Search the Community

The purpose of this bulletin is to advise municipalities (cities, townships, and villages) of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s (BMMR) intentions regarding municipality authorization of medical marihuana facilities. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change. Under the Medical Marihuana Facility Licensing Act (MMFLA), MCL 333.27101 et seq., a municipality has the discretion to adopt an ordinance authorizing one or more types of marihuana facilities to operate within its boundaries. An applicant that is located in a municipality without an authorizing ordinance is ineligible for state marihuana facility licensure. The Bureau intends to rely on the local municipality’s authorizing ordinance to determine whether an applicant is in compliance with relevant provisions of the MMFLA. Information that will be considered includes the following: The types of marihuana facilities (growers, processors, provisioning centers, safety compliance facilities, and/or secure transporters) allowed to operate in the municipality. If applicable, the maximum number of each type of marihuana facility allowed to operate in the municipality. Any zoning regulations that apply to marihuana facilities within the municipality, including whether licensees may apply for special use permits. More information regarding municipalities and the MMFLA: Municipalities shall not impose regulations regarding the purity or pricing of marihuana. Municipalities shall not impose regulations that conflict with statutory regulations for licensing marihuana facilities. There is no deadline for municipalities to adopt authorizing ordinances. Municipalities are not required to “opt out” or prohibit marihuana facilities within their boundaries. This bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. It is intended to be advisory only, in anticipation of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ promulgation of emergency rules consistent with statutory requirements. Potential licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their licensure applications and operations comply with the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act and associated administrative rules. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/ADVISORY_BULLETIN_-_Municipal_Authorization_FINAL_604557_7.pdf

The purpose of this bulletin is to inform the public and potential medical marihuana licensees of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s intentions regarding testing of marihuana and marihuana-infused products. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change. The Bureau intends to require testing of marihuana and marihuana-infused products at the following two points in the supply chain: After harvest: Harvested marihuana must pass required tests before it is transferred from a grower to a processor or a provisioning center. After processing: Marihuana and marihuana-infused products in their final state must pass required tests before they are transferred from a processor to a provisioning center. Facilities may choose to test their products at additional points in the supply chain. More information regarding marihuana testing: The test results will be recorded in the statewide monitoring system by the licensed safety compliance facility The grower or processor that provided the test sample will be able to view the testing results in the statewide monitoring system once they have been recorded A caregiver may choose to have his or her product tested by a licensed safety compliance facility, but those tests will not be recorded or tracked in the statewide monitoring system. Licensed provisioning centers can 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. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/BMMR_Advisory_Bulletin_Testing_602773_7.pdf

Well this is interesting. So imagine where this is headed, politics aside. This is going to make this a more efficient and streamlined process. Less transport company involvement. Co-Location of Medical Marihuana Facilities Operation of grower, processor, and/or provisioning center facilities at the same location The purpose of this bulletin is to advise the public and potential medical marihuana licensees of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s intention to allow for the operation of licensed grower, processor, and/or provisioning center facilities at the same location. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change. A potential licensee may apply for and be granted a license to operate as a grower, processor, and/or provisioning center. It is the Bureau’s intention that growers, processors, and provisioning centers may operate at the same location under the following conditions:  Each licensed entity remains distinct and separate within different working areas.  Each licensed entity has separate entrances and exits, point of sale operations (if applicable), and record keeping systems.  The municipality in which the facility is located does not prohibit co-location of facilities through its local ordinance or zoning regulations.  Each licensed entity is compliant with local and state public health standards and building inspection and fire safety regulations.  Each entity’s license is posted on the wall in its distinct working area.  The Department has authorized the licensees to operate at the same location. Other considerations regarding co-location of facilities:  Additional inspections and/or permits may be required for licensed entities operating at the same location.  Each grower, processor, and provisioning center requires its own separate application, regulatory assessment, and license.

