail to Massachusetts, they had taken care to carry with them 42 tons of beer (in contrast with 14 tons of water) and 10,000 gallons of wine (Lee, 1963: 15). The regulation of liquor consumption was a matter of considerable concern in certain colonies. Thus, for a time, Massachusetts went so far as to prohibit the drinking of healths in 1638 (Lee, 1963: 19). The law was soon abandoned for reasons obvious, albeit unrecorded. It rapidly became clear, however, that liquor laws could do more and perhaps better, than control consumption: they could provide a source of revenue. By the turn of the 18th century, the regulatory impulse was concentrated on fines, excise taxes and license fees. Fines were imposed for drunken behavior, unlawful sales to a drunken tippler or to Indians, and for selling without a license. Court records indicate that these laws were enforced with reasonable regularity (Krout 1967: 29-30). Licenses often carried their own fees, and excise taxes were levied upon distilled spirits as well as beer and fermented drink in many cases. Until the 18th century, however, there was no attempt to prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Quite the contrary, at least one individual-in some cases a reluctant individual-was required in many towns to run the local inn or public house for visitors and travelers. Although colonial statutes made it clear that tipplers and idlers were unwelcome, the diary of a colonial traveler, Sarah Kemble Knight, suggests that such laws were unsuccessful in containing the ribaldry which took place in many such houses. Madam Knight complained: I could get no sleep, because of the Clamor of some of the Town Tope-ers in the next room…. I heartily fretted & wish’t ‘am tongue tyed…. They kept calling for Tother Gill, Wch while they were swallowing, was some Intermission, But presently, like Oyle to fire, encreased the flame (Miller, Johnson, eds., 1963: 430-431). Persons other than Madam Knight were to become more outspoken about their concern for the use of spirits. The, most significant premonition was the Colony of Georgia’s action in 1735 when the first prohibitory statute against the importation of “ardent spirits” was enacted. At the same time, however, the consumption of beer was encouraged (Grant, 1932: 1). The time for temperance had not yet arrived. 1750-1825: TEMPERANCE STIRRINGS As the evils of intemperance began to attract the attention of the ministry, John Wesley denounced the sin of distilling -and declared for its Prohibition in 1773 (Cherrington, 1920: 37-38). On his heels came the publication of a pamphlet entitled “The Mighty Destroyer Displayed and Some Account of the Dreadful Havoc Made by the Mistaken Use, As Well As the Abuse, of Distilled Spiritous Liquors,” by Anthony Benezet, a member of the Society of Friends, advising against the use of any drink “which is liable to steal away a man’s senses and render him foolish, irrascible, uncontrollable, and dangerous” (Cherrington, 1920: 38). Nevertheless, typical of the century’s ambivalence, the first master at Harvard was fired when it was found that Harvard students had been left “wanting beer betwixt brewings a week and a week and a half together” (Lee, 1963: 16). Concern for the effect of liquor upon the public weal was expressed by John Adams who noted in his diary on February 29, 1760, that the taverns were “becoming the eternal haunt of loose, disorderly people . . .” (Cherrington, 1920: 37). Worst of all he continued: … These houses are become the nurseries of our legislators. An artful man, who has neither sense nor sentiments, may, by gaining a little sway among the rabble of the town, multiply taverns and dram shops and thereby secure the votes of taverner and retailer and of all; and the multiplication of taverns will make many, who may be induced to flip and rum, to vote for any man whatever (Dobyns, 1940: 215). The health argument in behalf of temperance was first made by Nathaniel Ames, in the 1752 edition of his Almanack, who wrote that Strong Waters were formerly used only by the Direction of Physicians; but now Mechanicks and low-li’d Labourers drink Rum like Fountain-Water, and they can infinitely better endure it than the idle. unactive and sedentary Part of Mankind, but DEATH is in the bottom of the cup of every one (Lee, 1963: 22). Dr. Benjamin Rush shared his concern, publishing in 1785 his now famous “Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits Upon the Human Body and Mind.” Enumerating the diseases of the body and mind which plague the drinker of distilled liquors, Dr. Rush outlined the symptoms, including “unusual garrulity, unusual silence, captiousness … an insipid simpering … profane swearing … certain immodest actions” and “certain extravagant acts which indicate a temporary fit of madness” (Rush, 1943: 323, 325-326). Although the rumblings of the temperance movement were thus perceptible in the late 18th century, there is no evidence that its effects were felt. In 1766, it is recorded that the repeal of the Stamp Act was greeted in Providence, Rhode Island with “32 of the most loyal, patriotic and constitutional toasts” (Lee, 1963: 18). Notwithstanding this evidence of devotion to His Majesty. it was often thereafter the tavern which provided the meeting places for the most defiant revolutionaries. Subsequently, when the colonial period disappeared into the post-Revolutionary era, Alexander Hamilton adopted the idea earlier effected by the individual colonies, to tax distilled liquors for revenue purposes. In 1791 , the tax was enacted as part of the Revenue Act. The following year, the Second Congress of the United States added license fees for distilleries and taxes on liquors distilled from imported materials. Incensed by this federal action, farmers in Western Pennsylvania mobbed revenue collectors and armed to resist this intrusion by the new Federal Government. It required 15,000 militia to bring the so-called Whiskey Rebellion to an end (Peterson, 1969: 119-120). Such was the first indication that the liquor industry in the United States would be a force with which the government would have to reckon. Toward the end of the 18th century, a temperance movement, as such, became discernible. The Methodist Church took a staunch position against the sale or imbibing of ardent spirits “unless in cases of extreme necessity.” Five years later, in 1789, even the exception was excised (Cherrington, 1920: 50). A similar platform was adopted by the Presbyterian Synod of Pennsylvania and by the Yearly Meeting of Friends of New England (Cherrington, 1920: 51, 58). On a non-clerical level, the movement began to organize. Although there is some dispute as to the identity of the original temperance society, it appears that as early as 1778, there was an organization calling itself the Free African Society which excluded men of drinking habits, followed soon thereafter by the Organization of Brethren, and the Litchfield, Connecticut Association of “the most respectable farmers” in Connecticut determined to discourage the use of spirits (Cherrington, 1920: 49, 58). The turn of the century saw the vitalization of the temperance spirit. Religious leaders, including Cotton Mather, Dr. Lyman Beecher, John Wesley and Reverend Andrew Elliott inveighed against the consumption of liquors. Temperance activity figured prominently in the concerns of the Presbyterian, Methodist, Universalist, Baptist, and Friends churches. “Had. the temperance reform in America awaited for a non-church or a non-Christian leadership,” theorizes one historian, … the temperance revolution of the past century would yet remain to be accomplished…. Every successful temperance movement of the last century has been merely the instrument-the machinery and equipment through which the fundamental principles of the Christian religion have expressed themselves in terms of life and action (Cherrington, 1920:92). Whatever the Christian input , however, it is also apparent that a desire to reform was aroused in the country, very much like that which was to be experienced a century later during the Progressive Movement. Thus, Massachusetts Society for the Suppression of Intemperance of 1813, damned not only rum, but all of the “kindred vices, profaneness and gambling” and beseeched members to “discourage… by … example and influence, every kind of….. immorality” (Lee, 1963: 23). Mingling with the potential temperance leaders during this period were the future spokesmen of abolitionism, feminism, and utopianism. In the meantime, the industry was able to report triumphantly that the federal taxes on distilling and importing spirits were repealed in 1802. From 1813 until 1817, the retailers’ and distillers’ licenses bore a federal tax, but beginning in 1818 the industry enjoyed a tax-free era which was to last until 1862. Thomas Jefferson rejoiced-“as a moralist”-explaining that: It is an error to view a tax on that liquor as merely a tax on the rich. It is a prohibition of its use in the middling class of our citizens, and a condemnation of them to the poison of whisky, which is desolating their houses. No nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the only antidote is the bane of whisky (Peterson, 1969: 122-123). Future prohibitionists would likewise castigate the government for drawing its revenues from the liquor industry and participating in the profits of evil thereby. 1825-1870: THE PLEDGE Temperance was not always equated with teetotalism. Beer and usually wine were initially exempt from denunciation in both sermons and treatises. There developed in the mid-19th century, however, the conviction that all brews, be they “ardent spirits,” beer, ale, or wine, were anathema. The, new temper of the movement was epitomized by the travels of Father Theobald Matthew of Ireland who toured the United States from 1849 to 1851, administering the pledge of total abstinence to some 600,000 persons in 25 states. A White House dinner and a Senate reception stamped official approval upon his sojourns (Furnas, 1968: 80). Thus did temperance drift into a new phase, with its ardent spokesman, Congressman Gerrit Smith, crying that: I would that no person were able to drink intoxicating liquors without immediately becoming a drunkard. For, who, then would . . . drink the poison that always kills, or jump into the fire that always burns? (Furnas, 1968: 15). It was in this atmosphere that the first prohibition experiments were undertaken on a statewide basis. “Until the liquor traffic is abolished . . . all efforts at moral reform must languish,” judged one of the earliest prohibitionists. In “Grappling with the Monster,” T. S. Arthur stated, “The CURSE is upon us, and there is but one CURE: Total Abstinence, by the help of God, for the Individual, and Prohibition for the State” (Furnas, 1968: 15). In 1847, the first such cure was enacted for the state of Maine (Cherrington, 1920: 134). (Actually, the first Prohibition law went into effect in 1843 in the territory of Oregon. This was repealed five years later.) A wave of prohibition statutes followed. Delaware, on the heels of Maine, passed its first prohibition law only to have it declared unconstitutional the following year. Similar laws were enacted in Ohio, Illinois, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New York during the next few years. They met with varying fates, including veto by the governors, repeal by the legislatures and invalidation by the state supreme courts. The evaluations by several historians of these early trials were to he heard again in the 20th century: the enactments lacked support from a large portion of the population, making enforcement exceedingly difficult. Ultimately, all but one of the states repealed the prohibition statutes of the 19th century (Grant, 1932: 5; Peterson, 1969: 123). Notwithstanding this record, prohibitionists took heart. “This thing is of God,” cried Lyman Beecher from the pulpit. “That glorious Maine law was a square and grand blow right between the horns of the Devil” (Furnas, 1968: 167). Temperance societies, established in all but three states by 1832 and destined to proliferate, began to consolidate as well. The American Temperance Society, later to become the American Temperance Union, was organized in 1826. It quickly begat auxiliaries, so that by 1835, 8,000 locals existed (Cherrington, 1920: 92-93). As the years passed, they witnessed the founding of more temperance, organizations of a general and national character than during any other period in the United States’ history. The Washingtonian movement, organized in the City of Baltimore in 1840, was followed by the Martha Washington movement in 1841. The Sons of Temperance came into existence in 1842, at, the same time the Order of Rechabites was organized, and the Congressional Temperance Society of 1833 was revived on the basis of total abstinence. They took heart at their early state, successes and fought against the defeats of repeal. In the meantime, however, the United States government, which had heaped honors upon Father Matthew, concluded a treaty with King Kamehameha III of Hawaii in 1850 permitting the introduction and sale of liquor on his island. As further evidence of the national dichotomy, Chicagoans in the 1850’s fought virulently against the enforcement of Sunday closing laws. To protest, an armed mob burst into the business district of the city, to be met by police. Fortunately, the mob was dispersed before the mayor found it necessary to use the cannon he had hurriedly planted around City Hall (Peterson, 1969: 120). It was the time when patent medicines, 40 proof and more, began to develop their clientele. And although the Demon Rum might threaten their health and life, Lydia Pinkham’s Compound offered a cure for any and all ails and aches. By the time of the Civil War, both the assimilative and coercive traditions of the temperance movement had crystallized: that is, temperance proponents were determined to save the weak and to destroy the recalcitrant (Gusfield, 1963: 69-70). The hardening of positions was accompanied by the development of political consciousness in the movement and recognition of political objectives. These processes were only temporarily blunted by the Civil War in the 1860’s and the diversion of interest to the abolitionist cause. Part of the heritage of the Civil War was the tax on liquor and beer imposed in 1862. Rates were increased several times between 1863 and 1868, so that the tax imposed at the rate of 20 cents per gallon rose to $2 per gallon. An interesting phenomenon was noted by the Federal Government: as the rates increased, the revenue did not. In fact, the number of gallons reported actually declined. As the decade went on, attempts were made to enforce the tax laws and in 1868, $25,000 was actually appropriated to detect violators. Fraud continued almost unabated. Stockpiling of liquor was popular to hedge against future, increases, for they were not applicable to liquor on hand. The infamous Whiskey Ring was active in these days and was not finally broken up until 1875, when, in a peak of nerve, members established a corruption fund in the District of Columbia to halt the prosecution of 321 persons charged with violations of the revenue laws. Before then, however, Congress apparently had second thoughts about the implications of the revenue collections and reduced the tax from the high of $2 per gallon to 50 cents in 1869. The happy result was to see a rise in collections from $13.5 million in 1868, to $45 million in 1869, and $55 million the following year. Taking further precautions, the government stipulated that new stamps be developed to preclude counterfeiting and tampering (History of the Alcohol 14-20; Cherrington, 1920: 156162). Congress did not escape unscathed by criticism and reaction. It came from both sides of the temperance issue. Temperance advocates such as Senator Wilson of Massachusetts and Senator Pomeroy of Kansas decried the fact that federal revenues would be drawn from the liquor industry. At the same, time, however, the industry revolted, leading to mass tax evasion schemes and devices and the organization of their first industry lobby, the United States Brewers Association. The Association rapidly launched a, legislative campaign and succeeded in 1863 in reducing the tax rate of beer from $1 to 60 cents (Cherrington, 1920:157). By 1870, the Civil War dust had cleared and the temperance battle lines were drawn, already tested by the skirmishes of the 1840’s and 1850’s. The most interesting feature of their war strategy was soon to become apparent: women and children were welcomed at the battlements. 1870-1913: TOWARD A NATIONAL CONSCIENCE A series of “isms” was aroused in this era: feminism, unionism, socialism, and progressivism. Prohibition absorbed elements of them all, and vice versa. The feminist movement originated early in the 1800’s. Until the 1870’s, however, feminine involvement in the temperance effort was largely peripheral. The Women’s Crusade of 1873 and the organization of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in 1874 marked the formal entrance of women into the temperance movement. The WCTU was devotedly headed by Frances E. Willard, a lady equally committed to the principle of equality of the sexes. Temperance was to bridge the gap, she believed: Drink and tobacco are the great separatists [sic] between men and women. Once they used these things together, but woman’s evolution has carried her beyond them; man will climb to the same level . . . but meanwhile … the fact that he permits himself fleshly indulgence that he would deprecate in her, makes their planes different, giving her an instinct of revulsion (Furnas, 1968: 281). Although the WCTU was organized initially around the temperance issue, it was not long before Miss Willard’s leadership expanded its conscience. A statement of principles was adopted in its early years: We believe in a living wage; in an 8-hour day; in courts of conciliation and arbitration, in justice as opposed to greed in gain; in “Peace on Earth and Good Will to Men” (Gusfield, 1963: 76). Within three years of its inception, the WCTU reported that its concerns included “a better Indian policy” and “wiser civil service reform” (Gusfield, 1963: 77). There were those in the Union who felt that their interests should be limited to temperance. But, forecasting the mood of Progressivism, Miss Willard steered the organization along the broader lines to social reform. The WCTU was responsible for part of the early campaign to educate the public about temperance. Children were recruited to sing praises of “the true and the brave” who signed the abstinence pledge. They were assisted in this effort by McGuffey’s Readers which denounced the licensing of liquor stores and saloons: Licensed-to do thy neighbor harm, Licensed-to kindle hire and strife, Licensed-to nerve the robber’s arm, Licensed-to whet the murderer’s knife, Licensed-like spider for a fly, To spread thy nets for man, thy prey, To mock his struggles, crush his soul, Then cast his worthless form away (Lee, 1963: 34-35). Whiskey makes “the happy miserable” and impoverishes the rich, the, McGuffey books concluded. And the word spread. By 1902, the temperance campaign had permeated the public school systems: every state but Arizona had introduced compulsory temperance education. Their texts teemed with both facts and misinformation such as “Alcohol sometimes causes the coats of the blood vessels to grow thin. They are then liable at any time to cause death by bursting.” (Sinclair, 1962: 43). The WCTU was not carrying the burden of reform alone, however. In 1869, the National Prohibition Party was born. Three years later, the first party ticket was put forth in the presidential campaign of 1872, headed by John Black, who received 5,607 votes for President. Success at the polls ultimately peaked in 1892 when John Dedwell, the Prohibition presidential candidate, received a total of 270,710 votes. Thereafter, its partisans declined in number, having failed to break voters away from their traditional affiliations (Cherrington, 1920: 165-169). As a rule, the WCTU eschewed partisanship. Their objectives were far broader and more practical than those contemplated by the Prohibition Party. Only once it supported the Prohibition Party in the notorious election of 1884. The election of 1884 carried a variety of implications for future candidates on the temperance issue. In New York City alone, 1,007 primaries and conventions reportedly were held by the various parties. Of these, over 60% took place in saloons (Peterson, 1969: 123), recalling to mind the complaint of John Adams a century before (Cherrington, 1920: 37; Dobyns, 1940: 215). The meeting places were indicative of the fact that at this time neither party could afford to adopt a dry plank in its platform, for New York would be a pivotal state in the race between Republican James G. Blaine and Democrat Grover Cleveland. Blaine campaigned hard, trying to overcome the defection of several thousand dry Republicans to the Prohibition Party. Speaking in behalf of Blaine at a New York City rally, Presbyterian minister Samuel Burchard denounced the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.” Needless to say, the Catholic vote, as well as the wet vote, quickly swelled the Democratic totals. Blaine, having thus alienated both wets and drys, lost the state–and the election-by a tiny margin (Furnas, 1968: 273; Lee, 1963: 29-30). In case the lesson that temperance was an issue to be reckoned with in national politics was lost on the parties after 1884, the events of the decade culminating in the birth of the Anti-Saloon League in 1895, dramatized the point. A second wave of state prohibition laws was experienced between 1880 and 1890. The results of much of the legislation during those years were less than satisfying to temperance advocates, however; only six states emerged with state-wide prohibition by statute or constitutional amendment. Numerous other states had enacted local option, which permitted towns to go dry if they so chose by referendum. Without state or federal insulation from wet communities, however, the so-called dry towns were scarcely temperance models. In the wake of these state legislative actions, South Carolina introduced a state dispensary system in order to eliminate the motive of private gain from the liquor business. Political scandals which quickly developed tended to discredit it, however, if indeed it had enjoyed much support from any corner (Cherrington, 1920: 250-251). With this discomfiting history behind it, the Anti-Saloon League arose to the challenge, while Carrie Nation independently thrust her way into the public eye. The League was to develop the art of lobbying or “pressure political” to its most dramatic heights. Scarcely more than 10 years after organization, it was described as “the most dangerous political movement that this country has ever known” by the National Model License League, a wet (and harassed) association. A more rational viewpoint was expressed by the president of the New York State Brewers Association in 1913: We are not dealing with a theory which is the delusion of the fanatic alone, but with a real condition which is in the hands of a well organized force, led by aggressive, experienced, and untiring leaders (Odegard, 1928: 23). The focus of the League’s indictments included not simply alcohol, but the saloon itself, as the purveyor of spirits. The myriad League publications denounced the saloon for “annually sending thousands of our youths to destruction, for corrupting politics, dissipating workmen’s wages, leading astray 60,000 girls each year into lives of immorality and banishing children from school” (Odegard, 1928: 40-59). “Liquor is responsible for 19% of the divorces, 25% of the poverty, 25% of the insanity, 37% of the pauperism, 45% of child desertion, and 50% of the crime in this country,” the League determined. “And this,” it concluded , ” is a very conservative estimate” (Odegard, 1928: 60). League posters appeared everywhere depicting the saloon-keeper as a profiteer who feasted on death and enslavement. Others screamed out the dire consequences of alcohol. “Alcohol inflames the passions, thus making the temptation to sex-sin unusually strong,” advertised one (Sinclair, 1962: 51). It was the League which geared up the campaign, but it was not alone. As the Progressive spirit caught the national interest in the early 19th century, the movement for reform embraced the cause of temperance. The temperance movement assumed an aura of evangelism, combining the concept of America’s mission with the vision of Messianism. Through the combination of temperance and progressivism, it was believed that the Kingdom of God could actually come to the United States. In an article in Appleton’s Magazine in 1908, the Reverend Charles F. Aked articulated the aspirations of the reformers: We are spending our lives, many of us, in the effort to make the world a little better and brighter for those that shall come after us…. we want to open out life and liberty to all the sons of men. We want to make possible for all of life in the whole, the good and the beautiful … and the common sale of intoxicating liquor renders our work a thousand times more difficult … (Timberlake, 1063: 34-38). Others were more mundane. Scientists began accumulating evidence of the effect of quantities of alcohol on the nervous system and general physical condition. The myth that alcohol consumption improved muscular power was exploded. The relationship between mental psychoses and alcohol was documented, and thus did the condemnation of alcohol as a poison assume scientific support. Finally, in 1915, whiskey and brandy were discreetly removed from the list of authoritative medicinal drugs contained in the United States Pharmacopoeia (Timberlake, 1963: 47). Who were the people fueling the movement? Largely middle class, rural, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant comprised the temperance movement and they confronted the urban and industrial communities head-on. “The Anglo-Saxon stock is the best improved, hardiest and fittest…. [I]f we are to preserve this nation and the Anglo-Saxon type we must abolish [saloons],” proclaimed one temperance publication (Gusfield, 1963: 100). Calling itself “The Protestant church in action” (Sinclair, 1962: 108), the Anti-Saloon League concentrated single-mindedly and evangelically on the cause of temperance and refrained from dabbling in other reforms (Gusfield, 1963: 108). Nevertheless, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches never aligned themselves with the AntiSaloon League, while Jewish and Catholic groups generally opposed their objective. The conviction shared by Anti-Saloon Leaguers expressed by Reverend Francis Ascott McBride was: “The League was born of God” (Lee, 1963: 35). Thus one had to be for or against the movement; there was no half-way commitment. When the sides were lined up initially, industrialists and union leaders alike preferred to keep God on their side. From the company’s point of view, the saloon was often responsible for industrial injuries and absenteeism. Some believed that the drinking man demanded higher wages than his sober counterparts. Furthermore, union locals tended to congregate in saloon meeting halls maintained for that purpose and, it was sometimes suspected, for the plottings of anarchistic conspirators (Furnas, 1968: 310). Accordingly, it was not long before industry moved from an acquiescent position to an active role in the temperance movement. Various methods were adopted to encourage sobriety, including lectures, literature and job preferences for teetotalers. Businessmen opined that sobriety expanded productivity, increased bank deposits, improved collections and stimulated the retail trade (Timberlake, 1963: 67-79). At the same time, the prospect of diverting patronage of the liquor industry to other products tantalized some industries. Thus the Welch Grape Juice Company advertised: Get the Welch Habit-It’s one that won’t get you! (Timberlake, 1963: 77). Opinion was not unanimous, of course. Businessmen, including bankers, whose interests were tied to the liquor industry could ill afford to be beneficent toward temperance. Others, including the DuPonts, Rockefellers, Kresges, and Wanamakers spent freely to cover the League’s annual campaign costs of $2.5 million (Odegard, 1928: 126). As surely as liquor was the enemy of the home, it was also proclaimed the enemy of the working man. “The great sinkhole for the workers’ wages is the saloon,” wrote the editors of one League publication, The California Liberator. “When that abomination is destroyed, labor is freed from its greatest curse” (Odegard, 1928: 53). The logic appealed to the union leadership. According to one official of the American Federation of Labor: No force in our country has been as effective in the promotion of temperance among working people as the organized labor movement. The labor movement has achieved more for the cause of temperance than all the temperance societies combined … (Timberlake, 1963: 83). Since similar credit has been claimed for the League, the Protestant church, and business interests, it is difficult to apportion the plaudits. Subsequent events suggest that the labor interests failed to live up to this claim, however. Notwithstanding Terrence V. Powerderly’s early speech against “the strong right hand of labor itself . . . that carries with it the rum which drowns reason,” his own Knights of Labor repealed their constitutional provision which denied membership to anyone connected with the liquor trade (Timberlake, 1963: 85-86). As the reports of the National Commission on Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws (known as the “Wickersham Commission”) were later to record, it was particularly the workers who resented the paternal legislation which they believed was directed at them and their habits (National Commission on Law Observance, 1931: 345). In addition, there were. those whose livelihoods would be directly affected-indeed, effaced-by the success of the campaign: brewery workers, bartenders, glass workers, waiters, and musicians among others. Thus, even though the Socialist Party resolved in 1908 that “any excessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors by members of the working class is a serious obstacle to the triumph of our cause since it impairs the vigor of the fighters in political and economic struggle” (Timberlake, 1963: 98), the industrial urban centers of the country continued to harbor and stimulate antagonism towards the temperance movement. The identification of the saloon and its offerings with the urban, immigrant working class further enraged Prohibitionists. As one sociologist observed, “The saloon appeared as the symbol of a culture which was alien to the ascetic character of American values . . .” (Gusfield, 1963: 100). Thus, Americanism became a central issue in the temperance movement. One temperance spokesman, cited in Barker’s “The Saloon Problem,” vented these sentiments: The influx of foreigners into our urban centers, many of whom have liquor habits [sic], is a menace to good government. . . . [T] he foreign born population is largely under the social and political control of the saloon. If the cities keep up their rapid growth they will soon have the balance of political power in the nation and become storm centers of political life (Timberlake, 1963: 118). 1913-1933: NATIONAL PROHIBITION — PROLOGUE AND FINISH The distrust of the immigrant population became more pronounced as the economic, political, and social power of the cities developed. It was given a strong impetus by the anti-German tremors which shook the country in a mood of anticipation before World War 1. The United States Brewers Association misread the prevailing temper and associated itself with the German-American Alliance to oppose the temperance advocates and defend German kultur in the United States. As the United States came closer to war, the antipathy which developed against the Central Powers was directed with equal force against brewers and tipplers (Furnas, 1968: 334-35) : Pro-Germanism is the only froth from the German’s beer saloon. Our German Socialist Party and the German American Alliance are the spawn of the saloon. . . . Prohibition is the infallible submarine chaser (Sinclair, 1962:122). The war gave the prohibition cause new ammunition. Literature depicted brewers and licensed retailers as treacherously stabbing American soldiers in the back. Raw materials and labor were being diverted from the war effort to an industry which debilitated the nation’s capacity to defend itself. It was urged that wartime prohibition would stop the waste of grain and molasses and would remove a handicap on workers’ efficiency. “Liquor is a menace to patriotism because it puts beer before country,” preached Prohibitionist Wayne Wheeler (Odegard, 1928: 72). The fact that names Pabst, Schlitz, and Blatz broadcast their national origin only did further injury to their interests. In this atmosphere the Wartime Prohibition Act was passed in 1918. It followed a series of federal laws such as the Wilson Original Packages Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act, attempts to protect dry states from their wet neighbors. The Wilson Original Packages Act was passed on August 8, 1890, and provided that all intoxicating beverages shipped interstate would be subject to the laws of the destination state upon arrival. No mechanism for federal enforcement was provided. The Webb-Kenyon Act, enacted March 1, 1913, was intended to reinforce the 1890 Act by providing that it was a violation of federal law to ship an intoxicating beverage interstate with the intent that it be used or sold in any manner in violation of the laws of the destination state. The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute virtually meaningless. The Reed Amendment, enacted four years later, provided a fine of $1,000 for transporting liquor into a dry state with no greater effect. None of the earlier acts met with substantial success in curbing the flow of liquor into purportedly dry regions, but they did mark a change in federal policy. Formerly liquor laws were designed solely to produce federal revenue; Congress now took cognizance of the role it could play in the regulation of consumption. The role was actually forced upon a reluctant Congress at first. Indeed, the government had passed up numerous prior opportunities to involve itself in the temperance movement as such. The particular part it was to play was forecast by the Sons of Temperance who, in 1856, declared themselves for national constitutional prohibition. Twenty years later, Congressman Henry Blair of New Hampshire introduced a prohibition amendment to the Constitution for the first time in Congress. As a senator, he introduced another such resolution in 1885, along with Senator Preston Plum of Kansas. After consideration by the Senate Committee on Education, the bill was reported out favorably and placed on the Senate Calendar in 1886. Nevertheless, no action resulted (Cherrington, 1920: 317 ). In the meantime, states continued the struggle between the wets and the drys, with great success for the temperance advocates. By 1913, nine states were under stateside prohibition. In 31 other states, local option laws were in effect. By reason of these and other variants of regulatory schemes, more than 50% of the United States population was then under prohibition. The national constitutional campaign was resumed as such in 1913 when the Anti-Saloon League went on record at its 15th National Convention in favor of immediate prosecution of the objective of constitutional amendment. The National Temperance Council, founded at the same time, coordinated the activities of numerous temperance organizations with the same object. In 1913, the demands of the League were formally presented to Congress by the Committee of 1,000. The measure was then introduced in the House by Congressman Thompson and in the Senate by Senator Sheppard. The following year, the first joint resolution failed to secure the necessary two thirds majority for submitting a constitutional amendment to the states. A second resolution was submitted in 1915 and favorably considered by the Judiciary Committees of both houses, but neither ever came to a vote. Ultimately, in 1917, the resolution to prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation or importation of alcoholic beverages in the United States was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification (Cherrington, 1920: 317-330). It took only one year and eight days for the 18th Amendment to secure the necessary ratification. On January 8, 1918, Mississippi proudly became the first state to ratify, and on January 16, 1919, Nebraska completed the job as the 36th state (Lee, 1963: 42). By the end of February 1919, there remained only three hold-outs: New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island (Cherrington, 1920: 330). October 28, 1919, was the day that Congress enacted the National Prohibition Act-more often known as the Volstead Act-with the intent to give effect to the new constitutional amendment. Officially, the liquor drought was to begin on January 17, 1920. The celebrants of the occasion were concentrated in the membership of the Anti-Saloon League, which could rightly claim that its consummate skill in pressure politics had maneuvered the country into its dry state. The early experience of the Prohibition era gave the government a taste of what was to come. In the three months before the 18th Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30 prohibition agents were killed in service. Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume of the bootleg trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970: 95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932. The law could not quell the continuing demand for alcoholic products. Thus, where legal enterprises could no longer supply the demand, an illicit traffic developed, from the point of manufacture to consumption. The institution of the speakeasy replaced the institution of the saloon. Estimates of the number of speakeasies throughout the United States ranged from 200,000 to 500,000 (Lee, 1963: 68). Writers of this period point out that the law was circumvented by various means. Although there may have been legitimate, medicinal purposes for whiskey, the practice of obtaining a medical prescription for the illegal substance was abused. It is estimated that doctors earned $40 million in 1928 by writing prescriptions for whiskey. The legal system was equally evasive; the courts convicted about seven percent of those charged with liquor violations (Sinclair, 1962: 193-195; Dobyns, 1940: 292). The exception for sacramental wine from protection under the Volstead Act also invited abuse. In 1925, the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ reported that: The withdrawal of wine on permit from bonded warehouses for sacramental purposes amounted in round figures to 2,139,000 gallons in the fiscal year 1922; 2,503,500 gallons in 1923; and 2,944,700 gallons in 1924. There is no way of knowing what the legitimate consumption of fermented sacramental wine is but it is clear that the legitimate demand does not increase 800,000 gallons in two years (Dobyns, 1940: 297). The smuggling trade was revived with new vigor and new incentives. Rum-runners, often under foreign flags, brought liquor into the country from Belgium and Holland. In 1923, there were 134 seizures of such vessels. The following year, 236 were apprehended (History of the Alcohol . . . 928). With fewer risks, liquor was readily smuggled across the Canadian border. One way or the other, the Department of Commerce estimated that, as of 1924, liquor valued at approximately $40 million was entering the United States annually (Sinclair, 1962: 198). The manufacture of “near-beer” and industrial alcohol provided other opportunities for diversion from licit channels, while the salvage of the California grape industry was section 29 of the Volstead Act (27 U.S.C. � 46) which authorized the home production of fermented fruit juices. Although the section was allegedly inserted to save the vinegar industry and the hard cider of America’s farmers, it was welcomed by home winemakers as well. In the spirit of cooperation, the grape growers even produced a type of grape jelly suggestively called “Vine-go” which, with the addition of water, could make a strong wine within two months (Sinclair, 1962: 206). One of the great ironies of the prohibition era was the fact, noted by the Wickersham Commission, that women happily took to drink during the experimental decade, and, what is more, did so in public. As the counterpart of the WCTU, the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform was founded, stating in its declaration of principles that Prohibition was “wrong in principle” and “disastrous in consequences in the hypocrisy, the corruption, the tragic loss of life and the appalling increase of crime which has attended the abortive attempt to enforce it” (Dobyns, 1940: 107). Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: “During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis” (Brown, 1932:176). In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: “The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed” (Pollock, 1942: 113). AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT PeriodMalesFemales191421.427.91920-2320.625.81936-3723.931.7To be sure, the Volstead Act was enforced in the United States wherever it had popular support. In the rural South and West prohibition was effective and in some cases still is. The failures of prohibition enforcement were spotlighted in the big cities where the law was flagrantly defied and in the smaller towns, populated by miners and industrial workers, where the law was simply ignored (National Commission on Law Observance, 1931: 345). Notwithstanding the weak enforcement of the Volstead Act, some believe that it was only the coming of the Depression with its demand for increased employment and tax revenues which finally killed the experiment (Gusfield, 1963: 127). Others observe that Prohibition was a by-product of the stress and excesses of war and could not have survived in peacetime even under optimal economic conditions (Sinclair, 1962: 23-24). Finally, there are those who accuse the selfishly motivated businessmen of the United States for repeal which they allegedly brought about through the same high-pressure tactics so successfully employed by the partisans of temperance in the preceding decades (Dobyns, 1940: 5-130 passim). Despite mixed motivations, the repeal movement was financed and driven by the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA). The members declared that “the principal business and objective of the Association shall be to educate its members as to the fundamental provisions, objects and purposes of the Constitution of the United States” (Dobyns, 1940: 5). They worked for the election of Congressmen who agreed to submit the question of repeal to a vote of the people in each state. They were successful fund-raisers and by January 1, 1931, had almost $3 million in cash in the bank (Dobyns, 1940: 9). The sources of the funds included a number of converts from the dry cause. In 1928, the DuPont family abandoned the drys, followed in 1932 by John D. Rockefeller and S. S. Kresge (Gusfield, 1963: 128). Their conversion was effected under the strong influence of the income tax. Doggedly, Pierre S. DuPont circulated a brochure concluding that “the British liquor policy applied in the United States would permit the total abolition of the income tax both personal and corporate” (Dobyns, 1940: 22). Concern for the effects of the prohibition laws was not limited to the private, wealthy sector. In 1928, a dry-wet confrontation emerged in the presidential election between Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic New Yorker, and Herbert Hoover. Hoover solemnly praised the “great social and economic experiment” and tightened his grip on the dry vote. Notwithstanding the popular image of Smith as a staunch wet, his platform tried to avoid any outright repeal sentiment. He asked instead for an amendment of the Volstead Act which would provide a “scientific definition of the alcoholic content of an intoxicating beverage.” This would enable each state to interpret and apply the federal standard within its borders. In addition, he favored what was to be known as the “state store” system of manufacturing and dispensing alcoholic beverages (Lee, 1963: 212). In retrospect, it is difficult to ascertain whether it was the religious campaign or the dry campaign which defeated Al Smith. H. L. Mencken may have written accurately that “if [Al Smith] loses, it will be because those who fear the Pope outnumber those who are tired of the Anti-Saloon League” (‘Sinclair, 1962: 303). Nevertheless, Prohibition survived the 1928 election, as did Hoover’s campaign pledge to establish a commission to investigate the conditions under Prohibition. Head of the Commission was George W. Wickersham, former Attorney General under Taft. Although the Commission’s purpose was set forth as an examination of the problems of enforcement, it soon decided to undertake much broader policy considerations. The Commission’s report, published in 1931, included opinion surveys, statistics on the number of deaths connected with enforcement efforts, testimony by consultants and experts, and an analysis of the organization, personnel and methods of prohibition enforcement. On the basis of the five volume report, the Wickersham Commission ironically concluded in its summary that: There have been more sustained pressures to enforce this law than on the whole has been true of any other federal statute, although this pressure in the last four or five years has met with increasing resistance as the sentiment against prohibition has developed . . . . That a main source of difficulty is in the attitude of at least a very large number of respectable citizens in most of our large cities and in several states, is made more clear when the enforcement of the national prohibition act is compared with the enforcement of the laws as to narcotics. There is an enormous margin of profit in breaking the latter. The means of detecting transportation are more easily evaded than in the case of liquor. Yet there are no difficulties in the case of narcotics beyond those involved in the nature of the traffic because the laws against them are supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment (Sinclair, 1962: 367-368). Notwithstanding this dire analysis, 10 out of the 11 commissioners signed a summary of conclusions of the report which stated that the Commission as a whole opposed the repeal of the 18th Amendment, the entry of the Federal or state governments into liquor business, or even the modification of national prohibition to permit the sale of light wines and beer (Sinclair, 1962: 364). Walter Lippmann commented, “What was done was to evade a direct and explicit official confession that Federal prohibition is a hopeless failure” (Sinclair, 1962: 365). Whether or not Lippmann correctly read the Commission’s intentions, there was clearly a gap between the input and the outcome of the report. It is difficult to assess the relative numbers of the wet and dry partisans during the last few years of national prohibition. In terms of strength, however, the wets surely had the edge which less than two decades before had belonged to the drys. The new wet strength showed up at the National Convention of the Democratic party held in Chicago in 1932, where Mayor Cermak of that city filled the galleries with his supporters. And, though Franklin D. Roosevelt had wooed the dry vote for some time, he now came forward on a platform which favored the outright repeal of the 18th Amendment. Accepting his nomination, he stated: I congratulate this convention for having had the courage, fearlessly to write into its declaration of principles what an overwhelming majority here assembled really thinks about the 18th Amendment. This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal. And I am confident that the United States of America wants repeal (Dobyns, 1940: 160). While dry leaders looked on with disgust, Roosevelt was elected president and Congress turned a somersault. The repeal amendment was introduced February 14, 1933, by Sen. Blaine of Wisconsin and approved two days later by the Senate 63 to 23. The House followed four days later, voting 289 to 121 to send the amendment on to the States (Lee, 1963: 231). It required approval by 36 states. Michigan was the first state to ratify it; 39 states voted, on the amendment during 1933, with 37 approving its ratification and two-North and South Carolina-voting against its ratification. The final ratification was accomplished on November 7,1933, when Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah gave their approval. Congress officially adopted the 21st Amendment to the Constitution on December 5, 1933. Within three weeks of taking office, President Roosevelt witnessed the first sales of 3.2 beer, following a redefinition by statute of the terms “intoxicating liquors.” The more popular, higher alcohol-content beer was relegalized by Congress under the Cullen-Harrison Act. Sale of beer became legal on April 7, 1933, in the District of Columbia and the 20 states where state laws did not prohibit its sale. During the next four years the remaining states changed their laws to permit its sale, with Alabama and Kansas in 1937, as the last to join the legal sale ranks. The job of total repeal was accomplished with the help of the determined AAPA during the succeeding year. Their lawyers assisted the states in preparing bills for conventions and release of various forms of political propaganda, thereby enacting a serious satire on the 1919 campaign launched by the Anti-Saloon League. Notwithstanding their high and enduring constitutional principles, on December 31, 1933, with repeal a reality, the AAPA ceased to exist and sent its files to the Library of Congress. “Having attained its objective . . . the Association resisted the temptation to linger on as a ‘sentinel of American liberty’ ”, the New York Times observed in the organization’s obituary (Dobyns, 1940: 132). PROHIBITION IN PERSPECTIVE During 13 years, what did Prohibition accomplish? There is no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime. In discussing the relative successes and failures of Prohibition, most observers conclude that the undertaking failed. “Prohibition destroyed the manufacturing and distributive agencies through which the demand for liquor had been legally supplied. But the demand remained” (Hu, 1950: 51). In its Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States, the Wickersham Commission concluded that the country had prohibition in law but not in fact. They reported: There was general prevalence of drinking in homes, clubs and hotels…. Throughout the country people of wealth, businessmen and professional men and their families, and the higher paid workingmen and their families, are drinking in large numbers in open flouting of the law. And neither Congress nor the states set up adequate machinery or appropriated sufficient funds for the enforcement of the prohibitory legislation. Federal and state legislation, as a matter of fact, strove to satisfy so that, as it was aptly said, the drys had their prohibition law and the wets had their liquor (Hu, 1950: 52). Although some view the theory of prohibition as reasonable, it is generally conceded that the realities of manufacture and distribution make it unworkable, for in one form or another, alcohol can be easily produced by farmers, high school chemistry students, and ordinary citizens. Prohibition has been attempted many times in various parts of the world; except for some Moslem areas, attempted legislative controls have not proven adequate. In spite of many sincere and determined efforts, no country in Europe or the Americas has yet succeeded in eliminating the use of alcohol by society by legislative fiat (H.E.W., 1968: 41). Those who had been accustomed to using alcoholic beverages sought other sources of supply “in disregard of the legislative mandate. In the presence of high pecuniary returns there [was] a strong tendency for supply to meet demand in spite of prohibition” (Hu, 1950: 51). Consumption. Although it is impossible to make an accurate determination of the consumption of alcoholic beverages under Prohibition-since there are no statistics compiled regarding the output and sale of the outlaw industry-estimates have been made by those examining the economic results of Prohibition as well as by the Bureau of Prohibition of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau placed the consumption of alcoholic beverages at 73,831,172 gallons, or 0.6 gallon per capita in fiscal year 1930 as contrasted with 166,983,681 gallons or 1.7 gallons per capita in 1914. In terms of pure alcohol, the Bureau concluded that per capita consumption in 1930 was 35% of the 1914 rate of legal consumption. These estimates have been criticized as being far too low (Tillitt, 1932: 35). The figures published by the Department of Commerce in the Statistical Abstract of the United States reflect a different picture. The average annual per capita consumption of hard liquor from 1910-1914, inclusive, was 1.46 proof gallons. “This 5-year period was before the rise of abnormal conditions coincident to the World War and may be taken as fairly indicative of the normal rate of drinking that prevailed in the Pre-Prohibition era” (Rosenbloom, 1935: 51). The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: “And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased” (Tillitt, 1932: 36). Others disagree with the implications of these unverified statistics noting that persons of limited means, formerly unable to patronize the expensive speakeasies, once again had cheap access to alcohol following repeal and thereby increased consumption (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 1). Popular opinion is equally inconclusive; a survey conducted by the American Institute of Public Opinion in 1936 asked whether conditions (drinking customs, consumption, etc.) were better worse or without significant change since Repeal 36% indicated a worsening and 31% could see no appreciable change (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 2). Perhaps indicative of a gradual process of adjustment, however, the results of later Gallup polls suggest a gradual decline in the use of alcohol. Of a national sample, 67% indicated they used alcohol in 1945, in contrast to 60% in 1950 and 55% in 1958 (Gusfield, 1963: 135). Alcoholic Psychoses. There was a notable decrease in alcoholic psychoses and in deaths due to alcoholism immediately preceding the enactment of Prohibition and a gradual increase in alcoholic psychosis and in deaths from alcoholism in the general population since 1920. “These facts appear to indicate that since 1920, Prohibition [was] increasingly impotent as a means of preventing excessive use of alcohol to an extent productive of serious mental disorders and untimely death. 