Ann Arbor Delays Medical Marijuana Votes

[Michael Komorn]

Ann Arbor Delays Medical Marijuana Votes

 

By Chronicle Staff

 

April 20, 2011

 

At its April 19, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council postponed votes on both the zoning and licensing ordinances that were before the body for their final votes. The number of amendments that had been proposed by councilmembers and the city attorney’s office as late as the afternoon of April 19 led the council to delay the votes on both measures until May 2. If proposed amendments are passed on May 2, it would likely reset both ordinances to their first reading, which would require that they receive an additional second reading.

 

The medical marijuana zoning ordinance received its initial approval by the council at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting.

 

The delay since the initial Oct. 18, 2010 zoning vote stems from the city of Ann Arbor’s strategy in legislating zoning and licensing of medical marijuana businesses – that strategy has been to bring both licensing and zoning before the city council at the same time for a final vote.

 

The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities. The council also directed the city’s planning commission to develop zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses.

 

Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system. The council undertook several amendments to the licensing proposal at four of its meetings over the last three months: on Jan. 3, Feb. 7, March 7 and March 21. The council finally gave initial approval to the licensing proposal at its March 21 meeting. [.pdf of Michigan Medical Marijuana Act]

 

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

 

 

 

Michael A. Komorn

 

Attorney and Counselor

 

Law Office of Michael A. Komorn

 

3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800

 

Southfield, MI 48075

 

800-656-3557 (Toll Free)

 

248-351-2200 (Office)

 

248-357-2550 (Phone)

 

248-351-2211 (Fax)

 

Email: michael@komornlaw.com

 

Website: www.komornlaw.com

 

Check out our Radio show:

 

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees

 

NEW CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626

 

Live Every Wednesday 8-10:00p.m.

 

PLANET GREENTREES

 

w/ Attorney Michael Komorn

 

 

 

The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

 

 

 

If you have a medical marihuana question or comment, please email them to me, or leave them on the forum for the MMMA, and I will try to answer them live on the air.

 

 

 

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees

 

PLANET GREENTREES Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

 

Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney Michael Komorn’ practice specializes in Medical Marihuana representation. He is a board member with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 20,000 members, which advocates for medical marihuana patients, and caregiver rights. He is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marihuana patients and caregivers. He is also the founder of Greentrees of Detroit, a medical marihuana community center that offers patient certification, legal consultation, cannabis education, business development, and caregiver’s classes.

[JimD]

Michael, is the city's effort to require caregivers/growers to register and be inspected in conflict with the MMMA? Why has the city attorney not mentioned the potential for a lawsuit, if that is the case?

[Michael Komorn]

Thanks for the post, great question and one that is not focused on enough. I beleive the state protections supercede any and all "restrictions" that any local government may legislate pursuant to the MMMA. Many of the other protest, ask Blueberry, at city counsel meetings and planning commission trying to do the same should include many threats of law suits, should they make any law that restricts the protection of the MMMA.

 

 

[purklize]

http://annarbor.com/news/marijuana-advocates-call-for-firing-of-ann-arbor-city-attorney-during-protest-in-front-of-city-hall/

 

Another article on the subject. ^^

 

Vote up the good comments! I bet the city council is keeping an eye on the local media.

[1337Gr33n]

Michael, without getting too technical into other cases and their precedence, can you give a brief synopsis of why you believe that the mmm act supercedes local ordinances? i am not asking to needle at you, or to disagree in any way. I have just heard a number of people that say they 'believe' this or that to be the case. But, i am sure that you have some case law, and other statutes that inform YOUR belief, and i would like to hear it. I want to believe that our law can and does protect us from these lame local ordinances meant to ostracize us. i just want to have more than my desire to inform my belief.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Michael, without getting too technical into other cases and their precedence, can you give a brief synopsis of why you believe that the mmm act supercedes local ordinances? i am not asking to needle at you, or to disagree in any way. I have just heard a number of people that say they 'believe' this or that to be the case. But, i am sure that you have some case law, and other statutes that inform YOUR belief, and i would like to hear it. I want to believe that our law can and does protect us from these lame local ordinances meant to ostracize us. i just want to have more than my desire to inform my belief.

 

Obviously I'm not a lawyer and am not who you are asking, but when Ann Arbor voted to establish protections for patients with a doctor's recommendation for Cannabis in 2004 Jennifer Granholm insisted that local law cannot contradict state law. So there you go.

[Hempcheff]

Michael, is the city's effort to require caregivers/growers to register and be inspected in conflict with the MMMA? Why has the city attorney not mentioned the potential for a lawsuit, if that is the case?

 

 

Do either of these apply in this case?

 

333.26426 Administration and enforcement of rules by department.

(g) 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.

 

333.26427 Scope of act; limitations.

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.