This really sets the stage for super grows... The State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) released an advisory bulletin today to inform and advise prospective medical marihuana licensees regarding stacking of medical marihuana class C grower licenses. The bulletin is for advisory purposes only and is subject to change. It is the intent of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation to allow a potential licensee to apply for – and be granted – multiple (“stacked”) class C grow licenses in a single location. Each class C license authorizes the grower to grow up to 1,500 marihuana plants. Stacked licenses must be issued to the same applicant/licensee and each license will be subject to an additional application and regulatory assessment. While a stacked licensee will need to identify and track all information in the statewide monitoring system under the appropriate license, the licensee will not be required to operate each license in a separate, distinct working area. A licensee with stacked licenses must be in compliance with all applicable local ordinances and zoning regulations. This bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. It is intended to be advisory only, in anticipation of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ promulgation of emergency rules consistent with statutory requirements. Potential licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their licensure applications and operations comply with the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act and associated administrative rules.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Aug. 1, 2013 State Rep. Mike Shirkey will host a citizen town hall event in Jackson County on Aug. 14 to help create a public dialogue on drug enforcement strategies and policy. Shirkey said the debate needs to happen, based on both the citizen initiative that legalized medicinal marijuana and the introduction of legislation such as House Bill 4623, which would impose fines instead of jail time for the possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana. "Michigan citizens expect and demand that we strive to balance the needs of personal freedom, public safety, pain management and a host of other factors as we determine how to best spend the people's tax dollars," said Shirkey, R-Clarklake. "Are we forcing law enforcement to police and jail recreational marijuana users instead of using time and money that should be going to battle our meth lab epidemic? Are we limiting reasonable options to end-of-life pain management by putting excessive restrictions on medicinal marijuana? Those are questions that politicians, law enforcement, and most importantly the general public, need to actively discuss and answer." The town hall, which is free and open to the public, takes place from 5-7 p.m. at the Grass Lake Township Hall, 373 Lakeside Drive. Shirkey is inviting several people to speak and is hopeful for a large turnout, regardless of people's position on the issue. State Rep. Jeff Irwin, the author of HB 4623, will attend as will former prosecutor James Gierach, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Seventeen states have some type of marijuana decriminalization laws on the books, according to LEAP, and the organization said they were interested in coming to the Jackson area in part because of a local petition drive addressing decriminalization. "My time working with law enforcement as a Cook County prosecutor and municipal attorney showed me firsthand how frequently we are turning average citizens into criminals and not spending enough time tracking down and dealing with the true bad guys in this equation," Gierach said. "You can be both tough and appropriate with drug enforcement once you start to differentiate and realize the serious downsides of a one-size-fits-all policy. We've already seen that with alcohol and prohibition, and I think we're going to see that very soon with recreational marijuana use as well." People with questions may call Rep. Shirkey's office at (517) 373-1775. Gierach will also be making himself available for private meetings with interested public officials by appointment, and can be reached through the LEAP offices at (315) 243-5844.

A suspended medical doctor was found guilty Friday of two felonies related to selling pre-signed medical marijuana certificates to supposed patients through a co-defendant at a Warren store. http://www.macombdai...na-certificates

What counts as being too high to drive? In both Washington and Colorado, laws approved by voters let anyone at least 21 years old possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. But the means of judging whether someone is driving while impaired varies in the two states. In Washington, driving with a THC blood-content level of 5 nanograms per milliliter is illegal. In Colorado, no such limit was set. THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main mind-altering chemical in marijuana. http://www.carinsurancequotes.com/articles/marijuana-and-driving This is a critical issue for Michigan Cannabis Patients. People v. Koon is a terrible decision, the law in Michigan currently punishes a person for having "any amount (presence) of active THC, delta 9, in their blood. A person who is driving as any reasonable driver would, is still considered to be committing a crime (punishes the same as an OWI) just for having the presence of THC.

