Jump to content

Open Letter To The City Council Of Holland


Recommended Posts

The Holland Compassionate Care Community

Hollandccc.org

Executive Director: Kurt

Cell phone 616-396-4959

(the last name is not reported nor a personal address for privacy and security reasons)

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

 

 

Mission Statement of the HollandCCC

 

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.

 

 

Note: As the executive director of our local club, I am representing the HollandCCC in an official capacity. After extensive club discussion, the views I present generally represent the majority views of the club, which is comprised of about 25 members so far.

 

Review of the history of medical marijuana in Michigan

 

How did we get in the mess we are in today? Yes, mess. We all know it.

 

The ultimate answer concerns the refusal of the federal government to reclassify marijuana (mj) as a bona fide medicine, which scientific research has already concluded—conclusively. The vast majority of the problems medical marijuana (mmj) creates for our state will finally be resolved when mj becomes regulated by the FDA in the same way that the manufacture and distribution of all other medicines are.

 

The proximate answer differs. In 2008, voters approved a ballot initiative called “the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) that decriminalizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. It passed by a large margin of 63% of all voters. Currently, there are more than 22,000 registered patients and 9,000 registered caregivers. These numbers are expected to surge into the near future.

 

Passage of the MMMA, however, has led to unforeseen consequences. Regrettably, incomplete regulatory language in the MMMA has resulted in what some observers have described as nothing less than a nightmare for local governments and law enforcement. Municipalities are forced to sort out additional regulations for responsible local oversight. But thereby they enter uncharted legal waters.

 

Ordinances adopted by various municipalities cover the entire spectrum of approaches that reflect the full range of political persuasions. Some have actually banned the use of all mmj, but on unsustainable legal grounds. Local governments cannot deny its citizens rights granted by the state. It’s only a matter of time before courts overturn overly restrictive regulations. In the interest of brevity, we refrain from rebutting all the bad arguments against the use of marijuana for medical purposes, such as the sly argument that wrongly lumps the harm of mj with abused drugs that have far more serious consequences, such as alcohol, cigarettes, crack cocaine and the like. Scientific research has clearly shown that in relation to other common drugs, the potential harms associated with mj are quite mild. In the vast majority of cases, its medicinal benefits far outweigh the adverse risks.

 

Regarding the other extreme approach, some local governments and law enforcement agencies tolerate just about anything, which includes very mild penalties for the recreational use of marijuana, such as in Ann Harbor.

 

Regardless of a particular city’s approach, local officials should not be surprised that the vast majority of persons in the mmj community strongly resist the imposition of additional local regulatory burdens, especially when they perceive that a particular regulation denies rights already granted to them by superceding state law.

 

The City of Holland has the surprising distinction of being the second happiest city in the country. What a wonderful surprise it would also be if the City Council demonstrated an ability to adopt a politically neutral and enlightened ordinance that promoted the health well-being and dignity of its citizenry while at the same time ensuring that mmj related activities do not create problems for the public.

 

Due to the conservative nature of the local electorate, many persons in the local mmj community are highly skeptical that the City will deal with this issue in an enlightened manner. I do not share their pessimism. At the recent Planning Commission meeting for the moratorium, I witnessed city officials listening to the pleas of persons from the mmj community and actually changing the wording of the ordinance in response! You listened to us. We want to listen to you as well. I look forward to the crafting of an ordinance that can serve as nothing less than a balanced, well-thought out model for the rest of the state to follow.

 

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 all 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 interests and security of the general public regarding potential problems or nuisances associated with the cultivation, distribution and consumption of medical marijuana but not at the expense of undermining or restricting any state rights granted to every patient and caregiver by the MMMA. 3) Clarifies the city’s stance on mmj related business activities not directly addressed in the MMMA of 2008 (specifically dispensaries, cooperative and collectives), enacting regulations that ensures the orderly oversight of such businesses.

 

There are at least 4 different kinds of parties involved in medical marijuana, each being in a distinct class:

 

1) Patients, who grow their own medicine, usually in their home

2) Caregivers who grow for patients, (who could be a patient growing for themselves and up to 5 other patients). Caregivers are individuals engaged in a business that is generally home based and is not visible to the public—because most caregivers do not want it to be and the MMMA protects their privacy.

3) Dispensaries. Some ordinances drafted by cities use the word “dispense” or “dispensary” in a way that it refers to caregivers. However, this introduces new language that the Act itself does not contain, creating confusion when it’s not recognized that new language has been introduced. Specifically, throughout the country, the common use of the word “dispensary” refers to a for profit business that dispenses mmj to any card holding patient. Yet many ordinances use the closely associated word “dispense” to describe activities in which caregivers engage, wrongly suggesting they are dispensaries. The word “dispense” ought only to be used in relation to dispensaries and nothing else. Caregivers should be referred to as “individual persons who provide medical marijuana services to a limited number of particular patients”, or the like, which covers far more than just “dispensing” medicine to patients.

4) Cooperatives and collectives that are not for profit businesses that limit services strictly to their own members, both patients and caregivers. Everything is in house. Cooperative and collectives are a group of patients and caregivers that have formally banded together to engage in communal activities at locations they are not trying to keep from public view. The MMMA is silent about dispensaries and coops.

