Jump to content
Rx420

Can A City Restrict A Caregivers To A Specific Area?

Recommended Posts

The police in this town want to put all the caregivers in an industrial area and not allow caregivers as a home occ or in commercial districts. The idea is to put a large industrial grow (no one is saying who is going to own this building or whether it would be "condos" or what) on the outskirts of town so the police can keep an eye on the CGs.

 

Their argument is it will stop a mythical rash of residential burglaries that will occur if caregivers are not isolated. Yeah, I know but it plays well. My question is, where do the rights of caregivers end and the City's right to zone against caregivers begin? I have never heard of this kind of an industrial park for CG idea before. Are there other cities with similar approaches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't spoken to a lawyer about it yet, however if they are forcing it into industrial, then they are saying it is a commercial grow, which then it becomes part of the Right to Farm Act, and they can't stop you from growing anywhere.

 

There is some question as to whether they can inspect, however the idea there is that you would need electrical permits to build a grow room, put in new outlets and whatnot. But once it is permitted and passed, they can't do yearly inspections on your grow.

 

Anyway, the consensus is that they can not do this. However it is going to take someone with either a lot of time, or a lot of money, to challenge it. I have neither. Oddly the attorney for my own township that is attempting to do something similar (commercial, not industrial, and only 1 CG per 500 ft) sent a letter recommending that we just don't tell anyone we are growing in our basement. If no one knows, then you can't get busted for it. And that's the attorney that helped draft the ordinance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Could you explain this. I am new to Michigan and dont know much about this Farm Act..

 

if they are forcing it into industrial, then they are saying it is a commercial grow, which then it becomes part of the Right to Farm Act, and they can't stop you from growing anywhere.

 

Are you saying you think if they force us into the industrial area, it makes growing a commercial enterprise and therefore somehow the Farm Act enters into it so you can grow it anywhere because they treated it as commercial? Or are you saying something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly the attorney for my own township that is attempting to do something similar (commercial, not industrial, and only 1 CG per 500 ft) sent a letter recommending that we just don't tell anyone we are growing in our basement. If no one knows, then you can't get busted for it. And that's the attorney that helped draft the ordinance!

 

This is why I call these ordinances toilet paper ordinances. Nobody is going to follow the rules and they can't legally find out who is growing in the city or twp to enforce them. If they do catch you breaking the rules it's nothing but a civil infraction aka slap on the wrist...

 

These ordinances aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All ordinances that alter the intent of our law are illegal and unconstitutional. Section 9 of the Michigan State Constitution forbids anyone but the legislature from altering our law and only with a 3/4 super majority. The legislature had 10 days to implement our law. They missed by 2+ years. Thanks, Bb

 

As much as I'd like to believe that, I dont hear a lot of challenges to these ords based on that argument. If it was iron-clad I'd think movement attys would be all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to believe that, I dont hear a lot of challenges to these ords based on that argument. If it was iron-clad I'd think movement attys would be all over it.

Not if they do't have someone to foot the bill. I am sure if you put them on a retainer they would take your money. But like tricloud said they are just civil infractions. Just keep it on the low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You! I moved here from a "dont ask dont tell" state. I was about to buy a place here when this hit. If I wanted to crawl on my knees and hide in the shadows, I would have stayed where I was. So, the question for me is do I want to stay and fight or go buy a place in a more compassionate community...or at least one that follows the law...rather than their interpretation of it...if I decide to stay and fight with them this gives me something to fight with... :sword:

Edited by Rx420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is just about the money. You just have to scrape off the top layer to see the government setting up for industrial grows and no caregivers....

 

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first like to remind the council that Section 9 of the Michigan State Constitution defines all levels of government that can alter an initiative. An initiative is a constitutionally protected law. Only both houses of the legislature can alter it and only with a 3/4 super majority. Not even the governor is allowed to modify it's intent. It is the constitution which gives your township the right to exist. If you ignore it's mandate you will not only defy the constitution, the people, but also your own charter. Thew Michigan Medical Marijuana Association is currently seeking ordinances such as this in order to bring this issue before a trial.

 

If you pass this ordinance as written each of you and anyone who should come in contact with the information and cause that information to be disseminated will be guilty of a misdemeanor. First I will read the exert from the law, then I will read Michael Cox’s opinion of this portion of the law. If due diligence had of been performed, the council would not now be in the position that the city will face huge cost associated with litigation, but you personally could face jail time and fines as well as being sued individually. As the Cloak of office only protects civil servants who are performing their duties lawfully.

Section 333.26426

(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.

(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.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

If that is not clear enough, let’s see what the attorney general has to say about this section of the law.

