Search the Community

Under the new administrative rules for the MMFLA there is a specific section that addresses the transition period for MMFLA license holders. Rule 20 (included below) specifically references a transition period of 30 days in which marihuana products can be entered into the statewide monitoring system from the time a license is issued. Rule 20. Transition period. (1) To ensure the safety, security, and integrity of the operation of marihuana facilities, there is a transition period consisting of 30 calendar days during which marihuana product can be entered into the statewide monitoring system to ensure statewide tracking beginning on the day a state operating license is issued to a licensee for the first time except for additional licenses issued to the same license holder for a stacked license after a first license is issued. (2) Within the 30-calendar-day period, a licensee shall do all of the following: (a) Record all marihuana product in the statewide monitoring system during this 30-calendar-day period as prescribed by the act and these rules. (b)Tag or package all inventory that has been identified in the statewide monitoring system as prescribed by the act and these rules. (c) Comply with all testing requirements as prescribed by the act and these rules. (3) After the 30-calendar-day period, any marihuana product that has not been identified in the statewide monitoring system under these rules and the act is prohibited from being onsite at a marihuana facility. (4) A violation of this rule may result in sanctions or fines, or both. (5) At any time during this 30-calendar-day period and thereafter, a marihuana facility is subject to an inspection under Rule 16. Does this mean that any outside products (most likely produced by caregivers; plants, concentrates, and flower) would be allowed to be transitioned into the licensing system as long as they are tagged and meet testing requirements? This would be extremely beneficial to the transition to ensure that there is an uninterrupted supply of marihuana to patients, who rely upon dispensaries. Individuals applying for licenses or involved with such entities should still proceed with extreme caution as this rule does not legalize transfers of plants, concentrates, or flower from one caregiver to another or from a caregiver to a license holder and admitting to possession of a larger amount than 1 caregiver is allowed to carry at once or admitting to receiving a transfer from a caregiver may be incriminatory on both the license holder and the caregiver. The question that still remains is that when an individual at a facility identifies 1,500 fully grown plants in their facility 1 day after receiving a license, is the state going to want to know where that came from? Given the fact that caregivers are given a 5 day window to relinquish their caregiver status once approved for licensing and license holders are allowed a 30 day window to tag and test all items into the seed to sale tracking software, the question of what a transitioning caregiver should do is definitely a question to consider. See below link for entire administrative rules: http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Emergency_Rules_Medical_Marihuana_Facilities_Licensing_Act_607643_7.pdf Follow this thread as more insight and commentary will be provided daily on the emergency administrative rules and other rulings in relation to the MMFLA.

No love for dispensaries or other cannabis businesses in Michigan cities / townships. http://www.macombdaily.com/special-news-reports/20180625/many-macomb-communities-take-wait-and-see-approach-to-medical-marijuana

The BMMR has provided a list of 3rd party software providers that integrate with the METRC https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/_MI_TPV_Authorized_Functionality_FINAL_APPROVED_621220_7.pdf

