Holland Mmj Ordinance Proposal

[+kurt klaas]

The city of Holland is starting the process of creating an ordinance. I am asking for feedback on the following document that will be presented to the planning commission.

 

Go ahead, blast away. But be gentle.

 

Thanks,

 

Kurt

Director, the Hollandccc

 

 

The Holland Compassionate Care Community

Hollandccc.org

Director: Kurt

(the last name is not reported for privacy and security reasons)

 

 

Mission Statement

 

The goal of the Holland Compassionate Care Community is to be an organized group of individuals who, regardless of our diversity, strive to accept and transcend our differences. We strive to communicate openly but with civility and deep regard for one another’s dignity. As a result, we feel an unusual sense of safety amongst ourselves and are able to engage in effective discussions and act together productively toward our common mission: to educate Michigan residents and doctors about the science and medical value of cannabis; to fight injustice, as we are able, against medical marijuana patients and to work at expanding their rights; to offer support, help, care and camaraderie to each other and to anyone interested in participating with us but especially to persons in our midst whose health well-being is enhanced through the lawful, safe and efficacious use of cannabis.

 

Thoughts on an ordinance for regulating medical marijuana

related businesses in the city of Holland

 

The goals we have for any ordinance adopted by the City Council for regulating medical marijuana related businesses is that it ensures the following: 1) Marijuana grown for medical purposes by state approved persons remains secure and does not end up in the hands of persons not authorized by the state to consume it. 2) Protects the health and security of the general public from potential problems associated with the cultivation, distribution and consumption of medical marijuana but not at the expense of undermining or restricting any of the rights granted to every patient and caregiver under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act of 2008 (MMMA). 3) Helps clarify the city’s stance on vague regulatory areas of the MMMA of 2008.

 

The ordinance ought to address patients/caregivers as one class and all other medical marijuana entities such as dispensaries (a for profit business) and cooperatives or collectives (not for profit businesses) as another class. The first class concerns individuals engaged in private business that is generally home based and is not visible to the public; the second class concerns a group of individuals that have formally banded together to engage in communal activities at publicly visible locations for the benefit of its members. The MMMA does not address the latter class, but such organizations clearly facilitate the spirit of the law and are springing up throughout the state, for the most part without government interference.

 

[/u]Patients/Caregivers[/u]

 

Regulations we could support

 

No odors from a flowering garden or from consuming marijuana ought be detectable at neighboring properties. No light spillage whatsoever after dark from windows of rooms in which medical marijuana is grown. No plants or gardens allowed outdoors in the city limits. No more than one patron engaged in medical marijuana transactions at a time in the home. No unusual noise. No business transactions before 7 AM and after 10 PM. We would support a regulation requiring patients or caregivers to apply for a special license from the city that would require them to disclose their identity or location, if that information is kept confidential or is not made available to law enforcement or is not subject to release through a Freedom of Information request.

 

Regulations we could not support

 

1. We would object to any regulation that would require patients or caregivers to apply for a special license from the city that would require them to disclose their identity or location, if that information is not kept confidential or is made available to law enforcement or is subject to release through a Freedom of Information request.

 

Grounds

The MMMA protects the privacy of patients and caregivers by making it a crime for the Michigan Department of Community Health, which administers the medical marijuana program, to disclose the names and addresses of patient and caregivers, except in very limited law enforcement circumstances, particularly when police need to validate the authenticity of cards. So that the security of patients and caregivers is protected, the public has no access to the state’s list. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to personal health care related information.

 

Patients who grow for themselves and caregivers who grow for patients are very concerned to keep knowledge of their activities and location from law enforcement and the public so they do not become the target of discrimination, police harassment, thieves or other criminal activity.

 

We predict that fear of the possible consequences, if personal information is available to the public, will cause most patients and caregivers to ignore such a licensing requirement. They will decide between the lesser of two risks: the risk involved in violating a city ordinance or the risk involved in compromising their security. We predict the majority will opt for the former until their operation becomes subject to city enforcement action.

 

Grand Rapids passed an ordinance requiring patients and caregivers to obtain a business license from the city and to live in designated areas. But the ACLU of Michigan has denounced passage of this regulation for violating the rights guaranteed to patients and their caregivers by the MMMA. Very likely, a court case or lawsuit backed by the ACLU will eventually overturn requirements that patients or caregivers obtain a business license from the city, when it is shown that such a requirement compromises rights and protections afforded by the MMMA.

 

2. We object to any inspections of grow areas or gardens. The law already requires homeowners to obtain permits for electrical work and its inspection. The risk of home fires has not been shown to have increased in the state since passage of the Act.

 

3. We would not support any requirement limiting the locations at which patients or caregivers could engage in medical marijuana related activity. Some cities, like Grand Rapids, are copying the federal drug free school zone rule that increases the penalties for drug crimes within 1000 feet of a school. These cities ban all medical marijuana care giving activities within 1000 feet of schools or a playground. Some cities add even more establishments, effectively undermining the rights granted by the MMMA. Again, these cities ground their regulation on federal law.

 

However, the federal law is based on a view of marijuana that rules it out as having any medical value and criminalizes all use. In contrast, the state of Michigan has decriminalized medical marijuana. Regulations for it should not be modeled after federal laws that criminalize its growth and use. To do so is to treat medical marijuana as an illegal drug. Furthermore, the Obama administration has ordered that federal agencies not target persons living in states that allow marijuana to be used as medicine, as long as they stay within state guidelines. The federal 1000 foot rule has not been exempted by this order. In addition, the MMMA states,

 

333.26422 Findings, declaration.

 

© Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. . . .