 

Michael Cox AG Opinion #7250

As Ground work for his opinion, this is what the Attorney General had to say and the supreme court has had to say about Citizens Initiatives.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has explained that initiatives should be "liberally construed to effectuate their purposes" and to "facilitate rather than hamper the exercise of reserved rights by the people." Welch Foods v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461; 540 NW2d 693 (1995). In addition, the words of an initiated law should be given their "ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters." Id. To the extent that the initiative contains any ambiguity, it must be constructed in light of the purpose of the initiative. Id. at 462.

This means initiatives are not the play toys of localities to fashion in their own image, but the property of the people. Proceeding on with the opinion.

The Opinion;

The confidentiality provisions apply to a "person," including DCH and other state agencies and local units of government, as well as law enforcement agencies. Section 6(h) of the Act specifically describes the information deemed confidential or expressly exempted from public disclosure:

(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.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is

reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential

information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than

$1,000.00, or both. [MCL 333.26426(h).]2

While names, other personal identifying information, applications and information regarding patients, primary caregivers or physicians are deemed confidential and must not be disclosed contrary to the Act, DCH is implicitly authorized to disclose this information to the extent necessary to fully perform its duties under the Act.3 For example, in verifying the information contained in the application, DCH would need to disclose the name of the applicant to the physician listed on the application. Similarly, the MMA would not prohibit DCH from sharing the information with an outside vendor under contract with DCH to assist it in carrying out the application and registration process, so long as the contractual arrangement protected the confidentiality of the information. Under the MMA, any person who gains access to the confidential information would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration: "A person . . . who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both." MCL 333.26426(h)(4).

What this all means is you can’t compel a caregiver or patient to disclose any information, including but not limited to, registering with the city, without the council collectively and individually and all government employees who participate in it’s enforcement, without violating state law and becoming guilty of criminal infractions as well as being libel civilly for numerous tortable claims. If you choose to follow the law, the registry portion of this ordinance in any possible configuration is illegal. You also can’t compel a citizen to break the law. The supreme court has ruled on numerous occasions that local governments can’t pass ordinances that conflict with state law, via it’s ruling on the Home Rules Act.

" Rental Prop Owners donkey'n, supra at 257; accord People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322; 257 NW2d 902 (1977); Frens Orchards, Inc v Dayton Twp Bd, 253 Mich App 129, 132; 654 NW2d 346 (2002). With respect to whether the state statutory scheme preempts a municipal ordinance by completely occupying the field of regulation that the municipality seeks to enter,4 in Llewellyn, supra at 323-325, our Supreme Court set forth four guidelines:

The ordinance attempts to redefine who may transfer medication to who. The law is quite clear that a primary caregiver can provide medical marijuana to any qualifying patient, not just his own.

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

333.26428 Defenses.

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

The right to transfer to patients other than a primary caregivers own has been reaffirmed by Court of Appeals in the Redden Case by both registered and unregistered patient and caregivers. Under your ordinance only those patients/caregivers that have registered with the state would be affected.

The ballot proposal explicitly informed voters that the law would permit registered and

unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any

prosecution involving marijuana. The language supports the view that registered patients under

§ 4 and unregistered patients under § 8 would be able to assert medical use of marijuana as a

defense. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err by permitting defendants to raise

the affirmative defense even though neither satisfied the registry-identification-card requirement

of § 4.8

 

The law just gives the prosecution/government the right to rebut the medical use of marijuana and that right is limited by subsection 2e. No place in the act does it give the government the right to limit the scope of the law.

 

The Home Rules City Act repeats the constitutional limitation on a municipality's authority, expressly stating that "[n]o provisions of any city charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state," MCL 117.36, and that a city charter may provide "through its regularly constituted authority to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns subject to the constitution and general laws of this state," MCL 117.4j(3). See Mack, supra at 194 n 7.

Although cities have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to municipal concerns, that power is "'subject to the constitution and law.'" Rental Prop Owners donkey'n of Kent Co v Grand Rapids, 455 Mich 246, 256-257; 566 NW2d 514 (1997), quoting Const 1963, art 7, §

has been held pre-empted. [Llewellyn, supra at 323-325 (citations omitted).]

 

The Michigan Right To Farm Act. You as a city do not have the authority to regulate farming in the state of Michigan, even if it is next door to the mayor. This has been upheld in the Michigan Supreme court in multiple court cases. Two of which are Padadelis v. City of Troy and Shelby v. Papesh. Marijuana is a legal crop for caregivers. As long as Caregivers stay within generally accepted agricultural and management practices. The caregiver's intent must be to make a profit.

(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.

 

To Summarize;

(1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. Generally accepted agricultural and management practices shall be reviewed annually by the Michigan commission of agriculture and revised as considered necessary.

Thanks Bb for all you do!

STAND UP MI!

FIGHT WITH YOUR VOTES!