 

Private, Home Based Operations: Patients and Caregivers

 

It might be helpful to suggest an image for the overall goal we in the mmj community hold out for--SAFE HAVENS. By federal decree, marijuana is classified as an illegal drug because it has been deemed very dangerous and has no medical benefits whatsoever. Unbiased scientific research, however, has completely shattered that designation. Our state law seeks to correct the federal government’s erroneous classification of mj by decriminalizing its use for medical purposes. In sum, our state law essentially seeks to create SAFE HAVENS for its consumption and cultivation. Our goal seeks to advance this concept and its practical implementation so that the mmj community receives all the services it needs while at the same time protecting the public from possible nuisances.

 

Regulations we could not support

 

1. We would vehemently object to any regulation that would require patients or caregivers to apply for a special license or permit from the city that would require them to disclose their identity or location, if that information is available to the public or law enforcement or is subject to release through a Freedom of Information request. We expect future court cases to uphold the privacy rights of patients and caregivers.

 

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.

 

The MMMA states (MCL 333.26426.h.), The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246

 

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 that they do not become the target of discrimination, police harassment, thieves or other criminal activity. The concept of SAFE HAVENS must not be undermined in any way.

 

We predict that fear of the possible consequences, if personal information is available to the public or law enforcement, 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 these regulations 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. On the grounds of the security and privacy rights granted by the MMMA, we vehemently object to any inspections of grow areas or gardens by any governmental agency. The MMMA specifically prohibits inspections by law enforcement and all other agencies. MCL 333.26426.g. states,

 

Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

 

This language is unambiguous. Despite the fact that setting up an indoor garden often calls for electrical work, the law already requires homeowners to obtain permits for such activity 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 related activities within 1000 feet of schools, effectively denying the rights granted by the state through the MMMA to some of those who qualify under its program. Some cities add even more facilities, such as playgrounds, day cares, churches and more. Any geographic limitation eliminates some persons from engaging in medical marijuana related activities that are granted to them by the MMMA. We expect a future high court case to strike down all such regulations.

 

Cities that have enacted a geographic limit ground such a regulation on federal law. However, the federal drug free school zone 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 the use of marijuana for health benefits. Therefore, regulations for mmj 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 federal agencies not to target persons living in states that allow marijuana to be used as medicine, so long as they stay within state guidelines. The federal 1,000 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. . . .

 

The exact opposite is stated, blatantly, in some city ordinances that essentially prohibit the use of all medical marijuana with declarations such as, “all businesses must adhere to federal, state and local laws”. Such cities ground their ordinance on the fact that mmj is still illegal under federal law and that the MMMA itself is illegal. We are convinced that future court cases will strike down such ordinances on the grounds that a municipality cannot undo a state law. In addition, we are astonished at how unashamedly such ordinances ignore the clear language of the MMMA that “states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law.” When law enforcement authorities argue that federal law trumps state law, they ignore a ground breaking court ruling that has so far withstood all challenges that declares state law enforcement agencies are not required to enforce federal laws.

 

By the way, we object to allowing law enforcement agencies determine the regulations in any ordinance. It is well-known that the vast majority of these agencies opposed passage of the MMMA of 2008, which indicates a bias that calls into question their objectivity in these matters. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies, for a variety of reasons, generally interpret the MMMA in the narrowest sense possible, not caring about the spirit of the law that would extend allowable services for the mmj community.

 

With the loudest language possible, we object to any regulation that treats medical marijuana in any fashion that suggests it is an illegal drug that has no medical benefits. After all, if the federal 1,000 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? There are no reasonable grounds for a regulation that geographically limits where persons may engage in medical marijuana related activities. Furthermore, such a regulation takes away the rights of some persons granted to them by state law. We will never concede the rights of any patient or caregiver, no matter where they live. We expect that future court cases or lawsuits will vindicate this stance.

 

Someone may object, are we not right to shield children from the harms that the abuse of dangerous drugs inflicts upon them? Do we not send children a double message that they cannot sort out properly, as adults can, when on the one hand they are taught that mj is illegal and harmful but on the other hand its OK to use as medicine? Is it not prudent for the sake of children, therefore, to require that the use of mmj be geographically restricted?

 

We acknowledge that mmj raises difficult societal issues, which we are as concerned to address as our opponents are. Nevertheless, regarding mmj—which is properly evaluated only when it is viewed in a class that does not include other illegal or dangerous drugs that can be abused—proposing geographic restrictions is the wrong solution for the problem. Indeed, it does not identify the problem correctly. The problem is the abuse of mj while it continues to be classified by the feds as an illegal drug. In addition, medical marijuana can and is abused, just as many legal drugs are. However, we point out that no laws have been crafted to deal with the abuse of legal drugs by creating geographic limits on their use. Medical marijuana is a legal drug under our state law and should not suffer an exceptional geographic burden no other legal drug does.

 

Public, Commercially Based Operations: Dispensaries, Cooperative and Collectives

 

To be presented later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...