PLEASE READ THIS THREAD WITH CAUTION! NONE OF THE BELOW IS INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVISE, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. IT IS MERELY POSTED AS AN OPENING DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS LEGISLATIVE ACT 4856 DOES TO THE PRIOR LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN MICHIGAN REGARDING USABLE MARIHUANA, UNUSABLE MARIHUANA, TRANSPORTING MARIHUANA AND BEHAVIOR INVOLVING MARIHUANA BY A PERSON, AS NOW DEFINED IN THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, PURSUANT TO 4856. ANYONE WHO READS THE BELOW AS ADVISE WILL SURELY END UP A TEST CASE, WHICH IS THE MOST UNPLEASANT PLACE TO FIND YOURSELF, PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW THESE WORDS AS LEGAL ADVICE. Lets start with the obvious conflict that exist now: section 4 a and b protects a patient or caregiver from arrest prosecution or any penalty so long as they are not in violation section 7. The limitation to protections against arrest for patients and caregivers come from section 4 and section 7. Possession for patients and caregivers is subject only to the MMMA, and does not apply in or to the Michigan Penal Code (O'Connell and Byslma). Marihuana remains illegal except for limited exemptions for persons with serious or debilitation conditions. 4856 directly conflicts with section 4 a and b, and can not be reconciled. More importantly 4856 punishes persons only, not patients or caregivers, and section 4 a and b were not amended, and still remain as protections different than the persons 4856 seeks to punish for this behavior. A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "The Michigan penal code," (MCL 750.1 to 750.568) by adding section 474. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: SEC. 474. (1) A PERSON SHALL NOT TRANSPORT OR POSSESS USABLE MARIHUANA AS DEFINED IN SECTION 26423 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.26423, IN OR UPON A MOTOR VEHICLE OR ANY SELF- PROPELLED VEHICLE DESIGNED FOR LAND TRAVEL UNLESS THE USABLE MARIHUANA IS 1 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS CARRIED IN THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. (B) ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE, IF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH THE PERSON IS 1 TRAVELING DOES NOT HAVE A TRUNK. 2 (2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A 3 MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 93 DAYS OR 4 A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.00, OR BOTH. 4856 amends the Michigan Penal Code to acknowledge a lawful way to transport usable marijuana (as defined in the MMMA) and refers to the definition section of the MMMA. Any person can now transport unusable marihuana in the car and have it laying open on the passenger seat anywhere- one could say? Or if it is in a case or in the trunk a person is protected, because that behavior is lawful. It is not merely protected from arrest, prosecution or any penalty, IT IS PROTECTED BECAUSE IT IS A LAWFUL WAY TO CARRY MARIHUANA IN A CAR. IT IS LAWFUL. On a larger scale beyond the search issues and all the bad that it does, is this the amendment that was needed to codify the act as legit? Or said another way a legal right? Does this new law speak to the theme running through all those COA opinions and the MSC that has stated up to now, that the MMMA didn't amend the Michigan Penal Code legalizing the use of marihuana, it merely carved out limited exemptions for people with serious and debilitating conditions. If a person may now carry unusable marihuana in a car, without the need for a card, 1. This 4856 has acknowledged that unusable material ( as defined in the MMMA act) is not contraband, anymore. Anyone can possess it. 2. You don't need a card to or be a patient or need a medical reason to carry this non contraband substance- unusable material. 3. It is a crime for a person to do this if the material is usable, but you are protected for doing it if its in the trunk or in a case if in the interior of the vehicle. A specific protection or a right if done in accordance with this rule. 4. Or said another way usable material may now be possessed and transported by a person and so long as it is in the trunk or in a case that is locked with in the interior of the vehicle it is not a crime and therefore is lawful. 5. This is obvious in conflict of the unlawful possession, use, delivery etc of marihuana by a person in other sections of the Michigan Public Health Code section 333. 6. But by itself 4856 seemingly describes marhuana behavior that is lawful if done in accordance with the rules contained therein by a person. 7. This has not yet been done, and the judiciary has consistently ruled that no rights exist, only immunity from arrest. Here the Legislature has stated a specific protection for this type of behavior (not in the MMMA) but in the Michigan Penal Code. 8. This new law is in the Michigan Penal Code and for the first time ever since the MMMA was enacted, the MPC is recognizing a way to engage in some form of marihuana use. Is marihuana still illegal under state law? Not if it is in your trunk locked in a case. Or if it is unusable ?

