Local Caregiver Registration

[Brad]

Many communities like Grand Rapids have begun passing ordinances that classify caregivers as home-occupations. Additionally they are imposing restrictions on where and how caregivers can conduct their business.

 

I'm very curious to know if any caregiver has complied with a local ordinance. If you live in a community that has an ordinance and you are not complying, choose your words wisely, these boards are LEO monitored.

[MORE COWBELL]

as to my knowledge --NO ONE!

hope you are well Brad

Tater

[grewett]

I rushed right on over and signed up the minute I heard about it! Why should every one else get all the benefits? I'm a citizen too (George Orwell says so, and it's right there on my AnimalFarm Membership Card). Me, the police chief, the sheriff and the governor all have a big crop growing right in the City Council Chambers basement. (Hope they never find the new 8-4 going around the meter, wonder what the old 12-2's were doing there?).

[DayTripper]

I rushed right on over and signed up the minute I heard about it! Why should every one else get all the benefits? I'm a citizen too (George Orwell says so, and it's right there on my AnimalFarm Membership Card). Me, the police chief, the sheriff and the governor all have a big crop growing right in the City Council Chambers basement. (Hope they never find the new 8-4 going around the meter, wonder what the old 12-2's were doing there?).

 

Me too; I met with the wolves in the barn and I have to say they were real nice.

They even apologized for eating my Mother.

[Guest ODAWADANNY]

These ordinances are like the Highway drug check stops , ever see one ? I have and I drove right past the 99% of people that stopped to have there rights violated . The police set these up in the 90s to stop flow from the south to the north and made the stops look mandatory even though they were optional . This is entrapment and illegal but yet its seen as a legal loophole to there gain .

 

Brad there was one applicant according to Gr city that attempted to register . The applicant never resurfaced for reasons according to the story published. Perhaps the applicant is in the Kent County high rise ? Ill look into finding the article . OD

 

Lost my link to the article is mind but heres a recent article from the GR Press journalist .

Jan o6 2011 Milive

Gr Press mm article

 

GRAND RAPIDS – Several months after the city required medical marijuana growers to become licensed as home-based businesses, no licenses have been issued.

 

The only applicant for a license was denied last month, according to information obtained by The Press under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Is the ordinance too restrictive, shutting out would-be growers – or caregivers – who want to serve the state's 45,800 card-carrying medical marijuana patients?

 

“I think it's too early to tell,” said City Clerk Lauri Parks, whose office denied the application.

 

Parks denied the application under the city's zoning ordinance, which treats medical marijuana growers as a home-based business requiring inspections and a $224 license.

 

Bruce Block, a lawyer who specializes in the emerging field of medical marijuana law, said he's not surprised Grand Rapids' new ordinance has no takers.

 

“I think it's driven people out of the city if that was the intent,” Block said. “The issue is no one wants to stick their necks out. The fish that jumps out of the water gets caught in the net.”

 

“People are going to look at what are considered more favorable counties and cities.”

 

One city resident featured in an earlier Press article about medical marijuana growers, said he has gotten out of the business rather than comply with the city's business license requirements.

 

“Grand Rapids has made it pretty clear they don't want us,” he said.

 

The sole applicant for the Grand Rapids license failed to jump through a number of hoops, according to the Dec. 16 denial letter.

 

The applicant, who name and address were crossed out by the City Attorney's Office, does not live at the Southeast Side home where the marijuana was to be grown, the letter said.

 

Also, the applicant did not adequately prove ownership of the house nor did the applicant prove they had permission of the home's owner to grow marijuana, the letter said.

 

Since the police had reports of prior incidents involving illegal drug activity at the house, Parks' office also asked the applicants to verify when they lived in the house and when they held an ownership interest in the house.

 

Although the state law prevents law enforcement officials from obtaining the name of caregivers and prevents local officials from making the disclosures, Parks said her office shared the address with the police department as part of their routine background checks for business licenses.

