Amid Protests, City Imposes Medical Marijuana Moratorium

[Green-Nubie]

Saying they need more time for additional information and input, Monroe City Council members have decided to punt on the medical marijuana issue for now.

 

monroe news

 

 

Thank the people at the old fox club in Monroe.. An officer of the city of Monroe told me that this was brought in front of consul by the local p.d. Because of the high amount of traffic around the fox club and there questionable business... So Monroe might not be so friendly after all.... If anyone finds the full story please post it..( im not a e subscriber )<br class="hardreturn">

[Green-Nubie]

Saying they need more time for additional information and input, Monroe City Council members have decided to punt on the medical marijuana issue for now.

 

monroe news

 

 

Thank the people at the old fox club in Monroe.. An officer of the city of Monroe told me that this was brought in front of consul by the local p.d. Because of the high amount of traffic around the fox club and there questionable business... So Monroe might not be so friendly after all.... If anyone finds the full story please post it..( im not a e subscriber )<br class="hardreturn">

 

 

normal

Michigan

-------

The Monroe City Council tonight is expected to consider adopting a six-month moratorium regarding the sale and dispensing of medical marijuana.

 

City Manager George Brown and the Planning and Recreation Department are recommending an immediate 180-day moratorium to give the city more time to review the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and develop a policy based on that research.

 

An ordinance could follow.

 

The council meets at 7:30 tonight in city hall, 120 E. First St. The regular meeting was pushed back a day because of the holiday.

 

Nearly two-thirds of Michigan voters approved a ballot proposal two years ago that decriminalized the use of medical marijuana for those with debilitating conditions.

 

Michigan communities have generally taken no action, prohibited the use of medical marijuana based on federal law or adopted ordinances allowing the cultivation, dispensing and use of medical marijuana under certain conditions.

 

Monroe council members discussed the issue at a work session two months ago.

 

Interim Planning Director Jeffrey Green told the council at that time that the act did not leave a lot of direction for communities. He emphasized that voters did not legalize marijuana.

 

Grand Rapids has passed legislation allowing registered caregivers to operate as home occupations within residential neighborhoods, but Mr. Brown said he would prefer it be in a commercial area.

 

"Moving to regulate it in some fashion seems to be the proactive approach," Mayor Robert E. Clark said at the work session. "We need to put something in place."

 

Councilman Brian Beneteau noted, "Common sense is that you have dispensaries and not have this happening in neighborhoods."

 

Mr. Green called the matter "a true Gordian Knot" ( a metaphor for an intractable problem solved by a bold stroke ). He added, "We have had some inquiries for ( medical marijuana ) businesses. I don't know that I want a medical marijuana facility located next door to my house." -----(ya but i bet you or your neighbors take pills right??)------

 

Councilman Jeremy Molenda summed up the dilemma: "This is a real drag, man."

[+EdwardGlen]

I don't get the thought process of Michigan cities and towns. This state is under siege by illegal prescription narcotics (pain pills etc) methamphetamine use is off the chart and yet they want to waste time,money and manpower fighting against us and the LAW!

 

That is one area we may need to exploit and bring to the attention of the citizens of towns and cities that want to ban OUR LAW and hammer it to them that "their" tax payer monies are being wasted that should be used for better things like road repairs etc.

[Rashore]

Honestly... I'd rather towns do moratoriums to give themselves time to consider how to handle cannabis businesses than just say no business allowed.

I also find it super funny that people gripe about an issue like this- a town deciding town businesses- griping that how dare those towns even think of denying people those businesses... But in a recent thread about Ann Arbor giving the go ahead to businesses, there's griping that the businesses will take over and squeeze homegrowers out.

Then again, I seem to be one of the few folks that think cannabis businesses should always fall under the towns jurisdiction. I don't think cannabis should be treated any differently than the restaurant or laundry service down the road. I for sure want my businesses to be safely run and up to code. To me, it's not just get my meds and to hell with you if you won't give them to me how I want it. It's darn it, those meds should always be safe, always be responsibly handled, and if it takes a town a few more months to figure out how to accomplish that, fine.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Honestly... I'd rather towns do moratoriums to give themselves time to consider how to handle cannabis businesses than just say no business allowed.

I also find it super funny that people gripe about an issue like this- a town deciding town businesses- griping that how dare those towns even think of denying people those businesses... But in a recent thread about Ann Arbor giving the go ahead to businesses, there's griping that the businesses will take over and squeeze homegrowers out.

Then again, I seem to be one of the few folks that think cannabis businesses should always fall under the towns jurisdiction. I don't think cannabis should be treated any differently than the restaurant or laundry service down the road. I for sure want my businesses to be safely run and up to code. To me, it's not just get my meds and to hell with you if you won't give them to me how I want it. It's darn it, those meds should always be safe, always be responsibly handled, and if it takes a town a few more months to figure out how to accomplish that, fine.

and;

Some local dispensary owners are in favor of a moratorium because it would allow the city time to institute regulations around issues like security, insurance and zoning.