Planet Green Trees episode 112 –Juicing Raw Cannabis September 20 2012 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Special Guests: Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska Brad Forrester Cheboygan Norml We will be discussing the benefits of juicing raw cannabis. Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority has been studying the raw juice, and Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint and others will discuss their experiences and feedback from the patients juicing raw cannabis . Also tonight Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska will discuss his efforts to expose his county's Sherriff for not properly taking his oath of office, and Brad Forrester will give us a re-cap on yesterday's rally in Lansing. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of KomornLaw 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson reporting on news events. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557-Green Thumb Garden Center 2484391851. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Number of Babies Born Addicted to Painkillers Has Tripled in the Last Decade http://gawker.com/5906530/number-of-babies-born-addicted-to-painkillers-has-tripled-in-the-last-decade Missing from this discussion is mention of a scientifically proven non-toxic medicine that has proven to not have any negative effects on new born babies. It is called cannabis. Jamaican Study of Pregnant Mothers Shows That Marijuana Doesn’t Harm Newborns http://ireadculture.com/2011/06/news/smoking-marijuana-pregnancy/ Back in the '80s and '90s hospitals saw a surge in babies born addicted to crack, but the last decade has been all about babies born addicted to painkillers. Babies who are hooked on Vicodin or Oxycontin experience neonatal abstinence syndrome. It's the same for babies addicted to heroin, but prescription drug abuse is on the rise. The number of pregnant women who used or abused narcotic painkillers increased fivefold from 2000 to 2009, his study found. These mothers now account for 5.6 out of 1,000 hospital births a year, the study found. As CDC researcher Andreea Creanga notes, it's not that more pregnant women are using drugs — it's that more of the pregnant women who use drugs are using prescription painkillers. Babies born addicted to these drugs are treated with methadone for withdrawal symptoms. In the meantime, they cry a lot and are generally miserable. The study's author Stephen Patrick describes it "like a colicky baby times 10." There is some speculation that pregnant women don't realize prescription drugs can hurt their fetuses, since the drugs are legal. But painkillers are prescribed for use with pain, not for good times. And not to be a total killjoy, but the number of overdoses from prescription pain meds also tripled (from 1991 to 2007). Pregnant or not, be careful with your opiates. Jamaican Study of Pregnant Mothers Shows That Marijuana Doesn’t Harm Newborns http://ireadculture.com/2011/06/news/smoking-marijuana-pregnancy/ By Janelle Stone It’s almost too taboo to discuss: pregnant women smoking marijuana. It’s a dirty little secret for women, particularly during the harrowing first trimester, who turn to cannabis for relief from nausea and stress. If you were to inquire about pot and pregnancy on the Web, Baby Center offers a strongly worded warning from Gerald Briggs, pharmacist clinical specialist. Briggs says that pot affects the baby’s growth and development and—gasp!—may even cause childhood leukemia. But there are no facts or studies attributed to back up the claims. More than 50 pages of comments were posted to the site about Briggs’ statements. Some proclaimed the virtues of smoking marijuana while pregnant, offering proof of healthy children and stories of functioning during pregnancy thanks to cannabis. Other comments viciously showed disdain for pregnant patients, resorting to name-calling. Pregnant women in Jamaica use marijuana regularly to relieve nausea, as well as to relieve stress and depression, often in the form of a tea or tonic. In the late 1960s, grad student Melanie Dreher was chosen by her professors to perform an ethnographic study on marijuana use in Jamaica to observe and document its usage and its consequences among pregnant women. Dreher studied 24 Jamaican infants exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 infants that were not exposed. Her work evolved into the book Women and Cannabis: Medicine, Science and Sociology, part of which included her field studies. Most North American studies have shown marijuana use can cause birth defects and developmental problems. Those studies did not isolate marijuana use, however, lumping cannabis with more destructive substances ranging from alcohol and tobacco to meth and heroin. In Jamaica, Dreher found a culture that policed its own ganja intake and considers its use spiritual. For the herb’s impact when used during pregnancy, she handed over reports utilizing the Brazelton Scale, the highly recognized neonatal behavioral assessment that evaluates behavior. The profile identifies the baby’s strengths, adaptive responses and possible vulnerabilities. The researchers continued to evaluate the children from the study up to 5 years old. The results showed no negative impact on the children, on the contrary they seemed to excel. Plenty of people did not like that answer, particularly her funders, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. They did not continue to flip the bill for the study and did not readily release its results. “March of Dimes was supportive,” Dreher says. “But it was clear that NIDA was not interested in continuing to fund a study that didn’t produce negative results. I was told not to resubmit. We missed an opportunity to follow the study through adolescence and through adulthood.” Now dean of nursing at Rush University with degrees in nursing, anthropology and philosophy, plus a Ph.D. in anthropology from Columbia University, Dreher did not have experience with marijuana before she shipped off for Jamaica. The now-marijuana advocate says that Raphael Mechoulam, the first person to isolate THC, should win a Pulitzer. Still, she understands that medical professionals shy from doing anything that might damage any support of their professionalism, despite marijuana’s proven medicinal effects, particularly for pregnant women. CASE CLOSED Dr. Melanie Dreher’s study isn’t the first time Jamaican ganja smoking was subjected to scientific study. One of the most exhausting studies is Ganja in Jamaica—A Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use by Vera Rubin and Lambros Comitas, published in 1975. Unfortunately for the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, the medical anthropological study concluded: “Despite its illegality, ganja use is pervasive, and duration and frequency are very high; it is smoked over a longer period in heavier quantities with greater THC potency than in the U.S. without deleterious social or psychological consequences [our emphasis].”