Pregnancy and Medical Marijuana Expectant mothers are searching for answers about the safety profile of Medical Marijuana. Unfortunately the scientific community has dropped the ball and kicked it off the cliff on this issue. The lack of scientific research is due to marijuana’s illegality. Further, there exist huge biases within the published research. Mostly the research confounds marijuana use with tobacco and/or alcohol, two known causes of fetus and child harm. Separating out marijuana effects from the self-reported research on mothers who also smoke tobacco and drink alcohol is impossible. Likewise no pregnant women are signing up for research studies due to the illegality of marijuana and CPS removing children from mothers for testing positive for marijuana use. Many organizations quote from other organizations, who quote from other studies and reviews. The Minnesota Department of Health OFFICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS quotes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee report: In the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists official committee opinion, interim update Oct 2017, the committee found: Uninformed opinion, with zero evidence and lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are used to scare mothers away from a nontoxic plant. These uninformed unscientific opinions are being used by lawmakers to craft laws continuing the cycle of FUD and the illegality of marijuana. “Oh we don’t know what marijuana does, so let’s treat it like heroin” and “if anyone questions our opinion of marijuana, we’ll call them dirty lazy pothead stoner hippies” or “puppets of the marijuana industry”. But we do know what marijuana does. One cannot live in a bubble and ignore reality and the world around us. Women smoke and eat marijuana while pregnant. Cannabis use during pregnancy in France in 2010 Trends in Self-reported and Biochemically Tested Marijuana Use Among Pregnant Females in California From 2009-2016 http://news.gallup.com/poll/194195/adults-say-smoke-marijuana.aspx Much of the opinions on marijuana are tainted by a small number of poorly designed studies on marijuana. For example, the National Institute of Health gives grants to researchers through NIDA, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to study marijuana. NIDA’s focus is on drug abuse, so 90% of its grants are for studies on marijuana abuse, not marijuana benefits. When you ignore half of your research, you ignore science. Many of these studies are completed in order to get future grants from NIDA; research is often conducted from the conclusion backwards in order to show some kind of harm from marijuana use. This, in of itself, does not bias research. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19marijuana.html The bias is introduced when researchers are rushed and forced to publish results, even if the studies were deficient. For example, every website and newspaper ran with the story about marijuana using children lose IQ points. Not many reported on the follow-up study that could not replicate the first study. When eliminating co-founders, the new study found no drop in IQ points. Further, research on twin siblings showed that the drop in IQ was due to parenting, binge drinking or other societal influences, not marijuana. https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2016/08/study-questions-role-marijuana-in-teen-users-iq-decline Try reading that last sentence again. In a world of science, evidence, reasoning and logic, a doctor makes a statement that decades of use of marijuana might make you lose intellectual function, based on conjecture. NIDA also continues to perpetuate the myth that Marijuana is a “gateway drug”. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. NIDA, NIH, FDA, DEA, including other federal, state, and local government organizations and private companies continue to perpetuate these and other lies in order to keep marijuana illegal. ASA has filed complaints against the DEA multiple times to get it to remove incorrect statements about marijuana off of the DEA’s website. http://www.safeaccessnow.org/iqa_victory A cyclical pattern emerges from the current and past situation surrounding marijuana. 1. Stymied scientific research, due to illegality of marijuana and government funding biases 2. Using stymied scientific research as a reason to ignore reality. 3. Repeating the biased scientific research, long after it was shown to be deficient. 4. Using the deficient biased research in “meta-reviews”. Thus taking bad science as a base to create more bad science just by doing an analysis of the bad science conclusions. 5. Even after a research study has been fully proven to be deficient and conflicting with better research, continue to hold it up as if it is still valid in some way. 6. Publish opinions as if they were facts, without any data to back up any claims. Continue reading for more conflicting studies and more calls for research. Marijuana: Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure in the Human Marijuana use in pregnancy and lactation: a review of the evidence Marijuana and Pregnancy The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy Prenatal Tobacco, Marijuana, Stimulant, and Opiate Exposure: Outcomes and Practice Implications Many of these studies contradict themselves. Some report differences in birth weight, some show no differences. Read the studies yourself! http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-5222 House bill 5422 will force MMFLA provisioning centers to give patients and caregivers an unscientific pamphlet, as described by the legislature. HB 5222 looks like it will pass. All this fear and doubt of a non-toxic 5,000+ year old medication used by millions of humans in every country in the world.