 

“They are applying for a business license with the city of Grand Rapids,” she said.

 

The Fire Department also had “several outstanding safety issues that need to be resolved,” the denial letter said. Building and electrical permits needed for the improvements also had not been pulled.

 

The proposed growing rooms in the house also were not secured with locks – a requirement of the state law governing medical marijuana, the letter said.

 

The applicant had 10 days to appeal after the denial letter was issued on Dec. 16.

 

So far, they have not heard from the applicant again, Parks said.

[BlueSmoke]

Kalamazoo township had a caregiver registration clause in their moratorium. They said that only 4 registered voluntarily, and 1 additional after being cited. The new ordinance that they proposed makes them move to commercial areas after 6 months, so it helped that they registered.

 

This is in direct conflict with the privacy clause in the act, and should not be followed. If they want to discuss this in a court of law, and with a jury of my peers....I am ready. They do not realize the growth of business that this is causing in the area, and we have the law on our side. We need to fight for the rights that the voters have given, and not give an inch.

[phaquetoo]

These ordinances are like the Highway drug check stops , ever see one ? I have and I drove right past the 99% of people that stopped to have there rights violated . The police set these up in the 90s to stop flow from the south to the north and made the stops look mandatory even though they were optional . This is entrapment and illegal but yet its seen as a legal loophole to there gain .

 

Brad there was one applicant according to Gr city that attempted to register . The applicant never resurfaced for reasons according to the story published. Perhaps the applicant is in the Kent County high rise ? Ill look into finding the article . OD

 

Lost my link to the article is mind but heres a recent article from the GR Press journalist .

Jan o6 2011 Milive

Gr Press mm article

 

GRAND RAPIDS – Several months after the city required medical marijuana growers to become licensed as home-based businesses, no licenses have been issued.

 

The only applicant for a license was denied last month, according to information obtained by The Press under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Is the ordinance too restrictive, shutting out would-be growers – or caregivers – who want to serve the state's 45,800 card-carrying medical marijuana patients?

 

“I think it's too early to tell,” said City Clerk Lauri Parks, whose office denied the application.

 

Parks denied the application under the city's zoning ordinance, which treats medical marijuana growers as a home-based business requiring inspections and a $224 license.

 

Bruce Block, a lawyer who specializes in the emerging field of medical marijuana law, said he's not surprised Grand Rapids' new ordinance has no takers.

 

“I think it's driven people out of the city if that was the intent,” Block said. “The issue is no one wants to stick their necks out. The fish that jumps out of the water gets caught in the net.”

 

“People are going to look at what are considered more favorable counties and cities.”

 

One city resident featured in an earlier Press article about medical marijuana growers, said he has gotten out of the business rather than comply with the city's business license requirements.

 

“Grand Rapids has made it pretty clear they don't want us,” he said.

 

The sole applicant for the Grand Rapids license failed to jump through a number of hoops, according to the Dec. 16 denial letter.

 

The applicant, who name and address were crossed out by the City Attorney's Office, does not live at the Southeast Side home where the marijuana was to be grown, the letter said.

 

Also, the applicant did not adequately prove ownership of the house nor did the applicant prove they had permission of the home's owner to grow marijuana, the letter said.

 

Since the police had reports of prior incidents involving illegal drug activity at the house, Parks' office also asked the applicants to verify when they lived in the house and when they held an ownership interest in the house.

 

Although the state law prevents law enforcement officials from obtaining the name of caregivers and prevents local officials from making the disclosures, Parks said her office shared the address with the police department as part of their routine background checks for business licenses.

 

“They are applying for a business license with the city of Grand Rapids,” she said.

 

The Fire Department also had “several outstanding safety issues that need to be resolved,” the denial letter said. Building and electrical permits needed for the improvements also had not been pulled.

 

The proposed growing rooms in the house also were not secured with locks – a requirement of the state law governing medical marijuana, the letter said.