1920 marks the end of the decline and the beginning of the rise in the trends of alcoholic mental diseases and of deaths from alcoholism in the general population” (Brown, 1932: 88). The increase in mental disorders and deaths from alcoholism after 1920, however, also coincides with the heavy consumption period-early 1900’s-which would have resulted in an increase in alcoholism some years later. The following table reflects the decrease prior to 1920 and the subsequent gradual increase in percentage of alcoholic psychosis among new admissions to 56 hospitals in 25 states as well as among admissions to New York civil state hospitals (Brown, 1932: 76-77; Malzburg, 1949: 294) : 56 Hospitals YearAll new admissionsNew admissions with alcoholic psychosesNY State – civil hospital percent admission with alcoholic psychoses. NumberPercent 191017,4391,4868.5…191117,2991,3667.9…191217,5701,5678.9…191317,5251,6339.39.3191419,1341,5738.27.4191518,8751,3317.15.7191617,9291,3707.66.1191720,0411,5767.98.2191819,7411,0215.25.2191919,7378414.34.1192019,5794852.52.0192120,3685672.82.8192220,7417983.83.2192320,3168614.24.0192419,8188964.95.4192520,8571,0174. 95.8192620,9119974.85.9192721,9821,2685.87.0192823,2931,2575.46.0192923,2421,3805.96.2193024,1001,2515.26.0Deaths from Alcoholism. In New York City, from 1900 through 1909, there was an average of 526 deaths annually attributable to alcoholism. From 1910 through 1917, the average number was 619. It plummeted to 183 for the years 1918 through 1922. Thereafter, the figure rose, averaging a new high of 639 for the years 1923 through 1927 (Rice, ed., 1930: 122). Total deaths from alcoholism in the United States show a comparable trend, with the gradual increase resuming somewhat earlier, about 1922 (Brown, 1932: 61, 77; Feldman, 1927: 397; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1924: 55). YearDeaths from all causes rate per 100,000Deaths from alcoholism rate per 100,00019101,496.15.419111,418.14.919121,388.85.319131,409.65.919141,364.64.919151,355.04.419161,404.35.819171,425.55.219181,809.12.719191,287.41.619201,306.01.019211,163.91.819221,181.72.619231,230.13.219241,183.53.219251,182.33.619261,222.73.919271,141.94.019281,204.14.019291,192.33.7The highest death rates from alcoholism occurred during the decade prior to Prohibition as did the highest death rates from cirrhosis of the liver. These statistics should be qualified by the observations of Dr. Charles Morris, Chief Medical Examiner for New York City: “In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time” (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115). Even if reliable, per se, such statistics may be unrelated to the consumption of alcoholic beverages in any given year. Another writer of this period noted: “The relation of fatal alcoholic diseases to consumption of alcohol must be one extending over a long period of years and the actual duration of the critical period can hardly be estimated” (Jellinek, 1942: 48-1). According to one sociologist, rates of alcoholism and related mental and physical diseases reflect past drinking habits, developed ten to 15 years earlier (Gusfield, 1963: 119). A shorter “lead time” is suggested by a mental hygiene statistician who attributes the temporary reduction in alcoholic psychoses “to the legal restriction of the sale and use of alcoholic beverages, made effective by the support of public opinion which during the war period had discountenanced self-indulgence, of all sorts” (Brown, 1932: 88). He adds, however, that the notable increase in alcoholic psychoses and deaths from alcoholism towards the end of the prohibition era (1927-1932) indicated that: … since 1920, prohibition has become increasingly impotent as a means of preventing excessive use of alcohol to an extent productive of serious mental disorders and untimely deaths (Brown, 1932: 88). The highly limited statistical label of death from alcoholism has been noted elsewhere: The trend of death from alcoholism reflects hardly anything else than progress in the treatment of the so-called diseases of chronic alcoholism. Nevertheless, statistics of death from alcoholism have been used by both Drys and Wets to prove that Prohibition or repeal has greatly improved the rate of death from alcoholism. . . . Death from alcoholism is simply not an index of the prevalence of inebriety. Death from alcoholism could fall to zero in response to medical progress, while at the same time the rate of inebriety might rise many fold (Jellinek, 1947: 39). Arrests Arrests for drunkenness also provide a source of information about the extent of drinking in the United States. It must be noted, however, that statistics of this sort vary with local police policies. For example, during a six-year period in the 1930’s, the arrests for drunkenness were from 14 to 31 times higher in Philadelphia than in New York (Kolb, 1941: 608). Nevertheless, gross statistics drawn from 383 cities indicate that arrests for drunkenness per 10,000 population reached a high of 192 in 1916 and fell to 71 in 1920. From this level, they rose steadily again to reach 157 in 1928 (Warburton, 1932: 102). Of course, arrests prior to Prohibition may not bear the same relation to the use of alcohol as they did subsequently, Warburton theorizes: . . . [U]nder Prohibition, especially during the early years, police were more strict in making arrests, and . . . a larger proportion than formerly of persons appearing on the streets under the influence of liquor are arrested. Also, since the sale of liquor is illegal and cannot be obtained in public saloons, and when the police are more strict in arresting intoxicated persons, it is reasonable to suppose that drinking is less public and that fewer drunken persons appear on the streets relative to the quantity of liquor consumed (Warburton, 1932: 103). Nevertheless, the cyclical trend suggested by these figures coincides with statistics on alcoholism (Brown, 1932: 61, 71, 77). Whatever their independent validity, however, they correlate earth the theory of one author that: [T] he 18th Amendment could not have been passed without the support of the psychologically tolerant, made temporarily intolerant by the stress of war. But when the moderates deserted the drys in the time of peace, the hard core of the movement was revealed (Sinclair, 1962: 23–24). Without the support of the moderates, the author theorizes, Prohibition was to become itself a symbol of excess, unsupported by the vast majority of the population. Outcome. What, then, did Prohibition accomplish? To a great extent it eliminated the saloon from American life. While bars and taverns reopened joyfully following repeal, they ceased to be the centers of systematic political corruption and debauchery which they had once been. Part of this may be attributable to the greater sophistication of the electorate and politics generally. Part, no doubt, is owing to the fact that women were welcome as customers in the new cocktail lounges, having shown themselves to be eager patrons of the speakeasies. And finally, the change in the character of the saloon was effected by public determination that it should be changed. This attitude was expressed in the post-repeal statutes concerned with the physical appearance of the saloon and the character of persons authorized to operate them. Prohibition did make the nation conscious that corruption of the law and of the populace may be the consequence of a law which is not reflective of the morals and mores of the time. It played out some of the deepest social class resentments, culminating in the realization that the behavioral standards of some could not be impressed upon others. It demonstrated that the fervor of war and the cult of patriotism may be abused-and abuse the country in return. Repeal reimposed the burden of regulation upon the states. They were required to develop a system of control directed at the particular objectives they wished to achieve. The post-repeal era was to prove an exercise not only in states’ rights but in states’ responsibilities. 1933-1971: AFTER THE DELUGE On December 4, 1933, the day before final ratification of the repeal amendment, the President established the Federal Alcohol Control Administration, pursuant to Executive Order No. 6474. FACA was to have the power to grant or revoke permits to engage in the alcoholic beverage industry-not the brewing industry-as well as the power to control plant capacity and production; it was also to engage in consumer protection through regulations designed to prevent misbranding and false advertising of alcoholic beverages. In addition, FACA prohibited the ownership of retail outlets by manufacturers and wholesalers (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 24-29). This scheme fell under the Schecter Poultry decision by the Supreme Court. The Treasury, Federal Trade, Commission and Food and Drug Administration then moved in. A new alcohol control agency was proposed, leading to a dispute as to whether it should be independent or part of the Treasury. Joseph H. Choate, Jr., first head of the FACA, testified that: The Treasury has not been an organization whose duty it was to study and understand the liquor business, the interest of the public in that business, or the method by which that business ought to be carried on in order to subserve the interests of both the public and state governments. It has been a creature of one idea, that one idea being, quite properly, to get revenue and get it as fast and as copiously as it could (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 33). The Department of the Treasury agreed with Choate’s analysis. Nevertheless, this testimony was disregarded and the Federal Alcohol Administration was created as a division of Treasury in 1935. This arrangement was superseded in 1936 when the Liquor Tax Administration Act established FACA as an independent agency of the government. Soon thereafter it was reorganized, once again as an arm of the Department of Treasury, and even its separate identity was abolished as of June 30, 1940. Today, the Treasury retains full authority to administer all federal liquor laws. The current federal laws regulating trade in intoxicating beverages may be classified in the following categories: (1) Revenue: Taxes are imposed on rectifiers, brewers, manufacturers of stills, dealers; wholesale and retail stamps are required on distilled spirits (26 USC, 1971a). (2) Criminal Penalties: Criminal penalties are provided for unauthorized production, sale or possession, transportation into states prohibiting sale, C.O.D. shipments and unlabeled shipments (26 USC, 1971b; 18 USC, 1971). (3) Interstate Transportation: Interstate shipments of alcoholic beverages are subject to the laws of the receiving state (27 USC, 1971a). (4) Permits: Importers, manufacturers and sellers of intoxicating beverages must have permits (27 USC, 1971b). (5) Unfair Practices: Exclusive sales arrangements, tying, bribery and false advertising or labeling are prohibited (27 USC, 1971b). The intent of the Federal Government to reserve all decisions regarding regulation of consumption is quite clear from federal statutes presently in force. The states have reacted with a variety of regulatory schemes controlling to varying degrees the seller, the buyer, the place, time and opportunity for sale and, through revenue measures, the cost. In 18 states, the state store or state monopoly system has entirely displaced the private wholesale or retail sale of intoxicating beverages. Other states permit the sale of liquor, wine and beer through private, licensed outlets. The license system may be implemented by different, means. Administration may be solely by the state, or control may be shared by the counties or municipalities. Local control may be exercised to a greater or lesser degree. For example, in the 1930’s, immediately after repeal, Massachusetts and New Mexico permitted local boards to grant retail licenses only after investigation and approval of applicants by the state board. During the same period, other states, predominantly in the South, gave local authorities supplemental powers to issue licenses while requiring concurrent state licenses as well. In some jurisdictions, the local license had to be obtained first, and the state license could be granted thereafter. In Illinois, however, the state commission’s power was curtailed by requiring that a state license be granted once the local license was secured. And although the state was given the power to revoke its license, it was given no power to inspect places of sale to determine grounds for revocation (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 50-53). The license system has been suspect by many wets as well as drys because of the opportunities it may afford for political abuse. On the other hand, there is substantial opinion which holds direct participation in the sale of liquor in contempt. As to the relative efficacy of each, there are no reliable means of making a judgment. Each apparently depends on the integrity and capacity of the individuals charged with the job of enforcement and oversight. Superimposed on the basic system of regulating the sale of liquor are other sumptuary laws which are directed at the purchaser. Sales are not permitted to minors or intoxicated persons. Credit is often prohibited on liquor sales as well. Criminal penalties may be imposed for driving under the influence of alcohol as well as for drunken behavior. The sale of liquor by the drink is permitted in most states, but some still require that it be sold in packaged form only, reflecting the continuing fear of the resurrection of the saloon. In many states Sunday closing laws are enforced, and mandatory closing times are imposed upon bars and package stores alike. Sales are prohibited almost uniformly on Election Day, at least during polling hours, and, in many places, on Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Christmas and other holidays. Local option is still granted in most states, in voting units ranging from the plantation to the city or county. Of the monopoly or control states, only Utah and Wyoming fail to make provision for local option at all. Wyoming maintains a state monopoly at the wholesale level only. Private retailer sellers are licensed. In the remaining monopoly states, it is often possible for towns within a wet county to go dry, and sometimes vice versa. Of the 33 license states, only 10 (including the District of Columbia) do not permit local option at any level. Notwithstanding the various patterns of regulation, Senator Arthur Capper’s words of the 1930’s still seem to be correct: We can repeal prohibition, but we cannot repeal the liquor problem (Peterson, 1969: 126). Neither the states nor the population have yet come to grips with the problems of alcoholism and alcohol abuse. Both the monopoly system and the license system are directed at other concerns. They, no more than Prohibition, have been able to control or even alleviate the very real and dire consequences of alcohol use by society. References Brown, F. W.: “Prohibition and mental Hygiene” Annals, 163: 61, 71, 76-77, 88, 1176 (September, 1932). Cherrington, E. H.: The Evolution of Prohibition In The United States of America, Westerville, Ohio: American Issue Press (1920), pp. 16, 18, 37-38, 49-51, 58, 92-93, 134, 156-162, 165-169, 250-251, 317-330. Dobyns, F.: The Amazing Story of Repeal, Chicago: Willett, Clark & Co. (1940), pp. 5, 5-130 passim, 9, 22, 107, 132, 160, 215, 292, 297. Feldman, H.: “Prohibition: Its Economic and Industrial Aspects,” New York City: Appleton and Co. (1927), p. 397. Furnas, J. C.: The Life and Times of the Late Demon Rum, New York City: Putnam (1965), pp. 15, 80, 167, 183, 273, 281, 310, 334-335. Grant: “The Liquor Traffic Before the 18th Amendment,” Annals, 163: 1, 5 (September, 1932). Gustield, J. R.: The Symbolic Crusade, Urbana: University of Illinois Press (1963), pp. 69-70, 76-77, 100, 108, 119, 127-128, 135. Harrison, L. V. and Laine, E.: After Repeal, New York City: Harper & Bros. (1936), pp. 1-2, 24-29, 33, 50-53, 63. Health, Education and Welfare: “Alcohol and Alcoholism,” p. 41 (1968). Prepared for National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information. History of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, pp. 1420, 28 (undated, unsigned monograph in the library of the Distilled Spirits Institute). Hu, T.: The Liquor Tax in the U.S.: 1791-1947, New York City: Columbia University Press (1950), pp. 48, 51-52. Internal Revenue Service: “Alcohol and Tobacco Summary Statistics,” pp. 6, 73, 95 (1966, 1970, 1921). Jellinek, E. M.: “Death From Alcoholism in the U.S. in 1940,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 3 (3): 484 (December, 1942). : “Recent Trends in Alcoholism,” Quartely Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 8 (1) : 39 (September, 1947). Kolb., L.: “Alcoholism and Public Health,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1: 608, 610, 613 (March, 1941). Krout, J. A.: The Origins of Prohibition, New York City: Russell & Russell (1967), pp. 29-30. Lee, H.: How Dry We Were: Prohibition Revisited, EngleWood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc. (1963), pi). 15-16, 1819, 22-23, 29-30, 34-35, 42, 68, 212, 231. Malzburg, B.: “A Study of First Admissions with Alcohol Psychoses in New York State 1943-44,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 10: 294 (December, 1949). Miller, P. and Johnson, T. H. (eds.) : 11 The Puritans, New York City: American Book Co. (1963), pp. 430-431. National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement: “Report On The Enforcement of the, Prohibition Laws of the U.S.,” H.R. Doe. No. 722, 71st Cong., 3d Sess., 8, 345 (1931). Odegard, P. H.: Pressure Politics-The Story of The AntiSaloon League, New York City: Columbia University Press (1928), pp. 23, 40-60, 53, 70-72, 126. Peterson, W.: “Vitalizing Liquor Control,” Journal of Criminal Law and Crime, 40: 119-120, 122-123, 126 (July, 1939). Pollock, H. M.: Mental Disease and Social Welfare, Utica, N.Y.: State Hospital Press (1942), 1). 113. Rice, S. A. (ed.) : Statistics In Social Studies, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1930), 1). 122. Rosenbloom, M. V.: The Liquor Industry: A Surrey of Its History, Manufacture, Problems of Control and IMportance, Braddock: Ruffsdale Distilling Co. (1937 ed.), pp. 27, 51-52 (1935)). Rush, B.: “Inquiry Into the Effects of Ardent Spirits Upon The Human Body and Mind,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 4: 323,325-326 (September, 1943). Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies: “Selected Statistics on Consumption of Alcohol (1850-1968) And On Alcoholism (1930-1968),” 1). 4 (1970). Sinclair, A. : The Era of Excess, Boston: Little, Brown (1962), pp. 23-24, 43, 51, 108, 122, 176-177, 190, 193-195, 198, 206, 303, 364-365, 367-368. Tillitt, M. H. : The Price of Prohibition, -New York City: Harcourt, Brace & Co. (1932), pp. 35-36, 114-115. Timberlake, J. H.: Prohibition and the Progressive Morement, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1963), pp. 34-38, 42-55, 67-79, 83, 85-86, 98, 118. Towne, C. IL: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New York City: The MacMillan Co. (1923), pp. 211-212. U.S. Department of Commerce: “U.S. Census Mortality Statistics,” 55 (1924). Warburton, C.: The Economic Results of Prohibition, New York City: Columbia University Press (1932), pp. 102104, 216. 26 U SC � � 5081-5416 (1971a). 26 USC �� 5061-5691 (1971b). 18 U SC � � 1261-1265 (1971). 27 USC �� 121, 122 (1971a). 27 USC � 205 (1971b). https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc2a.htm The post Some History of Alcohol Prohibition appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  3. According to a report released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse… Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke is an irritant to the throat and lungs and can cause a heavy cough during use. It also contains levels of volatile chemicals and tar that are similar to tobacco smoke, raising concerns about risk for cancer and lung disease.67 Marijuana smoking is associated with large airway inflammation, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation, and those who smoke marijuana regularly report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis than those who do not smoke.67,68 One study found that people who frequently smoke marijuana had more outpatient medical visits for respiratory problems than those who do not smoke.69 Some case studies have suggested that, because of THC’s immune-suppressing effects, smoking marijuana might increase susceptibility to lung infections, such as pneumonia, in people with immune deficiencies; however, a large AIDS cohort study did not confirm such an association.67 Smoking marijuana may also reduce the respiratory system’s immune response, increasing the likelihood of the person acquiring respiratory infections, including pneumonia.68 Animal and human studies have not found that marijuana increases risk for emphysema.67 Reports of Deaths Related to Vaping Marijuana The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to hundreds of reports of serious lung illnesses associated with vaping, including several deaths. They are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the cause of these illnesses. Many of the suspect products tested by the states or federal health officials have been identified as vaping products containing THC, the main psychotropic ingredient in marijuana. Some of the patients reported a mixture of THC and nicotine; and some reported vaping nicotine alone. No one substance has been identified in all of the samples tested, and it is unclear if the illnesses are related to one single compound. Until more details are known, FDA officials have warned people not to use any vaping products bought on the street, and they warn against modifying any products purchased in stores. They are also asking people and health professionals to report any adverse effects. The CDC has posted an information page for consumers. Whether smoking marijuana causes lung cancer, as cigarette smoking does, remains an open question.67,70 Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic combustion products, including about 50% more benzoprene and 75% more benzanthracene (and more phenols, vinyl chlorides, nitrosamines, reactive oxygen species) than cigarette smoke.67 Because of how it is typically smoked (deeper inhale, held for longer), marijuana smoking leads to four times the deposition of tar compared to cigarette smoking.71 However, while a few small, uncontrolled studies have suggested that heavy, regular marijuana smoking could increase risk for respiratory cancers, well-designed population studies have failed to find an increased risk of lung cancer associated with marijuana use.67 One complexity in comparing the lung-health risks of marijuana and tobacco concerns the very different ways the two substances are used. While people who smoke marijuana often inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs for a longer duration than is typical with cigarettes, marijuana’s effects last longer, so people who use marijuana may smoke less frequently than those who smoke cigarettes. Additionally, the fact that many people use both marijuana and tobacco makes determining marijuana’s precise contribution to lung cancer risk, if any, difficult to establish. Cell culture and animal studies have also suggested THC and CBD may have antitumor effects, and this has been proposed as one reason why stronger expected associations are not seen between marijuana use and lung cancer, but more research is needed on this question.67 Within a few minutes after inhaling marijuana smoke, a person’s heart rate speeds up, the breathing passages relax and become enlarged, and blood vessels in the eyes expand, making the eyes look bloodshot. The heart rate—normally 70 to 80 beats per minute—may increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute or may even double in some cases. Taking other drugs with marijuana can amplify this effect. Limited evidence suggests that a person’s risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking marijuana is nearly five times his or her usual risk.72 This observation could be partly explained by marijuana raising blood pressure (in some cases) and heart rate and reducing the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen.73 Marijuana may also cause orthostatic hypotension (head rush or dizziness on standing up), possibly raising danger from fainting and falls. Tolerance to some cardiovascular effects often develops with repeated exposure.74 These health effects need to be examined more closely, particularly given the increasing use of “medical marijuana” by people with health issues and older adults who may have increased baseline vulnerability due to age-related cardiovascular risk factors (see “Is marijuana safe and effective as medicine?“). A few studies have shown a clear link between marijuana use in adolescence and increased risk for an aggressive form of testicular cancer (nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumor) that predominantly strikes young adult males.75,76 The early onset of testicular cancers compared to lung and most other cancers indicates that, whatever the nature of marijuana’s contribution, it may accumulate over just a few years of use. Studies have shown that in rare cases, chronic use of marijuana can lead to Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome—a condition marked by recurrent bouts of severe nausea, vomiting, and dehydration. This syndrome has been found to occur in persons under 50 years of age and with a long history of marijuana use. Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome can lead sufferers to make frequent trips to the emergency room, but may be resolved when a person stops using marijuana.77 Source https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-effects-lung-health More Research Info Letter From the DirectorWhat is marijuana?What is the scope of marijuana use in the United States?What are marijuana’s effects?How does marijuana produce its effects?Does marijuana use affect driving?Is marijuana addictive?What are marijuana’s long-term effects on the brain?Is marijuana a gateway drug?How does marijuana use affect school, work, and social life?Is there a link between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders?What are marijuana’s effects on lung health?What are marijuana’s effects on other aspects of physical health?Is marijuana safe and effective as medicine?What are the effects of secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke?Can marijuana use during and after pregnancy harm the baby?Available Treatments for Marijuana Use DisordersWhere can I get further information about marijuana?Here’s The PDF The post What are marijuana’s effects on lung health? appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  4. A marijuana lab licensed in Michigan is suing the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) over a recall that impacted nearly $230 million worth and 64,000 pounds of marijuana products in the state. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher M. Murray on Monday appeared to scold the MRA for its lack of clear communication about the matter. Issued on Nov. 17, the recall involved more than 400 retail shops, and their customers, were impacted in some way. Viridis Laboratories, which operates two separately licensed labs one being in Bay City and another in Lansing claim the recall is politically motivated. Because Viridis is so successful, handling up to 70% of all marijuana testing in the state, the MRA wants to “level the playing field,” according to the Viridis lawsuit filed in the Michigan Court of Claims on Nov. 22. The lawsuit also alleged the recall may be retribution for a formal administrative complaint Viridis filed Oct. 25 against the MRA, in part, for questions Viridis faced over its testing methods that regularly produce THC potency results in excess of 30%. Cannabis with higher potency generally fetches higher prices from retail customers. Viridis founders include three former Michigan State Police Forensic Division employees: Greg Michaud, Todd Welch and Michele Glinn. Read More Here at MLive Viridis Laboratories, LLC v Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency Day 1 of Court (Start Time 38:00) Court of Claims December 1, 2021 Day 2 of Court (Start Time 35:00) Court of Claims December 2, 2021 Other News Sources Labs sue Michigan regulator over marijuana recall – Detroit …https://www.freep.com › money › business › 2021/11/24Nov 24, 2021 — Viridis labs claim the recall was motivated ‘by what appears to be the whims and political objectives’ of the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory … Marijuana Testing Lab Sues Michigan Over Major Product …https://www.insurancejournal.com › news › 2021/11/29 3 days ago — Viridis Laboratories, with operations in Lansing and Bay City, said the “unjustified” recall last week caused an estimated $229 million … Michigan lab fights back in court after becoming target of $230 …https://www.mlive.com › public-interest › 2021/12 › mich… 12 hours ago — Viridis Laboratories, which operates two separately licensed labs under similar ownership — one in Bay City and another in Lansing — claims the recall is … Google Search Recent Posts Michigan lab in court after marijuana recall President Nixon’s National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Cannabis Testing Lab Sues Michigan MRA over recall MRA Notification of Marijuana Product Recall Detroit voters will decide To decriminalize psychedelics The post Michigan lab in court after marijuana recall appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  5. President Nixon’s National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded in 1972, after years of research, that, “[t]here is little proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or intermittent use of natural preparations of cannabis.” Despite the fact that it had been established in the hopes of finding fuel for just the opposite conclusion, the commission recommended the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the recommendation of the commission his administration had appointed. Table of Contents The Report Letter of Transmittal Introduction I. Marihuana and the Problem of Marihuana Origins of the Marihuana ProblemVisibilityPerceived ThreatsSymbolismThe Need for PerspectiveHistorical PerspectiveCultural PerspectiveThe Search for MeaningSkepticismThe Limits of RationalityFormulating Marihuana PolicyScientific OversimplificationPhilosophical OversimplificationSociological OversimplificationLegal OversimplificationThe ReportII. Marihuana Use and Its Effects The Marihuana UserDemographic CharacteristicsPatterns of UseProfiles of UsersExperimental UsersIntermittent UsersModerate and Heavy UsersVery Heavy UsersBecoming a Marihuana UserParental InfluenceSituational Factors and Behavioral CorrelatesSocial Group FactorsThe Dynamics of Persistent UseBecoming a Multidrug UserEpidemiologic StudiesProfiles and DynamicsSociocultural FactorsEffects of Marihuana on the UserBotany and ChemistryFactors Influencing Drug EffectDosageMethod of UseMetabolismSet and SettingToleranceReverse ToleranceDuration of UsePatterns of UseDefinition of DependenceEffects Related to Pattern UseImmediate Drug EffectsSubjective EffectsBody FunctionMental FunctionThe Intoxicated StateUnpleasant ReactionsAnxiety StatesPsychosisConclusionsShortTerm EffectsLong Term EffectsVery Long Term EffectsTolerance and DependenceGeneral Body FunctionSocial FunctioningMental FunctioningMotivation and Behavioral ChangeSummaryIII. Social Impact of Marihuana Use Marihuana and Public SafetyMarihuana and CrimeThe Issue of Cause and EffectMarihuana and Violent CrimeMarihuana and Non Violent CrimeA Sociocultural ExplanationMarihuana and DrivingMarihuana, Public Health and WelfareA Public Health ApproachThe Population at RiskConfusion and FactAssessment of Perceived RisksLethalityPotential for Genetic DamageImmediate EffectsEffects of LongTerm, Heavy UseAddiction PotentialProgression to Other DrugsPreventive Public Health ConcernsSummaryMarihuana and the Dominant Social OrderThe Adult Marihuana UserThe Young Marihuana UserThe World of YouthWhy Society Feels ThreatenedDropping OutDropping DownYouth and Radical PoliticsYouth and the Work EthicThe Changing Social SceneIV. Social Response to Marihuana Use The Initial Social ResponseThe ChangeThe Current ResponseThe Criminal Justice SystemLaw Enforcement BehaviorLaw Enforcement OpinionThe Non Legal InstitutionsThe FamilyThe SchoolsThe ChurchesThe Medical CommunitySummaryThe Public ResponseV. Marihuana and Social Policy Drugs in a Free SocietyDrugs and Social ResponsibilityA Social Control Policy for MarihuanaApproval of UseElimination of UseDiscouragement or NeutralityImplementing the Discouragement PolicyThe Role of Law in Effective Social ControlTotal ProhibitionRegulationPartial ProhibitionRecommendations for Federal LawRecommendations for State LawDiscussion of Federal RecommendationsDiscussion of State RecommendationsDiscussion of Potential ObjectionsA Final CommentAddendum Ancillary Recommendations Legal and Law Enforcement Recommendations Medical Recommendations Other Recommendations Index of Contributors, Contractors and Consultants The Appendix The Technical Papers of the First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, March, 1972 Letter of Transmittal Members and Staff Preface Part One — Biological Aspects I. History of Marihuana Use: Medical and Intoxicant History 0f the Medical UseThe 19th CenturyMedical Uses in the 20th CenturyHistory of the Intoxicant UseII. Biological Effects of Marihuana Botanical and Chemical ConsiderationsFactors Influencing Psychopharmacological EffectDose-Response RelationshipDose-Time RelationshipRoute of AdministrationQuantification of Dose DeliveredEffect of Pyrolysis on the CannabinoidsSet and SettingToleranceReverse ToleranceMetabolismPattern of UseAmount of Drug ConsumedDuration of UseInteraction With Other DrugsAcute Effects of Marihuana (Delta 9 THC)Subjective EffectsLethalityPhysiological EffectsEffects on Mentation and Psychomotor PerformanceThe Intoxicated Mental StateUnpleasant Reactions – Too Stoned and Novice AnxietyAcute PsychosesPersistent Effects After Acute DoseEffects of Marijuana on Concomitant BehaviorEffects of Short-Term or Subacute UseAnimal Studies Human ExperimentsEffects of Long-Term Cannabis UseDependence And TolerancePhysiological EffectsGenetics and Birth DefectsOrganic Brain DamagePsychosisAmotivational SyndromeRecurrent PhenomenonInvestigations of Very Heavy, Very Long-Term Cannabis UsersGreeceJamaicaAfghanistanSummaryReferencesIII. Behavioral and Biological Concomitants of Chronic Marihuana Smoking by Heavy and Casual Users Part Two — Social Aspects I. Marihuana Use in American Society Surveys of Marihuana UseThe Incidence and Prevalence of Marihuana UseThe Future of MarihuanaWhy People Use MarihuanaBecoming a Marihuana UserCircumstances of First Marihuana UseThe Marihuana UserThe Patterns of Marihuana UseMarihuana Use and the User: 1972II. Marihuana and the Use of Other Drugs Empirical Data on the Escalation ProcessYouth Drug Use SurveySummaryIII. Marihuana and Public Safety Problems in Assessing the Effects of MarihuanaMarihuana and ViolenceThe Violent and Criminogenic Effects of MarijuanaMarihuana and Violent Crime – The EvidenceOpinions About Marihuana and AggressivenessMarihuana and Sexual BehaviorMarihuana and (Non-Violent) CrimePublic and Professional OpinionStudies of Offender PopulationsThe Relationship Between Marihuana and CrimeExcerpts from Marijuana Use and Crime – PrefaceThe Effects of MarijuanaCrimes Under the InfluenceWho Commits Crime and Who Doesn’t?Marijuana Use and Crime – Causal or SpuriousSummary and ConclusionsSummary and Conclusions: Marihuana and CrimeMarihuana and DrivingThe Current State of KnowledgeStatistical StudiesExperimental StudiesReferencesPart Three — Legal Aspects I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco History of Marihuana LegislationState Prohibition – 1914-1930The Uniform Narcotic Drug ActDrafting the Uniform ActEnacting the Uniform Act By the StatesEnactment of the Marihuana Tax ActTightening The Law1960-1970 New Legislative ApproachReferencesHistory of Alcohol Prohibition1650 – 1750: The First Hundred Years1750-1825: Temperance Stirrings1825-1870: The Pledge1870-1913: Toward A National Conscience1913-1933: National Prohibition – Prologue and FinishProhibition in PerspectiveReferencesHistory of Tobacco RegulationRegulation of ProductionRegulation for RevenueTobacco RevenuesRegulation of ConsumptionState RegulationThe Impetus for Federal RegulationThe Health Warning RequirementThe Fairness DoctrineThe Ban on AdvertisingConsumption TrendsTobacco: Economics and PoliticsConclusionReferencesII. The Legal Status of Marihuana International ControlThe Control of Marihuana Under Federal LawControl of Marihuana at the State LevelThe Role of Ancillary Offenses and Constructive Possession in Controlling MarihuanaMarihuana Control at the Local LevelAnalysis of Statutes Requiring Physicians to Report Drug AddictionIII. Trafficking Patterns of Marihuana and Hashish Marihuana Traffic From MexicoMarihuana Traffic From JamaicaThe Growing Hashish TrafficPart Four — Response of the Criminal Justice System to Marihuana Use Introduction I. Enforcement Behavior at the State Level Enforcement Behavior at the Federal Level General TrendsFederal Enforcement of the Marihuana Laws: 1970III. Opinion Within the Criminal Justice System Prosecutorial OpinionOpinion of Court OfficialsPart Five — National Survey I. A Nationwide Study of Beliefs, Information and Experiences Main ReportMethods and ProceduresPart Six — Social Policy Aspects I. The Constitutional Dimensions of Marihuana Control Substantive Limitations on the Criminal LawFederal Preemption of Marihuana ControlII. Models and Statutory Schemes for Controlling Marihuana Law and Social PolicyLegal Implementations of Marihuana Control PoliciesFormulating a Legal SchemeImplementation of Alcohol ProhibitionMarihuana and Education Drug Programs in American EducationState Departments of Education SurveyCommission VisitsDrug Education Programs of Special InterestMarihuana Education in State ProgramsSurveys of College Drug CoursesThe Federal Government and Drug EducationResearch Needs and Directions BiomedicalPsychosocialLegal and Law EnforcementThe post President Nixon’s National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  6. A Michigan cannabis testing lab is suing the state’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency over a major recall of cannabis products. Many products tested by Viridis Laboratories were pulled from shelves The marijuana products impacted have a test date between August 10, 2021 and November 16, 2021.. 64,000-pound, $229 million Michigan marijuana recall is the result of bureaucratic ‘abuse,’ a lawsuit claims The lawsuit filed Monday alleges state regulators acted in a discriminatory and predatory manner when they questioned the safety of a variety of cannabis products tested by Viridis Labs. The recall is the largest in Michigan history and involves more than $200 million in pulled cannabis products across the state, according to a news release from Viridis’ attorneys. Attorneys representing Viridis say the agency violated state law by not letting he company to present its case to an administrative law judge before shutting down the company’s labs. The recall affects numerous products processed by the company from early August to mid-November. It includes items tested at a Bay City location, although Virdis alleges that the products the MRA says failed retesting came exclusively from a Lansing location. MRA officials declined to comment on the pending litigation. MORE RELATED NEWS STORIES See the recall notice issued 11-17-21 below For More Info Visit KomornLaw.com Meanwhile What about you?