LANSING, MI - It was chilly on the morning of Dec. 15., but Michigan State Police stood outside a state office building. They were there for safety, ready, as the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation opened its doors, for some applicants to show up with the $6,000 application fee in cash. Michigan lawmakers authorized a new medical marijuana industry in 2016, and the state began accepting applications to be a part of it on Dec. 15, 2017. But businesses seeking inclusion are already running into a roadblock: banks won't take their money. "It's not that banks don't want to. It becomes a very significant risk," said Patricia Herndon, senior vice president of government affairs for the Michigan Bankers Association. Michigan created a $837M medical marijuana industry with nowhere to put its cash Updated Feb 14, 7:46 AM; Posted Feb 14, 7:45 AM By Emily Lawler elawler@mlive.com Federally, marijuana is considered a Schedule I substance, a category that means the government considers it to have no medical use and a high potential for addiction. The revenue from a state-authorized medical or recreational marijuana business can potentially be viewed as drug money by the federal government. In Michigan, medical marijuana is legal and its industry is projected to expand rapidly. A House Fiscal Agency analysis of the bill lawmakers approved projected it would grow to $837 million annually. As of Feb. 2 there were already 146 businesses who have submitted prequalifications with the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and another 618 had started the online application process. But without being able to rely on basic banking services, those medical marijuana business owners are struggling with how to remain above-board. Paul Samways, an accountant with Cannabis Accounting, said he's currently going out to clients to count their cash. And when the businesses start operating under the new scheme, it only gets more complicated if they can't cut checks or store money. "These guys aren't hiding stuff in their mattress, they want to be above-board, they want to make sure everybody knows what's going on, they want to pay their taxes... how do you do it without a bank account?" Samways asked. Banks shy away from marijuana money Acting as a bank for a medical marijuana business was a thorny issue to begin with, and one that's gotten more difficult in wake of a memo issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month. Banks that want to handle medical marijuana business money have to do a lot of due diligence at a high upfront cost to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering rules, Herndon said. But on Jan. 4, Sessions repealed an Obama-era policy known as the Cole memo, which instructed federal prosecutors since 2013 not to prioritize the enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws in some instances where states had their own marijuana laws on the books. Now, federal prosecutors are using their discretion on the enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Sessions policy shift on marijuana could have implications for Michigan "That rescission adds even greater uncertainty to this," Herndon said. "I will say that they continue to look at this, there's been no declaration from the U.S. district attorney that there's going to be an active force in that direction." Before that move, there had been an uptick nationally in banks serving the medical marijuana industry. According to a report from the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 400 financial institutions were banking with marijuana businesses in September of 2017, which represented steady growth. And some states have found ways around needing buy-in from financial institutions. In Hawaii, state officials collaborated with a cashless service called CanPay and Safe Harbor Private Banking, a marijuana-specific financial institution, to let medical marijuana businesses handle transactions. In Maryland and Florida, banks have quietly popped up to fill the void. But Florida's bank is backing out now. With Michigan's industry coming online at the same time banks are grappling with the Sessions memo, it's not clear any financial institutions will rush to fill the void. Samways looked into the possibility of starting a state-chartered credit union that would accept medical marijuana money a few years ago. The problem he ran into, he said, was that he couldn't get a master account in the federal reserve without compromising the medical marijuana money. "What happens is if you don't have a federal reserve master account, you can't cash checks or take debit cards or transfer money into the money super-highway," he said. As of now, Herndon said, no Michigan bank has publicly come forward as accepting medical marijuana money. Lawmakers look for solutions Rep. Klint Kesto, R-Commerce Twp., is the sponsor of House Bill 5144, which was signed into law last month. It makes several refinements to the medical marijuana law the state passed in December of 2016. Among the changes, it specifies that an accountant or financial institution providing services to someone licensed under the Medical Marihuana Act wouldn't be subject to penalties. Kesto said the intent was not to hold banks accountable for providing somebody with their banking records. "Because in order to apply for a license you have to go and get your banking records. So if you went to the teller or the clerk or whoever was going to assist you, then we don't want to subject them to any criminal laws that then may be out there. We specifically codify that," Kesto said. The same idea applies to certified public accountants, he said. To apply for a license to be a medical marijuana grower, processer, tester, transporter or dispensary, applicants have to prove they meet a capital requirement, which is often dependent on financial records. It's CPAs who provide an attestation that applicants have met those requirements. And that's just for the application process. But when marijuana businesses actually start pulling in money, they'll run into another problem, one Kesto acknowledges. Where are they supposed to store it? "I think that it makes a lot of people nervous. I bet the people who have to hold that cash are nervous, because that makes them a target as well," Kesto said. "Law enforcement is probably nervous because they have to enforce the laws if there's theft, or robberies, or what have you. So I think that we have to be cognizant of that." Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Twp., is looking to answer that with House Joint Resolution CC, which would create a state bank capable of handling money from marijuana businesses. Without some kind of solution, he said, Michigan would have a huge industry that basically lacked the ability to put its revenue back into the economy. Right now, he said, people could get stuck keeping it in mattresses and coffee cans. "What other safe harbor do we have? If the banks can't touch the proceeds and the credit unions can't touch the proceeds from the sale of marijuana, then what do we leave those that are in the business that are regulated by the state as it relates to licensing? Even the labs that test it would be barred from putting the proceeds into the bank or credit union because it violates federal law," Lucido said. So far, Lucido said, South Dakota is the only other state with a state bank. South Dakonta authorized it close to 100 years ago and don't have medical marijuana. But Michigan has a chance to open their own and be a leader, he said. He doesn't necessarily think a state bank competing with private banking services is a good idea. But right now, it's what he's got. "I would surely think that if the banking industry and credit union industry have an alternative, they can sure knock on my door and give it to me," Lucido said. Magnitude of problem could grow with legalization Try as state lawmakers might, it's not clear that they have the power to address the issue, at least through regular banks. "Very little can be done at this point, at the state level, to impact the prohibitions and the obstacles that are put into place that are keeping us from jumping into this," Herndon said. Right now the state's talking about a potentially $837 million medical marijuana industry with banking issues. But if a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use passes, even more businesses and more dollars could have trouble accessing traditional banking systems. Josh Hovey, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group pushing for legalization, said based off what other states have experienced, "We're thinking that once the market is fully established that Michigan could be generating anywhere from $100 million to $200 million a year in tax revenue." That's a lot of money to think about collecting from a cash-only business. But he's hopeful Congress will broker a federal solution. "I think it's something that Congress is starting to look at and realizing that there's a whole lot of money out there that the IRS needs to be collecting, that state governments need to be collecting," Hovey said. But absent that - or any potential state action - Michigan's marijuana industry will likely be a cash one. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/02/michigan_created_a_837m_medica.html