 

The applicant had 10 days to appeal after the denial letter was issued on Dec. 16.

 

So far, they have not heard from the applicant again, Parks said.

 

 

Good read OD very good read! I wouldnt sign up if they paid me,,,cause i know it would cost me in the long run,,,,how do they get away with this stuff?

 

how can a county,twp or city over ride state law,,I almost under stand the by school zones and churches and stuff but not realy,,,these are pt's or c.g's or both and they are not going to have traffic like a drug house! no one should even be able to tell the dif if a person is growing or not,,,and yea its illegal in the law as wrtiten to let any one in that room beside the pt and cg,,,,Idk,,,,wish i had all the answers! Im sure glad you found that article, Thank You!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[bobandtorey]

Well we don't have one but i would like to have one inn Madison Height i could move back their and apply for a business license and see were that takes me

[CedarSpringsCG]

My township is trying to pass one now and I am fighting it, even though it won't affect me (they have said CG's growing for themselves and people who live in the house are exempt, and I can grow enough for 2-3 more people and still be under my plant count for just residents).

 

If they do pass it, I do not plan on complying. They want to push it all into a commercial zone, and that means it is a for-profit business, meaning the crop is protected under the right to farm act, and they can't make me grow in a commercial location (as I understand it anyway).

 

Phaque has it right anyway, if you are smart and complying with the state law, no one would know you were doing it anyway.

[DayTripper]

My township is trying to pass one now and I am fighting it, even though it won't affect me (they have said CG's growing for themselves and people who live in the house are exempt, and I can grow enough for 2-3 more people and still be under my plant count for just residents).

 

If they do pass it, I do not plan on complying. They want to push it all into a commercial zone, and that means it is a for-profit business, meaning the crop is protected under the right to farm act, and they can't make me grow in a commercial location (as I understand it anyway).

 

Phaque has it right anyway, if you are smart and complying with the state law, no one would know you were doing it anyway.

 

I don't believe the Right to Farm Act applies.

 

333.26427 Scope of act; limitations.

 

 

7. Scope of Act.

 

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

(b) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:

 

(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

 

(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana:

 

(A) in a school bus;

 

(B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or

 

© in any correctional facility.

 

(3) Smoke marihuana:

 

(A) on any form of public transportation; or

 

(B) in any public place.

 

(4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.

 

(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

© Nothing in this act shall be construed to require:

 

(1) A government medical assistance program or commercial or non-profit health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marihuana.

 

(2) An employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.

 

(d) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marihuana to avoid arrest or prosecution shall be punishable by a fine of $500.00, which shall be in addition to any other penalties that may apply for making a false statement or for the use of marihuana other than use undertaken pursuant to this act.

 

(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.

 

There is a set of finite rules layed out we Must follow or be in violation; everything else NOT mentioned DO NOT APPLY.

 

The RTFA is a great law - for Farmers.

We aren't farmers; we are Patients and Caregivers licensed under the MMMP.

[phaquetoo]

 

 

No problem Jim , I searched untill I found it again . Having friends and family there I pay attention to Gr and its ordinance and Wyomings ban . I do to wish I had all the answers but at least we know this is not the answer brother .

 

As well loose lips , sink ships ! Your right if done legally W/COMMON SENSE , nobody should be able to notice anything at all . Just another neighbor with a small circle of family and friends who visit on occasion ... OD

 

 

yep yep! just need to pretty much act the same as when we were not legal under the radar!

 

sucks but id rather be safe than sorry!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[Dr. Bob]

Hey Brad here is an idea for you. Let's get one of our 'legal eagles' to write up a form to present to the 'business license' people

 

1. I do not acknowledge the legality of this requirement to register my caregiver services under the MMMA, but in the strictest terms of US Code 42 Section 1983 I am submitting, under duress, to your authority under the color of law. I reserve the right to file a civil rights action against you and any of your co-workers for this violation of my privacy, and if you were not acting under the color of law I would not comply.