… Do you feel protected or it’s just another day of being a pawn? Tested between Aug. 10 and Nov. 16. How much weed do you have left that you purchased in Aug or Sept or Oct or even Nov 10th? Can you unsmoke this alleged product and return it? – or – If you are a patient – are you thanking your caregiver and the caregiver system for providing you what you need without the distraction of the “system”. Some system is good but a soaked “system” is not. Enjoy it for now. It has been said here for long time. They are coming. Slow and steady wins the race. Most people never had a problem until marijuana was legalized (except with the justice system of course). Let the lawsuits and deconstruction of the industry commence. DARVO MRA RECALL NOTICE – Issued 11-17-21 Notification of Marijuana Product Recall The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) has identified inaccurate and/or unreliable results of products tested by laboratories Viridis North, LLC and Viridis Laboratories, LLC. In the interest of public health and safety, the MRA is issuing this health and safety advisory bulletin for all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories, LLC (license numbers SC-000009 and AU-SC-000113) and Viridis North, LLC (license numbers SC-000014 and AU-SC-000103) except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as: Vape carts.Live resin.Distillate.Any other cannabis concentrate created through residual solvent extractions.The marijuana products impacted have a test date between August 10, 2021 and November 16, 2021. All marijuana product labels are required to list the name and license number of the safety compliance facility that conducted the testing and date the product was tested. Note: An MRA investigation is still on-going. Consumers who have marijuana products in their possession that meet the recall criteria may return the products to the marijuana sales location where they were purchased for proper disposal. Consumers with weakened immune systems or lung disease are at the highest risk for health-related incidents such as aspergillosis, which can impact lung function, if these potentially harmful products are consumed. Consumers who have experienced adverse reactions after using these products should report their symptoms and product use to their physician. Consumers are requested to report any adverse product reactions to the MRA via email: MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov or via phone: 517-284-8599. Marijuana sales locations that sold product covered by this bulletin must display this recall notice on the sales floor, visible to all customers, for 30 days from the date of this notice. Marijuana sales locations that receive adverse product reactions from consumers should report the adverse product reactions to the agency at MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov and document these reports in METRC. Licensees with products remaining in their inventory that meet the recall criteria have the following options: Destroy the product and provide proof of destruction: MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov.Have the product retested for the microbials compliance panel.Send the product back to the original licensee source so they can destroy or have the product retested as a larger batch.LINK MRA Public Health and Safety Advisory Bulletins 2021-11-17 – Notification of Marijuana Product Recall 2021-09-14 – Notification of Voluntary Marijuana Product Recall 2021-07-07 – Notification of Marijuana Product Recall 2020-09-17 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Product Recall 2020-08-06 – Notification of Voluntary Marijuana Product Recall 2020-03-20 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Product Recalls 2020-02-07 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Product Recall 2020-01-22 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Product Recall 2020-01-17 – Notification of Expanded Marijuana Product Recall 2020-01-10 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Flower Recall 2019-12-17 – Notification of Multiple Medical Marijuana Products Recall 2019-10-04 – MDHHS Reports First Death in the State from Vaping-Related Lung Injury 2019-08-30 – Notification of Medical Marijuana Product Recalls 2019-08-16 – Notification of Unreliable Safety Compliance Facility Test Results 2019-08-07 – Notification of Inaccurate Potency Results 2019-06-21 – Marijuana Regulatory Agency Requests Growers to Refrain from Using Certain Pesticide Products 2019-04-12 – Lead Contamination in Vape Cartridges 2019-02-26 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-26 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-11 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-11 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-11 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-11 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-02-11 – Notification of Multiple Marijuana Products Recall 2019-01-04 – Voluntary Recall of Marijuana Products PlanetGreenTreesTV.com The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA) Public forums for guests and members of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. This is an open forum related to a variety of topics from legal issues to growing for medical use to strains and more. LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Cannabis Testing Lab Sues Michigan MRA over recall MRA Notification of Marijuana Product Recall Detroit voters will decide To decriminalize psychedelics USDA approves modifications to Michigan industrial hemp plan MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers CBD Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Cannabis Testing Lab Sues Michigan MRA over recall appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  7. The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) has identified inaccurate and/or unreliable results of products tested by laboratories Viridis North, LLC and Viridis Laboratories, LLC. A link to the locations affected by the recall is at the end of this information In the interest of public health and safety, the MRA is issuing this health and safety advisory bulletin for all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories, LLC (license numbers SC-000009 and AU-SC-000113) and Viridis North, LLC (license numbers SC-000014 and AU-SC-000103) except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as: Vape carts.Live resin.Distillate.Any other cannabis concentrate created through residual solvent extractions.The marijuana products impacted have a test date between August 10, 2021 and November 16, 2021. All marijuana product labels are required to list the name and license number of the safety compliance facility that conducted the testing and date the product was tested. Note: An MRA investigation is still on-going. Consumers who have marijuana products in their possession that meet the recall criteria may return the products to the marijuana sales location where they were purchased for proper disposal. Consumers with weakened immune systems or lung disease are at the highest risk for health-related incidents such as aspergillosis, which can impact lung function, if these potentially harmful products are consumed. Consumers who have experienced adverse reactions after using these products should report their symptoms and product use to their physician. Consumers are requested to report any adverse product reactions to the MRA via email: MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov or via phone: 517-284-8599. Marijuana sales locations that sold product covered by this bulletin must display this recall notice on the sales floor, visible to all customers, for 30 days from the date of this notice. Marijuana sales locations that receive adverse product reactions from consumers should report the adverse product reactions to the agency at MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov and document these reports in METRC. Licensees with products remaining in their inventory that meet the recall criteria have the following options: Destroy the product and provide proof of destruction: MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov.Have the product retested for the microbials compliance panel.Send the product back to the original licensee source so they can destroy or have the product retested as a larger batch.Licensees that opt to have product sent back or retested will need to create new METRC packages with new METRC identification numbers prior to transferring or submitting the products for testing. Additional guidance can be provided to licensees who need assistance in creating these packages by reaching out to MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov. The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) has identified inaccurate and/or unreliable results of products tested by laboratories Viridis North, LLC and Viridis Laboratories, LLC. In the interest of public health and safety, the MRA is issuing this health and safety advisory bulletin for all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories, LLC (license numbers SC-000009 and AU-SC-000113) and Viridis North, LLC (license numbers SC-000014 and AU-SC-000103) except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as: Vape carts.Live resin.Distillate.Any other cannabis concentrate created through residual solvent extractions.The marijuana products impacted have a test date between August 10, 2021 and November 16, 2021. All marijuana product labels are required to list the name and license number of the safety compliance facility that conducted the testing and date the product was tested. Note: An MRA investigation is still on-going. Consumers who have marijuana products in their possession that meet the recall criteria may return the products to the marijuana sales location where they were purchased for proper disposal. Consumers with weakened immune systems or lung disease are at the highest risk for health-related incidents such as aspergillosis, which can impact lung function, if these potentially harmful products are consumed. Consumers who have experienced adverse reactions after using these products should report their symptoms and product use to their physician. Consumers are requested to report any adverse product reactions to the MRA via email: MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov or via phone: 517-284-8599. Marijuana sales locations that sold product covered by this bulletin must display this recall notice on the sales floor, visible to all customers, for 30 days from the date of this notice. Marijuana sales locations that receive adverse product reactions from consumers should report the adverse product reactions to the agency at MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov and document these reports in METRC. Licensees with products remaining in their inventory that meet the recall criteria have the following options: Destroy the product and provide proof of destruction: MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov.Have the product retested for the microbials compliance panel.Send the product back to the original licensee source so they can destroy or have the product retested as a larger batch.Licensees that opt to have product sent back or retested will need to create new METRC packages with new METRC identification numbers prior to transferring or submitting the products for testing. Additional guidance can be provided to licensees who need assistance in creating these packages by reaching out to MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov. AFFECTED LOCATION REPORT LINK (30 Pages) Sales Locations – 11/17/21 Marijuana Product Recall On November 17, 2021, the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) issued a Notification of Marijuana Product Recall for all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories, LLC (license numbers SC-000009 and AU-SC-000113) and Viridis North, LLC (license numbers SC000014 and AU-SC-000103) except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as vape carts, live resin, distillate, and any other cannabis concentrate created through residual solvent extractions. The marijuana products impacted have a test date between August 10, 2021 and November 16, 2021. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mra/Sales_Locations_Nov_17_Recall_741599_7.pdf End MRA Release Cannabis flower being recalled is about 64,000 pounds. In October, 24,000 pounds of flower were sold in Michigan. Estimated this recall likely affects more than $200 million worth of marijuana product. Just who is going to win and lose in this remains to be seen. Is there something deeper and how deep does it go? Medical Marijuana Patients with Caregivers should have no worries about shortages of medicine Who is Viridis Laboratories? They used to do forensic science for the Michigan State Police. Throwing people in jail. Now they test cannabis. Viridis Laboratories recently announced its Bay City location has received accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 and the Americans for Safe Access (ASA) requirements, the highest accreditation awarded to cannabis testing laboratories, and a Patient Focused Certification (PFC) through the Americans for Safe Access. Viridis is the only cannabis testing laboratory system in Michigan to be accredited and certified to these additional requirements for cannabis testing laboratories. The Bay City location received its accreditation from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), the leading cannabis testing accrediting body in the United States. “As cannabis continues to be legalized in states across the country, it has never been more important to promote health and safety by providing consistent, safe and high-quality cannabis products to patients and adult-use consumers,” said Greg Michaud, CEO of Viridis Laboratories. “A2LA’s revered accreditation program confirms Viridis’ commitment to providing cutting-edge, accurate testing as Michigan’s premier cannabis testing laboratory and ensures companies provide products consistently free of harmful chemicals and foreign matter. We are truly honored that our dedication to excellence and high standards has allowed us to receive this prestigious accreditation.” Laboratory accreditation is a lengthy process of independent, third-party review that validates Viridis’ continued commitment to quality assurance throughout its operations. With both the Lansing and Bay City laboratories A2LA-accredited and PFC certified, the labs’ customers will have greater confidence in the safety and concentration of their cannabis products. Here’s a few articles about the recall https://www.fox47news.com/neighborhoods/state-capitol/they-used-to-do-forensic-science-for-the-michigan-state-police-now-they-test-cannabishttps://lansingcitypulse.com/stories/meet-the-retired-cops-who-test-most-of-michigans-weed,17038https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/these-former-michigan-cops-used-to-help-prosecute-drug-crimes-now-theyre-testing-legal-weed/Content?oid=27536031 Here’s some Michigan “Science” lab historical articles. There’s plenty more. If you go national it just gets worse. Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuanaDetroit Police Lab Is Closed After Audit Finds Serious Errors in Many Cases Michigan State Police Lab Falsely Reports to Help Prosecutors Get Felony ConvictionsWhen Science Becomes a Puppet For PoliceMichigan State Police lab faulted for mistakesBad Forensic Evidence Sends Innocents To PrisonLaw Firm asks Gov. Whitmer to remove forensic testing from the control of the State Police List From The Marshall Project which just started in 2014. Suspensions and a reprimand proposed for prosecutors admonished in drug lab scandal WBUR • ADDED 10.13.2021 • More meth, cocaine contamination found at Washington state toxicology lab THE SEATTLE TIMES • ADDED 08.23.2021 • The Massachusetts crime lab scandal is just the beginning. In Massachusetts, it will take years to unravel the scope of such systemic errors.SLATE • ADDED 05.13.2021 • Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins to drop charges, convictions in tens of thousands of cases tied to troubled state lab THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 03.23.2021 • ‘Cog In A Wheel’: 3 Ex-Prosecutors, Facing Potential Discipline For Drug Lab Scandal, Blame System Or Each Other WBUR • ADDED 12.06.2020 • Suffolk DA Rollins files motion to vacate more than 100 drug convictions related to disgraced chemist Annie Dookhan THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 11.18.2020 • 108 Convictions Tied to Massachusetts Chemist’s Misconduct May Be Vacated THE NEW YORK TIMES • ADDED 11.18.2020 • New development may throw thousands more drug lab cases into question THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 07.15.2020 • A DNA Mix-Up Involving a Washing Machine Kept a Man in Jail for 3 Years THE NEW YORK TIMES • ADDED 06.28.2020 • DA Rollins asks SJC to vacate 64 defendants’ guilty pleas in drug cases following Dookhan, Farak scandals THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 05.12.2020 • The Chemists and the Cover-Up REASON • ADDED 02.12.2019 • Outside DNA reviews lead attorneys to question nearly dozen convictions STATESMAN.COM • ADDED 02.09.2019 • Houston crime lab fires investigator after alleged testing policy violation The Houston Forensic Science Center has fired a crime scene investigator who violated policy by using unapproved equipment that resulted in false …HOUSTON CHRONICLE • ADDED 10.28.2018 • SJC orders dismissal of thousands more drug convictions THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 10.11.2018 • » MA: How Will the Court Deal With the Attorney General Office’s Misconduct in the Farak Scandal? THE OPEN FILE • ADDED 06.08.2018 • More than a thousand drug cases will be tossed after N.J. State Police lab scandal THE STAR-LEDGER • ADDED 05.14.2018 • Judge dismisses more than 7,000 Amherst drug lab cases THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 04.06.2018 • More Than 7,500 Cases Ordered For Dismissal Due To Ex-State Chemist’s Misconduct WBUR • ADDED 04.05.2018 • More than 6,000 drug cases to be dismissed after misconduct by chemist and former prosecutors THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 11.30.2017 • Report finds state lab withheld breathalyzer test results THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 10.17.2017 • Prosecutors slammed for ‘lack of moral compass,’ withholding evidence in widening Mass. drug lab scandal THE WASHINGTON POST • ADDED 10.04.2017 • Sonja Farak convictions: ACLU wants to overturn them all. SLATE • ADDED 09.22.2017 • Austin’s crime lab failure points to national crisis AUSTINMONITOR.COM • ADDED 09.22.2017 • Another day, another preventable crime lab scandal AL.COM • ADDED 07.26.2017 • Judge finds prosecutor misconduct in handling of Amherst drug lab cases THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 06.26.2017 • DPS: Forensic scientist hid backlog of 40 cases, delayed DNA testing for years 12NEWS.COM • ADDED 05.19.2017 • Law Enforcement Corruption: Everybody Loses NATIONAL REVIEW • ADDED 04.24.2017 • 21,000 Reasons Scalia Was Right BLOOMBERG • ADDED 04.23.2017 • More Than 20,000 Drug Cases Compromised In Dookhan Scandal Are Dismissed WBUR • ADDED 04.20.2017 • The final tally is in: Cases in Annie Dookhan drug lab scandal set for dismissal, county by county MASSLIVE.COM • ADDED 04.20.2017 • ACLUM.ORG • ADDED 04.20.2017 • Crime Lab Scandal Forces Prosecutors to Disavow Thousands of Drug Convictions PROPUBLICA • ADDED 04.20.2017 • Prosecutors file lists of thousands of Dookhan cases for dismissal THE BOSTON GLOBE • ADDED 04.19.2017 • New evidence problems raise questions in 65 criminal cases, Harris Co. DA’s office announces HOUSTON CHRONICLE • ADDED 04.12.2017 • 2,200 convicted persons to be notified of Austin DNA lab problems AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN • ADDED 02.11.2017 • The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA) Public forums for guests and members of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. This is an open forum related to a variety of topics from legal issues to growing for medical use to strains and more. LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts MRA Notification of Marijuana Product Recall Detroit voters will decide To decriminalize psychedelics USDA approves modifications to Michigan industrial hemp plan MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Final Rules for Mailing Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers CBD Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post MRA Notification of Marijuana Product Recall appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  8. Detroit — City voters on Tuesday will decide whether to decriminalize psychedelic plants and if Detroit’s charter should be amended to allow for citizen-driven ballot initiatives that impact city spending. Voter-initiated Proposal E asks Detroiters if they believe the personal possession and therapeutic use of entheogenic plants like psilocybin mushrooms or peyote should be decriminalized to the fullest extent permitted under Michigan law. If passed, the measure would not legalize the use and possession of psychedelics but it would make it the city’s lowest law enforcement priority. A second measure, Proposal S, seeks to amend a section of Detroit’s City Charter to allow voters to push ordinances that include appropriating money. The initiatives are among three being decided by Detroit voters in the general election. City voters on Nov. 2 also will decide if a task force should be created to consider reparations for residents. Proposal E goes to Detroit voters after Democratic state Sens. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor and Adam Hollier of Detroit last month introduced a bill to decriminalize two popular psychedelic drugs in a bid to make them available for therapeutic use. Under Senate Bill 631, possession and use of psilocybin, commonly known as magic mushrooms, and mescaline, found in cacti that is comparable to LSD, would be “exempt from criminal prosecution in certain circumstances.” Todd Perkins, an attorney who founded the People’s Voice, a nonprofit advocating for the formation of a reparations task force and Proposal S, has called Proposal S a “gateway” to reparations that empowers voters. Proposal R, which asks whether Detroit should form a committee to consider reparations for residents Read the rest here at the Detroit News LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Detroit voters will decide To decriminalize psychedelics USDA approves modifications to Michigan industrial hemp plan MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Final Rules for Mailing Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes The Definition of Marijuana Has Changed in Michigan Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers CBD Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Detroit voters will decide To decriminalize psychedelics appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  9. On October 21, 2021, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) received federal approval of the revised Michigan Hemp Production Plan dated October 18, 2021. The plan contains regulatory requirements for cultivating industrial hemp and maintains MDARD as having primary oversight of industrial hemp production in Michigan. This latest U.S. Department of Agriculture approval was required to ensure Michigan’s plan complies with the USDA’s final rule. Michigan’s first approved state plan went into effect December 1, 2020 and aligned with USDA’s Interim Final Rule requirements. Because Michigan was able to quickly update Public Act 220 and implement it this year, hemp growers will not see a change to requirements they’ve become familiar with this season. This latest USDA approval simply brings the state plan up to date with the Final Rule and Public Act 220. The USDA issued its Final Rule on January 15, 2021 after review of 5,900 comments which went into effect March 22, 2021, Within that short window, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Senate Bill 0816, sponsored by Senator Dan Lauwers (R-Brockway Township), which updated Michigan’s Industrial Hemp Growers Act (Public Act 220 of 2020) to ensure the state’s cultivation law agreed with updated requirements in USDA’s final hemp rule. MDARD expects to regularly revisit the Industrial Hemp Growers Act as the state’s program evolves. The industry develops, and federal policies are modified. Any changes to the state hemp program require USDA approval, so MDARD expects this review and approval process to happen on a recurring basis. All state and tribe plans can be viewed on USDA’s website. LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts USDA approves modifications to Michigan industrial hemp plan MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Final Rules for Mailing Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes The Definition of Marijuana Has Changed in Michigan CANNA JAM Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers CBD Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post USDA approves modifications to Michigan industrial hemp plan appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  10. MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Act 281 of 2016 AN ACT to license and regulate medical marihuana growers, processors, provisioning centers, secure transporters, and safety compliance facilities; to allow certain licensees to process, test, or sell industrial hemp; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to create a medical marihuana licensing board; to provide for interaction with the statewide monitoring system for commercial marihuana transactions; to create an advisory panel; to provide immunity from prosecution for marihuana-related offenses for persons engaging in certain activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe civil fines and sanctions and provide remedies; to provide for forfeiture of contraband; to provide for taxes, fees, and assessments; and to require the promulgation of rules. The People of the State of Michigan enact: PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 333.27101 Short title. Sec. 101. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “medical marihuana facilities licensing act”. Sec. 102. As used in this act: (a) “Advisory panel” or “panel” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (b) “Affiliate” means any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with; is in a partnership or joint venture relationship with; or is a co-shareholder of a corporation, a co-member of a limited liability company, or a co-partner in a limited liability partnership with a licensee or applicant. (c) “Applicant” means a person who applies for a state operating license. Applicant includes, with respect to disclosures in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of prior marijuana regulatory agency approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant, and the following for each type of applicant: (i) For an individual or sole proprietorship: the proprietor and the proprietor’s spouse. (ii) For a partnership and limited liability partnership: all partners and their spouses. For a limited partnership and limited liability limited partnership: all general and limited partners, not including a limited partner holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the partnership, and their spouses. For a limited liability company: all members and managers, not including a member holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the company, and their spouses. (iii) For a privately held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (iv) For a publicly held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (v) For a multilevel ownership enterprise: any entity or person that receives or has the right to receive more than 10% of the gross or net profit from the enterprise during any full or partial calendar or fiscal year. (vi) For a nonprofit corporation: all individuals and entities with membership or shareholder rights in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the bylaws and the spouses of the individuals. (d) “Board” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (e) “Cutting” means a section of a lead stem or root stock that is used for vegetative asexual propagation. (f) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (g) “Grower” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that cultivates, dries, trims, or cures and packages marihuana for sale to a processor, provisioning center, or another grower. (h) “Industrial hemp” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106. (i) “Industrial hemp research and development act” means the industrial hemp research and development act, 2014 PA 547, MCL 286.841 to 286.859. (j) “Licensee” means a person holding a state operating license. (k) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106. (l) “Marihuana facility” means a location at which a licensee is licensed to operate under this act. (m) “Marihuana plant” means any plant of the species Cannabis sativa L. Marihuana plant does not include industrial hemp. (n) “Marihuana-infused product” means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible substance, or similar product containing any usable marihuana that is intended for human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation. Marihuana-infused product is not considered a food for purposes of the food law, 2000 PA 92, MCL 289.1101 to 289.8111. (o) “Marihuana tracking act” means the marihuana tracking act, 2016 PA 282, MCL 333.27901 to 333.27904. (p) “Marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. (q) “Michigan medical marihuana act” means the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430. (r) “Municipality” means a city, township, or village. (s) “Paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind that is designed for or used in growing, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, compounding, converting, storing, processing, preparing, transporting, injecting, smoking, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana. (t) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, trust, or other legal entity. (u) “Plant” means any living organism that produces its own food through photosynthesis and has observable root formation or is in growth material. (v) “Processor” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana or creates a marihuana-infused product for sale and transfer in packaged form to a provisioning center or another processor. (w) “Provisioning center” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower or processor and sells, supplies, or provides marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers. Provisioning center includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold at retail to registered qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a registered primary caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana registration process in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is not a provisioning center for purposes of this act. (x) “Registered primary caregiver” means a primary caregiver who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (y) “Registered qualifying patient” means a qualifying patient who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act or a visiting qualifying patient as that term is defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (z) “Registry identification card” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (aa) “Rules” means rules promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, by the marijuana regulatory agency to implement this act. (bb) “Safety compliance facility” means a licensee that is a commercial entity that takes marihuana from a marihuana facility or receives marihuana from a registered primary caregiver, tests the marihuana for contaminants and for tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns the test results, and may return the marihuana to the marihuana facility. (cc) “Secure transporter” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that stores marihuana and transports marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee. (dd) “Seed” means the fertilized, ungerminated, matured ovule, containing an embryo or rudimentary plant, of a marihuana plant that is flowering. (ee) “Seedling” means a marihuana plant that has germinated and has not flowered and is not harvestable. (ff) “State operating license” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “license” means a license that is issued under this act that allows the licensee to operate as 1 of the following, specified in the license: (i) A grower. (ii) A processor. (iii) A secure transporter. (iv) A provisioning center. (v) A safety compliance facility. (gg) “Statewide monitoring system” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “system” means an internet-based, statewide database established, implemented, and maintained by the department under the marihuana tracking act, that is available to licensees, law enforcement agencies, and authorized state departments and agencies on a 24-hour basis for all of the following: (i) Verifying registry identification cards. (ii) Tracking marihuana transfer and transportation by licensees, including transferee, date, quantity, and price. (iii) Verifying in commercially reasonable time that a transfer will not exceed the limit that the patient or caregiver is authorized to receive under section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424. (hh) “Tissue culture” means a marihuana plant cell, cutting, tissue, or organ, that is kept under a sterile condition on a nutrient culture medium of known composition and that does not have visible root formation. A tissue culture is not a marihuana plant for purposes of a grower. (ii) “Usable marihuana” means the dried leaves, flowers, plant resin, or extract of the marihuana plant, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant. ***** 333.27102.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 11, 2021 ***** 333.27102.amended Definitions. Sec. 102. As used in this act: (a) “Advisory panel” or “panel” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (b) “Affiliate” means any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with; is in a partnership or joint venture relationship with; or is a co-shareholder of a corporation, a co-member of a limited liability company, or a co-partner in a limited liability partnership with a licensee or applicant. (c) “Applicant” means a person who applies for a state operating license. Applicant includes, with respect to disclosures in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of prior marijuana regulatory agency approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant, and the following for each type of applicant: (i) For an individual or sole proprietorship: the proprietor and the proprietor’s spouse. (ii) For a partnership and limited liability partnership: all partners and their spouses. For a limited partnership and limited liability limited partnership: all general and limited partners, not including a limited partner holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the partnership, and their spouses. For a limited liability company: all members and managers, not including a member holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the company, and their spouses. (iii) For a privately held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (iv) For a publicly held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (v) For a multilevel ownership enterprise: any entity or person that receives or has the right to receive more than 10% of the gross or net profit from the enterprise during any full or partial calendar or fiscal year. (vi) For a nonprofit corporation: all individuals and entities with membership or shareholder rights in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the bylaws and the spouses of the individuals. (d) “Board” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (e) “Cutting” means a section of a lead stem or root stock that is used for vegetative asexual propagation. (f) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (g) “Grower” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that cultivates, dries, trims, or cures and packages marihuana for sale to a processor, provisioning center, or another grower. (h) “Industrial hemp” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (i) “Industrial hemp research and development act” means the industrial hemp research and development act, 2014 PA 547, MCL 286.841 to 286.859. (j) “Licensee” means a person holding a state operating license. (k) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (l) “Marihuana facility” means a location at which a licensee is licensed to operate under this act. (m) “Marihuana plant” means any plant of the species Cannabis sativa L. Marihuana plant does not include industrial hemp. (n) “Marihuana-infused product” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (o) “Marihuana tracking act” means the marihuana tracking act, 2016 PA 282, MCL 333.27901 to 333.27904. (p) “Marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. (q) “Michigan medical marihuana act” means the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430. (r) “Municipality” means a city, township, or village. (s) “Paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind that is designed for or used in growing, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, compounding, converting, storing, processing, preparing, transporting, injecting, smoking, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana. (t) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, trust, or other legal entity. (u) “Plant” means any living organism that produces its own food through photosynthesis and has observable root formation or is in growth material. (v) “Processor” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana or creates a marihuana-infused product for sale and transfer in packaged form to a provisioning center or another processor. (w) “Provisioning center” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower or processor and sells, supplies, or provides marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers. Provisioning center includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold at retail to registered qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a registered primary caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana registration process in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is not a provisioning center for purposes of this act. (x) “Registered primary caregiver” means a primary caregiver who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (y) “Registered qualifying patient” means a qualifying patient who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act or a visiting qualifying patient as that term is defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (z) “Registry identification card” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (aa) “Rules” means rules promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, by the marijuana regulatory agency to implement this act. (bb) “Safety compliance facility” means a licensee that is a commercial entity that takes marihuana from a marihuana facility or receives marihuana from a registered primary caregiver, tests the marihuana for contaminants and for tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns the test results, and may return the marihuana to the marihuana facility. (cc) “Secure transporter” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that stores marihuana and transports marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee. (dd) “Seed” means the fertilized, ungerminated, matured ovule, containing an embryo or rudimentary plant, of a marihuana plant that is flowering. (ee) “Seedling” means a marihuana plant that has germinated and has not flowered and is not harvestable. (ff) “State operating license” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “license” means a license that is issued under this act that allows the licensee to operate as 1 of the following, specified in the license: (i) A grower. (ii) A processor. (iii) A secure transporter. (iv) A provisioning center. (v) A safety compliance facility. (gg) “Statewide monitoring system” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “system” means an internet-based, statewide database established, implemented, and maintained by the department under the marihuana tracking act, that is available to licensees, law enforcement agencies, and authorized state departments and agencies on a 24-hour basis for all of the following: (i) Verifying registry identification cards. (ii) Tracking marihuana transfer and transportation by licensees, including transferee, date, quantity, and price. (iii) Verifying in commercially reasonable time that a transfer will not exceed the limit that the patient or caregiver is authorized to receive under section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424. (hh) “Tissue culture” means a marihuana plant cell, cutting, tissue, or organ, that is kept under a sterile condition on a nutrient culture medium of known composition and that does not have visible root formation. A tissue culture is not a marihuana plant for purposes of a grower. (ii) “Usable marihuana” means the dried leaves, flowers, plant resin, or extract of the marihuana plant, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant. PART 2. APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS 333.27201 Protected activities; person owning or leasing property upon which marihuana facility located subject to penalties or sanctions prohibited; conditions; activities of certified public accountant or financial institution not subject to certain penalties or sanctions; other provisions of law inconsistent with act; definitions. Sec. 201. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, if a person has been granted a state operating license and is operating within the scope of the license, the licensee and its agents are not subject to any of the following for engaging in activities described in subsection (2): (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local criminal prosecution for a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local civil prosecution for a marihuana-related offense. (d) Search or inspection, except for an inspection authorized under this act by law enforcement officers, the municipality, or the department. (e) Seizure of marihuana, real property, personal property, or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (f) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (2) The following activities are protected under subsection (1) if performed under a state operating license within the scope of that license and in accord with this act, rules, and any ordinance adopted under section 205: (a) Growing marihuana. (b) Purchasing, receiving, selling, transporting, or transferring marihuana from or to a licensee, a licensee’s agent, a registered qualifying patient, or a registered primary caregiver. (c) Possessing marihuana. (d) Possessing or manufacturing marihuana paraphernalia for medical use. (e) Processing marihuana. (f) Transporting marihuana. (g) Testing, transferring, infusing, extracting, altering, or studying marihuana. (h) Receiving or providing compensation for products or services. (3) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who owns or leases real property upon which a marihuana facility is located and who has no knowledge that the licensee violated this act is not subject to any of the following for owning, leasing, or permitting the operation of a marihuana facility on the real property: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Search or inspection, except for an inspection authorized under this act by law enforcement officers, the municipality, or the department. (e) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (f) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau. (4) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a certified public accountant who is licensed under article 7 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720 to 339.736, is not subject to any of the following for engaging in the practice of public accounting as that term is defined in section 720 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720, for an applicant or licensee who is in compliance with this act, rules, and the Michigan medical marihuana act: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (e) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (5) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a financial institution is not subject to any of the following for providing a financial service to a licensee under this act: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (e) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (6) For the purposes of regulating the commercial entities established under this act, any provisions of the following acts that are inconsistent with this act do not apply to a grower, processor, secure transporter, provisioning center, or safety compliance facility operating in compliance with this act: (a) The business corporation act, 1972 PA 284, MCL 450.1101 to 450.2098. (b) The nonprofit corporation act, 1982 PA 162, MCL 450.2101 to 450.3192. (c) 1931 PA 327, MCL 450.98 to 450.192. (d) The Michigan revised uniform limited partnership act, 1982 PA 213, MCL 449.1101 to 449.2108. (e) The Michigan limited liability company act, 1993 PA 23, MCL 450.4101 to 450.5200. (f) 1907 PA 101, MCL 445.1 to 445.5. (g) 1913 PA 164, MCL 449.101 to 449.106. (h) The uniform partnership act, 1917 PA 72, MCL 449.1 to 449.48. (7) As used in this section: (a) “Financial institution” means any of the following: (i) A state or national bank. (ii) A state or federally chartered savings and loan association. (iii) A state or federally chartered savings bank. (iv) A state or federally chartered credit union. (v) An insurance company. (vi) An entity that offers any of the following to a resident of this state: (A) A mutual fund account. (B) A securities brokerage account. (C) A money market account. (D) A retail investment account. (vii) An entity regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission that collects funds from the public. (viii) An entity that is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers and that collects funds from the public. (ix) Another entity that collects funds from the public. (b) “Financial service” means a deposit; withdrawal; transfer between accounts; exchange of currency; loan; extension of credit; purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument; or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected. 333.27203 Registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver; criminal prosecution or sanctions prohibited; conditions. Sec. 203. A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver is not subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions for purchasing marihuana from a provisioning center if the quantity purchased is within the limits established under the Michigan medical marihuana act. A registered primary caregiver is not subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions for any transfer of 2.5 ounces or less of marihuana to a safety compliance facility for testing. 333.27204 Medical purpose defense. Sec. 204. This act does not limit the medical purpose defense provided in section 8 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26428, to any prosecution involving marihuana. 333.27205 Marihuana facility; ordinance; requirements. Sec. 205. (1) The board shall not issue a state operating license to an applicant unless the municipality in which the applicant’s proposed marihuana facility will operate has adopted an ordinance that authorizes that type of facility. A municipality may adopt an ordinance to authorize 1 or more types of marihuana facilities within its boundaries and to limit the number of each type of marihuana facility. A municipality may adopt other ordinances relating to marihuana facilities within its jurisdiction, including zoning regulations, but shall not impose regulations regarding the purity or pricing of marihuana or interfering or conflicting with this act or rules for licensing marihuana facilities. A municipality that adopts an ordinance under this subsection that authorizes a marihuana facility shall provide the department with all of the following on a form prescribed and provided by the department: (a) An attestation that the municipality has adopted an ordinance under this subsection that authorizes the marihuana facility. (b) A description of any zoning regulations that apply to the proposed marihuana facility within the municipality. (c) The signature of the clerk of the municipality or his or her designee. (d) Any other information required by the department. (2) A municipal ordinance may establish an annual, nonrefundable fee of not more than $5,000.00 to help defray administrative and enforcement costs associated with the operation of a marihuana facility in the municipality. (3) The department may require a municipality to provide the following information to the department on a form prescribed and provided by the department regarding a licensee who submits an application for license renewal: (a) Information that the board declares necessary to determine whether the licensee’s license should be renewed. (b) A description of a violation of an ordinance or a zoning regulation adopted under subsection (1) committed by the licensee, but only if the violation relates to activities licensed under this act and rules or the Michigan medical marihuana act. (c) Whether there has been a change to an ordinance or a zoning regulation adopted under subsection (1) since the license was issued to the licensee and a description of the change. (4) Information a municipality obtains from an applicant under this section is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, information a municipality provides to the department under this section is subject to disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. 333.27206 Rules. Sec. 206. The marijuana regulatory agency shall promulgate rules and emergency rules as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act. The rules must ensure the safety, security, and integrity of the operation of marihuana facilities, and must include rules to do the following: (a) Set appropriate standards for marihuana facilities and associated equipment. (b) Subject to section 408, establish minimum levels of insurance that licensees must maintain. (c) Establish operating regulations for each category of license to ensure the health, safety, and security of the public and the integrity of marihuana facility operations. (d) Establish qualifications and restrictions for persons participating in or involved with operating marihuana facilities. (e) Establish testing standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana sold through provisioning centers. (f) Provide for the levy and collection of fines for a violation of this act or rules. (g) Prescribe use of the statewide monitoring system to track all marihuana transfers, as provided in the marihuana tracking act and this act, and provide for a funding mechanism to support the system. (h) Establish quality control standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities. (i) Establish chain of custody standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities. (j) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for waste product disposal and storage by marihuana facilities. (k) Establish chemical storage standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities.  (l) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for securely and safely transporting marihuana between marihuana facilities. (m) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for the storage of marihuana-by-marihuana facilities. (n) Establish labeling and packaging standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana sold or transferred through provisioning centers, including, but not limited to: (i) A prohibition on labeling or packaging that is intended to appeal to or has the effect of appealing to minors. (ii) A requirement that all marihuana sold through provisioning centers include on the exterior of the marihuana packaging the following warning printed in clearly legible type and surrounded by a continuous heavy line: WARNING: USE BY PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING WOMEN, OR BY WOMEN PLANNING TO BECOME PREGNANT, MAY RESULT IN FETAL INJURY, PRETERM BIRTH, LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, OR DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS FOR THE CHILD. (o) Establish daily and monthly purchasing limits at provisioning centers for registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to ensure compliance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (p) Establish marketing and advertising restrictions for marihuana products and marihuana facilities. (q) Establish maximum tetrahydrocannabinol levels for marihuana-infused products sold or transferred through provisioning centers. (r) Establish health standards to ensure the safe preparation of products containing marihuana that are intended for human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation. (s) Establish restrictions on edible marihuana-infused products to prohibit shapes that would appeal to minors. (t) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for the sale of industrial hemp from a provisioning center to a registered qualified patient. The rules promulgated under this subdivision must be promulgated before March 1, 2019. (u) Establish informational pamphlet standards for provisioning centers including, but not limited to, a requirement to make available to every patron at the time of sale a pamphlet measuring 3.5 inches by 5 inches that includes safety information related to marihuana use by minors and the poison control hotline number. (v) Establish procedures and standards for approving an appointee to operate a marihuana facility under section 206a. 333.27206a Operation of a marihuana facility; appointment and approval; notice of violation. Sec. 206a. (1) The marijuana regulatory agency may approve the operation of a marihuana facility by any of the following: (a) A court-appointed personal representative, guardian, or conservator of an individual who holds a state license or has an interest in a person that holds a state license. (b) A court-appointed receiver or trustee. (2) If an individual approved to operate a marihuana facility under subsection (1) receives notice from the marijuana regulatory agency that the marihuana facility the individual is operating is in violation of this act or rules, the individual shall notify the court that appointed the individual of the notice of violation within 2 days after receiving the notice of violation. History: Add. 2020, Act 207, Imd. Eff. Oct. 15, 2020 Sec. 207. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a licensee shall adopt and use a third-party inventory control and tracking system that is capable of interfacing with the statewide monitoring system to allow the licensee to enter or access information in the statewide monitoring system as required under this act and rules. The third-party inventory control and tracking system must have all of the following capabilities necessary for the licensee to comply with the requirements applicable to the licensee’s license type: (a) Tracking all marihuana plants, products, packages, patient and primary caregiver purchase totals, waste, transfers, conversions, sales, and returns that are linked to unique identification numbers. (b) Tracking lot and batch information throughout the entire chain of custody. (c) Tracking all products, conversions, and derivatives throughout the entire chain of custody. (d) Tracking marihuana plant, batch, and product destruction. (e) Tracking transportation of product. (f) Performing complete batch recall tracking that clearly identifies all of the following details relating to the specific batch subject to the recall: (i) Sold product. (ii) Product inventory that is finished and available for sale. (iii) Product that is in the process of transfer. (iv) Product being processed into another form. (v) Postharvest raw product, such as product that is in the drying, trimming, or curing process. (g) Reporting and tracking loss, theft, or diversion of product containing marihuana. (h) Reporting and tracking all inventory discrepancies. (i) Reporting and tracking adverse patient responses or dose-related efficacy issues. (j) Reporting and tracking all sales and refunds. (k) Electronically receiving and transmitting information as required under this act, the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, and the marihuana tracking act. (l) Receiving testing results electronically from a safety compliance facility via a secured application program interface into the system and directly linking the testing results to each applicable source batch and sample. (m) Identifying test results that may have been altered. (n) Providing the licensee with access to information in the tracking system that is necessary to verify that the licensee is carrying out the marihuana transactions authorized under the licensee’s license in accordance with this act. (o) Providing information to cross-check that product sales are made to a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver on behalf of a registered qualifying patient and that the product received the required testing. (p) Providing the department and state agencies with access to information in the database that they are authorized to access. (q) Providing law enforcement agencies with access to only the information in the database that is necessary to verify that an individual possesses a valid and current registry identification card. (r) Providing licensees with access only to the information in the system that they are required to receive before a sale, transfer, transport, or other activity authorized under a license issued under this act. (s) Securing the confidentiality of information in the database by preventing access by a person who is not authorized to access the statewide monitoring system or is not authorized to access the particular information. (t) Providing analytics to the department regarding key performance indicators such as the following: (i) Total daily sales. (ii) Total marihuana plants in production. (iii) Total marihuana plants destroyed. (iv) Total inventory adjustments. (2) If the statewide monitoring system is capable of allowing a licensee to access or enter information into the statewide monitoring system without use of a third-party inventory control and tracking system, a licensee may access or enter information into the statewide monitoring system directly and the licensee is not required to adopt and use a third-party inventory control and tracking system. 333.27208 Marihuana facility and property; examination by local and state police. Sec. 208. A marihuana facility and all articles of property in that facility are subject to examination at any time by a local police agency or the department of state police. PART 3. MEDICAL MARIHUANA LICENSING BOARD 333.27301 Medical marihuana licensing board; creation; membership; appointment; terms; vacancy; reimbursement for expenses; other public office; eligibility; removal of member; appointment and employment limitations; financial disclosure statement; direct or indirect interest. Sec. 301. (1) The medical marihuana licensing board is created within the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (2) The board consists of 5 members who are residents of this state, not more than 3 of whom are members of the same political party. The governor shall appoint the members. One of the members shall be appointed from 3 nominees submitted by the senate majority leader and 1 from 3 nominees submitted by the speaker of the house. The governor shall designate 1 of the members as chairperson. (3) The members shall be appointed for terms of 4 years, except, of those who are first appointed, 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and 2 members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years. A member’s term expires on December 31 of the last year of the member’s term. If a vacancy occurs, the governor shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term in the manner of the original appointment. (4) Each member of the board shall be reimbursed for all actual and necessary expenses and disbursements incurred in carrying out official duties. (5) A board member shall not hold any other public office for which he or she receives compensation other than necessary travel or other incidental expenses. (6) A person who is not of good moral character or who has been indicted for, charged with, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, or forfeited bail concerning any felony or a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance violation, theft, dishonesty, or fraud under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States or a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance violation, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state is not eligible to serve on the board. (7) The governor may remove any member of the board for neglect of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, or any other just cause. (8) The board shall not appoint or employ an individual if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) During the 3 years immediately preceding appointment or employment, the individual held any direct or indirect interest in, or was employed by, a person who is licensed to operate under this act or under a corresponding license in another jurisdiction or a person with an application for an operating license pending before the board or in any other jurisdiction. The board shall not employ an individual who has a direct or indirect interest in a licensee or a marihuana facility. (b) The individual or his or her spouse, parent, child, child’s spouse, sibling, or spouse of a sibling has an application for a license pending before the board or is a member of the board of directors of, or an individual financially interested in, any licensee or marihuana facility. (9) Each member of the board and each key employee as determined by the department shall file with the governor a financial disclosure statement listing all assets and liabilities, property and business interests, and sources of income of the member and key employee and his or her spouse, if any, affirming that the member and key employee are in compliance with subsection (8)(a) and (b). The financial disclosure statement shall be made under oath and filed at the time of employment and annually thereafter. (10) Each employee of the board shall file with the board a financial disclosure statement listing all assets and liabilities, property and business interests, and sources of income of the employee and his or her spouse. This subsection does not apply to a key employee. (11) A member of the board or key employee shall not hold any direct or indirect interest in, be employed by, or enter into a contract for services with an applicant, a board licensee, or a marihuana facility for a period of 4 years after the date his or her employment or membership on the board terminates. The department in consultation with the board shall define the term “direct or indirect interest” by rule. (12) For 2 years after the date his or her employment with the board is terminated, an employee of the board shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest in, be employed by, or enter into a contract for services with any applicant, licensee, or marihuana facility. (13) For 2 years after the termination of his or her office or employment with the board, a board member or an individual employed by the board shall not represent any person or party other than this state before or against the board. (14) A business entity in which a former board member or employee or agent has an interest, or any partner, officer, or employee of the business entity, shall not make any appearance or represent a party that the former member, employee, or agent is prohibited from appearing for or representing. As used in this subsection, “business entity” means a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited liability partnership, association, trust, or other form of legal entity. 333.27302 Board; duties. Sec. 302. The board has general responsibility for implementing this act. The board has the powers and duties specified in this act and all other powers necessary and proper to fully and effectively implement and administer this act for the purpose of licensing, regulating, and enforcing the licensing and regulation system established under this act for marihuana growth, processing, testing, and transporting. The board is subject to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The board’s duties include all of the following: (a) Granting or denying each application for a state operating license within a reasonable time. (b) Deciding all license applications in reasonable order. (c) Conducting its public meetings in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (d) Consulting with the department in promulgating rules and emergency rules as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act. The board shall not promulgate a rule establishing a limit on the number or type of marihuana facility licenses that may be granted. (e) Implementing and collecting the application fee described in section 401 and, in conjunction with the department of treasury, the tax described in section 601 and regulatory assessment described in section 603. (f) Providing for the levy and collection of fines for a violation of this act or rules. (g) Providing oversight of a marihuana facility through the board’s inspectors, agents, and auditors and through the state police or attorney general for the purpose of certifying the revenue, receiving complaints from the public, or conducting investigations into the operation of the marihuana facility as the board considers necessary and proper to ensure compliance with this act and rules and to protect and promote the overall safety, security, and integrity of the operation of a marihuana facility. (h) Providing oversight of marihuana facilities to ensure that marihuana-infused products meet health and safety standards that protect the public to a degree comparable to state and federal standards applicable to similar food and drugs. (i) Reviewing and ruling on any complaint by a licensee regarding any investigative procedures of this state that are believed to be unnecessarily disruptive of marihuana facility operations. The need to inspect and investigate is presumed at all times. The board may delegate authority to hear, review, or rule on licensee complaints to a subcommittee of the board. To prevail on the complaint, a licensee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the procedures unreasonably disrupted its marihuana facility operations. (j) Holding at least 2 public meetings each year. Upon 72 hours’ written notice to each member, the chairperson or any 2 board members may call a special meeting. Three members of the board constitute a quorum, including when making determinations on an application for a license. Three votes are required in support of final determinations of the board on applications for licenses and all other licensing determinations, except those 4 votes are required in support of a determination to suspend or revoke a license. The board shall keep a complete and accurate record of all of its meetings and hearings. Upon order of the board, 1 of the board members or a hearing officer designated by the board may conduct any hearing provided for under this act or by rules and may recommend findings and decisions to the board. The board member or hearing officer conducting the hearing has all powers and rights regarding the conduct of hearings granted to the board under this act. The record made at the time of the hearing shall be reviewed by the board or a majority of the board, and the findings and decision of the majority of the board are the order of the board in the case. (k) Maintaining records that are separate and distinct from the records of any other state board. The records shall be made available for public inspection subject to the limitations of this act and shall accurately reflect all board proceedings. (l) Reviewing the patterns of marihuana transfers by the licensees under this act as recorded in a statewide database established for use in administering and enforcing this act and making recommendations to the governor and the legislature in a written annual report to the governor and the legislature and additional reports that the governor requests. The annual report shall be submitted by April 15 of each year and shall include the report required under section 702, a statement of receipts and disbursements by the board, the actions taken by the board, and any additional information and recommendations that the board considers appropriate or that the governor requests. (m) Except as otherwise provided in this act, all information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the board are subject to the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, except for the following: (i) Unless presented during a public hearing or requested by the licensee or applicant who is the sole subject of the data, all of the information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to, created by, or used by the board related to background investigation of applicants or licensees and to trade secrets, internal controls, and security measures of the licensees or applicants. (ii) All information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the board that have been received from another jurisdiction or local, state, or federal agency under a promise of confidentiality or if the release of the information is otherwise barred by the statutes, rules, or regulations of that jurisdiction or agency or by an intergovernmental agreement. (iii) All information in the statewide monitoring system. 333.27303 Marijuana regulatory agency; powers. Sec. 303. (1) The marijuana regulatory agency has jurisdiction over the operation of all marihuana facilities. The marijuana regulatory agency has all powers necessary and proper to fully and effectively oversee the operation of marihuana facilities, including the authority to do all of the following: (a) Investigate applicants for state operating licenses, determine the eligibility for licenses, and grant licenses to applicants in accordance with this act and the rules. (b) Investigate all individuals employed by marihuana facilities. (c) At any time, through its investigators, agents, auditors, or the state police, without a warrant and without notice to the licensee, enter the premises, offices, facilities, or other places of business of a licensee, if evidence of compliance or noncompliance with this act or rules is likely to be found and consistent with constitutional limitations, for the following purposes: (i) To inspect and examine all premises of marihuana facilities. (ii) To inspect, examine, and audit relevant records of the licensee and, if the licensee fails to cooperate with an investigation, impound, seize, assume physical control of, or summarily remove from the premises all books, ledgers, documents, writings, photocopies, correspondence, records, and videotapes, including electronically stored records, money receptacles, or equipment in which the records are stored. (iii) To inspect the person, and inspect or examine personal effects present in a marihuana facility, of any holder of a state operating license while that person is present in a marihuana facility. (iv) To investigate alleged violations of this act or rules. (d) Investigate alleged violations of this act or rules and take appropriate disciplinary action against a licensee. (e) Consult with the department in adopting rules to establish appropriate standards for marihuana facilities and associated equipment. (f) Require all relevant records of licensees, including financial or other statements, to be kept on the premises authorized for operation of the marihuana facility of the licensee or in the manner prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency. (g) Require that each licensee of a marihuana facility submit to the marijuana regulatory agency a list of the stockholders or other persons having a 2.5% or greater beneficial interest in the facility in addition to any other information the marijuana regulatory agency considers necessary to effectively administer this act and rules, orders, and final decisions made under this act. (h) Eject, or exclude or authorize the ejection or exclusion of, an individual from a marihuana facility if the individual violates this act, rules, or final orders of the marijuana regulatory agency. However, the propriety of the ejection or exclusion is subject to a subsequent hearing by the marijuana regulatory agency. (i) Conduct periodic audits of marihuana facilities licensed under this act. (j) Consult with the department as to appropriate minimum levels of insurance for licensees in addition to the minimum established under section 408 for liability insurance. (k) Delegate the execution of any of its powers that are not specifically and exclusively reserved to the marijuana regulatory agency under this act for the purpose of administering and enforcing this act and rules. (l) Take disciplinary action as the marijuana regulatory agency considers appropriate to prevent practices that violate this act and rules. (m) Review a licensee if that licensee is under review or the subject of discipline by a regulatory body in any other jurisdiction for a violation of a controlled substance or marihuana law or regulation in that jurisdiction. (n) Take any other reasonable or appropriate action to enforce this act and rules. (2) The marijuana regulatory agency may seek and shall receive the cooperation and assistance of the department of state police in conducting background investigations of applicants and in fulfilling its responsibilities under this act. The department of state police may recover its costs of cooperation under this subsection. 333.27305 Board; disclosure form; providing certain notices to chairperson; ex parte communication; outside employment; personal transaction involving marihuana with licensee or applicant; violation. Sec. 305. (1) By January 31 of each year, each member of the board shall prepare and file with the governor’s office and the board a disclosure form in which the member does all of the following: (a) Affirms that the member or the member’s spouse, parent, child, or child’s spouse is not a member of the board of directors of, financially interested in, or employed by a licensee or applicant. (b) Affirms that the member continues to meet any other criteria for board membership under this act or the rules promulgated by the board. (c) Discloses any legal or beneficial interests in any real property that is or that may be directly or indirectly involved with operations authorized by this act. (d) Discloses any other information as may be required to ensure that the integrity of the board and its work is maintained. (2) By January 31 of each year, each employee of the board shall prepare and file with the board an employee disclosure form in which the employee does all of the following: (a) Affirms the absence of financial interests prohibited by this act. (b) Discloses any legal or beneficial interests in any real property that is or that may be directly or indirectly involved with operations authorized by this act. (c) Discloses whether the employee or the employee’s spouse, parent, child, or child’s spouse is financially interested in or employed by a licensee or an applicant for a license under this act. (d) Discloses such other matters as may be required to ensure that the integrity of the board and its work is maintained. (3) A member, employee, or agent of the board who becomes aware that the member, employee, or agent of the board or his or her spouse, parent, or child is a member of the board of directors of, financially interested in, or employed by a licensee or an applicant shall immediately provide detailed written notice thereof to the chairperson. (4) A member, employee, or agent of the board who within the previous 10 years has been indicted for, charged with, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, or forfeited bail concerning a misdemeanor involving controlled substances, dishonesty, theft, or fraud or a local ordinance in any state involving controlled substances, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state, or a felony under Michigan law, the laws of any other state, or the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction shall immediately provide detailed written notice of the conviction or charge to the chairperson. (5) Any member, employee, or agent of the board who is negotiating for, or acquires by any means, any interest in any person who is a licensee or an applicant, or any person affiliated with such a person, shall immediately provide written notice of the details of the interest to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not act on behalf of the board with respect to that person. (6) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall not enter into any negotiations for employment with any person or affiliate of any person who is a licensee or an applicant and shall immediately provide written notice of the details of any such negotiations or discussions in progress to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not take action on behalf of the board with respect to that person. (7) Any member, employee, or agent of the board who receives an invitation, written or oral, to initiate a discussion concerning employment or the possibility of employment with a person or affiliate of a person who is a licensee or an applicant shall immediately report that he or she received the invitation to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not take action on behalf of the board with respect to the person. (8) A licensee or applicant shall not knowingly initiate a negotiation for or discussion of employment with a member, employee, or agent of the board. A licensee or applicant who initiates a negotiation or discussion about employment shall immediately provide written notice of the details of the negotiation or discussion to the chairperson as soon as he or she becomes aware that the negotiation or discussion has been initiated with a member, employee, or agent of the board. (9) A member, employee, or agent of the board, or former member, employee, or agent of the board, shall not disseminate or otherwise disclose any material or information in the possession of the board that the board considers confidential unless specifically authorized to do so by the chairperson or the board. (10) A member, employee, or agent of the board or a parent, spouse, sibling, spouse of a sibling, child, or spouse of a child of a member, employee, or agent of the board shall not accept any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value, directly or indirectly, from any licensee or any applicant or affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, unless the acceptance conforms to a written policy or directive that is issued by the chairperson or the board. Any member, employee, or agent of the board who is offered or receives any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value, directly or indirectly, from any licensee or any applicant or affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee shall immediately provide written notification of the details to the chairperson. (11) A licensee or applicant, or an affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee, shall not, directly or indirectly, give or offer to give any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value to any member, employee, or agent of the board that the member, employee, or agent of the board is prohibited from accepting under subsection (10). (12) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall not engage in any conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and shall immediately advise the chairperson in writing of the details of any incident or circumstances that would present the existence of a conflict of interest with respect to performing board-related work or duties. (13) A member, employee, or agent of the board who is approached and offered a bribe as described in section 118 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.118, or this act shall immediately provide written account of the details of the incident to the chairperson and to a law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. (14) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall disclose his or her past involvement with any marihuana enterprise in the past 5 years and shall not engage in political activity or politically related activity during the duration of his or her appointment or employment. (15) A former member, employee, or agent of the board may appear before the board as a fact witness about matters or actions handled by the member, employee, or agent during his or her tenure as a member, employee, or agent of the board. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not receive compensation for such an appearance other than a standard witness fee and reimbursement for travel expenses as established by statute or court rule. (16) A licensee or applicant or any affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee shall not engage in ex parte communications with a member of the board. A member of the board shall not engage in any ex parte communications with a licensee or an applicant or with any affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee. (17) Any board member, licensee, or applicant or affiliate or representative of a board member, licensee, or applicant who receives any ex parte communication in violation of subsection (16), or who is aware of an attempted communication in violation of subsection (16), shall immediately report details of the communication or attempted communication in writing to the chairperson. (18) Any member of the board who receives an ex parte communication in an attempt to influence that member’s official action shall disclose the source and content of the communication to the chairperson. The chairperson may investigate or initiate an investigation of the matter with the assistance of the attorney general and state police to determine if the communication violates subsection (16) or subsection (17) or other state law. The disclosure under this section and the investigation are confidential. Following an investigation, the chairperson shall advise the governor or the board, or both, of the results of the investigation and may recommend action as the chairperson considers appropriate. If the chairperson receives such an ex parte communication, he or she shall report the communication to the governor’s office for appropriate action. (19) A new or current employee or agent of the board shall obtain written permission from the director of the department or his or her designee before continuing outside employment held at the time the employee begins to work for the board. Permission shall be denied, or permission previously granted shall be revoked, if the director of the department or his or her designee considers the nature of the work to create a possible conflict of interest or if it would otherwise interfere with the duties of the employee or agent for the board. (20) An employee or agent of the board granted permission for outside employment shall not conduct any business or perform any activities, including solicitation, related to outside employment on premises used by the board or during the employee’s working hours for the board. (21) The chairperson shall report any action he or she has taken or proposes to take under this section with respect to an employee or agent or former employee or former agent to the board at the next meeting of the board. (22) Except as allowed under the Michigan medical marihuana act, a member, employee, or agent of the board shall not enter into any personal transaction involving marihuana with a licensee or applicant. (23) If a licensee or applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, violates this section, the board may deny a license application, revoke or suspend a license, or take other disciplinary action as provided in section 407. (24) Violation of this section by a member of the board may result in disqualification or constitute cause for removal under section 301(7) or other disciplinary action as recommended by the board to the governor. (25) A violation of this section by an employee or agent of the board need not result in termination of employment if the board determines that the conduct involved does not violate the purpose of this act. However, all of the following apply: (a) If, after being offered employment or beginning employment with the board, the employee or agent intentionally acquires a financial interest in a licensee or an applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, the offer or employment with the board shall be terminated. (b) If a financial interest in a licensee or an applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, is acquired by an employee or agent that has been offered employment with the board, an employee of the board, or the employee’s or agent’s spouse, parent, or child, through no intentional action of the employee or agent, the individual shall have up to 30 days to divest or terminate the financial interest. Employment may be terminated if the interest has not been divested after 30 days. (c) Employment shall be terminated if the employee or agent is a spouse, parent, child, or spouse of a child of a board member. (26) Violation of this section does not create a civil cause of action. (27) As used in this section: (a) “Outside employment”, in addition to employment by a third party, includes, but is not limited to, the following: (i) Operation of a proprietorship. (ii) Participation in a partnership or group business enterprise. (iii) Performance as a director or corporate officer of any for-profit or nonprofit corporation or banking or credit institution. (iv) Performance as a manager of a limited liability company. (b) “Political activity” or “politically related activity” includes all of the following: (i) Using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. (ii) Knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution from any person. (iii) Running for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. (iv) Knowingly soliciting or discouraging the participation in any political activity of any person who is either of the following: (A) Applying for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the board. (B) The subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the board. PART 4. LICENSING 333.27401 Licensure; application; background investigation; consent to inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures; disclosure of confidential records; interest in other state operating license; fee; additional costs; notification to municipality. Sec. 401. (1) A person may apply to the marijuana regulatory agency for state operating licenses in the categories of class A, B, or C grower; processor; provisioning center; secure transporter; and safety compliance facility as provided in this act. The application shall be made under oath on a form provided by the marijuana regulatory agency and shall contain information as prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (a) The name, business address, business telephone number, Social Security number, and, if applicable, federal tax identification number of the applicant. (b) The identity of every person having a 2.5% or greater ownership interest in the applicant with respect to which the license is sought. If the disclosed entity is a trust, the application shall disclose the names and addresses of the beneficiaries; if a privately held corporation, the names and addresses of all shareholders, officers, and directors; if a publicly held corporation, the names and addresses of all shareholders holding a direct or indirect interest of greater than 5%, officers, and directors; if a partnership or limited liability partnership, the names and addresses of all partners; if a limited partnership or limited liability limited partnership, the names of all partners, both general and limited; or if a limited liability company, the names and addresses of all members and managers. (c) An identification of any business that is directly or indirectly involved in the growing, processing, testing, transporting, or sale of marihuana, including, if applicable, the state of incorporation or registration, in which an applicant or, if the applicant is an individual, the applicant’s spouse, parent, or child has any equity interest. If an applicant is a corporation, partnership, or other business entity, the applicant shall identify any other corporation, partnership, or other business entity that is directly or indirectly involved in the growing, processing, testing, transporting, or sale of marihuana in which it has any equity interest, including, if applicable, the state of incorporation or registration. An applicant may comply with this subdivision by filing a copy of the applicant’s registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission if the registration contains the information required by this subdivision. (d) Whether an applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning any criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or controlled-substance-related misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been reversed on appeal or otherwise, including the date, the name and location of the court, arresting agency, and prosecuting agency, the case caption, the docket number, the offense, the disposition, and the location and length of incarceration. (e) Whether an applicant has ever applied for or has been granted any commercial license or certificate issued by a licensing authority in Michigan or any other jurisdiction that has been denied, restricted, suspended, revoked, or not renewed and a statement describing the facts and circumstances concerning the application, denial, restriction, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal, including the licensing authority, the date each action was taken, and the reason for each action. (f) Whether an applicant has filed, or been served with, a complaint or other notice filed with any public body, regarding the delinquency in the payment of, or a dispute over the filings concerning the payment of, any tax required under federal, state, or local law, including the amount, type of tax, taxing agency, and time periods involved. (g) A statement listing the names and titles of all public officials or officers of any unit of government, and the spouses, parents, and children of those public officials or officers, who, directly or indirectly, own any financial interest in, have any beneficial interest in, are the creditors of or hold any debt instrument issued by, or hold or have any interest in any contractual or service relationship with an applicant. As used in this subdivision, public official or officer does not include a person who would have to be listed solely because of his or her state or federal military service. (h) A description of the type of marihuana facility; anticipated or actual number of employees; and projected or actual gross receipts. (i) Financial information in the manner and form prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency. (j) A paper copy or electronic posting website reference for the ordinance or zoning restriction that the municipality adopted to authorize or restrict operation of 1 or more marihuana facilities in the municipality. (k) A copy of the notice informing the municipality by registered mail that the applicant has applied for a license under this act. The applicant shall also certify that it has delivered the notice to the municipality or will do so by 10 days after the date the applicant submits the application for a license to the marijuana regulatory agency. (l) Any other information the department requires by rule. (2) The marijuana regulatory agency shall use information provided on the application as a basis to conduct a thorough background investigation on the applicant. A false application is cause for the marijuana regulatory agency to deny a license. The marijuana regulatory agency shall not consider an incomplete application but shall, within a reasonable time, return the application to the applicant with notification of the deficiency and instructions for submitting a corrected application. Information the marijuana regulatory agency obtains from the background investigation is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (3) An applicant must provide written consent to the inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures provided for in section 303(1)(c)(i) to (iv) and to disclosure to the marijuana regulatory agency and its agents of otherwise confidential records, including tax records held by any federal, state, or local agency, or credit bureau or financial institution, while applying for or holding a license. Information the marijuana regulatory agency receives under this subsection is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (4) An applicant must certify that the applicant does not have an interest in any other state operating license that is prohibited under this act. (5) A nonrefundable application fee must be paid at the time of filing to defray the costs associated with the background investigation conducted by the marijuana regulatory agency. The marijuana regulatory agency shall set the amount of the application fee for each category and class of license by rule. If the costs of the investigation and processing the application exceed the application fee, the applicant shall pay the additional amount to the marijuana regulatory agency. All information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the marijuana regulatory agency in the course of its review or investigation of an application for a license under this act shall be disclosed only in accordance with this act. The information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data are not admissible as evidence or discoverable in any action of any kind in any court or before any tribunal, board, agency, or person, except for any action considered necessary by the marijuana regulatory agency. (6) By 10 days after the date the applicant submits an application to the marijuana regulatory agency, the applicant shall notify the municipality by registered mail that it has applied for a license under this act. 333.27402 License; issuance; ineligibility; circumstances; other considerations granting license; fingerprint processing fee; criminal history check; requirements applicable to fingerprints; definitions; review of application; informing applicant of decision; issuance; duration; renewal; notice; expiration; consent to inspections; examinations, searches, and seizures; information required to be provided by applicant. Sec. 402. (1) The board shall issue a license to an applicant who submits a complete application and pays both the nonrefundable application fee required under section 401(5) and the regulatory assessment established by the board for the first year of operation, if the board determines that the applicant is qualified to receive a license under this act. (2) An applicant is ineligible to receive a license if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) The applicant has been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years. (b) Within the past 5 years the applicant has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state or been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state. (c) The applicant has knowingly submitted an application for a license under this act that contains false information. (d) The applicant is a member of the board. (e) The applicant fails to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to maintain adequate premises liability and casualty insurance for its proposed marihuana facility. (f) The applicant holds an elective office of a governmental unit of this state, another state, or the federal government; is a member of or employed by a regulatory body of a governmental unit in this state, another state, or the federal government; or is employed by a governmental unit of this state. This subdivision does not apply to an elected officer of or employee of a federally recognized Indian tribe or to an elected precinct delegate. (g) The board determines that the applicant is not in compliance with section 205(1). (h) The applicant fails to meet other criteria established by rule. (3) In determining whether to grant a license to an applicant, the board may also consider all of the following: (a) The integrity, moral character, and reputation; personal and business probity; financial ability and experience; and responsibility or means to operate or maintain a marihuana facility of the applicant and of any other person that meets either of the following: (i) Controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant. (ii) Is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the applicant or by a person who controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant. (b) The financial ability of the applicant to purchase and maintain adequate liability and casualty insurance. (c) The sources and total amount of the applicant’s capitalization to operate and maintain the proposed marihuana facility. (d) Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise. (e) Whether the applicant has filed, or had filed against it, a proceeding for bankruptcy within the past 7 years. (f) Whether the applicant has been served with a complaint or other notice filed with any public body regarding payment of any tax required under federal, state, or local law that has been delinquent for 1 or more years. (g) Whether the applicant has a history of noncompliance with any regulatory requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction. (h) Whether at the time of application the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices. (i) Whether the applicant meets other standards in rules applicable to the license category. (4) Each applicant shall ensure that 1 set of fingerprints is submitted to the department of state police. The applicant shall submit with its application the applicant’s written consent to the criminal history check described in this section and the submission of the applicant’s fingerprints to, and the inclusion of the applicant’s fingerprints in, the state and federal database systems described in subsection (7). (5) The fingerprints required under subsection (4) may be taken by a law enforcement agency or any other person determined by the department of state police to be qualified to take fingerprints. The applicant shall submit a fingerprint processing fee to the department in an amount required under section 3 of 1935 PA 120, MCL 28.273, and any costs imposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (6) The department of state police shall do all of the following: (a) Conduct a criminal history check on each applicant and request the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make a determination of the existence of any national criminal history pertaining to each applicant. (b) Provide the board with a written report containing the criminal history record information of each applicant. (7) All of the following apply concerning fingerprints submitted to the department of state police under this section: (a) The department of state police shall store and retain all fingerprints submitted under this section in an automated fingerprint identification system database that searches against latent fingerprints, and provides for an automatic notification if and when a subsequent fingerprint is submitted into the system that matches a set of fingerprints previously submitted under this section or if and when the criminal history of an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system is updated. Upon receiving a notification, the department of state police shall immediately notify the board. Information in the database maintained under this subsection is confidential, is not subject to disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be disclosed to any person except for purposes of this act or for law enforcement purposes. (b) The department of state police shall forward all fingerprints submitted to it under this section to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for submission of those fingerprints into the FBI automatic notification system. This subdivision does not apply until the department of state police is a participant in the FBI automatic notification system. As used in this subdivision: (i) “Automatic notification system” means a system that stores and retains fingerprints, and that provides for an automatic notification to a participant if and when a fingerprint is submitted into the system that matches an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system or if and when the criminal history of an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system is updated. (ii) “FBI automatic notification system” means the automatic notification system that is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (8) The board shall review all applications for licenses and shall inform each applicant of the board’s decision. (9) A license shall be issued for a 1-year period and is renewable annually. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the board shall renew a license if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The licensee applies to the board on a renewal form provided by the board that requires information prescribed in rules. (b) The application is received by the board on or before the expiration date of the current license. (c) The licensee pays the regulatory assessment under section 603. (d) The licensee meets the requirements of this act and any other renewal requirements set forth in rules. (10) The department shall notify the licensee by mail or electronic mail at the last known address on file with the board advising of the time, procedure, and regulatory assessment under section 603. The failure of the licensee to receive notice under this subsection does not relieve the licensee of the responsibility for renewing the license. (11) If a license renewal application is not submitted by the license expiration date, the license may be renewed within 60 days after its expiration date upon application, payment of the regulatory assessment under section 603, and satisfaction of any renewal requirement and late fee set forth in rules. The licensee may continue to operate during the 60 days after the license expiration date if the license is renewed by the end of the 60-day period. (12) License expiration does not terminate the board’s authority to impose sanctions on a licensee whose license has expired. (13) In its decision on an application for renewal, the board shall consider any specific written input it receives from an individual or entity within the local unit of government in which the applicant for renewal is located. (14) A licensee must consent in writing to inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures that are permitted under this act and must provide a handwriting exemplar, fingerprints, photographs, and information as authorized in this act or by rules. (15) An applicant or licensee has a continuing duty to provide information requested by the board and to cooperate in any investigation, inquiry, or hearing conducted by the board. 333.27403 Application deficiency; correction. Sec. 403. If the board identifies a deficiency in an application, the board shall provide the applicant with a reasonable period of time to correct the deficiency. 