Detroit has an interesting history of fighting voter ballot proposals. In 2012, The city of Detroit fought the ballot proposal in court , all the way up to the Michigan Supreme Court and lost. Finally these ballot questions would go to the voters! Why did Detroit fight so hard about decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana? Why exactly did they want to keep marijuana illegal and continue the war on drugs and prohibition? 80 years after prohibition of alcohol ended in a huge failure of organized crime, mafia bootlegging and bullet strewn alcohol turf wars on the streets. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2012/07/detroit_marijuana_referendum_g.html In 2017, Detroit made an ordinance against the medical marijuana businesses, it's ultimate goal was to destroy the nearly 200 dispensaries that were licensed within the city. The citizens of Detroit then put the question on the ballot for the voters to decide. https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/marijuana-proposals-head-to-the-ballot/Content?oid=6169067 Again, in 2018, the city of Detroit continues fighting, this time against the new ballot proposal which the voters approved of, makes the Detroit ordinance in sync with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act. Detroit is going to lose, as it did in 2012, as it did in 2017. Three strikes and you are out, Detroit. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/02/19/detroit-medical-marijuana-law-appeal/350840002/

The Michigan State Police are hiring! They are looking for a “Narcotics Intelligence Analyst” to “Focus on providing assistance to the Medical Marihuana Investigation Section (MMIS) with marihuana investigations related to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, and Marihuana Tracking Act.” There is also a position available for a combination Marihuana and Tobacco Tax Investigation Section within the State Police. One of the duties of this MSP Trooper Tax Enforcer position is to coordinate with Federal enforcement agencies and prosecutors. Maintain a working relationship with courts, prosecutors and other enforcement agencies at federal, state and local levels. Initiate positive interaction with court personnel, federal, county and state prosecutors. Assist federal, state and local law enforcement agencies on complaints related to theft of cigarettes and all tobacco smuggling. It is interesting that the Michigan State Police are now getting on board with Medical Marihuana in Michigan. Official statements and policy by the MSP in the past have all been against the MMMA and MMFLA at multiple points. https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/new-laws-in-michigan-shake-up-the-marijuana-industry/article_21fd1838-50a3-5281-a65a-06ebba9ca838.html http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/01/01/medical-marijuana-enforcement-grants-michigan/109087886/ When the MMMA became law, police officers were not trained how to handle medical marijuana situations. Ken Stecker from the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan did a reefer madness type propaganda power point presentation around the state explaining the MMMA to various law enforcement agents and organizations. Ken Stecker included propaganda such as this in his “updated presentation” on Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Program. Why was a person, not affiliated in any way with the State of Michigan, going around doing talks with local, county and state police officers about a medical law? What is this Medical Marijuana Investigation Section? The House Legislative Analysis explains what HB 4209 (Public Act 281 of 2016) aka the MMFLA does for law enforcement: The Department of State Police (MSP) would provide 34.0 FTEs for criminal enforcement activities related to medical marihuana at an annual cost of $6.0 million. This assumption is based on the personnel employed by the MSP to provide criminal enforcement activities for the Michigan Casino Gaming Board (MGCB). The Department of Attorney General (AG) would provide 4.0 FTEs for legal and prosecutorial support related to medical marihuana at an annual cost of $500,000. After being against the MMMA, the MMFLA, patients, caregivers, and everything possibly to do with medical marijuana, the Michigan State Police now have to regulate and enforce it. Compliance Checks? Marijuana Tracking ACT ? The Seed to Sale , or Marijuana Tracking ACT is a law in Michigan to track and report all sales, transfers, processes, manufacturing and cultivation within the MMFLA. It allows law enforcement agencies to verify and enforce regulations in the MMFLA, including the tracking of patient and caregiver purchases within the retail state-licensed MMFLA dispensaries. Ultimately, the police have inserted themselves between you and your doctor. The police asked for these regulations during the MMFLA law drafting committees and senate and house hearings on these bills. The police want to look at the MMFLA registry and if you have bought too much marijuana from the system within some random arbitrary window of time, they are going to want to investigate you. Just for the medical use of marijuana as granted by the State of Michigan. It is sad that the police are enforcing patient’s medication with jail time.