 

2. What is the name the INDIVIDUAL that is the ultimate decision maker on this matter? To protect my privacy I will only deal with that individual directly as far as any application or release of information. Both will be made under duress and in deference to your official authority as defined above.

 

3. Attached is a copy of a Hipaa privacy statement and the MMMA, your decision maker must read and sign both which will be returned to me, with original signatures, for my records and potential Code 42 Section 1983 action. Specifically your decision maker may not under any circumstances share this information with any public safety agency, either directly or by leading inquiry implying my status as a caregiver under the MMMA.

 

4. Attached is a form requesting an explanation of the purpose of requiring me, a legal caregiver under the MMMA, to disclose protected information to your decision maker, questions concerning the expertise of your decision maker to evaluate my application, the full procedure used to evaluate the application, how the privacy of the information will be secured, how the records will be stored and subsequently used, etc. Prior to submitting an application you will need to fully complete that 50 page document.

 

5. I am requiring you to obtain a 1 million dollar bond for the duration of the license and 7 years subsequent, to cover the cost of any legal judgement I may receive against you under US Code 42 Section 1983, which must be in place prior to the submission of my application

 

 

And the list could go on and on......

 

Dr. Bob

[DayTripper]

I like that Dr. Bob - make them juggle a thousand points of contention to justify thier madness.

 

I mean, if you're going to play the game with them, you might as well have fun with it.

[Dr. Bob]

The point of the matter is not to just bust their chops, as fun as that is, it is to get the legal documentation to support a US 42 Section 1983 suit. The beauty of the Nuremberg trials was the clear legal basis that disqualifies 'I was just following orders' as a defense for committing an unlawful act.

 

Two points of defense- you had the application and check ready but they refused to accept it because you had concerns about the safety of the information and wanted them to confirm that the privacy would be assured. They would not and you felt the information was not secure and didn't give it to them.

 

Second, you have Hipaa and the MMMA to fall back on, you were asked to do something unlawful and could not comply.

 

Both give you some defense as to why you didn't comply, but check with a lawyer.

 

Finally, if they DO comply, you really have a strong case to show you were forced to do something unlawful under duress because they were acting under the color of law. An example of this is if I knock you down and beat the heck out of you. I've committed assault and you can sue for damages on the civil side. If on the other hand a police officer requires you to put on handcuffs, you comply due to his authority, and then he proceeds to beat you while you are cuffed, that is the above and a whole lot more. He used his authority to render you helpless, something you would not have done yourself in the situation with me, and something you only did with the police officer because of his position and the trust it entails. We acknowledge the authority of the police to arrest us, but we have an expectation as a society that once arrested and secured we will not be beaten.

 

Public officials that use that trust and the law to force to comply, and then abuse it, are worse than common criminals because we are more vulnerable. Forcing someone to illegally comply and register as a grower in the face of state law, and if that act damages us or our privacy, may set them up for such federal action on our part. It is a useful concept, especially if, as we comply under duress, we force them to admit they are using their authority to coerce us to do so. Kind of like signing the ticket and admitting we were speeding.

 

Let's see what Mike K has to say about it if he would care to offer an opinion.

 

Dr. Bob

[DayTripper]

I'm sorry, you are wrong. The right to farm act is not determined by what you grow, only if you intend to make a profit. No where in the RTFA is our crop excluded, in fact it falls squarely in several of the defining terms. This view has been affirmed by the supreme court. The RTFA only mandates use of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs).

Here are all the definitions concerning the RTFA. Thanks, Bb

 

286.472 Definitions.

 

Sec. 2.

 

As used in this act:

 

(a) “Farm” means the land, plants, animals, buildings, structures, including ponds used for agricultural or aquacultural activities, machinery, equipment, and other appurtenances used in the commercial production of farm products.