 

With the loudest language possible, we object to treating medical marijuana in any fashion that suggests it is an illegal drug. After all, if the federal 1000 foot rule is adopted, then why should other restrictive rules not be adopted that are modeled after federal law that treats marijuana as an illegal drug in all instances? We reject using federal law as grounds for such regulations.

 

If the city nevertheless adopts a geographic regulation, there is no need for it to be greater than 300 feet. One thousand feet is overkill.

 

[/u]Dispensaries, Cooperatives and Collectives[/u]

 

Our definition of a dispensary is that it is a for profit business. The MMMA states persons may not “sell” medical marijuana or make a profit over and above costs for compensation there from. We would support a ban on all such facilities in the city of Holland.

 

We define cooperatives or collectives as not for profit businesses. The MMMA does not address these organizations. However, such organizations clearly facilitate carrying out the spirit of the law and are springing up throughout the state, for the most part without government interference. We expect future legislation that modifies the MMMA of 2008 to grant coops and collectives legal protections.

 

Regulations we could support that ensures vigilance against the diversion of marijuana to the illegal market, respect for neighboring businesses and a low profile. (Some of these may already be covered by existing laws)

 

A coop or collective must be comprised only of card carrying patients and caregivers. Membership is restricted to all others.

 

A cooperative or collective can only be located anywhere in any commercially zoned district.

 

Security for the facility must include video surveillance, robust locking mechanisms for all entry doors and visible presentation of cards every time a private “members only” event occurs. There will be no exceptions.

 

Storage of all forms of medicine must be inside a closet or room with robust walls, locks and an alarm system.

 

The facility may contain a vented “medicating room” which would be off limits to all persons except patients, with a sign indicating such. There would be no medicating of any kind outside of the building or any property nearby.

 

Driving any motor vehicle while under the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana is illegal. Although scientific research has clearly demonstrated that marijuana causes very low impairment on driving performance, unlike alcohol—to which it is often unfairly compared—we want to be good citizens and protect the public from harm. Therefore, coops and collectives ought to ensure that no one drives a vehicle for one hour after medicating, after which the peak intoxicating effects have worn off.

 

The transfer of all forms of medicine ready for immediate consumption would be restricted to patient to patient with compensation allowed.

 

Transactions with compensation involving plants, clones, seeds etc between caregivers and patients that do not involve any form of medicine ready for consumption would be allowed.

 

All consumption of alcohol is prohibited outside or inside the facility.

 

No weapons are allowed on the premises, either outside or inside the facility.

[+kurt klaas]

bump

[______]

Regulations we could support

 

No odors from a flowering garden or from consuming marijuana ought be detectable at neighboring properties. No light spillage whatsoever after dark from windows of rooms in which medical marijuana is grown. No plants or gardens allowed outdoors in the city limits. No more than one patron engaged in medical marijuana transactions at a time in the home. No unusual noise. No business transactions before 7 AM and after 10 PM. We would support a regulation requiring patients or caregivers to apply for a special license from the city that would require them to disclose their identity or location, if that information is kept confidential or is not made available to law enforcement or is not subject to release through a Freedom of Information request.

 

Kurt,

 

Your writing is superb, as usual, no bones to pick there. I do take issue with what I quoted in red. A special license implies a fee which many patients can't afford. There is no valid reason the city needs to know who or where marijuana is being used or grown.

 

Also, I am moving this to the Activism and Events area

[Guest Wayne]

What if competing MM groups/individuals disagree and want different and/or more specific ordinance lanuage? Should they submit written proposals regarding what they view as reasonable and necessary? My first thought is specifying what a "locked, enclosed facility" should be defined as: specific building codes to ensure security? Electronic monitoring? Perhaps payed, armed security personnel to protect home grows? What about building security? Wall specifications? Egress/Ingress security that doesn't impede emergency response access? I could go on and on. Sit down at the table and play them like a fiddle until they get it right (whatever it is that YOU agree is right anyway).

[Guest Wayne]

Now is the time to outlaw outdoor grows! Electrical supply and demand be damned, support nuclear and "clean coal" technology! No solar energy for growing cannabis unless your willing to support new solar technology to run your systems, perhaps another ordinance requirement? 75% of all energy used for cannabis cultivation could be required to be generated by alternative energy technology bought and payed for by growers? Expensive? You bet! Kinda the point!

[2d]

Why does the MMMA continue to cede the patient's right to grow their own medicine? Patients are in their own class and should not be lumped together with caregivers, and vice versa. The law is very clear on these points. Why not stick to the gray areas of "Dispensaries, Cooperatives and Collectives" and stop giving away patients rights to further your own business interests?

[+kurt klaas]

These replies are helpful, thanks.

 

2d, good point. I will take your remarks and change the text to patients being in their own class. That is only right and I overlooked it. The MMMA, however, has nothing to do with my post. Also, I have no personal interests to promote at the expense of patients. I will gain nothing financially from this. But I can see how you could infer that patients growing their own is downplayed in the proposal. So your comment is very helpful, and I shall rewrite it so that's its clear patients are in a category their own. Patients and Caregivers do not share all the exact same interests or problems. That should rightly be made clear.

 

Again, thanks.

 

Kurt

[+kurt klaas]

How nice to get comments from blueberry. Thanks. My understanding of the Farm Act is that it does not apply everywhere. It only applies to areas that are agricultural to begin with, which within city limits hardly applies. Is that not correct? Otherwise, thanks for the helpful comments.

 

 

Kurt

[1337Gr33n]

Well written, Kurt. I'll come to visit when i'm legal!

[evilrotary]

Whoa,

 

We got way off track here. The study session is this Wednesday and we need numbers. Holland is broke and ripe to accept money from anywhere. Just look at the new lithium plants. I'm working on a powerpoint to show the council to hopefully give them incentives on A medical facility whatever it happens to end up being.