Below I have attached a link to all of the administrative rules that were released by LARA in relation to the MMFLA. This definitely provides some clarity and insight into what potential license applicants can expect through the process, while operating their facilities, and in their interactions with the state. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/opt/Emergency_Rules_Medical_Marihuana_Facilities_Licensing_Act_607643_7.pdf

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

LARA Announces Medical Marihuana Educational Sessions; BMMR to show potential licensees the application process, monitoring system Media Contact: LARA Communications 517-373-9280 Email: mediainfo@michigan.gov October 9, 2017 – The Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) and the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation (BMMR) announced today the dates, times and locations of a series of educational sessions designed to familiarize potential licensees with the application process and the statewide monitoring system. Employees of LARA and BMMR will be on hand during the in-person sessions to show attendees the license application process for each of the five license categories: Grower Processor Secure Transporter Provisioning Center Safety Compliance Facility While applications will not be completed during these events, attendees will be able to familiarize themselves with the process – and what will be required – when the applications become available on Dec. 15, 2017. Representatives from Franwell – the company chosen to implement Michigan’s statewide monitoring system for integrated marihuana tracking, inventory, and verification under the Marihuana Tracking Act – will be present at each of the five medical marihuana educational sessions to demonstrate Franwell’s Metrc, the seed-to-sale tracking system, to potential licensees. Metrc is a cloud-hosted, real-time, online software reporting system that will be used by licensed Michigan medical marihuana businesses to manage and report supply chain activities as required by state rules. Metrc uses serialized tags attached to every plant – and labels attached to wholesale packages – to track medical marijuana inventory through different stages of growth, as well the drying and curing processes. The educational sessions will take place in five locations throughout the state: Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2017 Oakland Community College, 27055 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills, MI Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017 Saginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Road, University Center, MI Monday, Nov. 13, 2017 Great Wolf Lodge, 3575 North US Highway 31 South, Traverse City, MI Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017 Wing’s Conference Center, 3600 Vanrick Drive, Kalamazoo, MI Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2017 Kellogg Conference Center, 219 South Harrison Road, East Lansing, MI The Nov. 9 and Nov. 15 events will also be live-streamed on the BMMR website at www.michigan.gov/medicalmarihuana All events begin at 9:00 AM and end at 12:00 PM. There is no cost to attend the medical marihuana educational sessions but – due to space constraints – potential licensees and their representatives must all register at https://www.metrc.com/michigan by 5:00 PM on Nov. 1, 2017 to guarantee themselves entrance to the event. Click “Sign up for Educational Sessions” and then choose the appropriate date. The LARA educational sessions are not board meetings and there will not be time set aside for public comment. The educational sessions will be informative presentations of processes for Metrc (the statewide monitoring system) and Accela (the application process) that will be utilized by future licensees and/or potential applicants and will not interfere with the authority of the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board or the Advisory Panel as provided under the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act. Attendance at the educational sessions will not affect a potential licensee’s application. All interested members of the public will be able to participate in future training opportunities whether they attend the educational sessions or not. Any information or feedback provided at the educational sessions is merely advisory. Members of the media are asked to RSVP to David Harns by calling 517-373-6963 or emailing HarnsD1@michigan.gov.