 

"We applaud the city of Lansing for doing this," said Ryan Basore of Capital City Caregivers. "This gives the city a chance to slow down and look at what they can do to regulate our industry."

 

Ryan Basore applauded this moritorium that grandfathered in his dispensary and put restrictions on everyone else. It's happening in a lot of cities.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Honestly... I'd rather towns do moratoriums to give themselves time to consider how to handle cannabis businesses than just say no business allowed.

The law went into effect on 12/04/08..... How long do they need! Maybe they need a couple more years to decide? To me, this is stalling and manuevering, not taking your time to get a good decision.

[Rashore]

Honestly... I'd rather towns do moratoriums to give themselves time to consider how to handle cannabis businesses than just say no business allowed.

The law went into effect on 12/04/08..... How long do they need! Maybe they need a couple more years to decide? To me, this is stalling and manuevering, not taking your time to get a good decision.

 

The law of 12/4/08 being the general MM law? If so, that does not really cover cannabis businesses. Part of the reason it's taking a while for businesses is that it is a pretty gray and not mentioned area. These aren't patients growing at home or caregrowers taking care of patients. These are businesses and that's just different than homegrowers. For profit or not, businesses are handled by the town. Cannabis businesses should not be an exemption in any way.

Personally, I think dispensaries are a wonderful idea. But since they are not currently covered by the law, it is wise for towns to seriously consider how to go about introducing the unique cannabis business to people. Cannabis buinesses can fall under more than one umbrella. They can sell hard goods (pipes, vapes, ect), dried herbs, food processed herbs, run greenhouses.. That stuff may have their own sorts of laws, but it's never been put together before for cannabis business laws. Not everyone will just be selling dried bud at a walkup window- nor will everyone be growing, cooking, and seated using in their shop either. It's a pretty big span of stuff to cover in between.

I don't think towns are dragging their feet too much... After many decades of cannabis being totally illegal, I don't think a couple years worth of how to proceed wisely with businesses is all that bad. There may be towns in MI that won't see any need to table the issue for a few more years yet either because the demand won't be there. Perhaps by then the fledgling business and town ordinances we are now working on will have evolved enough to make good steady models for them.

The dust is still settling for MM action.. It will take a while for the cannabis industry to get hammered out and accepted for the respectable and regular businesses that they can be. And they can be if we don't get all impatient and risk business laws that are crappy. Every time someone shows up for those meetings and speaks up for good law helps. So does running sterling examples of what cannabis businesses can be when they are allowed. Good examples and laws will in the long run provide better for cannabis businesses and thus their patrons.

In the future I'd like to see cannabis businesses thought of in the light of pharmacies, greenhouses, and restaurants, and not looked down on like porno shops, strip clubs, and seedy bars. Wise lawmaking and actions now will go far in which way the image goes.

[peanutbutter]

Does anyone have a working link to the council video?

 

thanks

[Rashore]

couldn't find video.. But I did find the MM moratorium fact sheet from the meeting on the fourth.. It's a pdf, dunno how to post that.. so I'm gonna try cut copy paste, lol.

 

 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FACT SHEET

i!;;..!.;!;~~~" doption ofmoratorium regarding sale and dispensing ofmedical marihuana

DISCUSSION: In 2008, 63% of Michigan's residents voted for an initiative to decriminalize the use of medical marihuana for persons having debilitating conditions as defined in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Since that time, communities throughout Michigan have taken diverse paths at addressing the issue of medical marihuana locally based upon their interpretations of the law. Actions have included adopting ordinances that permit the cultivation, dispensing, and use of medical marihuana; prohibiting the use of medical marihuana (typically based upon federal law); taking no action (maintaining the status quo, whatever that might be); or, implementing moratoriums. These actions reflect the angst of the varied communities regarding "...certain provisions and omissions in the Act [that] give rise to a legitimate basis for local.. .concern for the protection o f important public interests. I I (Fisher, White Paper: A Local Government View ofthe Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, p.3) Again, it should be stressed that the MMMA does not legalize the use of marihuana, it decriminalizes it possession and use under certain, specific conditions called out in the Act. It should also be noted that" ...the cultivation of marihuana continues to be a crime under federal law, even if for state sanctioned medicinal reasons .... " (Forsyth, Lansing MML Conference, March 2010)