333.27404 Repealed. 2018, Act 582, Eff. Jan. 1, 2019. Compiler’s Notes: The repealed section pertained to a true party of interest. 333.27405 Background check. Sec. 405. Subject to the laws of this state, before hiring a prospective employee, the holder of a license shall conduct a background check of the prospective employee. If the background check indicates a pending charge or conviction within the past 10 years for a controlled substance-related felony, a licensee shall not hire the prospective employee without written permission of the board. 333.27406 Transfer, sale, or purchase of license. Sec. 406. Each license is exclusive to the licensee, and a licensee or any other person must apply for and receive the board’s approval before a license is transferred, sold, or purchased. The attempted transfer, sale, or other conveyance of an interest in a license without prior board approval is grounds for suspension or revocation of the license or for other sanction considered appropriate by the board, but only if the transfer, sale, or other conveyance would result in the transferee meeting the definition of applicant. 333.27407 Denial, suspension, revocation, or restriction of license. Sec. 407. (1) If an applicant or licensee fails to comply with this act or rules, if a licensee fails to comply with the marihuana tracking act, if a licensee no longer meets the eligibility requirements for a license under this act, or if an applicant or licensee fails to provide information the board requests to assist in any investigation, inquiry, or board hearing, the board may deny, suspend, revoke, or restrict a license. The board may suspend, revoke, or restrict a license and require the removal of a licensee or an employee of a licensee for a violation of this act, rules, the marihuana tracking act, or any ordinance adopted under section 205. The board may impose civil fines of up to $5,000.00 against an individual and up to $10,000.00 or an amount equal to the daily gross receipts, whichever is greater, against a licensee for each violation of this act, rules, or an order of the board. Assessment of a civil fine under this subsection is not a bar to the investigation, arrest, charging, or prosecution of an individual for any other violation of this act and is not grounds to suppress evidence in any criminal prosecution that arises under this act or any other law of this state. (2) The board shall comply with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, when denying, revoking, suspending, or restricting a license or imposing a fine. The board may suspend a license without notice or hearing upon a determination that the safety or health of patrons or employees is jeopardized by continuing a marihuana facility’s operation. If the board suspends a license under this subsection without notice or hearing, a prompt post suspension hearing must be held to determine if the suspension should remain in effect. The suspension may remain in effect until the board determines that the cause for suspension has been abated. The board may revoke the license or approve a transfer or sale of the license upon a determination that the licensee has not made satisfactory progress toward abating the hazard. (3) After denying an application for a license, the board shall, upon request, provide a public investigative hearing at which the applicant is given the opportunity to present testimony and evidence to establish its suitability for a license. Other testimony and evidence may be presented at the hearing, but the board’s decision must be based on the whole record before the board and is not limited to testimony and evidence submitted at the public investigative hearing. (4) Except for license applicants who may be granted a hearing at the discretion of the board under subsection (3), any party aggrieved by an action of the board suspending, revoking, restricting, or refusing to renew a license, or imposing a fine, shall be given a hearing before the board upon request. A request for a hearing must be made to the board in writing within 21 days after service of notice of the action of the board. Notice of the action of the board must be served either by personal delivery or by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the aggrieved party. Notice served by certified mail is considered complete on the business day following the date of the mailing. (5) The board may conduct investigative and contested case hearings; issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses; issue subpoenas duces tecum for the production of books, ledgers, records, memoranda, electronically retrievable data, and other pertinent documents; and administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses as appropriate to exercise and discharge the powers and duties of the board under this act. The director of the department or his or her designee may issue subpoenas and administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses. 333.27407a Operation of marihuana facility; license required; violation; penalties. Sec. 407a. Beginning June 1, 2019, a person shall not hold itself out as operating a marihuana facility if the person does not hold a license to operate that marihuana facility or if the person’s license to operate that marihuana facility is suspended, revoked, lapsed, or void, or was fraudulently obtained or transferred to the person other than pursuant to section 406. A person that violates this section is guilty as follows: (a) In the case of a first violation, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than 93 days, or both. (b) In the case of a second or subsequent violation, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. (c) If the violation causes death or serious injury, a felony punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or both. 333.27408 Proof of financial responsibility. Sec. 408. (1) Before the board grants or renews any license under this act, the licensee or applicant shall file with the department proof of financial responsibility for liability for bodily injury to lawful users resulting from the manufacture, distribution, transportation, or sale of adulterated marihuana or adulterated marihuana-infused product in an amount not less than $100,000.00. The proof of financial responsibility may be in the form of cash, unencumbered securities, a liability insurance policy, or a constant value bond executed by a surety company authorized to do business in this state. As used in this section: (a) “Adulterated marihuana” means a product sold as marihuana that contains any unintended substance or chemical or biological matter other than marihuana that causes adverse reaction after ingestion or consumption. (b) “Bodily injury” does not include expected or intended effect or long-term adverse effect of smoking, ingestion, or consumption of marihuana or marihuana-infused product. (2) An insured licensee shall not cancel liability insurance required under this section unless the licensee complies with both of the following: (a) Gives 30 days’ prior written notice to the department. (b) Procures new proof of financial responsibility required under this section and delivers that proof to the department within 30 days after giving the department the notice under subdivision (a). 333.27409 State operating license as revocable privilege. Sec. 409. A state operating license is a revocable privilege granted by this state and is not a property right. Granting a license does not create or vest any right, title, franchise, or other property interest. A licensee or any other person shall not lease, pledge, or borrow or loan money against a license. PART 5. LICENSEES 333.27501 Grower license. Sec. 501. (1) A grower license authorizes the grower to grow not more than the following number of marihuana plants under the indicated license class for each license the grower holds in that class: (a) Class A – 500 marihuana plants. (b) Class B – 1,000 marihuana plants. (c) Class C – 1,500 marihuana plants. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a grower license authorizes sale of marihuana plants to a grower only by means of a secure transporter. A grower license authorizes the sale or transfer of seeds, seedlings, or tissue cultures to a grower from a registered primary caregiver or another grower without using a secure transporter. (3) A grower license authorizes a grower to transfer marihuana without using a secure transporter to a processor or provisioning center if both of the following are met: (a) The processor or provisioning center occupies the same location as the grower and the marihuana is transferred using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (b) The grower enters each transfer into the statewide monitoring system. (4) A grower license authorizes sale of marihuana, other than seeds, seedlings, tissue cultures, and cuttings, to a processor or provisioning center. (5) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) and section 505, a grower license authorizes the grower to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter. (6) To be eligible for a grower license, the applicant and each investor in the grower must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (7) Until December 31, 2018, for a period of 30 days after the issuance of a grower license and in accord with rules, a grower may transfer any of the following that are lawfully possessed by an individual formerly registered as a primary caregiver who is an active employee of the grower: (a) Marihuana plants. (b) Seeds. (c) Seedlings. (8) A grower shall comply with all of the following: (a) Until December 31, 2021, have, or have as an active employee an individual who has, a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a registered primary caregiver. (b) While holding a license as a grower, not be a registered primary caregiver and not employ an individual who is simultaneously a registered primary caregiver. (c) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (9) A grower license does not authorize the grower to operate in an area unless the area is zoned for industrial or agricultural uses or is unzoned and otherwise meets the requirements established in section 205(1). 333.27502 Processor license; exception for industrial hemp. Sec. 502. (1) A processor license authorizes purchase of marihuana only from a grower and sale of marihuana-infused products or marihuana only to a provisioning center or another processor. (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 505 and this subsection, a processor license authorizes the processor to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter. A processor license authorizes a processor to transfer marihuana without using a secure transporter to a grower or provisioning center if both of the following are met: (a) The grower or provisioning center occupies the same location as the processor and the marihuana is transferred using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (b) The processor enters each transfer into the statewide monitoring system. (3) To be eligible for a processor license, the applicant and each investor in the processor must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (4) Until December 31, 2018, for a period of 30 days after the issuance of a processor license and in accord with rules, a processor may transfer any of the following that are lawfully possessed by an individual formerly registered as a primary caregiver who is an active employee of the processor: (a) Marihuana plants. (b) Usable marihuana. (5) A processor shall comply with all of the following: (a) Until December 31, 2021, have, or have as an active employee an individual who has, a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a registered primary caregiver. (b) While holding a license as a processor, not be a registered primary caregiver and not employ an individual who is simultaneously a registered primary caregiver. (c) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (6) This act does not prohibit a processor from handling, processing, marketing, or brokering, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the industrial hemp research and development act, MCL 286.842, industrial hemp. 333.27503 Secure transporter license. Sec. 503. (1) A secure transporter license authorizes the licensee to store and transport marihuana and money associated with the purchase or sale of marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee upon request of a person with legal custody of that marihuana or money. It does not authorize transport to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver. If a secure transporter has its primary place of business in a municipality that has adopted an ordinance under section 205 authorizing that marihuana facility, the secure transporter may travel through any municipality. (2) To be eligible for a secure transporter license, the applicant and each investor with an interest in the secure transporter must not have an interest in a grower, processor, provisioning center, or safety compliance facility and must not be a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver. (3) A secure transporter shall enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (4) A secure transporter shall comply with all of the following: (a) Each driver transporting marihuana must have a chauffeur’s license issued by this state. (b) Each employee who has custody of marihuana or money that is related to a marihuana transaction shall not have been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States within the past 5 years or have been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance within the past 5 years. (c) Each vehicle must be operated with a 2-person crew with at least 1 individual remaining with the vehicle at all times during the transportation of marihuana. (d) A route plan and manifest must be entered into the statewide monitoring system, and a copy must be carried in the transporting vehicle and presented to a law enforcement officer upon request. (e) The marihuana must be transported in 1 or more sealed containers and not be accessible while in transit. (f) A secure transporting vehicle must not bear markings or other indication that it is carrying marihuana or a marihuana-infused product. (5) A secure transporter is subject to administrative inspection by a law enforcement officer at any point during the transportation of marihuana to determine compliance with this act. 333.27504 Provisioning center license. Sec. 504. (1) A provisioning center license authorizes the purchase or transfer of marihuana only from a grower or processor and sale or transfer to only a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver. Except as otherwise provided in section 505 and this subsection, all transfers of marihuana to a provisioning center from a separate marihuana facility must be by means of a secure transporter. A transfer of marihuana to a provisioning center from a marihuana facility that occupies the same location as the provisioning center does not require a secure transporter if the marihuana is transferred to the provisioning center using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (2) A provisioning center license authorizes the provisioning center to transfer marihuana to or from a safety compliance facility for testing by means of a secure transporter or as provided in section 505. (3) To be eligible for a provisioning center license, the applicant and each investor in the provisioning center must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (4) A provisioning center shall comply with all of the following: (a) Sell or transfer marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver only after it has been tested and bears the label required for retail sale. (b) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (c) Before selling or transferring marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or to a registered primary caregiver on behalf of a registered qualifying patient, inquire of the statewide monitoring system to determine whether the patient and, if applicable, the caregiver hold a valid, current, unexpired, and unrevoked registry identification card and that the sale or transfer will not exceed the daily and monthly purchasing limit established by the medical marihuana licensing board under this act. (d) Not allow the sale, consumption, or use of alcohol or tobacco products on the premises. (e) Not allow a physician to conduct a medical examination or issue a medical certification document on the premises for the purpose of obtaining a registry identification card. 333.27505 Safety compliance facility license; exception for industrial hemp Sec. 505. (1) In addition to transfer and testing authorized in section 203, a safety compliance facility license authorizes the safety compliance facility to do all of the following without using a secure transporter: (a) Take marihuana from, test marihuana for, and return marihuana to only a marihuana facility. (b) Collect a random sample of marihuana at the marihuana facility of a grower, processor, or provisioning center for testing. (2) A safety compliance facility must be accredited by an entity approved by the board by 1 year after the date the license is issued or have previously provided drug testing services to this state or this state’s court system and be a vendor in good standing in regard to those services. The board may grant a variance from this requirement upon a finding that the variance is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety, or welfare. (3) To be eligible for a safety compliance facility license, the applicant and each investor with any interest in the safety compliance facility must not have an interest in a grower, secure transporter, processor, or provisioning center. (4) A safety compliance facility shall comply with all of the following: (a) Perform tests to certify that marihuana is reasonably free of chemical residues such as fungicides and insecticides. (b) Use validated test methods to determine tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabinol acid, cannabidiol, and cannabidiol acid levels. (c) Perform tests that determine whether marihuana complies with the standards the board establishes for microbial and mycotoxin contents. (d) Perform other tests necessary to determine compliance with any other good manufacturing practices as prescribed in rules. (e) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (f) Have a secured laboratory space that cannot be accessed by the general public. (g) Retain and employ at least 1 staff member with a relevant advanced degree in a medical or laboratory science. (5) This act does not prohibit a safety compliance facility from taking or receiving industrial hemp for testing purposes and testing the industrial hemp pursuant to the industrial hemp research and development act. PART 6. TAXES AND FEES 333.27601 Provisioning center; imposition of tax; rate; administration. Sec. 601. (1) A tax is imposed on each provisioning center at the rate of 3% of the provisioning center’s gross retail receipts. By 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, a provisioning center shall remit the tax for the preceding calendar quarter to the department of treasury accompanied by a form prescribed by the department of treasury that shows the gross quarterly retail income of the provisioning center and the amount of tax due, and shall submit a copy of the form to the department. If a law authorizing the recreational or nonmedical use of marihuana in this state is enacted, this section does not apply beginning 90 days after the effective date of that law. (2) The taxes imposed under this section shall be administered by the department of treasury in accordance with 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, and this act. In case of conflict between the provisions of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, and this act, the provisions of this act prevail. 333.27602 Medical marihuana excise fund. Sec. 602. (1) The medical marihuana excise fund is created in the state treasury. (2) Except for the application fee under section 401, the regulatory assessment under section 603, and any local fees, all money collected under section 601 and all other fees, fines, and charges, imposed under this act must be deposited in the medical marihuana excise fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund. The state treasurer shall credit to the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. (3) Money in the medical marihuana excise fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse to the general fund. (4) The state treasurer is the administrator of the medical marihuana excise fund for auditing purposes. (5) The money in the medical marihuana excise fund must be allocated, upon appropriation, as follows: (a) 25% to municipalities in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the municipality. (b) 30% to counties in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the county. (c) 5% to counties in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the county. Money allocated under this subdivision must be used exclusively to support the county sheriffs and must be in addition to and not in replacement of any other funding received by the county sheriffs. (d) 30% to this state for the following: (i) Until September 30, 2017, for deposit in the general fund of the state treasury. (ii) Beginning October 1, 2017, for deposit in the first responder presumed coverage fund created in section 405 of the worker’s disability compensation act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, MCL 418.405. (e) 5% to the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards for training local law enforcement officers. (f) 5% to the department of state police. 333.27603 Regulatory assessment. Sec. 603. (1) A regulatory assessment is imposed on certain licensees as provided in this section. All of the following shall be included in establishing the total amount of the regulatory assessment established under this section: (a) The department’s costs to implement, administer, and enforce this act, except for the costs to process and investigate applications for licenses supported with the application fee described in section 401. (b) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related legal services provided to the department by the department of attorney general. (c) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related services provided to the department by the department of state police. (d) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related services provided by the department of treasury. (e) $500,000.00 to be allocated to the department for expenditures of the department for licensing substance use disorder programs. (f) An amount equal to 5% of the sum of the amounts provided for under subdivisions (a) to (d) to be allocated to the department of health and human services for substance-abuse-related expenditures including, but not limited to, substance use disorder prevention, education, and treatment programs. (g) Expenses related to the standardized field sobriety tests administered in enforcing the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923. (h) An amount sufficient to provide for the administrative costs of the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards. (2) The regulatory assessment is in addition to the application fee described in section 401, the tax described in section 601, and any local licensing fees. (3) The regulatory assessment shall be collected annually from licensed growers, processors, provisioning centers, and secure transporters. The regulatory assessment for a class A grower license shall not exceed $10,000.00. (4) Beginning in the first-year marihuana facilities are authorized to operate in this state, and annually thereafter, the department, in consultation with the board, shall establish the total regulatory assessment at an amount that is estimated to be sufficient to cover the actual costs and support the expenditures listed in subsection (1). (5) On or before the date the licensee begins operating and annually thereafter, each grower, processor, provisioning center, and secure transporter shall pay to the state treasurer an amount determined by the department to reasonably reflect the licensee’s share of the total regulatory assessment established under subsection (4). 333.27604 Marihuana regulatory fund. Sec. 604. (1) The marihuana regulatory fund is created within the state treasury. (2) The application fee collected under section 401 and the regulatory assessment collected under section 603 must be deposited into the marihuana regulatory fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund. The state treasurer shall credit to the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. (3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, money in the marihuana regulatory fund at the close of the fiscal year must remain in the fund and must not lapse to the general fund. (4) The marijuana regulatory agency is the administrator of the marihuana regulatory fund for auditing purposes. (5) Except as provided in section 603(1)(d) and (e), the department shall expend money from the marihuana regulatory fund, upon appropriation, only for implementing, administering, and enforcing this act. (6) For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020 only, $17,000,000.00 of the money in the marihuana regulatory fund is transferred to and must be deposited into the general fund. (7) As used in this section, “marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. 333.27605 Use of money from Michigan marihuana registry fund. Sec. 605. The department may use any money appropriated to it from the marihuana registry fund created in section 6 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26426, for the purpose of funding the operations of the department and the board in the initial implementation and subsequent administration and enforcement of this act. PART 7. REPORTS 333.27701 Financial statements. Sec. 701. By 30 days after the end of each state fiscal year, each licensee shall transmit to the board and to the municipality financial statements of the licensee’s total operations. The financial statements shall be reviewed by a certified public accountant in a manner and form prescribed by the board. The certified public accountant must be licensed in this state under article 7 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720 to 339.736. The compensation for the certified public accountant shall be paid directly by the licensee to the certified public accountant. 333.27702 Report. Sec. 702. The board shall submit with the annual report to the governor under section 302(l) and to the chairs of the legislative committees that govern issues related to marihuana facilities a report covering the previous year. The report shall include an account of the board actions, its financial position, results of operation under this act, and any recommendations for legislation that the board considers advisable. PART 8. MARIHUANA ADVISORY PANEL 333.27801 Marihuana advisory panel. Sec. 801. (1) The marihuana advisory panel is created within the department. (2) The marihuana advisory panel consists of 17 members, including the director of state police or his or her designee, the director of this state’s department of health and human services or his or her designee, the director of the department or his or her designee, the attorney general or his or her designee, the director of the department of agriculture and rural development or his or her designee, and the following members appointed by the governor: (a) One registered medical marihuana patient or medical marihuana primary caregiver. (b) One representative of the industry from the growers category. (c) One representative of the industry from the processors category. (d) One representative of the industry from the provisioning centers category. (e) One representative of the industry from the safety compliance facilities category. (f) One representative of townships. (g) One representative of cities and villages. (h) One representative of counties. (i) One representative of sheriffs. (j) One representative of local police. (k) One physician licensed under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838. (l) One representative of the industry from the secure transporter category. (3) The governor shall appoint the first members of the panel by March 1, 2018. The members appointed to the panel shall serve at the pleasure of the governor and shall serve for terms of 3 years or until a successor is appointed, whichever is later. (4) If a vacancy occurs on the advisory panel, the governor shall make an appointment for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. (5) The director of the department or his or her designee shall call the first meeting of the panel within 1 month after the advisory panel is appointed. At the first meeting, the panel shall elect from among its members a chairperson and any other officers it considers necessary or appropriate. After the first meeting, the panel shall meet at least 2 times each year, or more frequently at the call of the chairperson. (6) A majority of the members of the panel constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the members present and serving are required for official action of the panel. (7) The business that the panel performs must be conducted at a public meeting held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 to 15.275. (8) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the panel in the performance of an official function is subject to the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (9) Members of the panel shall serve without compensation. However, members of the panel may be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties as members of the panel. (10) The panel may make recommendations to the board concerning promulgation of rules and, as requested by the board or the department, the administration, implementation, and enforcement of this act and the marihuana tracking act. (11) State departments and agencies shall cooperate with the panel and, upon request, provide it with meeting space and other necessary resources to assist it in the performance of its duties. History: 2016, Act 281, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016 ;– Am. 2018, Act 10, Imd. Eff. Jan. 26, 2018 Compiler’s Notes: Enacting section 2 of Act 281 of 2016 provides: “Enacting section 2. The legislature finds that the necessity for access to safe sources of marihuana for medical use and the immediate need for growers, processors, secure transporters, provisioning centers, and safety compliance facilities to operate under clear requirements establish the need to promulgate emergency rules to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare. “For transfer of powers and duties of the medical marihuana licensing board, marihuana advisory panel, and department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the medical marihuana licensing board, marihuana advisory panel, and bureau of marijuana regulation, see ERO No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001. Rendered 10/25/2021 12:25:04 Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov Please visit the official government legislative site for any updates to laws.MMFLA PDF VersionMMFLA Section Links Changing Laws MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Act 281 of 2016 AN ACT to license and regulate medical marihuana growers, processors, provisioning centers, secure transporters, and safety compliance facilities; to allow certain licensees to process, test, or sell industrial hemp; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to create a medical marihuana licensing board; to provide for interaction with the statewide monitoring system for commercial marihuana transactions; to create an advisory panel; to provide immunity from prosecution for marihuana-related offenses for persons engaging in certain activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe civil fines and sanctions and provide remedies; to provide for forfeiture of contraband; to provide for taxes, fees, and assessments; and to require the promulgation of rules. The People of the State of Michigan enact: PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 333.27101 Short title. Sec. 101. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “medical marihuana facilities licensing act”. Sec. 102. As used in this act: (a) “Advisory panel” or “panel” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (b) “Affiliate” means any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with; is in a partnership or joint venture relationship with; or is a co-shareholder of a corporation, a co-member of a limited liability company, or a co-partner in a limited liability partnership with a licensee or applicant. (c) “Applicant” means a person who applies for a state operating license. Applicant includes, with respect to disclosures in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of prior marijuana regulatory agency approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant, and the following for each type of applicant: (i) For an individual or sole proprietorship: the proprietor and the proprietor’s spouse. (ii) For a partnership and limited liability partnership: all partners and their spouses. For a limited partnership and limited liability limited partnership: all general and limited partners, not including a limited partner holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the partnership, and their spouses. For a limited liability company: all members and managers, not including a member holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the company, and their spouses. (iii) For a privately held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (iv) For a publicly held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (v) For a multilevel ownership enterprise: any entity or person that receives or has the right to receive more than 10% of the gross or net profit from the enterprise during any full or partial calendar or fiscal year. (vi) For a nonprofit corporation: all individuals and entities with membership or shareholder rights in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the bylaws and the spouses of the individuals. (d) “Board” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (e) “Cutting” means a section of a lead stem or root stock that is used for vegetative asexual propagation. (f) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (g) “Grower” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that cultivates, dries, trims, or cures and packages marihuana for sale to a processor, provisioning center, or another grower. (h) “Industrial hemp” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106. (i) “Industrial hemp research and development act” means the industrial hemp research and development act, 2014 PA 547, MCL 286.841 to 286.859. (j) “Licensee” means a person holding a state operating license. (k) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106. (l) “Marihuana facility” means a location at which a licensee is licensed to operate under this act. (m) “Marihuana plant” means any plant of the species Cannabis sativa L. Marihuana plant does not include industrial hemp. (n) “Marihuana-infused product” means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible substance, or similar product containing any usable marihuana that is intended for human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation. Marihuana-infused product is not considered a food for purposes of the food law, 2000 PA 92, MCL 289.1101 to 289.8111. (o) “Marihuana tracking act” means the marihuana tracking act, 2016 PA 282, MCL 333.27901 to 333.27904. (p) “Marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. (q) “Michigan medical marihuana act” means the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430. (r) “Municipality” means a city, township, or village. (s) “Paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind that is designed for or used in growing, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, compounding, converting, storing, processing, preparing, transporting, injecting, smoking, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana. (t) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, trust, or other legal entity. (u) “Plant” means any living organism that produces its own food through photosynthesis and has observable root formation or is in growth material. (v) “Processor” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana or creates a marihuana-infused product for sale and transfer in packaged form to a provisioning center or another processor. (w) “Provisioning center” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower or processor and sells, supplies, or provides marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers. Provisioning center includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold at retail to registered qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a registered primary caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana registration process in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is not a provisioning center for purposes of this act. (x) “Registered primary caregiver” means a primary caregiver who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (y) “Registered qualifying patient” means a qualifying patient who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act or a visiting qualifying patient as that term is defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (z) “Registry identification card” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (aa) “Rules” means rules promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, by the marijuana regulatory agency to implement this act. (bb) “Safety compliance facility” means a licensee that is a commercial entity that takes marihuana from a marihuana facility or receives marihuana from a registered primary caregiver, tests the marihuana for contaminants and for tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns the test results, and may return the marihuana to the marihuana facility. (cc) “Secure transporter” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that stores marihuana and transports marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee. (dd) “Seed” means the fertilized, ungerminated, matured ovule, containing an embryo or rudimentary plant, of a marihuana plant that is flowering. (ee) “Seedling” means a marihuana plant that has germinated and has not flowered and is not harvestable. (ff) “State operating license” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “license” means a license that is issued under this act that allows the licensee to operate as 1 of the following, specified in the license: (i) A grower. (ii) A processor. (iii) A secure transporter. (iv) A provisioning center. (v) A safety compliance facility. (gg) “Statewide monitoring system” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “system” means an internet-based, statewide database established, implemented, and maintained by the department under the marihuana tracking act, that is available to licensees, law enforcement agencies, and authorized state departments and agencies on a 24-hour basis for all of the following: (i) Verifying registry identification cards. (ii) Tracking marihuana transfer and transportation by licensees, including transferee, date, quantity, and price. (iii) Verifying in commercially reasonable time that a transfer will not exceed the limit that the patient or caregiver is authorized to receive under section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424. (hh) “Tissue culture” means a marihuana plant cell, cutting, tissue, or organ, that is kept under a sterile condition on a nutrient culture medium of known composition and that does not have visible root formation. A tissue culture is not a marihuana plant for purposes of a grower. (ii) “Usable marihuana” means the dried leaves, flowers, plant resin, or extract of the marihuana plant, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant. ***** 333.27102.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 11, 2021 ***** 333.27102.amended Definitions. Sec. 102. As used in this act: (a) “Advisory panel” or “panel” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (b) “Affiliate” means any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with; is in a partnership or joint venture relationship with; or is a co-shareholder of a corporation, a co-member of a limited liability company, or a co-partner in a limited liability partnership with a licensee or applicant. (c) “Applicant” means a person who applies for a state operating license. Applicant includes, with respect to disclosures in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of prior marijuana regulatory agency approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant, and the following for each type of applicant: (i) For an individual or sole proprietorship: the proprietor and the proprietor’s spouse. (ii) For a partnership and limited liability partnership: all partners and their spouses. For a limited partnership and limited liability limited partnership: all general and limited partners, not including a limited partner holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the partnership, and their spouses. For a limited liability company: all members and managers, not including a member holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less and who does not exercise control over or participate in the management of the company, and their spouses. (iii) For a privately held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (iv) For a publicly held corporation: all corporate officers or persons with equivalent titles and their spouses, all directors and their spouses, and all stockholders, not including those holding a direct or indirect ownership interest of 10% or less, and their spouses. (v) For a multilevel ownership enterprise: any entity or person that receives or has the right to receive more than 10% of the gross or net profit from the enterprise during any full or partial calendar or fiscal year. (vi) For a nonprofit corporation: all individuals and entities with membership or shareholder rights in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the bylaws and the spouses of the individuals. (d) “Board” means the marijuana regulatory agency. (e) “Cutting” means a section of a lead stem or root stock that is used for vegetative asexual propagation. (f) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (g) “Grower” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that cultivates, dries, trims, or cures and packages marihuana for sale to a processor, provisioning center, or another grower. (h) “Industrial hemp” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (i) “Industrial hemp research and development act” means the industrial hemp research and development act, 2014 PA 547, MCL 286.841 to 286.859. (j) “Licensee” means a person holding a state operating license. (k) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (l) “Marihuana facility” means a location at which a licensee is licensed to operate under this act. (m) “Marihuana plant” means any plant of the species Cannabis sativa L. Marihuana plant does not include industrial hemp. (n) “Marihuana-infused product” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL 1, MCL 333.27953. (o) “Marihuana tracking act” means the marihuana tracking act, 2016 PA 282, MCL 333.27901 to 333.27904. (p) “Marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. (q) “Michigan medical marihuana act” means the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430. (r) “Municipality” means a city, township, or village. (s) “Paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind that is designed for or used in growing, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, compounding, converting, storing, processing, preparing, transporting, injecting, smoking, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, marihuana. (t) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, trust, or other legal entity. (u) “Plant” means any living organism that produces its own food through photosynthesis and has observable root formation or is in growth material. (v) “Processor” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana or creates a marihuana-infused product for sale and transfer in packaged form to a provisioning center or another processor. (w) “Provisioning center” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases marihuana from a grower or processor and sells, supplies, or provides marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers. Provisioning center includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold at retail to registered qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a registered primary caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana registration process in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is not a provisioning center for purposes of this act. (x) “Registered primary caregiver” means a primary caregiver who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (y) “Registered qualifying patient” means a qualifying patient who has been issued a current registry identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act or a visiting qualifying patient as that term is defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (z) “Registry identification card” means that term as defined in section 3 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423. (aa) “Rules” means rules promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, by the marijuana regulatory agency to implement this act. (bb) “Safety compliance facility” means a licensee that is a commercial entity that takes marihuana from a marihuana facility or receives marihuana from a registered primary caregiver, tests the marihuana for contaminants and for tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns the test results, and may return the marihuana to the marihuana facility. (cc) “Secure transporter” means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that stores marihuana and transports marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee. (dd) “Seed” means the fertilized, ungerminated, matured ovule, containing an embryo or rudimentary plant, of a marihuana plant that is flowering. (ee) “Seedling” means a marihuana plant that has germinated and has not flowered and is not harvestable. (ff) “State operating license” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “license” means a license that is issued under this act that allows the licensee to operate as 1 of the following, specified in the license: (i) A grower. (ii) A processor. (iii) A secure transporter. (iv) A provisioning center. (v) A safety compliance facility. (gg) “Statewide monitoring system” or, unless the context requires a different meaning, “system” means an internet-based, statewide database established, implemented, and maintained by the department under the marihuana tracking act, that is available to licensees, law enforcement agencies, and authorized state departments and agencies on a 24-hour basis for all of the following: (i) Verifying registry identification cards. (ii) Tracking marihuana transfer and transportation by licensees, including transferee, date, quantity, and price. (iii) Verifying in commercially reasonable time that a transfer will not exceed the limit that the patient or caregiver is authorized to receive under section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26424. (hh) “Tissue culture” means a marihuana plant cell, cutting, tissue, or organ, that is kept under a sterile condition on a nutrient culture medium of known composition and that does not have visible root formation. A tissue culture is not a marihuana plant for purposes of a grower. (ii) “Usable marihuana” means the dried leaves, flowers, plant resin, or extract of the marihuana plant, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant. PART 2. APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS 333.27201 Protected activities; person owning or leasing property upon which marihuana facility located subject to penalties or sanctions prohibited; conditions; activities of certified public accountant or financial institution not subject to certain penalties or sanctions; other provisions of law inconsistent with act; definitions. Sec. 201. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, if a person has been granted a state operating license and is operating within the scope of the license, the licensee and its agents are not subject to any of the following for engaging in activities described in subsection (2): (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local criminal prosecution for a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local civil prosecution for a marihuana-related offense. (d) Search or inspection, except for an inspection authorized under this act by law enforcement officers, the municipality, or the department. (e) Seizure of marihuana, real property, personal property, or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (f) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (2) The following activities are protected under subsection (1) if performed under a state operating license within the scope of that license and in accord with this act, rules, and any ordinance adopted under section 205: (a) Growing marihuana. (b) Purchasing, receiving, selling, transporting, or transferring marihuana from or to a licensee, a licensee’s agent, a registered qualifying patient, or a registered primary caregiver. (c) Possessing marihuana. (d) Possessing or manufacturing marihuana paraphernalia for medical use. (e) Processing marihuana. (f) Transporting marihuana. (g) Testing, transferring, infusing, extracting, altering, or studying marihuana. (h) Receiving or providing compensation for products or services. (3) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who owns or leases real property upon which a marihuana facility is located and who has no knowledge that the licensee violated this act is not subject to any of the following for owning, leasing, or permitting the operation of a marihuana facility on the real property: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Search or inspection, except for an inspection authorized under this act by law enforcement officers, the municipality, or the department. (e) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (f) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau. (4) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a certified public accountant who is licensed under article 7 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720 to 339.736, is not subject to any of the following for engaging in the practice of public accounting as that term is defined in section 720 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720, for an applicant or licensee who is in compliance with this act, rules, and the Michigan medical marihuana act: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (e) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (5) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a financial institution is not subject to any of the following for providing a financial service to a licensee under this act: (a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances regulating marihuana. (b) State or local civil prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (c) State or local criminal prosecution based on a marihuana-related offense. (d) Seizure of any real or personal property or anything of value based on a marihuana-related offense. (e) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau based on a marihuana-related offense. (6) For the purposes of regulating the commercial entities established under this act, any provisions of the following acts that are inconsistent with this act do not apply to a grower, processor, secure transporter, provisioning center, or safety compliance facility operating in compliance with this act: (a) The business corporation act, 1972 PA 284, MCL 450.1101 to 450.2098. (b) The nonprofit corporation act, 1982 PA 162, MCL 450.2101 to 450.3192. (c) 1931 PA 327, MCL 450.98 to 450.192. (d) The Michigan revised uniform limited partnership act, 1982 PA 213, MCL 449.1101 to 449.2108. (e) The Michigan limited liability company act, 1993 PA 23, MCL 450.4101 to 450.5200. (f) 1907 PA 101, MCL 445.1 to 445.5. (g) 1913 PA 164, MCL 449.101 to 449.106. (h) The uniform partnership act, 1917 PA 72, MCL 449.1 to 449.48. (7) As used in this section: (a) “Financial institution” means any of the following: (i) A state or national bank. (ii) A state or federally chartered savings and loan association. (iii) A state or federally chartered savings bank. (iv) A state or federally chartered credit union. (v) An insurance company. (vi) An entity that offers any of the following to a resident of this state: (A) A mutual fund account. (B) A securities brokerage account. (C) A money market account. (D) A retail investment account. (vii) An entity regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission that collects funds from the public. (viii) An entity that is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers and that collects funds from the public. (ix) Another entity that collects funds from the public. (b) “Financial service” means a deposit; withdrawal; transfer between accounts; exchange of currency; loan; extension of credit; purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument; or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected. 333.27203 Registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver; criminal prosecution or sanctions prohibited; conditions. Sec. 203. A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver is not subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions for purchasing marihuana from a provisioning center if the quantity purchased is within the limits established under the Michigan medical marihuana act. A registered primary caregiver is not subject to criminal prosecution or sanctions for any transfer of 2.5 ounces or less of marihuana to a safety compliance facility for testing. 333.27204 Medical purpose defense. Sec. 204. This act does not limit the medical purpose defense provided in section 8 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26428, to any prosecution involving marihuana. 333.27205 Marihuana facility; ordinance; requirements. Sec. 205. (1) The board shall not issue a state operating license to an applicant unless the municipality in which the applicant’s proposed marihuana facility will operate has adopted an ordinance that authorizes that type of facility. A municipality may adopt an ordinance to authorize 1 or more types of marihuana facilities within its boundaries and to limit the number of each type of marihuana facility. A municipality may adopt other ordinances relating to marihuana facilities within its jurisdiction, including zoning regulations, but shall not impose regulations regarding the purity or pricing of marihuana or interfering or conflicting with this act or rules for licensing marihuana facilities. A municipality that adopts an ordinance under this subsection that authorizes a marihuana facility shall provide the department with all of the following on a form prescribed and provided by the department: (a) An attestation that the municipality has adopted an ordinance under this subsection that authorizes the marihuana facility. (b) A description of any zoning regulations that apply to the proposed marihuana facility within the municipality. (c) The signature of the clerk of the municipality or his or her designee. (d) Any other information required by the department. (2) A municipal ordinance may establish an annual, nonrefundable fee of not more than $5,000.00 to help defray administrative and enforcement costs associated with the operation of a marihuana facility in the municipality. (3) The department may require a municipality to provide the following information to the department on a form prescribed and provided by the department regarding a licensee who submits an application for license renewal: (a) Information that the board declares necessary to determine whether the licensee’s license should be renewed. (b) A description of a violation of an ordinance or a zoning regulation adopted under subsection (1) committed by the licensee, but only if the violation relates to activities licensed under this act and rules or the Michigan medical marihuana act. (c) Whether there has been a change to an ordinance or a zoning regulation adopted under subsection (1) since the license was issued to the licensee and a description of the change. (4) Information a municipality obtains from an applicant under this section is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, information a municipality provides to the department under this section is subject to disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. 333.27206 Rules. Sec. 206. The marijuana regulatory agency shall promulgate rules and emergency rules as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act. The rules must ensure the safety, security, and integrity of the operation of marihuana facilities, and must include rules to do the following: (a) Set appropriate standards for marihuana facilities and associated equipment. (b) Subject to section 408, establish minimum levels of insurance that licensees must maintain. (c) Establish operating regulations for each category of license to ensure the health, safety, and security of the public and the integrity of marihuana facility operations. (d) Establish qualifications and restrictions for persons participating in or involved with operating marihuana facilities. (e) Establish testing standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana sold through provisioning centers. (f) Provide for the levy and collection of fines for a violation of this act or rules. (g) Prescribe use of the statewide monitoring system to track all marihuana transfers, as provided in the marihuana tracking act and this act, and provide for a funding mechanism to support the system. (h) Establish quality control standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities. (i) Establish chain of custody standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities. (j) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for waste product disposal and storage by marihuana facilities. (k) Establish chemical storage standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana facilities.  (l) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for securely and safely transporting marihuana between marihuana facilities. (m) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for the storage of marihuana-by-marihuana facilities. (n) Establish labeling and packaging standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana sold or transferred through provisioning centers, including, but not limited to: (i) A prohibition on labeling or packaging that is intended to appeal to or has the effect of appealing to minors. (ii) A requirement that all marihuana sold through provisioning centers include on the exterior of the marihuana packaging the following warning printed in clearly legible type and surrounded by a continuous heavy line: WARNING: USE BY PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING WOMEN, OR BY WOMEN PLANNING TO BECOME PREGNANT, MAY RESULT IN FETAL INJURY, PRETERM BIRTH, LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, OR DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS FOR THE CHILD. (o) Establish daily and monthly purchasing limits at provisioning centers for registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to ensure compliance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. (p) Establish marketing and advertising restrictions for marihuana products and marihuana facilities. (q) Establish maximum tetrahydrocannabinol levels for marihuana-infused products sold or transferred through provisioning centers. (r) Establish health standards to ensure the safe preparation of products containing marihuana that are intended for human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation. (s) Establish restrictions on edible marihuana-infused products to prohibit shapes that would appeal to minors. (t) Establish standards, procedures, and requirements for the sale of industrial hemp from a provisioning center to a registered qualified patient. The rules promulgated under this subdivision must be promulgated before March 1, 2019. (u) Establish informational pamphlet standards for provisioning centers including, but not limited to, a requirement to make available to every patron at the time of sale a pamphlet measuring 3.5 inches by 5 inches that includes safety information related to marihuana use by minors and the poison control hotline number. (v) Establish procedures and standards for approving an appointee to operate a marihuana facility under section 206a. 333.27206a Operation of a marihuana facility; appointment and approval; notice of violation. Sec. 206a. (1) The marijuana regulatory agency may approve the operation of a marihuana facility by any of the following: (a) A court-appointed personal representative, guardian, or conservator of an individual who holds a state license or has an interest in a person that holds a state license. (b) A court-appointed receiver or trustee. (2) If an individual approved to operate a marihuana facility under subsection (1) receives notice from the marijuana regulatory agency that the marihuana facility the individual is operating is in violation of this act or rules, the individual shall notify the court that appointed the individual of the notice of violation within 2 days after receiving the notice of violation. History: Add. 2020, Act 207, Imd. Eff. Oct. 15, 2020 Sec. 207. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a licensee shall adopt and use a third-party inventory control and tracking system that is capable of interfacing with the statewide monitoring system to allow the licensee to enter or access information in the statewide monitoring system as required under this act and rules. The third-party inventory control and tracking system must have all of the following capabilities necessary for the licensee to comply with the requirements applicable to the licensee’s license type: (a) Tracking all marihuana plants, products, packages, patient and primary caregiver purchase totals, waste, transfers, conversions, sales, and returns that are linked to unique identification numbers. (b) Tracking lot and batch information throughout the entire chain of custody. (c) Tracking all products, conversions, and derivatives throughout the entire chain of custody. (d) Tracking marihuana plant, batch, and product destruction. (e) Tracking transportation of product. (f) Performing complete batch recall tracking that clearly identifies all of the following details relating to the specific batch subject to the recall: (i) Sold product. (ii) Product inventory that is finished and available for sale. (iii) Product that is in the process of transfer. (iv) Product being processed into another form. (v) Postharvest raw product, such as product that is in the drying, trimming, or curing process. (g) Reporting and tracking loss, theft, or diversion of product containing marihuana. (h) Reporting and tracking all inventory discrepancies. (i) Reporting and tracking adverse patient responses or dose-related efficacy issues. (j) Reporting and tracking all sales and refunds. (k) Electronically receiving and transmitting information as required under this act, the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, and the marihuana tracking act. (l) Receiving testing results electronically from a safety compliance facility via a secured application program interface into the system and directly linking the testing results to each applicable source batch and sample. (m) Identifying test results that may have been altered. (n) Providing the licensee with access to information in the tracking system that is necessary to verify that the licensee is carrying out the marihuana transactions authorized under the licensee’s license in accordance with this act. (o) Providing information to cross-check that product sales are made to a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver on behalf of a registered qualifying patient and that the product received the required testing. (p) Providing the department and state agencies with access to information in the database that they are authorized to access. (q) Providing law enforcement agencies with access to only the information in the database that is necessary to verify that an individual possesses a valid and current registry identification card. (r) Providing licensees with access only to the information in the system that they are required to receive before a sale, transfer, transport, or other activity authorized under a license issued under this act. (s) Securing the confidentiality of information in the database by preventing access by a person who is not authorized to access the statewide monitoring system or is not authorized to access the particular information. (t) Providing analytics to the department regarding key performance indicators such as the following: (i) Total daily sales. (ii) Total marihuana plants in production. (iii) Total marihuana plants destroyed. (iv) Total inventory adjustments. (2) If the statewide monitoring system is capable of allowing a licensee to access or enter information into the statewide monitoring system without use of a third-party inventory control and tracking system, a licensee may access or enter information into the statewide monitoring system directly and the licensee is not required to adopt and use a third-party inventory control and tracking system. 333.27208 Marihuana facility and property; examination by local and state police. Sec. 208. A marihuana facility and all articles of property in that facility are subject to examination at any time by a local police agency or the department of state police. PART 3. MEDICAL MARIHUANA LICENSING BOARD 333.27301 Medical marihuana licensing board; creation; membership; appointment; terms; vacancy; reimbursement for expenses; other public office; eligibility; removal of member; appointment and employment limitations; financial disclosure statement; direct or indirect interest. Sec. 301. (1) The medical marihuana licensing board is created within the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (2) The board consists of 5 members who are residents of this state, not more than 3 of whom are members of the same political party. The governor shall appoint the members. One of the members shall be appointed from 3 nominees submitted by the senate majority leader and 1 from 3 nominees submitted by the speaker of the house. The governor shall designate 1 of the members as chairperson. (3) The members shall be appointed for terms of 4 years, except, of those who are first appointed, 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and 2 members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years. A member’s term expires on December 31 of the last year of the member’s term. If a vacancy occurs, the governor shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term in the manner of the original appointment. (4) Each member of the board shall be reimbursed for all actual and necessary expenses and disbursements incurred in carrying out official duties. (5) A board member shall not hold any other public office for which he or she receives compensation other than necessary travel or other incidental expenses. (6) A person who is not of good moral character or who has been indicted for, charged with, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, or forfeited bail concerning any felony or a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance violation, theft, dishonesty, or fraud under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States or a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance violation, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state is not eligible to serve on the board. (7) The governor may remove any member of the board for neglect of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, or any other just cause. (8) The board shall not appoint or employ an individual if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) During the 3 years immediately preceding appointment or employment, the individual held any direct or indirect interest in, or was employed by, a person who is licensed to operate under this act or under a corresponding license in another jurisdiction or a person with an application for an operating license pending before the board or in any other jurisdiction. The board shall not employ an individual who has a direct or indirect interest in a licensee or a marihuana facility. (b) The individual or his or her spouse, parent, child, child’s spouse, sibling, or spouse of a sibling has an application for a license pending before the board or is a member of the board of directors of, or an individual financially interested in, any licensee or marihuana facility. (9) Each member of the board and each key employee as determined by the department shall file with the governor a financial disclosure statement listing all assets and liabilities, property and business interests, and sources of income of the member and key employee and his or her spouse, if any, affirming that the member and key employee are in compliance with subsection (8)(a) and (b). The financial disclosure statement shall be made under oath and filed at the time of employment and annually thereafter. (10) Each employee of the board shall file with the board a financial disclosure statement listing all assets and liabilities, property and business interests, and sources of income of the employee and his or her spouse. This subsection does not apply to a key employee. (11) A member of the board or key employee shall not hold any direct or indirect interest in, be employed by, or enter into a contract for services with an applicant, a board licensee, or a marihuana facility for a period of 4 years after the date his or her employment or membership on the board terminates. The department in consultation with the board shall define the term “direct or indirect interest” by rule. (12) For 2 years after the date his or her employment with the board is terminated, an employee of the board shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest in, be employed by, or enter into a contract for services with any applicant, licensee, or marihuana facility. (13) For 2 years after the termination of his or her office or employment with the board, a board member or an individual employed by the board shall not represent any person or party other than this state before or against the board. (14) A business entity in which a former board member or employee or agent has an interest, or any partner, officer, or employee of the business entity, shall not make any appearance or represent a party that the former member, employee, or agent is prohibited from appearing for or representing. As used in this subsection, “business entity” means a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited liability partnership, association, trust, or other form of legal entity. 333.27302 Board; duties. Sec. 302. The board has general responsibility for implementing this act. The board has the powers and duties specified in this act and all other powers necessary and proper to fully and effectively implement and administer this act for the purpose of licensing, regulating, and enforcing the licensing and regulation system established under this act for marihuana growth, processing, testing, and transporting. The board is subject to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The board’s duties include all of the following: (a) Granting or denying each application for a state operating license within a reasonable time. (b) Deciding all license applications in reasonable order. (c) Conducting its public meetings in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (d) Consulting with the department in promulgating rules and emergency rules as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act. The board shall not promulgate a rule establishing a limit on the number or type of marihuana facility licenses that may be granted. (e) Implementing and collecting the application fee described in section 401 and, in conjunction with the department of treasury, the tax described in section 601 and regulatory assessment described in section 603. (f) Providing for the levy and collection of fines for a violation of this act or rules. (g) Providing oversight of a marihuana facility through the board’s inspectors, agents, and auditors and through the state police or attorney general for the purpose of certifying the revenue, receiving complaints from the public, or conducting investigations into the operation of the marihuana facility as the board considers necessary and proper to ensure compliance with this act and rules and to protect and promote the overall safety, security, and integrity of the operation of a marihuana facility. (h) Providing oversight of marihuana facilities to ensure that marihuana-infused products meet health and safety standards that protect the public to a degree comparable to state and federal standards applicable to similar food and drugs. (i) Reviewing and ruling on any complaint by a licensee regarding any investigative procedures of this state that are believed to be unnecessarily disruptive of marihuana facility operations. The need to inspect and investigate is presumed at all times. The board may delegate authority to hear, review, or rule on licensee complaints to a subcommittee of the board. To prevail on the complaint, a licensee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the procedures unreasonably disrupted its marihuana facility operations. (j) Holding at least 2 public meetings each year. Upon 72 hours’ written notice to each member, the chairperson or any 2 board members may call a special meeting. Three members of the board constitute a quorum, including when making determinations on an application for a license. Three votes are required in support of final determinations of the board on applications for licenses and all other licensing determinations, except those 4 votes are required in support of a determination to suspend or revoke a license. The board shall keep a complete and accurate record of all of its meetings and hearings. Upon order of the board, 1 of the board members or a hearing officer designated by the board may conduct any hearing provided for under this act or by rules and may recommend findings and decisions to the board. The board member or hearing officer conducting the hearing has all powers and rights regarding the conduct of hearings granted to the board under this act. The record made at the time of the hearing shall be reviewed by the board or a majority of the board, and the findings and decision of the majority of the board are the order of the board in the case. (k) Maintaining records that are separate and distinct from the records of any other state board. The records shall be made available for public inspection subject to the limitations of this act and shall accurately reflect all board proceedings. (l) Reviewing the patterns of marihuana transfers by the licensees under this act as recorded in a statewide database established for use in administering and enforcing this act and making recommendations to the governor and the legislature in a written annual report to the governor and the legislature and additional reports that the governor requests. The annual report shall be submitted by April 15 of each year and shall include the report required under section 702, a statement of receipts and disbursements by the board, the actions taken by the board, and any additional information and recommendations that the board considers appropriate or that the governor requests. (m) Except as otherwise provided in this act, all information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the board are subject to the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, except for the following: (i) Unless presented during a public hearing or requested by the licensee or applicant who is the sole subject of the data, all of the information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to, created by, or used by the board related to background investigation of applicants or licensees and to trade secrets, internal controls, and security measures of the licensees or applicants. (ii) All information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the board that have been received from another jurisdiction or local, state, or federal agency under a promise of confidentiality or if the release of the information is otherwise barred by the statutes, rules, or regulations of that jurisdiction or agency or by an intergovernmental agreement. (iii) All information in the statewide monitoring system. 333.27303 Marijuana regulatory agency; powers. Sec. 303. (1) The marijuana regulatory agency has jurisdiction over the operation of all marihuana facilities. The marijuana regulatory agency has all powers necessary and proper to fully and effectively oversee the operation of marihuana facilities, including the authority to do all of the following: (a) Investigate applicants for state operating licenses, determine the eligibility for licenses, and grant licenses to applicants in accordance with this act and the rules. (b) Investigate all individuals employed by marihuana facilities. (c) At any time, through its investigators, agents, auditors, or the state police, without a warrant and without notice to the licensee, enter the premises, offices, facilities, or other places of business of a licensee, if evidence of compliance or noncompliance with this act or rules is likely to be found and consistent with constitutional limitations, for the following purposes: (i) To inspect and examine all premises of marihuana facilities. (ii) To inspect, examine, and audit relevant records of the licensee and, if the licensee fails to cooperate with an investigation, impound, seize, assume physical control of, or summarily remove from the premises all books, ledgers, documents, writings, photocopies, correspondence, records, and videotapes, including electronically stored records, money receptacles, or equipment in which the records are stored. (iii) To inspect the person, and inspect or examine personal effects present in a marihuana facility, of any holder of a state operating license while that person is present in a marihuana facility. (iv) To investigate alleged violations of this act or rules. (d) Investigate alleged violations of this act or rules and take appropriate disciplinary action against a licensee. (e) Consult with the department in adopting rules to establish appropriate standards for marihuana facilities and associated equipment. (f) Require all relevant records of licensees, including financial or other statements, to be kept on the premises authorized for operation of the marihuana facility of the licensee or in the manner prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency. (g) Require that each licensee of a marihuana facility submit to the marijuana regulatory agency a list of the stockholders or other persons having a 2.5% or greater beneficial interest in the facility in addition to any other information the marijuana regulatory agency considers necessary to effectively administer this act and rules, orders, and final decisions made under this act. (h) Eject, or exclude or authorize the ejection or exclusion of, an individual from a marihuana facility if the individual violates this act, rules, or final orders of the marijuana regulatory agency. However, the propriety of the ejection or exclusion is subject to a subsequent hearing by the marijuana regulatory agency. (i) Conduct periodic audits of marihuana facilities licensed under this act. (j) Consult with the department as to appropriate minimum levels of insurance for licensees in addition to the minimum established under section 408 for liability insurance. (k) Delegate the execution of any of its powers that are not specifically and exclusively reserved to the marijuana regulatory agency under this act for the purpose of administering and enforcing this act and rules. (l) Take disciplinary action as the marijuana regulatory agency considers appropriate to prevent practices that violate this act and rules. (m) Review a licensee if that licensee is under review or the subject of discipline by a regulatory body in any other jurisdiction for a violation of a controlled substance or marihuana law or regulation in that jurisdiction. (n) Take any other reasonable or appropriate action to enforce this act and rules. (2) The marijuana regulatory agency may seek and shall receive the cooperation and assistance of the department of state police in conducting background investigations of applicants and in fulfilling its responsibilities under this act. The department of state police may recover its costs of cooperation under this subsection. 333.27305 Board; disclosure form; providing certain notices to chairperson; ex parte communication; outside employment; personal transaction involving marihuana with licensee or applicant; violation. Sec. 305. (1) By January 31 of each year, each member of the board shall prepare and file with the governor’s office and the board a disclosure form in which the member does all of the following: (a) Affirms that the member or the member’s spouse, parent, child, or child’s spouse is not a member of the board of directors of, financially interested in, or employed by a licensee or applicant. (b) Affirms that the member continues to meet any other criteria for board membership under this act or the rules promulgated by the board. (c) Discloses any legal or beneficial interests in any real property that is or that may be directly or indirectly involved with operations authorized by this act. (d) Discloses any other information as may be required to ensure that the integrity of the board and its work is maintained. (2) By January 31 of each year, each employee of the board shall prepare and file with the board an employee disclosure form in which the employee does all of the following: (a) Affirms the absence of financial interests prohibited by this act. (b) Discloses any legal or beneficial interests in any real property that is or that may be directly or indirectly involved with operations authorized by this act. (c) Discloses whether the employee or the employee’s spouse, parent, child, or child’s spouse is financially interested in or employed by a licensee or an applicant for a license under this act. (d) Discloses such other matters as may be required to ensure that the integrity of the board and its work is maintained. (3) A member, employee, or agent of the board who becomes aware that the member, employee, or agent of the board or his or her spouse, parent, or child is a member of the board of directors of, financially interested in, or employed by a licensee or an applicant shall immediately provide detailed written notice thereof to the chairperson. (4) A member, employee, or agent of the board who within the previous 10 years has been indicted for, charged with, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, or forfeited bail concerning a misdemeanor involving controlled substances, dishonesty, theft, or fraud or a local ordinance in any state involving controlled substances, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state, or a felony under Michigan law, the laws of any other state, or the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction shall immediately provide detailed written notice of the conviction or charge to the chairperson. (5) Any member, employee, or agent of the board who is negotiating for, or acquires by any means, any interest in any person who is a licensee or an applicant, or any person affiliated with such a person, shall immediately provide written notice of the details of the interest to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not act on behalf of the board with respect to that person. (6) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall not enter into any negotiations for employment with any person or affiliate of any person who is a licensee or an applicant and shall immediately provide written notice of the details of any such negotiations or discussions in progress to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not take action on behalf of the board with respect to that person. (7) Any member, employee, or agent of the board who receives an invitation, written or oral, to initiate a discussion concerning employment or the possibility of employment with a person or affiliate of a person who is a licensee or an applicant shall immediately report that he or she received the invitation to the chairperson. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not take action on behalf of the board with respect to the person. (8) A licensee or applicant shall not knowingly initiate a negotiation for or discussion of employment with a member, employee, or agent of the board. A licensee or applicant who initiates a negotiation or discussion about employment shall immediately provide written notice of the details of the negotiation or discussion to the chairperson as soon as he or she becomes aware that the negotiation or discussion has been initiated with a member, employee, or agent of the board. (9) A member, employee, or agent of the board, or former member, employee, or agent of the board, shall not disseminate or otherwise disclose any material or information in the possession of the board that the board considers confidential unless specifically authorized to do so by the chairperson or the board. (10) A member, employee, or agent of the board or a parent, spouse, sibling, spouse of a sibling, child, or spouse of a child of a member, employee, or agent of the board shall not accept any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value, directly or indirectly, from any licensee or any applicant or affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, unless the acceptance conforms to a written policy or directive that is issued by the chairperson or the board. Any member, employee, or agent of the board who is offered or receives any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value, directly or indirectly, from any licensee or any applicant or affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee shall immediately provide written notification of the details to the chairperson. (11) A licensee or applicant, or an affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee, shall not, directly or indirectly, give or offer to give any gift, gratuity, compensation, travel, lodging, or anything of value to any member, employee, or agent of the board that the member, employee, or agent of the board is prohibited from accepting under subsection (10). (12) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall not engage in any conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and shall immediately advise the chairperson in writing of the details of any incident or circumstances that would present the existence of a conflict of interest with respect to performing board-related work or duties. (13) A member, employee, or agent of the board who is approached and offered a bribe as described in section 118 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.118, or this act shall immediately provide written account of the details of the incident to the chairperson and to a law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. (14) A member, employee, or agent of the board shall disclose his or her past involvement with any marihuana enterprise in the past 5 years and shall not engage in political activity or politically related activity during the duration of his or her appointment or employment. (15) A former member, employee, or agent of the board may appear before the board as a fact witness about matters or actions handled by the member, employee, or agent during his or her tenure as a member, employee, or agent of the board. The member, employee, or agent of the board shall not receive compensation for such an appearance other than a standard witness fee and reimbursement for travel expenses as established by statute or court rule. (16) A licensee or applicant or any affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee shall not engage in ex parte communications with a member of the board. A member of the board shall not engage in any ex parte communications with a licensee or an applicant or with any affiliate or representative of an applicant or licensee. (17) Any board member, licensee, or applicant or affiliate or representative of a board member, licensee, or applicant who receives any ex parte communication in violation of subsection (16), or who is aware of an attempted communication in violation of subsection (16), shall immediately report details of the communication or attempted communication in writing to the chairperson. (18) Any member of the board who receives an ex parte communication in an attempt to influence that member’s official action shall disclose the source and content of the communication to the chairperson. The chairperson may investigate or initiate an investigation of the matter with the assistance of the attorney general and state police to determine if the communication violates subsection (16) or subsection (17) or other state law. The disclosure under this section and the investigation are confidential. Following an investigation, the chairperson shall advise the governor or the board, or both, of the results of the investigation and may recommend action as the chairperson considers appropriate. If the chairperson receives such an ex parte communication, he or she shall report the communication to the governor’s office for appropriate action. (19) A new or current employee or agent of the board shall obtain written permission from the director of the department or his or her designee before continuing outside employment held at the time the employee begins to work for the board. Permission shall be denied, or permission previously granted shall be revoked, if the director of the department or his or her designee considers the nature of the work to create a possible conflict of interest or if it would otherwise interfere with the duties of the employee or agent for the board. (20) An employee or agent of the board granted permission for outside employment shall not conduct any business or perform any activities, including solicitation, related to outside employment on premises used by the board or during the employee’s working hours for the board. (21) The chairperson shall report any action he or she has taken or proposes to take under this section with respect to an employee or agent or former employee or former agent to the board at the next meeting of the board. (22) Except as allowed under the Michigan medical marihuana act, a member, employee, or agent of the board shall not enter into any personal transaction involving marihuana with a licensee or applicant. (23) If a licensee or applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, violates this section, the board may deny a license application, revoke or suspend a license, or take other disciplinary action as provided in section 407. (24) Violation of this section by a member of the board may result in disqualification or constitute cause for removal under section 301(7) or other disciplinary action as recommended by the board to the governor. (25) A violation of this section by an employee or agent of the board need not result in termination of employment if the board determines that the conduct involved does not violate the purpose of this act. However, all of the following apply: (a) If, after being offered employment or beginning employment with the board, the employee or agent intentionally acquires a financial interest in a licensee or an applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, the offer or employment with the board shall be terminated. (b) If a financial interest in a licensee or an applicant, or an affiliate or representative of a licensee or applicant, is acquired by an employee or agent that has been offered employment with the board, an employee of the board, or the employee’s or agent’s spouse, parent, or child, through no intentional action of the employee or agent, the individual shall have up to 30 days to divest or terminate the financial interest. Employment may be terminated if the interest has not been divested after 30 days. (c) Employment shall be terminated if the employee or agent is a spouse, parent, child, or spouse of a child of a board member. (26) Violation of this section does not create a civil cause of action. (27) As used in this section: (a) “Outside employment”, in addition to employment by a third party, includes, but is not limited to, the following: (i) Operation of a proprietorship. (ii) Participation in a partnership or group business enterprise. (iii) Performance as a director or corporate officer of any for-profit or nonprofit corporation or banking or credit institution. (iv) Performance as a manager of a limited liability company. (b) “Political activity” or “politically related activity” includes all of the following: (i) Using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. (ii) Knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution from any person. (iii) Running for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. (iv) Knowingly soliciting or discouraging the participation in any political activity of any person who is either of the following: (A) Applying for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the board. (B) The subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the board. PART 4. LICENSING 333.27401 Licensure; application; background investigation; consent to inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures; disclosure of confidential records; interest in other state operating license; fee; additional costs; notification to municipality. Sec. 401. (1) A person may apply to the marijuana regulatory agency for state operating licenses in the categories of class A, B, or C grower; processor; provisioning center; secure transporter; and safety compliance facility as provided in this act. The application shall be made under oath on a form provided by the marijuana regulatory agency and shall contain information as prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (a) The name, business address, business telephone number, Social Security number, and, if applicable, federal tax identification number of the applicant. (b) The identity of every person having a 2.5% or greater ownership interest in the applicant with respect to which the license is sought. If the disclosed entity is a trust, the application shall disclose the names and addresses of the beneficiaries; if a privately held corporation, the names and addresses of all shareholders, officers, and directors; if a publicly held corporation, the names and addresses of all shareholders holding a direct or indirect interest of greater than 5%, officers, and directors; if a partnership or limited liability partnership, the names and addresses of all partners; if a limited partnership or limited liability limited partnership, the names of all partners, both general and limited; or if a limited liability company, the names and addresses of all members and managers. (c) An identification of any business that is directly or indirectly involved in the growing, processing, testing, transporting, or sale of marihuana, including, if applicable, the state of incorporation or registration, in which an applicant or, if the applicant is an individual, the applicant’s spouse, parent, or child has any equity interest. If an applicant is a corporation, partnership, or other business entity, the applicant shall identify any other corporation, partnership, or other business entity that is directly or indirectly involved in the growing, processing, testing, transporting, or sale of marihuana in which it has any equity interest, including, if applicable, the state of incorporation or registration. An applicant may comply with this subdivision by filing a copy of the applicant’s registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission if the registration contains the information required by this subdivision. (d) Whether an applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning any criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or controlled-substance-related misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been reversed on appeal or otherwise, including the date, the name and location of the court, arresting agency, and prosecuting agency, the case caption, the docket number, the offense, the disposition, and the location and length of incarceration. (e) Whether an applicant has ever applied for or has been granted any commercial license or certificate issued by a licensing authority in Michigan or any other jurisdiction that has been denied, restricted, suspended, revoked, or not renewed and a statement describing the facts and circumstances concerning the application, denial, restriction, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal, including the licensing authority, the date each action was taken, and the reason for each action. (f) Whether an applicant has filed, or been served with, a complaint or other notice filed with any public body, regarding the delinquency in the payment of, or a dispute over the filings concerning the payment of, any tax required under federal, state, or local law, including the amount, type of tax, taxing agency, and time periods involved. (g) A statement listing the names and titles of all public officials or officers of any unit of government, and the spouses, parents, and children of those public officials or officers, who, directly or indirectly, own any financial interest in, have any beneficial interest in, are the creditors of or hold any debt instrument issued by, or hold or have any interest in any contractual or service relationship with an applicant. As used in this subdivision, public official or officer does not include a person who would have to be listed solely because of his or her state or federal military service. (h) A description of the type of marihuana facility; anticipated or actual number of employees; and projected or actual gross receipts. (i) Financial information in the manner and form prescribed by the marijuana regulatory agency. (j) A paper copy or electronic posting website reference for the ordinance or zoning restriction that the municipality adopted to authorize or restrict operation of 1 or more marihuana facilities in the municipality. (k) A copy of the notice informing the municipality by registered mail that the applicant has applied for a license under this act. The applicant shall also certify that it has delivered the notice to the municipality or will do so by 10 days after the date the applicant submits the application for a license to the marijuana regulatory agency. (l) Any other information the department requires by rule. (2) The marijuana regulatory agency shall use information provided on the application as a basis to conduct a thorough