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

The creation of the MMFLA is anything but a simple application process like we see with the MMMA. The requirements include, but are not limited to, Background investigation, municipal property approval, and application preparation. If this sounds easy I apologize for being misleading but the reality is that this will be anything but that. This is heavy government regulation and heavy compliance and maybe even above and beyond that this will be HEAVILY TAXED by the state and also the IRS. Today I would like to focus in a bit on the IRS side of things and specifically 280E. IRS Taxcode 280E states that: Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code forbids businesses from deducting otherwise ordinary business expenses from gross income associated with the “trafficking” of Schedule I or II substances, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act. This code has led to marijuana businesses being hit with significant IRS audits that have resulted in heavy fines being levied against these businesses, some so severe that they have actually not only been shut down but the individuals who own these businesses are actually personally harmed by the IRS. Let me back up and explain this a little bit though... Cannabis producers, retailers, and processors are not allowed to take deductions for many of their expenses from their taxable income, as a result they are taxed at a much higher effective rate than other similar business types. The only deductions marijuana businesses can claim are costs of coods sold, such as labor costs for things like seeding, planting, and cultivating. They can’t make any deductions attributable to general business activities or marketing activities because of 280E. There have been some additional cases allowing for limited deductions if a corporation is set up appropriately. I plan on going into more depth on these issues going forward, but I wanted to start bringing up this largely alarming issue to both the caregiver and MMFLA Licensee communities. If your CPA or Attorney who advises you in these matters is not heavily versed and focused in on this issue, then you are entering a very dangerous area. The only way to avoid the IRS penalties that destroy businesses and lives is to put in the necessary structuring, preparation, and procedures. The best advice that can possibly be given is SPEAK TO AN EXPERT!! -Josh Colton

Some clarity provided on fee structure for the licensing process, but nothing finite as they have only provided a range of potential fees. September 12, 2017 - At a meeting of the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board later today, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) will inform the board members regarding several oversight issues and the implementation of the regulatory framework for the new Medical Marihuana Facility Licensing Act (MMFLA). LARA, in consultation with the board, has sole authority to promulgate rules and emergency rules as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce the MMFLA. LARA will notify the board of its intent to submit emergency rules necessary for the initial implementation of the MMFLA. The emergency rules – expected to be submitted in November – will further establish regulatory policies, including the application and licensing process and the fee structure. LARA is currently working with the board to develop permanent rules. Existing Facilities LARA consulted with the Michigan Attorney General’s office regarding facilities and dispensaries currently in operation and determined that any regulatory action will require an administrative rule. The department’s intent for the emergency rules is to consider any operation of a facility – that would otherwise need to be licensed under the MMFLA – as a potential impediment to licensure if continued after December 15, 2017. LARA will begin accepting license applications for all facilities on that date. This applies to all facilities defined under MMFLA. This approach will allow existing operations to wind down while also giving adequate time for patients to establish connections to caregivers to help ensure continuity of access. Fee Structure MMFLA requires LARA, in consultation with the board, to set the application fee and the annual regulatory assessment for each license. LARA will notify the board of its intent to submit emergency rules related to the following fee structure: The Application Fee is non-refundable and offsets the cost for LARA, the Michigan State Police (MSP), and/or contract costs for investigative services in order to conduct the background investigation of those applying for licenses. The nonrefundable application fee – which must be submitted with the application – will likely be in the $4,000 to $8,000 range, depending on the number of applications received. The annual Regulatory Assessment offsets operational costs and other statutory mandates including LARA’s costs to implement the act. It also offsets the cost of medical-marihuana-related services provided to LARA by the Michigan Attorney General’s office, MSP, and the Dept. of Treasury. By statute, the assessment must also provide $500,000 annually to LARA for licensing substance abuse disorder programs in addition to five percent of other state departments’ costs to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for substance abuse-related expenses. LARA is currently determining the annual regulatory assessment for fiscal year 2018 for each of the five license categories authorized by MMFLA. Grower A licenses are capped, by statute, at $10,000. Grower B-C, Processor, Transporter, and Provisioning Center licenses will be dependent on the number of total licenses subject to assessment and could be as low as $10,000 or as high as $57,000. The regulatory assessment does not apply to safety compliance facilities.

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.