While Grand Rapids has taken a proactive stance on medical marihuana passing legislation allowing registered caregivers to operate as home occupations within residential neighborhoods, other communities prefer commercial zoning districts as locations for dispensing medical marihuana, and others still have taken actions that reflect the opposite end of the spectrum from the Grand Rapids' approach. The cities of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, and Livonia, all communities that adopted similar ordinances prohibiting the use or possession of marihuana that was not consistent with or was contrary to federal law, have recently been named in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU Michigan). The ACLU has taken the position that local ordinances are preempted by state law; and as local governrnents are entities of the state, they lack the authority to enforce federal law. Municipal regulations must demonstrate a reasonable relationship or nexus between the exercise of a community's police power and the public's health, safety, morals, and general welfare; however, it is a generally accepted principle that "a court cannot interfere with the discretion of a legislative body so long as the body's action is not contrary to law or opposed to sound public policy." (Veldman v City of Grand Rapids, 275 Mich 100 (1936» But it is here that communities are finding it difficult to discern what is or is not contrary to the law and what is sound public policy related to medical marihuana.

Given the inconsistencies and uncertainties that now exist in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act many communities have let caution guide them in how they approach the issue. A moratorium, which is essentially a suspension ofaction or activity for a defmed period of time, in this case so that the law and policies surrounding medical marihuana can be further investigated, may be the answer. In August of this year at least 20 communities had adopted moratoriums or were considering adoption. As of December another half- dozen are studying the concept. Elected officials in communities throughout Michigan have expressed hope that state lawmakers will clarify the statute in the coming months, but given the complexities of amending or repealing an initiative measure, the state will probably not see major changes or amendments to the law forcing communities to develop policies based upon their own interpretation ofthe Act and any clarification that might be provided through the courts.

Therefore, in order that the City of Monroe has ample time to review the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and and develop a policy based upon this research and investigation, the Department of Planning & Recreation is submitting a moratorium prepared by the City Attorney for consideration. The Planning Office recommends adoption of the moratorium for a period of 180 days commencing immediately.

CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDA TION:

/j(( /

~

// L

BE <-,/ t _"or / /f/'L::.£!tJ.fA/'----

For~itlirevisions or conditions DAgainst

DNo Action TakenlRecommended

APPROV AL DEADLINE: January 4,2011 REASON FOR DEADLINE: N/A

ST AFF RECOMMENDA TION: ISJFor DAgainst REASON AGAINST: NIA

FINANCES

COST AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS:

Cost of Total Project Cost of This Project Approval Related Annual Operating Cost Increased Revenue Expected/Year

Account Number

$N/A $NIA $NIA $NIA

Amount

$N/A

$ $ $ $

$N/A

$ $ $

DA TE: DA TE: 12.23.10

SOURCE OF FUNDS:

Budget Approval: _ _ _

Other Funds

OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Zoning, Planning, Building, Police, and Fire

F ACT SHEET PREP ARED BY: Jeffrey Green, AICP - Interim Director I City B REVIEWED BY: Jeffrey Green, AICP -Interim Director I City Planner COUNCILMEETINGDATE: January4,2011

12.23.10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on December 4, 2008 the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA),

MCL 333.2641 et seq., took effect; and WHEREAS, the MMMA required the Michigan Department of Community Health to

adopt rules within 120 days; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2009 the Michigan Department of Community Health adopted

rules for the implementation o f the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program (MMMP); and, WHEREAS, neither the MMMA nor the MMMP authorizes or regulates dispensaries for

medical marijuana; and, WHEREAS, the City is exploring how best to regulate the distribution or dispensing of

medical marijuana, which may require amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, as well as implementation o f other regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a moratorium of 180 days, commencing upon adoption ofthis resolution, is hereby declared on consideration or action to be taken by the City on any proposal for the establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary in the City, and that during the moratorium medical marijuana dispensaries shall not be permitted in the City.

 

sorry, best I could come up with...

[Kingdiamond]

Does anyone have a working link to the council video?

 

thanks

No but i have a direct answer from one of the city council members via the facebook comment section regarding the moratorium.

 

 

Brian Beneteau

 

Jan 5

 

Chris,

Had you been at the worksession where this was discussed you would know that my comment was directed at growing operations and dispensaries not being located in neighborhoods. This did not address individuals growing their own product for their own use in their own homes. That would not be a problem in my honest opinion, nor do I think it will be an issue in the future when the zoning is figured out.

There will be no "back door" ordinance, as there will be public hearings on both the CPC recommendations as well as a public hearing when the ordinance is presented to City Council. Feel free to show up and voice your concerns at those meetings. You will be certain that you won't be fooled if you are a part of the decision making process.

You mention City revenue, but I fail to see what you are speaking of. Perhaps you can address where the City would gain revenue at one of the public hearings. Since there will be no special City tax on the product, the only revenue will be going to the business owner and the property owner by way of rent, not to mention the revenue generated by caregivers. The only fees the City would receive would be from zoning compliance ($100) or special land use fees if necessary ($300), and those barely cover the costs of the services. The City already taxes the property which would be used, and that would not increase unless building improvements were done.