 

(b) “Farm operation” means the operation and management of a farm or a condition or activity that occurs at any time as necessary on a farm in connection with the commercial production, harvesting, and storage of farm products, and includes, but is not limited to:

 

(i) Marketing produce at roadside stands or farm markets.

 

(ii) The generation of noise, odors, dust, fumes, and other associated conditions.

 

(iii) The operation of machinery and equipment necessary for a farm including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage systems and pumps and on-farm grain dryers, and the movement of vehicles, machinery, equipment, and farm products and associated inputs necessary for farm operations on the roadway as authorized by the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being sections 257.1 to 257.923 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

 

(iv) Field preparation and ground and aerial seeding and spraying.

 

(v) The application of chemical fertilizers or organic materials, conditioners, liming materials, or pesticides.

 

(vi) Use of alternative pest management techniques.

 

(vii) The fencing, feeding, watering, sheltering, transportation, treatment, use, handling and care of farm animals.

 

(viii) The management, storage, transport, utilization, and application of farm by-products, including manure or agricultural wastes.

 

(ix) The conversion from a farm operation activity to other farm operation activities.

 

(x) The employment and use of labor.

 

© “Farm product” means those plants and animals useful to human beings produced by agriculture and includes, but is not limited to, forages and sod crops, grains and feed crops, field crops, dairy and dairy products, poultry and poultry products, cervidae, livestock, including breeding and grazing, equine, fish, and other aquacultural products, bees and bee products, berries, herbs, fruits, vegetables, flowers, seeds, grasses, nursery stock, trees and tree products, mushrooms, and other similar products, or any other product which incorporates the use of food, feed, fiber, or fur, as determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture.

 

(d) “Generally accepted agricultural and management practices” means those practices as defined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. The commission shall give due consideration to available Michigan department of agriculture information and written recommendations from the Michigan state university college of agriculture and natural resources extension and the agricultural experiment station in cooperation with the United States department of agriculture natural resources conservation service and the consolidated farm service agency, the Michigan department of natural resources, and other professional and industry organizations.

 

(e) “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity.

 

 

History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 240, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995

 

Here is my point: the RTFA does not include medical marijuana, and we can only grow marihuana legal if we have a card from the State or wish to take our chances with AD.

 

If the RTFA does apply then we would have to be in compliance with practices the Michigan Commission of Agriculture writes. No township, nor Agricultral boss, nor any other ACT that Conflicts with the MMMAct can be applied here in my opinion. If the RTFA applies; so does the CSC, and the zoning departments orninaces, and the local Party bosses wishes. In my mind it is either all or nothing. If something does not conflict: why would it apply? RTFA doesn't apply either way unless you read public sales or transfers into the MMMAct which also are not written into it and therefore do not apply in my opinion.

 

I'm enjoying the debate and not trying to cause trouble or come off caustic; but I actually believe what I am writing.

[Dr. Bob]

The Right to Farm act has one component that bothers me, the requirement for a crop to be sold for 'profit'. As we all know there are no profits allowed, we can only transfer MMJ for 'cost', there is no provision for commercial sales for profit.

 

As for taking legal action against a unit of government, I would suggest a small town with a part time attorney. Going up against a GR with an entire building full of lawyers is a fight we don't need. We need to bankrupt a small town and make an example of them, and attacking several at the same time will stretch the resources of the MML. They may come to the aid of one, but don't have the lawyers to fight for 5.

 

Dr. Bob

[Brad]

I have assembled a collection of documents that I hope will help us convince county officials to pass sensible ordinances. My gut feeling is that I did a lot of work for nothing because only a court order will be enough to prove we were right, but at least it shows we will not just get steamrolled.

 

It will take a few posts to upload all the files, maybe the MMMA mods will consolidate into one post.

[Brad]

Oh well, I am limited and can not upload the remaining files. If anyone wants a complete set, PM me your email and I'll send it.

[Brad]

This is a bump.

 

Still wondering if anyone is complying with local caregiver registration schemes?