background investigation on the applicant. A false application is cause for the marijuana regulatory agency to deny a license. The marijuana regulatory agency shall not consider an incomplete application but shall, within a reasonable time, return the application to the applicant with notification of the deficiency and instructions for submitting a corrected application. Information the marijuana regulatory agency obtains from the background investigation is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (3) An applicant must provide written consent to the inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures provided for in section 303(1)(c)(i) to (iv) and to disclosure to the marijuana regulatory agency and its agents of otherwise confidential records, including tax records held by any federal, state, or local agency, or credit bureau or financial institution, while applying for or holding a license. Information the marijuana regulatory agency receives under this subsection is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (4) An applicant must certify that the applicant does not have an interest in any other state operating license that is prohibited under this act. (5) A nonrefundable application fee must be paid at the time of filing to defray the costs associated with the background investigation conducted by the marijuana regulatory agency. The marijuana regulatory agency shall set the amount of the application fee for each category and class of license by rule. If the costs of the investigation and processing the application exceed the application fee, the applicant shall pay the additional amount to the marijuana regulatory agency. All information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data supplied to or used by the marijuana regulatory agency in the course of its review or investigation of an application for a license under this act shall be disclosed only in accordance with this act. The information, records, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, or other data are not admissible as evidence or discoverable in any action of any kind in any court or before any tribunal, board, agency, or person, except for any action considered necessary by the marijuana regulatory agency. (6) By 10 days after the date the applicant submits an application to the marijuana regulatory agency, the applicant shall notify the municipality by registered mail that it has applied for a license under this act. 333.27402 License; issuance; ineligibility; circumstances; other considerations granting license; fingerprint processing fee; criminal history check; requirements applicable to fingerprints; definitions; review of application; informing applicant of decision; issuance; duration; renewal; notice; expiration; consent to inspections; examinations, searches, and seizures; information required to be provided by applicant. Sec. 402. (1) The board shall issue a license to an applicant who submits a complete application and pays both the nonrefundable application fee required under section 401(5) and the regulatory assessment established by the board for the first year of operation, if the board determines that the applicant is qualified to receive a license under this act. (2) An applicant is ineligible to receive a license if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) The applicant has been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years. (b) Within the past 5 years the applicant has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state or been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state. (c) The applicant has knowingly submitted an application for a license under this act that contains false information. (d) The applicant is a member of the board. (e) The applicant fails to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to maintain adequate premises liability and casualty insurance for its proposed marihuana facility. (f) The applicant holds an elective office of a governmental unit of this state, another state, or the federal government; is a member of or employed by a regulatory body of a governmental unit in this state, another state, or the federal government; or is employed by a governmental unit of this state. This subdivision does not apply to an elected officer of or employee of a federally recognized Indian tribe or to an elected precinct delegate. (g) The board determines that the applicant is not in compliance with section 205(1). (h) The applicant fails to meet other criteria established by rule. (3) In determining whether to grant a license to an applicant, the board may also consider all of the following: (a) The integrity, moral character, and reputation; personal and business probity; financial ability and experience; and responsibility or means to operate or maintain a marihuana facility of the applicant and of any other person that meets either of the following: (i) Controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant. (ii) Is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the applicant or by a person who controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant. (b) The financial ability of the applicant to purchase and maintain adequate liability and casualty insurance. (c) The sources and total amount of the applicant’s capitalization to operate and maintain the proposed marihuana facility. (d) Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise. (e) Whether the applicant has filed, or had filed against it, a proceeding for bankruptcy within the past 7 years. (f) Whether the applicant has been served with a complaint or other notice filed with any public body regarding payment of any tax required under federal, state, or local law that has been delinquent for 1 or more years. (g) Whether the applicant has a history of noncompliance with any regulatory requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction. (h) Whether at the time of application the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices. (i) Whether the applicant meets other standards in rules applicable to the license category. (4) Each applicant shall ensure that 1 set of fingerprints is submitted to the department of state police. The applicant shall submit with its application the applicant’s written consent to the criminal history check described in this section and the submission of the applicant’s fingerprints to, and the inclusion of the applicant’s fingerprints in, the state and federal database systems described in subsection (7). (5) The fingerprints required under subsection (4) may be taken by a law enforcement agency or any other person determined by the department of state police to be qualified to take fingerprints. The applicant shall submit a fingerprint processing fee to the department in an amount required under section 3 of 1935 PA 120, MCL 28.273, and any costs imposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (6) The department of state police shall do all of the following: (a) Conduct a criminal history check on each applicant and request the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make a determination of the existence of any national criminal history pertaining to each applicant. (b) Provide the board with a written report containing the criminal history record information of each applicant. (7) All of the following apply concerning fingerprints submitted to the department of state police under this section: (a) The department of state police shall store and retain all fingerprints submitted under this section in an automated fingerprint identification system database that searches against latent fingerprints, and provides for an automatic notification if and when a subsequent fingerprint is submitted into the system that matches a set of fingerprints previously submitted under this section or if and when the criminal history of an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system is updated. Upon receiving a notification, the department of state police shall immediately notify the board. Information in the database maintained under this subsection is confidential, is not subject to disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be disclosed to any person except for purposes of this act or for law enforcement purposes. (b) The department of state police shall forward all fingerprints submitted to it under this section to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for submission of those fingerprints into the FBI automatic notification system. This subdivision does not apply until the department of state police is a participant in the FBI automatic notification system. As used in this subdivision: (i) “Automatic notification system” means a system that stores and retains fingerprints, and that provides for an automatic notification to a participant if and when a fingerprint is submitted into the system that matches an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system or if and when the criminal history of an individual whose fingerprints are retained in the system is updated. (ii) “FBI automatic notification system” means the automatic notification system that is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (8) The board shall review all applications for licenses and shall inform each applicant of the board’s decision. (9) A license shall be issued for a 1-year period and is renewable annually. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the board shall renew a license if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The licensee applies to the board on a renewal form provided by the board that requires information prescribed in rules. (b) The application is received by the board on or before the expiration date of the current license. (c) The licensee pays the regulatory assessment under section 603. (d) The licensee meets the requirements of this act and any other renewal requirements set forth in rules. (10) The department shall notify the licensee by mail or electronic mail at the last known address on file with the board advising of the time, procedure, and regulatory assessment under section 603. The failure of the licensee to receive notice under this subsection does not relieve the licensee of the responsibility for renewing the license. (11) If a license renewal application is not submitted by the license expiration date, the license may be renewed within 60 days after its expiration date upon application, payment of the regulatory assessment under section 603, and satisfaction of any renewal requirement and late fee set forth in rules. The licensee may continue to operate during the 60 days after the license expiration date if the license is renewed by the end of the 60-day period. (12) License expiration does not terminate the board’s authority to impose sanctions on a licensee whose license has expired. (13) In its decision on an application for renewal, the board shall consider any specific written input it receives from an individual or entity within the local unit of government in which the applicant for renewal is located. (14) A licensee must consent in writing to inspections, examinations, searches, and seizures that are permitted under this act and must provide a handwriting exemplar, fingerprints, photographs, and information as authorized in this act or by rules. (15) An applicant or licensee has a continuing duty to provide information requested by the board and to cooperate in any investigation, inquiry, or hearing conducted by the board. 333.27403 Application deficiency; correction. Sec. 403. If the board identifies a deficiency in an application, the board shall provide the applicant with a reasonable period of time to correct the deficiency. 333.27404 Repealed. 2018, Act 582, Eff. Jan. 1, 2019. Compiler’s Notes: The repealed section pertained to a true party of interest. 333.27405 Background check. Sec. 405. Subject to the laws of this state, before hiring a prospective employee, the holder of a license shall conduct a background check of the prospective employee. If the background check indicates a pending charge or conviction within the past 10 years for a controlled substance-related felony, a licensee shall not hire the prospective employee without written permission of the board. 333.27406 Transfer, sale, or purchase of license. Sec. 406. Each license is exclusive to the licensee, and a licensee or any other person must apply for and receive the board’s approval before a license is transferred, sold, or purchased. The attempted transfer, sale, or other conveyance of an interest in a license without prior board approval is grounds for suspension or revocation of the license or for other sanction considered appropriate by the board, but only if the transfer, sale, or other conveyance would result in the transferee meeting the definition of applicant. 333.27407 Denial, suspension, revocation, or restriction of license. Sec. 407. (1) If an applicant or licensee fails to comply with this act or rules, if a licensee fails to comply with the marihuana tracking act, if a licensee no longer meets the eligibility requirements for a license under this act, or if an applicant or licensee fails to provide information the board requests to assist in any investigation, inquiry, or board hearing, the board may deny, suspend, revoke, or restrict a license. The board may suspend, revoke, or restrict a license and require the removal of a licensee or an employee of a licensee for a violation of this act, rules, the marihuana tracking act, or any ordinance adopted under section 205. The board may impose civil fines of up to $5,000.00 against an individual and up to $10,000.00 or an amount equal to the daily gross receipts, whichever is greater, against a licensee for each violation of this act, rules, or an order of the board. Assessment of a civil fine under this subsection is not a bar to the investigation, arrest, charging, or prosecution of an individual for any other violation of this act and is not grounds to suppress evidence in any criminal prosecution that arises under this act or any other law of this state. (2) The board shall comply with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, when denying, revoking, suspending, or restricting a license or imposing a fine. The board may suspend a license without notice or hearing upon a determination that the safety or health of patrons or employees is jeopardized by continuing a marihuana facility’s operation. If the board suspends a license under this subsection without notice or hearing, a prompt post suspension hearing must be held to determine if the suspension should remain in effect. The suspension may remain in effect until the board determines that the cause for suspension has been abated. The board may revoke the license or approve a transfer or sale of the license upon a determination that the licensee has not made satisfactory progress toward abating the hazard. (3) After denying an application for a license, the board shall, upon request, provide a public investigative hearing at which the applicant is given the opportunity to present testimony and evidence to establish its suitability for a license. Other testimony and evidence may be presented at the hearing, but the board’s decision must be based on the whole record before the board and is not limited to testimony and evidence submitted at the public investigative hearing. (4) Except for license applicants who may be granted a hearing at the discretion of the board under subsection (3), any party aggrieved by an action of the board suspending, revoking, restricting, or refusing to renew a license, or imposing a fine, shall be given a hearing before the board upon request. A request for a hearing must be made to the board in writing within 21 days after service of notice of the action of the board. Notice of the action of the board must be served either by personal delivery or by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the aggrieved party. Notice served by certified mail is considered complete on the business day following the date of the mailing. (5) The board may conduct investigative and contested case hearings; issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses; issue subpoenas duces tecum for the production of books, ledgers, records, memoranda, electronically retrievable data, and other pertinent documents; and administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses as appropriate to exercise and discharge the powers and duties of the board under this act. The director of the department or his or her designee may issue subpoenas and administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses. 333.27407a Operation of marihuana facility; license required; violation; penalties. Sec. 407a. Beginning June 1, 2019, a person shall not hold itself out as operating a marihuana facility if the person does not hold a license to operate that marihuana facility or if the person’s license to operate that marihuana facility is suspended, revoked, lapsed, or void, or was fraudulently obtained or transferred to the person other than pursuant to section 406. A person that violates this section is guilty as follows: (a) In the case of a first violation, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than 93 days, or both. (b) In the case of a second or subsequent violation, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. (c) If the violation causes death or serious injury, a felony punishable by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or more than $25,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or both. 333.27408 Proof of financial responsibility. Sec. 408. (1) Before the board grants or renews any license under this act, the licensee or applicant shall file with the department proof of financial responsibility for liability for bodily injury to lawful users resulting from the manufacture, distribution, transportation, or sale of adulterated marihuana or adulterated marihuana-infused product in an amount not less than $100,000.00. The proof of financial responsibility may be in the form of cash, unencumbered securities, a liability insurance policy, or a constant value bond executed by a surety company authorized to do business in this state. As used in this section: (a) “Adulterated marihuana” means a product sold as marihuana that contains any unintended substance or chemical or biological matter other than marihuana that causes adverse reaction after ingestion or consumption. (b) “Bodily injury” does not include expected or intended effect or long-term adverse effect of smoking, ingestion, or consumption of marihuana or marihuana-infused product. (2) An insured licensee shall not cancel liability insurance required under this section unless the licensee complies with both of the following: (a) Gives 30 days’ prior written notice to the department. (b) Procures new proof of financial responsibility required under this section and delivers that proof to the department within 30 days after giving the department the notice under subdivision (a). 333.27409 State operating license as revocable privilege. Sec. 409. A state operating license is a revocable privilege granted by this state and is not a property right. Granting a license does not create or vest any right, title, franchise, or other property interest. A licensee or any other person shall not lease, pledge, or borrow or loan money against a license. PART 5. LICENSEES 333.27501 Grower license. Sec. 501. (1) A grower license authorizes the grower to grow not more than the following number of marihuana plants under the indicated license class for each license the grower holds in that class: (a) Class A – 500 marihuana plants. (b) Class B – 1,000 marihuana plants. (c) Class C – 1,500 marihuana plants. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a grower license authorizes sale of marihuana plants to a grower only by means of a secure transporter. A grower license authorizes the sale or transfer of seeds, seedlings, or tissue cultures to a grower from a registered primary caregiver or another grower without using a secure transporter. (3) A grower license authorizes a grower to transfer marihuana without using a secure transporter to a processor or provisioning center if both of the following are met: (a) The processor or provisioning center occupies the same location as the grower and the marihuana is transferred using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (b) The grower enters each transfer into the statewide monitoring system. (4) A grower license authorizes sale of marihuana, other than seeds, seedlings, tissue cultures, and cuttings, to a processor or provisioning center. (5) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) and section 505, a grower license authorizes the grower to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter. (6) To be eligible for a grower license, the applicant and each investor in the grower must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (7) Until December 31, 2018, for a period of 30 days after the issuance of a grower license and in accord with rules, a grower may transfer any of the following that are lawfully possessed by an individual formerly registered as a primary caregiver who is an active employee of the grower: (a) Marihuana plants. (b) Seeds. (c) Seedlings. (8) A grower shall comply with all of the following: (a) Until December 31, 2021, have, or have as an active employee an individual who has, a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a registered primary caregiver. (b) While holding a license as a grower, not be a registered primary caregiver and not employ an individual who is simultaneously a registered primary caregiver. (c) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (9) A grower license does not authorize the grower to operate in an area unless the area is zoned for industrial or agricultural uses or is unzoned and otherwise meets the requirements established in section 205(1). 333.27502 Processor license; exception for industrial hemp. Sec. 502. (1) A processor license authorizes purchase of marihuana only from a grower and sale of marihuana-infused products or marihuana only to a provisioning center or another processor. (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 505 and this subsection, a processor license authorizes the processor to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter. A processor license authorizes a processor to transfer marihuana without using a secure transporter to a grower or provisioning center if both of the following are met: (a) The grower or provisioning center occupies the same location as the processor and the marihuana is transferred using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (b) The processor enters each transfer into the statewide monitoring system. (3) To be eligible for a processor license, the applicant and each investor in the processor must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (4) Until December 31, 2018, for a period of 30 days after the issuance of a processor license and in accord with rules, a processor may transfer any of the following that are lawfully possessed by an individual formerly registered as a primary caregiver who is an active employee of the processor: (a) Marihuana plants. (b) Usable marihuana. (5) A processor shall comply with all of the following: (a) Until December 31, 2021, have, or have as an active employee an individual who has, a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a registered primary caregiver. (b) While holding a license as a processor, not be a registered primary caregiver and not employ an individual who is simultaneously a registered primary caregiver. (c) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (6) This act does not prohibit a processor from handling, processing, marketing, or brokering, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the industrial hemp research and development act, MCL 286.842, industrial hemp. 333.27503 Secure transporter license. Sec. 503. (1) A secure transporter license authorizes the licensee to store and transport marihuana and money associated with the purchase or sale of marihuana between marihuana facilities for a fee upon request of a person with legal custody of that marihuana or money. It does not authorize transport to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver. If a secure transporter has its primary place of business in a municipality that has adopted an ordinance under section 205 authorizing that marihuana facility, the secure transporter may travel through any municipality. (2) To be eligible for a secure transporter license, the applicant and each investor with an interest in the secure transporter must not have an interest in a grower, processor, provisioning center, or safety compliance facility and must not be a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver. (3) A secure transporter shall enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (4) A secure transporter shall comply with all of the following: (a) Each driver transporting marihuana must have a chauffeur’s license issued by this state. (b) Each employee who has custody of marihuana or money that is related to a marihuana transaction shall not have been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States within the past 5 years or have been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance within the past 5 years. (c) Each vehicle must be operated with a 2-person crew with at least 1 individual remaining with the vehicle at all times during the transportation of marihuana. (d) A route plan and manifest must be entered into the statewide monitoring system, and a copy must be carried in the transporting vehicle and presented to a law enforcement officer upon request. (e) The marihuana must be transported in 1 or more sealed containers and not be accessible while in transit. (f) A secure transporting vehicle must not bear markings or other indication that it is carrying marihuana or a marihuana-infused product. (5) A secure transporter is subject to administrative inspection by a law enforcement officer at any point during the transportation of marihuana to determine compliance with this act. 333.27504 Provisioning center license. Sec. 504. (1) A provisioning center license authorizes the purchase or transfer of marihuana only from a grower or processor and sale or transfer to only a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver. Except as otherwise provided in section 505 and this subsection, all transfers of marihuana to a provisioning center from a separate marihuana facility must be by means of a secure transporter. A transfer of marihuana to a provisioning center from a marihuana facility that occupies the same location as the provisioning center does not require a secure transporter if the marihuana is transferred to the provisioning center using only private real property without accessing public roadways. (2) A provisioning center license authorizes the provisioning center to transfer marihuana to or from a safety compliance facility for testing by means of a secure transporter or as provided in section 505. (3) To be eligible for a provisioning center license, the applicant and each investor in the provisioning center must not have an interest in a secure transporter or safety compliance facility. (4) A provisioning center shall comply with all of the following: (a) Sell or transfer marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver only after it has been tested and bears the label required for retail sale. (b) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (c) Before selling or transferring marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or to a registered primary caregiver on behalf of a registered qualifying patient, inquire of the statewide monitoring system to determine whether the patient and, if applicable, the caregiver hold a valid, current, unexpired, and unrevoked registry identification card and that the sale or transfer will not exceed the daily and monthly purchasing limit established by the medical marihuana licensing board under this act. (d) Not allow the sale, consumption, or use of alcohol or tobacco products on the premises. (e) Not allow a physician to conduct a medical examination or issue a medical certification document on the premises for the purpose of obtaining a registry identification card. 333.27505 Safety compliance facility license; exception for industrial hemp Sec. 505. (1) In addition to transfer and testing authorized in section 203, a safety compliance facility license authorizes the safety compliance facility to do all of the following without using a secure transporter: (a) Take marihuana from, test marihuana for, and return marihuana to only a marihuana facility. (b) Collect a random sample of marihuana at the marihuana facility of a grower, processor, or provisioning center for testing. (2) A safety compliance facility must be accredited by an entity approved by the board by 1 year after the date the license is issued or have previously provided drug testing services to this state or this state’s court system and be a vendor in good standing in regard to those services. The board may grant a variance from this requirement upon a finding that the variance is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety, or welfare. (3) To be eligible for a safety compliance facility license, the applicant and each investor with any interest in the safety compliance facility must not have an interest in a grower, secure transporter, processor, or provisioning center. (4) A safety compliance facility shall comply with all of the following: (a) Perform tests to certify that marihuana is reasonably free of chemical residues such as fungicides and insecticides. (b) Use validated test methods to determine tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabinol acid, cannabidiol, and cannabidiol acid levels. (c) Perform tests that determine whether marihuana complies with the standards the board establishes for microbial and mycotoxin contents. (d) Perform other tests necessary to determine compliance with any other good manufacturing practices as prescribed in rules. (e) Enter all transactions, current inventory, and other information into the statewide monitoring system as required in this act, rules, and the marihuana tracking act. (f) Have a secured laboratory space that cannot be accessed by the general public. (g) Retain and employ at least 1 staff member with a relevant advanced degree in a medical or laboratory science. (5) This act does not prohibit a safety compliance facility from taking or receiving industrial hemp for testing purposes and testing the industrial hemp pursuant to the industrial hemp research and development act. PART 6. TAXES AND FEES 333.27601 Provisioning center; imposition of tax; rate; administration. Sec. 601. (1) A tax is imposed on each provisioning center at the rate of 3% of the provisioning center’s gross retail receipts. By 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, a provisioning center shall remit the tax for the preceding calendar quarter to the department of treasury accompanied by a form prescribed by the department of treasury that shows the gross quarterly retail income of the provisioning center and the amount of tax due, and shall submit a copy of the form to the department. If a law authorizing the recreational or nonmedical use of marihuana in this state is enacted, this section does not apply beginning 90 days after the effective date of that law. (2) The taxes imposed under this section shall be administered by the department of treasury in accordance with 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, and this act. In case of conflict between the provisions of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, and this act, the provisions of this act prevail. 333.27602 Medical marihuana excise fund. Sec. 602. (1) The medical marihuana excise fund is created in the state treasury. (2) Except for the application fee under section 401, the regulatory assessment under section 603, and any local fees, all money collected under section 601 and all other fees, fines, and charges, imposed under this act must be deposited in the medical marihuana excise fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund. The state treasurer shall credit to the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. (3) Money in the medical marihuana excise fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse to the general fund. (4) The state treasurer is the administrator of the medical marihuana excise fund for auditing purposes. (5) The money in the medical marihuana excise fund must be allocated, upon appropriation, as follows: (a) 25% to municipalities in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the municipality. (b) 30% to counties in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the county. (c) 5% to counties in which a marihuana facility is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana facilities within the county. Money allocated under this subdivision must be used exclusively to support the county sheriffs and must be in addition to and not in replacement of any other funding received by the county sheriffs. (d) 30% to this state for the following: (i) Until September 30, 2017, for deposit in the general fund of the state treasury. (ii) Beginning October 1, 2017, for deposit in the first responder presumed coverage fund created in section 405 of the worker’s disability compensation act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, MCL 418.405. (e) 5% to the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards for training local law enforcement officers. (f) 5% to the department of state police. 333.27603 Regulatory assessment. Sec. 603. (1) A regulatory assessment is imposed on certain licensees as provided in this section. All of the following shall be included in establishing the total amount of the regulatory assessment established under this section: (a) The department’s costs to implement, administer, and enforce this act, except for the costs to process and investigate applications for licenses supported with the application fee described in section 401. (b) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related legal services provided to the department by the department of attorney general. (c) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related services provided to the department by the department of state police. (d) Expenses of medical-marihuana-related services provided by the department of treasury. (e) $500,000.00 to be allocated to the department for expenditures of the department for licensing substance use disorder programs. (f) An amount equal to 5% of the sum of the amounts provided for under subdivisions (a) to (d) to be allocated to the department of health and human services for substance-abuse-related expenditures including, but not limited to, substance use disorder prevention, education, and treatment programs. (g) Expenses related to the standardized field sobriety tests administered in enforcing the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923. (h) An amount sufficient to provide for the administrative costs of the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards. (2) The regulatory assessment is in addition to the application fee described in section 401, the tax described in section 601, and any local licensing fees. (3) The regulatory assessment shall be collected annually from licensed growers, processors, provisioning centers, and secure transporters. The regulatory assessment for a class A grower license shall not exceed $10,000.00. (4) Beginning in the first-year marihuana facilities are authorized to operate in this state, and annually thereafter, the department, in consultation with the board, shall establish the total regulatory assessment at an amount that is estimated to be sufficient to cover the actual costs and support the expenditures listed in subsection (1). (5) On or before the date the licensee begins operating and annually thereafter, each grower, processor, provisioning center, and secure transporter shall pay to the state treasurer an amount determined by the department to reasonably reflect the licensee’s share of the total regulatory assessment established under subsection (4). 333.27604 Marihuana regulatory fund. Sec. 604. (1) The marihuana regulatory fund is created within the state treasury. (2) The application fee collected under section 401 and the regulatory assessment collected under section 603 must be deposited into the marihuana regulatory fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund. The state treasurer shall credit to the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. (3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, money in the marihuana regulatory fund at the close of the fiscal year must remain in the fund and must not lapse to the general fund. (4) The marijuana regulatory agency is the administrator of the marihuana regulatory fund for auditing purposes. (5) Except as provided in section 603(1)(d) and (e), the department shall expend money from the marihuana regulatory fund, upon appropriation, only for implementing, administering, and enforcing this act. (6) For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020 only, $17,000,000.00 of the money in the marihuana regulatory fund is transferred to and must be deposited into the general fund. (7) As used in this section, “marijuana regulatory agency” means the marijuana regulatory agency created under Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-2, MCL 333.27001. 333.27605 Use of money from Michigan marihuana registry fund. Sec. 605. The department may use any money appropriated to it from the marihuana registry fund created in section 6 of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26426, for the purpose of funding the operations of the department and the board in the initial implementation and subsequent administration and enforcement of this act. PART 7. REPORTS 333.27701 Financial statements. Sec. 701. By 30 days after the end of each state fiscal year, each licensee shall transmit to the board and to the municipality financial statements of the licensee’s total operations. The financial statements shall be reviewed by a certified public accountant in a manner and form prescribed by the board. The certified public accountant must be licensed in this state under article 7 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.720 to 339.736. The compensation for the certified public accountant shall be paid directly by the licensee to the certified public accountant. 333.27702 Report. Sec. 702. The board shall submit with the annual report to the governor under section 302(l) and to the chairs of the legislative committees that govern issues related to marihuana facilities a report covering the previous year. The report shall include an account of the board actions, its financial position, results of operation under this act, and any recommendations for legislation that the board considers advisable. PART 8. MARIHUANA ADVISORY PANEL 333.27801 Marihuana advisory panel. Sec. 801. (1) The marihuana advisory panel is created within the department. (2) The marihuana advisory panel consists of 17 members, including the director of state police or his or her designee, the director of this state’s department of health and human services or his or her designee, the director of the department or his or her designee, the attorney general or his or her designee, the director of the department of agriculture and rural development or his or her designee, and the following members appointed by the governor: (a) One registered medical marihuana patient or medical marihuana primary caregiver. (b) One representative of the industry from the growers category. (c) One representative of the industry from the processors category. (d) One representative of the industry from the provisioning centers category. (e) One representative of the industry from the safety compliance facilities category. (f) One representative of townships. (g) One representative of cities and villages. (h) One representative of counties. (i) One representative of sheriffs. (j) One representative of local police. (k) One physician licensed under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838. (l) One representative of the industry from the secure transporter category. (3) The governor shall appoint the first members of the panel by March 1, 2018. The members appointed to the panel shall serve at the pleasure of the governor and shall serve for terms of 3 years or until a successor is appointed, whichever is later. (4) If a vacancy occurs on the advisory panel, the governor shall make an appointment for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. (5) The director of the department or his or her designee shall call the first meeting of the panel within 1 month after the advisory panel is appointed. At the first meeting, the panel shall elect from among its members a chairperson and any other officers it considers necessary or appropriate. After the first meeting, the panel shall meet at least 2 times each year, or more frequently at the call of the chairperson. (6) A majority of the members of the panel constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the members present and serving are required for official action of the panel. (7) The business that the panel performs must be conducted at a public meeting held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 to 15.275. (8) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the panel in the performance of an official function is subject to the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. (9) Members of the panel shall serve without compensation. However, members of the panel may be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties as members of the panel. (10) The panel may make recommendations to the board concerning promulgation of rules and, as requested by the board or the department, the administration, implementation, and enforcement of this act and the marihuana tracking act. (11) State departments and agencies shall cooperate with the panel and, upon request, provide it with meeting space and other necessary resources to assist it in the performance of its duties. History: 2016, Act 281, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016 ;– Am. 2018, Act 10, Imd. Eff. Jan. 26, 2018 Compiler’s Notes: Enacting section 2 of Act 281 of 2016 provides: “Enacting section 2. The legislature finds that the necessity for access to safe sources of marihuana for medical use and the immediate need for growers, processors, secure transporters, provisioning centers, and safety compliance facilities to operate under clear requirements establish the need to promulgate emergency rules to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare. “For transfer of powers and duties of the medical marihuana licensing board, marihuana advisory panel, and department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the medical marihuana licensing board, marihuana advisory panel, and bureau of marijuana regulation, see ERO No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001. Rendered 10/25/2021 12:25:04 Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov Please visit the official government legislative site for any updates to laws.MMFLA PDF VersionMMFLA Section Links LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) Final Rules for Mailing Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes The Definition of Marijuana Has Changed in Michigan CANNA JAM Communities in Michigan that have opted IN to adult recreational use Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers CBD Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT (MMFLA) appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  11. The Postal Service revises its regulations in Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail, to incorporate new statutory restrictions on the mailing of electronic nicotine delivery systems. Like cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, such items are generally nonmailable. This rule is effective October 21, 2021. THINKING ABOUT – STARTING A CANNABIS OR HEMP BUSINESS? Komorn Law – provides business services and representation for those looking to enter the Cannabis Industry. Call Komorn Law 248-357-2550 to schedule an appointment or visit KomornLaw.com The U.S. Postal Service released its final rule regarding the mailing of vapes, asserting that even if the devices are made for federally legal hemp products like CBD largely cannot be shipped via the U.S. mail. The U.S. Postal Service has been progressing and preparing the regulations to obey the House and Senate who passed a bill last year that included a provision to restrict how electronic cigarettes can be sold online and shipped which will most likely affect marijuana too. There are certain exceptions in the regulation, but many investors are disappointed. The USPS justified in the rule, that by the letter of the law, that includes hemp and marijuana vapes. “It goes without saying that marijuana, hemp, and their derivatives are substances,” the agency said. “Hence, to the extent that they may be delivered to an inhaling user through an aerosolized solution, they and the related delivery systems, parts, components, liquids, and accessories clearly fall within the POSECCA (Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act ) scope.” Others argue that the USPS should not levy the restriction on cannabis because the ban might conflict with state marijuana laws or because Congress has supported legislation that prohibits the use of Justice Department funds for interfering in medical cannabis programs where it is legal. The USPS stated Read More If You Want Here The post Final Rules for Mailing Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  12. EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 11, 2021 ***** On July 13, 2021, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation making changes to how marijuana is defined and regulated in the state, including products containing synthetic cannabis derivatives. HB 4517 revised the definition under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) to include all compounds containing more than .3% of THC, and creates a new definition of “THC” that includes any tetrahydrocannabolic acid, including synthetically derived products and isomers. The definition of “industrial hemp” was also amended in the Act to be consistent with these changes. HB 4740, 4741, 4742, and 4743, amends the Michigan Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), the Industrial Hemp Growers Act (Public Act 220 of 2020), the Marihuana Tracking Act, and the Public Health Code. New Definition As a result of these changes, effective October 11, 2021, products containing more than .3% of any THC product, including synthetically derived Delta-8 THC, will be considered “marijuana” products regulated by the state’s marijuana regulatory structure. Marijuana/marihuana is still a Schedule 1 Drug under the Michigan Public Health Code MCL 333.7212. ”Except as provided in subsection (2), Marihuana, including pharmaceutical-grade cannabis” “(2) Marihuana, including pharmaceutical-grade cannabis, is a schedule 2 controlled substance if it is manufactured, obtained, stored, dispensed, possessed, grown, or disposed of in compliance with this act and as authorized by federal authority.” Stay awake – There’s more to come… The post The Definition of Marijuana Has Changed in Michigan appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  13. dwkl

    CANNA JAM