You mention Grand Rapids, however there has been no mention of their policies on this issue for Monroe at any worksession or meeting.

Finally your comment about working for the people of Monroe is true. That is the reason for studying the best plan for the City of Monroe, and not just giving every commercial location free reign to open a growing operation/ dispensary/ club. There are 22,000 people in the City, and when the final decision is made by the CPC and City Council, all of these people will be considered, not just a select group.

You seem to take offense to any action by Council, however I would use Councilman Molenda's comparison to liquor licences. Even though a licence is obtained, you cannot sell from any locaton, to any person, at any time you wish. In fact, that type of scenario would be best. Had the State taken the appropriate steps to establish distributors and guidelines similar to alcohol, then there would be no need to attempt to interpret the act itself. Further, the federal government should handle medical marihuana just like it does narcotics distributed by pharmacies. Get a prescription then go pick it up.

As stated before, if you would like the correct, factual information, please contact the Mayor or City Council member, and feel free to attend any and all work sessions and public hearings.

[Guest Happy Guy]

No but i have a direct answer from one of the city council members via the facebook comment section regarding the moratorium.

 

 

Brian Beneteau

 

Jan 5

 

Chris,

Had you been at the worksession where this was discussed you would know that my comment was directed at growing operations and dispensaries not being located in neighborhoods. This did not address individuals growing their own product for their own use in their own homes. That would not be a problem in my honest opinion, nor do I think it will be an issue in the future when the zoning is figured out.

There will be no "back door" ordinance, as there will be public hearings on both the CPC recommendations as well as a public hearing when the ordinance is presented to City Council. Feel free to show up and voice your concerns at those meetings. You will be certain that you won't be fooled if you are a part of the decision making process.

You mention City revenue, but I fail to see what you are speaking of. Perhaps you can address where the City would gain revenue at one of the public hearings. Since there will be no special City tax on the product, the only revenue will be going to the business owner and the property owner by way of rent, not to mention the revenue generated by caregivers. The only fees the City would receive would be from zoning compliance ($100) or special land use fees if necessary ($300), and those barely cover the costs of the services. The City already taxes the property which would be used, and that would not increase unless building improvements were done.

You mention Grand Rapids, however there has been no mention of their policies on this issue for Monroe at any worksession or meeting.

Finally your comment about working for the people of Monroe is true. That is the reason for studying the best plan for the City of Monroe, and not just giving every commercial location free reign to open a growing operation/ dispensary/ club. There are 22,000 people in the City, and when the final decision is made by the CPC and City Council, all of these people will be considered, not just a select group.

You seem to take offense to any action by Council, however I would use Councilman Molenda's comparison to liquor licences. Even though a licence is obtained, you cannot sell from any locaton, to any person, at any time you wish. In fact, that type of scenario would be best. Had the State taken the appropriate steps to establish distributors and guidelines similar to alcohol, then there would be no need to attempt to interpret the act itself. Further, the federal government should handle medical marihuana just like it does narcotics distributed by pharmacies. Get a prescription then go pick it up.

As stated before, if you would like the correct, factual information, please contact the Mayor or City Council member, and feel free to attend any and all work sessions and public hearings.

Thanks for writing to them. You got your point across. Since you have your foot in the door you should follow up with the other foot:

 

He says, "Had the State taken the appropriate steps to establish distributors and guidelines."

 

You could reply: The State did set up a distribution system with checks for proper credentials and a fee of $100 for a license. It's the patient/caregiver system, the most economical way for patients to get their meds. Too bad it is so overlooked by city officials. You can 'could have', 'would have', 'should have' all day long but it is what it is, a patient based system where the patient is in control, not big business like you are so used to. We would like to keep it that way.

[Kingdiamond]

Thanks for writing to them. You got your point across. Since you have your foot in the door you should follow up with the other foot:

 

He says, "Had the State taken the appropriate steps to establish distributors and guidelines."

 

You could reply: The State did set up a distribution system with checks for proper credentials and a fee of $100 for a license. It's the patient/caregiver system, the most economical way for patients to get their meds. Too bad it is so overlooked by city officials. You can 'could have', 'would have', 'should have' all day long but it is what it is, a patient based system where the patient is in control, not big business like you are so used to. We would like to keep it that way.

I think they see a way to monopolize the way patients get meds from the council meetings minutes one of the members says we need to move the grows to commercial sites away from the public and allow the patients to get their medicine from the dispensaries i said in my response on facebook that not everyone can afford the prices dispensaries charge for medicine and we are barely treading water growing out own as it is .