    MUSIC AND COMEDY FESTIVAL SAVE $$ on Tickets NOW TICKETS Tickets can be purchased on Eventbrite www.eventbrite.com/e/canna-jam-tickets-168955818401 DISCOUNT PROMO CODE $10.00 off Promo Code Enter The Word –> TODAY Creative Rec Events presents Michigan’s Comedy and Music Festival FEATURING -Echoes of Pink Floyd- Tribute to Pink Floyd with Laser Light Show -Comedian Mike Young- “Who the F is Mike Young” -Red Wing Great Darren McCarty- Slapstick Comedy TourT Money Green and Roadwork -Randy Kaplan -DJ Joey P -Food, Vendors and more Bring Chairs and Blankets Dress for October in Michigan Ticket links and more info https://www.CannaJamFest.com #cannajam, #cannajamfest, #Tegridylaw #planetgreentreestv #askblanks #comedianmikeyoung #hypeduplive #eventstew #cannatouring #cannaindustries #ozcannabis #purelapeer #stickyypsi #botanicalco #growgreenmi #realleafsolutions #komornlawmi #wellnessdoctorsonline #elevationstationypsi #greeningdetroit #toddlevittlaw The post CANNA JAM appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  14. Are you looking to get licensed in the marijuana industry in Michigan? You really should get prequalified then look for a location that allows it. Komorn Law is one the most sought after licensing and legal firms to hire in the state of Michigan to get you through the process and ready for licensing and business. Many communities in Michigan have opted in to the adult recreational use Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). There are also many that have opted out. Here we list the communities that have opted in and opted out. We have also listed the MRTMA law broken down by sections. The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) regulates the state’s adult-use marijuana establishments and licensees in accordance with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) and its associated administrative rules. This document was compiled by Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) staff for informational purposes only. This is a working document that may be revised. Make sure you look at the current update (date) at the top of the document linked. Read the opt-IN list here Read the opt-OUT list here MICHIGAN REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MARIHUANA ACT. The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) regulates the state’s adult-use marijuana establishments and licensees in accordance with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) and its associated administrative rules. View the law and rules below which have been broken down by sections. Sections 1-2 – The Beginning – Sections 1 and 2 simply establish the reason for the law.Section 3 – DefinitionsSection 4 – Scope of actSection 5 – Lawful activities by person 21 years of age or olderSection 6 – Adoption or enforcement of ordinances by municipality; marihuana establishment local license; annual fee; restrictions on transportation or other facilities prohibited.Section 7-8-9 – (7) Implementation, administration, and enforcement by department; powers; duties; public meetings; annual report. (8) Rules; limitations. (9) License to operate a marihuana establishment; application; qualifications; issuance; disclosure.Section 10 – Lawful activities by marihuana grower, processor, transporter, or retailer; limitations; contracts related to operation of marihuana establishments.Section 11 – Marihuana establishments; requirements; limitations.Section 12-13 – (12) Deduction of certain expenses from income. (13) Imposition of excise tax.Section 14 – Marihuana regulation fund; creation; administration; allocation of expenditures.Section 15 – Violations; penalties.Section 16 – Failure to act by department; application to municipality.Section 17 – Construction of act; effect of federal law; severability. Read the Entire Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act and check on updates. The post Communities in Michigan that have opted IN to adult recreational use appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  15. Are you looking to get licensed in the marijuana industry in Michigan? You need to get prequalified then look for a location that allows it. Komorn Law is one the most sought after licensing and legal firms to hire in the state of Michigan to get you through the process and ready for business. Many communities in Michigan have opted out of the adult recreational use Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). There are many that have opted in. Here we list the communities that have opted out and opted in as well as the MRTMA law broken down by sections. The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) regulates the state’s adult-use marijuana establishments and licensees in accordance with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) and its associated administrative rules. This document was compiled by Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) staff for informational purposes only. This is a working document that may be revised. Make sure you look at the current update (date) at the top of the document linked. Read the opt-OUT list here Read the opt-IN list here MICHIGAN REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MARIHUANA ACT. View the law and rules below. Sections 1-2 – The Beginning – Sections 1 and 2 simply establish the reason for the law.Section 3 – DefinitionsSection 4 – Scope of actSection 5 – Lawful activities by person 21 years of age or olderSection 6 – Adoption or enforcement of ordinances by municipality; marihuana establishment local license; annual fee; restrictions on transportation or other facilities prohibited.Section 7-8-9 – (7) Implementation, administration, and enforcement by department; powers; duties; public meetings; annual report. (8) Rules; limitations. (9) License to operate a marihuana establishment; application; qualifications; issuance; disclosure.Section 10 – Lawful activities by marihuana grower, processor, transporter, or retailer; limitations; contracts related to operation of marihuana establishments.Section 11 – Marihuana establishments; requirements; limitations.Section 12-13 – (12) Deduction of certain expenses from income. (13) Imposition of excise tax.Section 14 – Marihuana regulation fund; creation; administration; allocation of expenditures.Section 15 – Violations; penalties.Section 16 – Failure to act by department; application to municipality.Section 17 – Construction of act; effect of federal law; severability. Read the Entire Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act and check on updates because the lawmakers are dipping their fingers in the pie! This advisory bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. Licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their operations comply with all applicable laws and rules. Check the MRA website for any changes or updated information LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Communities in Michigan that have opted IN to adult recreational use Communities That Have Opted Out of the Adult Use of Marihuana The Marijuana Investigation Division Bulletproof Vests and Body Armor – Michigan Laws Immature Plant Sales Approval Process (Clones) Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Communities That Have Opted Out of the Adult Use of Marihuana appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  16. Whose that knocking on my door? Whose that knocking on my door? … It’s not Barnacle Bill The Sailor It’s the Michigan State Police Marijuana and Tobacco Investigation Division The Marijuana and Tobacco Investigation Section has statewide responsibility for conducting administrative inspections of all retailers of tobacco products as well as all businesses licensed to grow, process, sell, transport, and test medical marijuana. In addition to administrative inspections, the section investigates criminal activity of individuals and businesses who are in violation of the state’s Tobacco Products Tax Act, Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act, and related laws. After a visit from the enforcers you may need an attorney to represent your Catch 22 dilemma. Because the division wasn’t formed to sit around and do nothing … if it’s not something this time – it will be next time. Most recommended and the top cannabis law firm in the state of Michigan also known as Komorn Law will probably be your best bet. Google Search Meanwhile… Meet The Team Michigan State Police Special Investigation Divisions And now for something completely different… No Knock Warrants According to a study from St. John’s Law Review, “Between 2010 and 2016, at least 94 people died during the execution of no-knock search warrants, 13 of whom were police officers.” And that’s not hard to believe when you think about how these surprise visits play out. Take Matthew Stewart, for example, who was asleep in his Utah home on the night of January 4, 2012, when the sound of breaking glass startled him awake, according to an account from his sister. Thinking he was being robbed, he jumped out of bed, threw on his robe and grabbed his gun to defend himself. Stewart said that after being shot at, he shot back, killing one of several plain-clothed officers who began shooting — and injuring several others. After being arrested for murder and branded as a “cop killer,” Stewart committed suicide in jail. In his case, the officers had obtained a no-knock warrant to search his home on suspicion of marijuana possession. One officer was wearing a Cheech and Chong shirt, and the rest were mostly dressed in blue jeans and windbreakers “bearing small police shield emblems.” Read the rest here —> Detroit News LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts The Marijuana Investigation Division Bulletproof Vests and Body Armor – Michigan Laws Immature Plant Sales Approval Process (Clones) Governor Whitmer Signs Marijuana Legislation Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post The Marijuana Investigation Division appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  17. Here is the law in The State of Michigan 750.227g Body armor; purchase, ownership, possession, or use by convicted felon; prohibition; issuance of written permission; violation as felony; definitions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who has been convicted of a violent felony shall not purchase, own, possess, or use body armor. (2) A person who has been convicted of a violent felony whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on his or her ability to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor may petition the chief of police of the local unit of government in which he or she resides or, if he or she does not reside in a local unit of government that has a police department, the county sheriff, for written permission to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor under this section. (3) The chief of police of a local unit of government or the county sheriff may grant a person who properly petitions that chief of police or county sheriff under subsection (2) written permission to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor as provided in this section if the chief of police or county sheriff determines that both of the following circumstances exist: (a) The petitioner is likely to use body armor in a safe and lawful manner. (b) The petitioner has reasonable need for the protection provided by body armor. (4) In making the determination required under subsection (3), the chief of police or county sheriff shall consider all of the following: (a) The petitioner’s continued employment. (b) The interests of justice. (c) Other circumstances justifying issuance of written permission to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor. (5) The chief of police or county sheriff may restrict written permission issued to a petitioner under this section in any manner determined appropriate by that chief of police or county sheriff. If permission is restricted, the chief of police or county sheriff shall state the restrictions in the permission document. (6) It is the intent of the legislature that chiefs of police and county sheriffs exercise broad discretion in determining whether to issue written permission to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor under this section. However, nothing in this section requires a chief of police or county sheriff to issue written permission to any particular petitioner. The issuance of written permission to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor under this section does not relieve any person or entity from criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed. (7) A person who receives written permission from a chief of police or county sheriff to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor shall have that written permission in his or her possession when he or she is purchasing, owning, possessing, or using body armor. (8) A law enforcement agency may issue body armor to a person who is in custody or who is a witness to a crime for his or her own protection without a petition being previously filed under subsection (2). If the law enforcement agency issues body armor to the person under this subsection, the law enforcement agency shall document the reasons for issuing body armor and retain a copy of that document as an official record. The law enforcement agency shall also issue written permission to the person to possess and use body armor under this section. (9) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation of subsection (1), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. (b) For a violation of subsection (7), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both. (10) As used in this section: (a) “Body armor” means that term as defined in section 227f. (b) “Violent felony” means that term as defined in section 36 of 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.236. Statute – THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (750.1 – 750.568) Section 750.227gHistory: Add. 2000, Act 224, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000 Starting A Cannabis Business Requires Guidance and Legal Support. Komorn Law has been focused on the isssues marijuana legalization for over 25 years and has been involved shaping the future of the new cannabis industry. Call Our Office 248-357-2550 or search Komorn Law 750.227f Committing or attempting to commit crime involving violent act or threat of violent act against another person while wearing body armor as felony; penalty; consecutive term of imprisonment; exception; definitions. Sec. 227f. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who commits or attempts to commit a crime that involves a violent act or a threat of a violent act against another person while wearing body armor is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. A term of imprisonment imposed for violating this section may be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime committed or attempted. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following: (a) A peace officer of this state or another state, or of a local unit of government of this state or another state, or of the United States, performing his or her duties as a peace officer while on or off a scheduled work shift as a peace officer. (b) A security officer performing his or her duties as a security officer while on a scheduled work shift as a security officer. (3) As used in this section: (a) “Body armor” means clothing or a device designed or intended to protect an individual’s body or a portion of an individual’s body from injury caused by a firearm. (b) “Security officer” means an individual lawfully employed to physically protect another individual or to physically protect the property of another person. History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;– Am. 1992, Act 218, Imd. Eff. Oct. 13, 1992 ;– Am. 1996, Act 163, Imd. Eff. Apr. 11, 1996 ;– Am. 2000, Act 226, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000 Statute – THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (750.1 – 750.568) Section 750.227f See the federal law here Then there is this Responsible Body Armor Possession Act This bill prohibits the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians. Enhanced body armor refers to body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using the National Institute of Justice standard. The bill provides exceptions for (1) the purchase, ownership, or possession by or under the authority of the United States or any state or political subdivision; (2) qualified law enforcement officers; and (3) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of the bill. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both. [Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 157 (Friday, September 27, 2019)] [House] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] By Ms. MENG: H.R. 4568. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution [Page H8082] About Constitutional Authority Statements On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Rule XII. Rule XII, clause 7(c) requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4568/text LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Bulletproof Vests and Body Armor – Michigan Laws Immature Plant Sales Approval Process (Clones) Governor Whitmer Signs Marijuana Legislation Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Companies Guidance for Home Grows. Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Bulletproof Vests and Body Armor – Michigan Laws appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  18. The administrative rules for marijuana businesses provide a pathway for cultivators – any type of grower under the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act or the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act – to transfer or sell immature plants to marijuana sales locations (provisioning centers, retailers, and microbusinesses). The administrative rules also provide a pathway for marijuana sales locations to sell immature plants to customers. This bulletin provides information regarding the relevant administrative rules and requirements that licensed cultivators and licensed sales locations need to begin the sale of immature plants Administrative Rules: Immature Plants Rule 1 of the Marijuana Sampling and Testing Rule Set – R 420.301 (k) – a nonflowering marijuana plant that is no taller than 8 inches from the growing or cultivating medium and no wider than 8 inches produced from a cutting, clipping, tissue culture, or seedling that is in a growing or cultivating medium or in a growing or cultivating container. Rule 6 in the Marijuana Operations Rule Set – R 420.206 (2) – a cultivator who has obtained good agricultural collection processes certification may sell immature plants to a marijuana sales location under the allowances published by the agency. Rule 6 in the Marijuana Sale or Transfer Rule Set – R 420.506 (4) – a marijuana sales location may sell no more than 3 immature plants to a marijuana customer per transaction. Requirements for Cultivators A cultivator must meet/comply with the following requirements to sell immature plants: Hold the good agricultural collection practices (GACP-GMP) certification prior to making sales of immature plants.For immature plant sales, use the existing “immature plants” category in Metrc with testing status “not required.” These sales are for immature plants only and should not be used to transfer or sell seeds.Only transfer pre-ordered immature plants (plant packages) to sales locations.Once immature plants have been pre-ordered, include a sell-by date on the package label to ensure plants at sales locations do not advance in their growth beyond the immature growth phase. The sell-by date must be no more than seven days from the date the plant package was created at the cultivator.Ensure each transfer of immature plants to a sales location includes written instructions for basic care and environmental considerations for the immature plants (light, water, temperature controls) while they are at the sales location, and the method for destruction if necessary, such as if the plants develop disease, or die.Ensure each transfer of immature plants to a sales location includes a written, signed document from the cultivator attesting that only active ingredients approved by the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) were used in the cultivation of the immature plants. The bulletin that details the MRA’s approved active ingredients for growers can be found here. Approval Process for Growers/Cultivators Once a cultivator has achieved certification for GACP-GMP, they must submit a plan for the sale of immature plants to the MRA at MRA-Compliance@michigan.gov before selling any immature plants to a sales location. The plan must include, at a minimum: The name of the business and the cultivator’s license numberProof the cultivator is GACP-GMP certifiedA copy of the general care instructions the cultivator will provide to sales locationsStandard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that includes the following, at a minimum:• How the cultivator will ensure plants have been pre-ordered and how plants will be packaged for transfer Plants will need to be packaged in plant packages for each sales transaction Each plant package will consist of one to three plants depending on the individual customer pre-order There can be no more than three plants per package in accordance with the administrative rules Plant package labels must include the license number of the cultivator, plant strain name, and sell-by date • A detailed description of the method of transportation to sales locations A secure transporter is not necessary for these transfers The wholesale transfer type will be used in the transfer manifest The means by which the cultivator will ensure the plants are not exposed to contaminants or hazards during the transport must be provided The procedure that will be followed during transportation of the immature plants • Refund and return policies if sales locations request to return immature plants in their inventory Provisioning centers are not permitted to return products to growers. Only adult-use retailers can return immature plants to growers. The MRA will review the plan and provide approval, request additional information, or request changes to the proposed plan. Once the plan has been approved, the cultivator may begin the sale of immature plants to marijuana sales locations. Requirements for Sales Locations Sales locations are permitted to accept transfers of immature plants from cultivators approved by the MRA to sell immature plants to a sales location. Sales locations should adhere to the basic care instructions provided by the cultivators. These may include instructions for adequate lighting, water, and temperature control but should not include advanced care instructions such as application of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Sales locations do not need to obtain approval from the MRA to sell immature plants, but they must adhere to the administrative rules and the following requirements: • Sales locations must have a procedure in place for pre-orders of immature plants • Each plant a sales location orders from a cultivator must be accounted for in a pre-ordered sale • If a pre-ordered sale occurs but the customer does not attempt to collect the immature plant(s) purchased, the sales location is responsible for initiating the return/refund policy set by the cultivator and destruction of any plants that remain beyond the sell-by date • Sales locations must ensure customers are provided a copy of the information provided by the cultivator that attests that only approved active ingredients for growers were used on the immature plants • Upon sale of the immature plants to a customer, the plants must be placed in a sealed package/bag to exit the sales location • Sales locations must notify customers that the plants are not required to be, and have not been, safety compliance tested. MRA Document This advisory bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. Licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their operations comply with all applicable laws and rules. Check the MRA website for any changes or updated information Komorn Law PLLC – Contact our office for legal consultation or evaluation (248) 357-2550 The post Immature Plant Sales Approval Process (Clones) appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  19. Governor Whitmer Signs Marijuana Legislation Putting Michiganders’ Health and Safety First July 13, 2021, Governor Whitmer signed legislation that protects the public health and safety of Michigan residents by regulating the intoxicating substance delta-8 THC derivative that is currently being sold – untested and unregulated – in convenience stores, gas stores, and tobacco/smoke shops throughout the state. Starting on October 11, 2021 Starting on October 11, 2021, these products – which were available for sale to individuals of all ages by businesses that cannot currently sell licensed adult-use or medical marijuana products – will be covered by state law and regulated by the state’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA). This package of bills also updates definitions regarding products derived from the cannabis plant so that all intoxicating substances will be safety-tested through the MRA’s statewide monitoring system and will tracked through the state’s seed-to-sale tracking system. “This package of bills continues to show Michigan is the model for the nation in regard to protecting its residents and making sure that those who consume marijuana products do so in a safe manner,” said Gov. Whitmer. “I am glad to see Michigan continuing to lead on the implementation and regulation of a safe, secure marijuana industry, which has already brought tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue to the state, as well as thousands of well-paying jobs.” “The team at the MRA has always been committed to transparency and forward thinking and this was once again the case regarding delta-8,” said MRA Executive Director Andrew Brisbo. “We were proud to work with legislators and industry stakeholders to pro-actively address this issue and move an untested, unlicensed intoxicating synthetic product into our licensed and regulated system.” “The voters of Michigan chose to legalize and regulate marijuana in the interests of justice and public health,” said Rep. Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor. “We know that banning these substances is not the best way to keep the public safe. But we also know that these psychoactive compounds are currently being sold with no public health standards to anyone, regardless of age. Instead of allowing these new hemp derivatives like Delta 8 to circumvent our world-class regulated system, this new law will apply the same rigorous testing and commercial standards that currently protect consumer safety in the legal marijuana marketplace.” “I appreciate the support of Governor Whitmer and my legislative partner Representative Rabhi in helping Michigan take an important step in streamlining regulations for the safety of cannabis businesses and people around our state,” said Rep. Jim Lilly, R-Park Twp. “By mirroring Michigan’s existing liquor dram shop law and clearly defining the requirements for a proper injury lawsuit, we are bringing clarity to a previously murky area of our cannabis laws. I am extremely excited to see the Governor not only sign these bills, but also sign bills to protect Michigander’s from unregulated and untested Delta-8 hemp products. This legislation does the right thing by taking these products out of the unregulated marketplace and bringing them under the purview of a well-functioning Marijuana Regulatory Agency.” “We applaud Governor Whitmer’s decision to sign this package of bills into law,” said Robin Schneider, Executive Director of the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association. “Regulating Delta 8 rather than banning the product is a smart and progressive move that is in the best interest of public health and safety. We are grateful that medical marijuana patients will have improved access to their certifying physicians and that state licensed cannabis businesses will have clearer standards and improved liability insurance coverage.” “The U.S. Hemp Roundtable, the hemp industry’s national advocacy organization, applauds Governor Whitmer and legislative leaders for developing a sound, common-sense approach to regulating delta-8 THC products that will not only serve Michigan residents well, but will also provide a model for the nation,” said Jonathan Miller, General Counsel of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable. “House Bill 4517 ensures that intoxicating products are not sold at retail stores, under the guise of hemp; rather that they are regulated akin to adult-use cannabis, restricted to adults and monitored for safety and potency. The Lawyer that Lawyers Consult on Marijuana Laws and Business – Komorn Law Legal Defense and Cannabis Business Services – (248) 357-2550 KomornLaw.com House Bill 4745 House Bill 4745 will allow telemedicine for Michigan residents participating in the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program, a state registry program that administers the MMMA as approved by Michigan voters on November 4, 2008. “I’m thrilled that medical marijuana patients now have access to telemedicine, just like the rest of Michigan’s medical patients do,” said Gov. Whitmer. “This package of bills makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on the medical properties of marijuana.” HB 4745 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Lilly, R-Park Twp., and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4517 House Bill 4517 amends the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act to: Define “THC” and modify the definitions of “industrial hemp” and “marihuana” Require the MRA to promulgate a limit on the total amount of THC that a product intended for human or animal consumption could contain Allow the MRA to promulgate rules to exclude from the definition of THC a tetrahydrocannabinol if the MRA determined, based on specified factors, that it did not have a potential for abuse HB 4517 was sponsored by Rep. Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4740 House Bill 4740 amends the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act to modify the definitions of “industrial hemp”, “marihuana”, and “marihuana-infused product.” HB 4740 was sponsored by Rep. Pat Outman, R-Six Lakes, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4741 House Bill 4741 amends the Industrial Hemp Growers Act to modify the definitions of “industrial hemp” and “marihuana”, and defined “THC.” HB 4741 was sponsored by Rep. TC Clements, R-Temperance, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4742 House Bill 4742 amends the Marihuana Tracking Act to modify the definition of “marihuana.” HB 4742 was sponsored by Rep. Tenisha Yancey, D-Grosse Pointe, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4743 House Bill 4743 amends the Public Health Code to modify the definitions of “marihuana” and “industrial hemp.” HB 4743 was sponsored by Rep. Julie Calley, R-Portland, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4744 House Bill 4744 amends the Industrial Hemp Research and Development Act to modify the definitions of “industrial hemp” and “THC.” HB 4744 was sponsored by Rep. Richard Steenland, D-Roseville, and a copy can be found here. House Bill 4746 House Bill 4746 amends the Michigan Liquor Control Code to modify the definition of “marihuana.” HB 4746 was sponsored by Rep. Roger Hauck, R-Mt. Pleasant, and a copy can be found here. In case you missed it… Schumer: Marijuana legalization will be a Senate priorityStudy details correlation between legalizing marijuana and increasing home valuesDriver crashes into marijuana dispensary near Holland LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Governor Whitmer Signs Marijuana Legislation Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Companies Guidance for Home Grows. Detroiters could be voting on reparations for residents UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers Corona Virus coronavirus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Governor Whitmer Hemp LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Governor Whitmer Signs Marijuana Legislation appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  20. June 28 (UPI) — Federal regulations on marijuana may “no longer be necessary” as individual states enact their own laws on its use and sale, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion Monday. Thomas, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, cited what he called the federal government’s “half-in, half-out” approach that “simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana” and concludes that federal pot laws and policies may now be obsolete. “A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” he wrote in dismissing the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks. In the case, Standing Akimbo vs. United States, the dispensary argued that it is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service from deducting certain business expenses — as other businesses are allowed — even though it operates in Colorado, where marijuana use is legal. The reason is an IRS public policy provision that bars such deductions for companies dealing in controlled substances. With 36 states now legally allowing marijuana for medical use and 18 for recreational use, Thomas wrote that the case illustrates a growing disconnect between federal and state laws. Since the Supreme Court upheld federal marijuana laws in 2005, Thomas said the legal landscape has greatly changed. Further, he said, the Justice Department since 2009 has declined to intrude on state legalization efforts or prosecute those who comply with state laws. Read More Here LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Companies Guidance for Home Grows. Detroiters could be voting on reparations for residents UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers coronavirus Corona Virus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Hemp israel LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  21. June 25, 2021 – Michigan’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency – in conjunction with the Michigan Public Service Commission, the Bureau of Fire Services, the Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, and electric providers in the state of Michigan – today produced and distributed materials to inform Michigan residents growing marijuana in their homes about the best ways to keep themselves, their neighbors, and their community safe while continuing to protect Michigan’s electric grid. Michigan residents with medical marijuana patient and caregiver registration cards have been able to grow a limited number of marijuana plants in their homes since 2008. After Michigan voters legalized marijuana in 2018, Michigan residents over the age of 21 have also been able to grow up to 12 plants at their home. These developments have resulted in an influx of new residential marijuana grows that have a major impact on Michigan’s electric grid. Since the energy demand for growing marijuana plants is so intensive – often requiring nonstop grow lights, ventilation systems, and other high-demand equipment – it is essential residential marijuana growers understand the impact the increased energy usage in their homes may have on their safety, the safety of their communities, and the safety of electrical workers and first responders. A Michigan resident growing 12 plants in a home can increase that home’s energy demand by 2.75 times. Maximizing the 72-plant limit for a medical marijuana caregiver’s residential grow operation could result in energy usage equivalent to the average use of 10.75 houses. Residential marijuana growers should understand the proper steps to take while planning their grow operation to ensure their safety, as well as the protection of their home and utility equipment. Overloading electrical equipment can create fire hazards and damage electrical equipment, which can also lead to extended power outages in your community. Growing marijuana in a home is a legal right and it must be done safely and responsibly. Before starting a home grow, individuals should: become familiar with local rules and ordinanceshire a licensed electrical contractorcontact their local utility to ensure their electrical service is sized appropriately to serve the increased energy demandWhen residential growers work together with their electric company, significant damage can be avoided, including: Unanticipated significant overloading can lead to catastrophic failure of utility and customer-owned equipment. If a significant customer load is added before the energy provider has an opportunity to review and utility equipment is damaged as a result, the customer causing the issue may be held responsible for associated costs of repair. There could be lengthy delays in the restoration of service. The utility must determine what caused the issue, find out what the true load sizes are, and upgrade its equipment to serve it.In addition to damaging the equipment of the customer that added the significant load, there could be possible damage to property of other customers receiving service from the same transformer. This damage can range from appliances to sensitive electronics, smart TVs, computers and more.Structural fire dangers are by far the worst-case scenario for marijuana home grows. When circuits are overloaded beyond their rating, it becomes a hazard and the cost associated with this kind of incident is immeasurable as it has the potential to cause death in addition to widespread damage to the electrical system and people’s property.The Michigan Public Service Commission’s website has important information available for Michigan residents, including: Contact Information for Michigan’s Electric UtilitiesMPSC’s Utility Provider Search (Geographic Lookup)Michigan’s Electric Utility Service Area MapThe Electrical Safety: Residential Growing informational document can be found here or by visiting Michigan.gov/MRA. PAST MRA Releases June 25 In Partnership with the Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Providers Offer Advice for Marijuana Home Grows17 Marijuana Regulatory Agency Announces June Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Our Cannabis10 Michigan’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency Announces its June Education and Outreach Session Featuring a Presentation by the MRA’s Enforcement Team01 2021 Veteran Marijuana Research Grant Program RFP Now AvailableMay 13 MRA Business Resource Workshop: Setting Aside Marijuana-Related Adult Criminal Records in Michigan04 Licensing and Social Equity Work GroupApril 29 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces May Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Rocky Mountain Cannabis Consulting19 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces April Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Sensi ConnectsMarch 12 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces March Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Calyxeum05 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces March Education and Outreach Session, Featuring the MRA Enforcement DivisionFebruary 26 MRA Reminds Applicants of Upcoming License Eligibility Changes18 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces February Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Our Cannabis02 MRA Takes Next Step Towards Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion by Posting Adult-Use Marijuana Licensees’ Social Equity PlansJanuary 29 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces February Business Resource Workshop, Featuring Cresco Labs21 Marijuana Regulatory Agency Announces Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Workgroup19 Marijuana Regulatory Agency Issues Final Recommendations of the Racial Equity Advisory Workgroup06 MRA’s Social Equity Program Announces January Education and Outreach Session, Featuring Maurice Morton LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana laws may no longer be needed Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Companies Guidance for Home Grows. Detroiters could be voting on reparations for residents UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers coronavirus Corona Virus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Hemp israel LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Marijuana Regulatory Agency, Michigan’s Electric Companies Guidance for Home Grows. appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  22. DETROIT (FOX 2) – A growing group of Detroiters call for the city to provide reparations. The ballot measure would take funds from legalized marijuana to pay for them. FOX 2: “How many signatures are needed to get this on the ballot?” “A little bit more than 3,600 signatures,” said Todd Perkins, attorney. FOX 2: “And how many do you have?” “We are close to 4,000.” And come November Detroiters may vote on whether the city provides reparations to its African-American residents. “It’s the biggest, blackest city yet you still see an economic divide,” Perkins said. “A gap that is significant and it has not been quelled.” Perkins is part of a grassroots effort that would allow Detroit voters to change the city’s charter giving the people the right to pass legislation to earmark city funds. He says it would be a game-changer for Detroit in which 30 percent of its residents live below the poverty line. “It’s also a very symbolic thing – it’s an acknowledgment. Everybody can acknowledge slavery is wrong and everybody can say I’m sorry, but words mean action,” Perkins said. FOX 2: “Ideally, where would this money come from?” “Ideally this money would come from marijuana revenue,” he said. “As much as people may have been against recreational marijuana in the city of Detroit, there is now going to be revenue that’s generated from that. There’s revenue that’s going to be returned to the city from the state, and we would like to capture that money. “Right now it hasn’t been allocated.” There’s been a big push for reparations in Detroit. The city’s charter commission proposal calls for a task force on the issue. City Council President Pro-Tem Mary Sheffield is tweaking a resolution that will come to a vote on Tuesday. Perkins says if the petition drive is successful and the issue ends up on the ballot, it could draw more Detroiters to the polls in November when they vote to keep or replace Mayor Mike Duggan and city council members. Starting A Cannabis Business Requires Guidance and Legal Support. Komorn Law has been focused on the isssues marijuana legalization for over 25 years and has been involved shaping the future of the new cannabis industry. Call Our Office 248-357-2550 or search Komorn Law Attorney Todd Perklins says he has enough signatures to get reparations on the ballot for November. “I think it’ll increase voter turnout. it may even increase a divide,” Perkins said. “But even with a divide look at what we had, we had one of the greatest turnouts last November because of the divide we saw in this country – and that’s a good thing.” Sheffield plans to hold a press conference on Friday to address the issue. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/detroiters-could-be-voting-on-reparations-for-black-residents-thanks-to-grassroots-effort Trending on FOX2 Detroit Warren Police seek 5 women, offer $3,000 reward after woman shot to death at partyMan dumps 80K pennies of child support in yard, daughter donates to charityReparations in Detroit, a $300 bonus for Michigan workers, tree cutting in LivoniaWhitmer wants to use $300 bonus unemployment check as a back-to-work incentive for Michigan workers‘Broken to Blessed’: Uber driver graduates from college, writes book after passenger pays initial school debt LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Detroiters could be voting on reparations for residents UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza Michigan House Passes Bill to Close Loophole in Marijuana Legislation Michigan State Police and Ingham County ‘reckless’ to rely on informant in false drug arrest Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers coronavirus Corona Virus Covid 19 datamaster Detroit drugged driving DUI Education Event Hemp israel LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Detroiters could be voting on reparations for residents appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  23. General Motors is having trouble finding employees for two of its busiest assembly plants and the UAW calls for GM to cease drug testing for cannabis. The company is looking to hire 400 temporary employees for its Flint assembly plant and another 275 temporary employees in Fort Wayne. But when the company conducted a job fair in Fort Wayne two weeks ago, it attracted just 60 applicants, or only 22% of the Indiana plant’s needs. While finding employees is an issue plaguing many businesses, UAW officials for GM’s Flint and Fort Wayne plants believe the solution is quite simple — stop testing for marijuana, and raise the starting wage. UAW Local 598 Shop Chairman Eric Welter told the Detroit Free Press he believes that marijuana testing is a deterrent and many applicants don’t return after finding out about the mandatory testing. “When you have a line of people waiting for a job, then it’s OK to test for it,” Welter told the Detroit Free Press. “But if you don’t have enough candidates, testing for marijuana might turn people off from applying.” Michigan voters approved cannabis use for medicinal purposes in 2008 and for recreational use for adults age 21 and older in 2018. GM conducts hair follicle tests on its potential employees, which unlike a urine sample, can detect marijuana dating back several weeks. While the strand test was once considered a foolproof testing method for marijuana use, the current laws surrounding hemp and cannabis could disrupt testing accuracy. Starting A Cannabis Business Requires Guidance and Legal Support. Komorn Law has been focused on the isssues marijuana legalization for over 25 years and has been involved shaping the future of the new cannabis industry. Call Our Office 248-357-2550 or search Komorn Law Plus, CBD products, which don’t get you high, are legal in the state of Michigan and available at many retail establishments. A 2012 study in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology found that CBD can produce a false positive for THC. Not only does strand testing weed out otherwise qualified candidates, it could disqualify innocent ones. While drug testing serves as a detractor, the company’s starting wage of $16.67 may also turn off many applicants. Rich LeTourneau, shop chairman at GM’s Fort Wayne Assembly, told the Detroit Free Press the recent increase in pay at other establishments has made GM look less appealing to applicants. LeTourneau says an increase in wages would help draw people to apply. “What really needs to happen is lift that $16.67 cap and hire them in at $18, LeTourneau told the Detroit Free Press. “Pizza Hut is paying $20 an hour to deliver pizza here.” Though GM has continued to set up job fairs and promote employment opportunities online, they have not commented on the union’s ideas to appeal to more applicants. GM Spokesperson Dan Flores told the Free Press the issues were being discussed internally. Stay connected with Detroit Metro Times. Subscribe to our newsletters, and follow us on Google News, Apple News, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Reddit. Source: https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/uaw-calls-for-gm-to-drop-drug-testing-for-pot-amid-worker-shortage-raise-starting-wage/Content?oid=27378805 LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza Michigan House Passes Bill to Close Loophole in Marijuana Legislation Michigan State Police and Ingham County ‘reckless’ to rely on informant in false drug arrest Federal ruling looms in legal challenge to Detroit’s recreational pot law Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers coronavirus Corona Virus Covid 19 datamaster drugged driving DUI Education Event FDA Hemp israel LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post UAW calling for General Motors to cease testing for marijuana During worker shortage and raise starting wage appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  24. “Let’s Do This!” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel shouted at the kickoff of a criminal record expungement fair in Flint on Wednesday. Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Lt. Governor Garlin Gilchrist joined Attorney General Dana Nessel, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Congressman Dan Kildee and Genesee County Sheriff Christopher Swanson in Flint for the state’s first expungement event since the governor signed the Clean Slate bills into law. During her 2018 campaign, Governor Whitmer made expungement for marijuana convictions one of her key priorities. Upon taking office, Governor Whitmer worked with the Republican-majority legislature to pass crucial Clean Slate legislation that will help thousands of Michiganders gain employment, housing and education. “Clean Slate legislation is crucial for Michiganders who are seeking opportunities for employment, housing, and more,” said Governor Whitmer. “Expungement is an opportunity to grow our workforce and expand access to job training and education for so many people. Let’s recommit ourselves to empowering every Michigander to pursue their potential as we emerge from the pandemic and turbocharge our economic recovery. ” Michiganders are encouraged to check their eligibility and apply to participate in an expungement fair. Read the rest here FYI – You should not wait for it to magically be wiped away. You are going to have to take the initiative to wipe it away because … you know… You just gotta make sure it’s done. LEGAL ADVISORY – Rules, Regulations and laws may have changed after this information was posted. It is up to the reader to research and determine the current status of those items. It is always best to consult an attorney that has experience and is focused on the cannabis industry. One of the most well known law firms in the industry for over 25 years is Komorn Law Other Posts Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza Michigan House Passes Bill to Close Loophole in Marijuana Legislation Michigan State Police and Ingham County ‘reckless’ to rely on informant in false drug arrest Federal ruling looms in legal challenge to Detroit’s recreational pot law Marijuana Use Tax – Michigan House Bill 4085 Tags 2019 2020 2021 Adult Recreational Use Adult Use Biden breathalyzer cannabis Caregivers coronavirus Corona Virus Covid 19 datamaster drugged driving DUI Education Event FDA Hemp israel LARA LARA-BMR Laws legalization Marijuana medical marijuana michigan Michigan Legislature Michigan News MMFLA MMMA MRA MSP News pandemic 2020 patient-caregiver Patients Recreational regulations Release smell taxes USA USA News world news The post Officials Celebrate First Criminal Record Expungapalooza appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
  25. The Michigan House has passed legislation that would close a loophole allowing the sale of unregulated THC products. Currently, some products use THC from marijuana, but are not regulated the same way. A new bill, HB 4517, would expand Michigan’s definition of marijuana to include THC, regardless of whether it is artificially or naturally derived. The new legislation would define all THC products as marijuana, making them subject to the same testing and regulations. Michigan legalized medical marijuana back in 2008, and recreational marijuana 10 years later in 2018. The new bill now heads to the state Senate. The post Michigan House Passes Bill to Close Loophole in Marijuana Legislation appeared first on Michigan Medical Marijuana. View the full article
×
×
  • Create New...