SUE these elected officials and there Municipalities!!!! Money is what motivates these people. SUE/SUE/SUE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first like to remind the council that Section 9 of the Michigan State Constitution defines all levels of government that can alter an initiative. An initiative is a constitutionally protected law. Only both houses of the legislature can alter it and only with a 3/4 super majority. Not even the governor is allowed to modify it's intent. It is the constitution which gives your township the right to exist. If you ignore it's mandate you will not only defy the constitution, the people, but also your own charter. Thew Michigan Medical Marijuana Association is currently seeking ordinances such as this in order to bring this issue before a trial.

 

If you pass this ordinance as written each of you and anyone who should come in contact with the information and cause that information to be disseminated will be guilty of a misdemeanor. First I will read the exert from the law, then I will read Michael Cox’s opinion of this portion of the law. If due diligence had of been performed, the council would not now be in the position that the city will face huge cost associated with litigation, but you personally could face jail time and fines as well as being sued individually. As the Cloak of office only protects civil servants who are performing their duties lawfully.

Section 333.26426

(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.

(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.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

If that is not clear enough, let’s see what the attorney general has to say about this section of the law.

 

Michael Cox AG Opinion #7250

As Ground work for his opinion, this is what the Attorney General had to say and the supreme court has had to say about Citizens Initiatives.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has explained that initiatives should be "liberally construed to effectuate their purposes" and to "facilitate rather than hamper the exercise of reserved rights by the people." Welch Foods v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461; 540 NW2d 693 (1995). In addition, the words of an initiated law should be given their "ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters." Id. To the extent that the initiative contains any ambiguity, it must be constructed in light of the purpose of the initiative. Id. at 462.

This means initiatives are not the play toys of localities to fashion in their own image, but the property of the people. Proceeding on with the opinion.

The Opinion;

The confidentiality provisions apply to a "person," including DCH and other state agencies and local units of government, as well as law enforcement agencies. Section 6(h) of the Act specifically describes the information deemed confidential or expressly exempted from public disclosure:

(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.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is

reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential

information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than

$1,000.00, or both. [MCL 333.26426(h).]2

While names, other personal identifying information, applications and information regarding patients, primary caregivers or physicians are deemed confidential and must not be disclosed contrary to the Act, DCH is implicitly authorized to disclose this information to the extent necessary to fully perform its duties under the Act.3 For example, in verifying the information contained in the application, DCH would need to disclose the name of the applicant to the physician listed on the application. Similarly, the MMA would not prohibit DCH from sharing the information with an outside vendor under contract with DCH to assist it in carrying out the application and registration process, so long as the contractual arrangement protected the confidentiality of the information. Under the MMA, any person who gains access to the confidential information would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration: "A person . . . who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both." MCL 333.26426(h)(4).

What this all means is you can’t compel a caregiver or patient to disclose any information, including but not limited to, registering with the city, without the council collectively and individually and all government employees who participate in it’s enforcement, without violating state law and becoming guilty of criminal infractions as well as being libel civilly for numerous tortable claims. If you choose to follow the law, the registry portion of this ordinance in any possible configuration is illegal. You also can’t compel a citizen to break the law. The supreme court has ruled on numerous occasions that local governments can’t pass ordinances that conflict with state law, via it’s ruling on the Home Rules Act.

" Rental Prop Owners donkey'n, supra at 257; accord People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322; 257 NW2d 902 (1977); Frens Orchards, Inc v Dayton Twp Bd, 253 Mich App 129, 132; 654 NW2d 346 (2002). With respect to whether the state statutory scheme preempts a municipal ordinance by completely occupying the field of regulation that the municipality seeks to enter,4 in Llewellyn, supra at 323-325, our Supreme Court set forth four guidelines:

The ordinance attempts to redefine who may transfer medication to who. The law is quite clear that a primary caregiver can provide medical marijuana to any qualifying patient, not just his own.

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

333.26428 Defenses.

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

The right to transfer to patients other than a primary caregivers own has been reaffirmed by Court of Appeals in the Redden Case by both registered and unregistered patient and caregivers. Under your ordinance only those patients/caregivers that have registered with the state would be affected.

The ballot proposal explicitly informed voters that the law would permit registered and

unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any

prosecution involving marijuana. The language supports the view that registered patients under

§ 4 and unregistered patients under § 8 would be able to assert medical use of marijuana as a

defense. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err by permitting defendants to raise

the affirmative defense even though neither satisfied the registry-identification-card requirement

of § 4.8

 

The law just gives the prosecution/government the right to rebut the medical use of marijuana and that right is limited by subsection 2e. No place in the act does it give the government the right to limit the scope of the law.

 

The Home Rules City Act repeats the constitutional limitation on a municipality's authority, expressly stating that "[n]o provisions of any city charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state," MCL 117.36, and that a city charter may provide "through its regularly constituted authority to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns subject to the constitution and general laws of this state," MCL 117.4j(3). See Mack, supra at 194 n 7.

Although cities have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to municipal concerns, that power is "'subject to the constitution and law.'" Rental Prop Owners donkey'n of Kent Co v Grand Rapids, 455 Mich 246, 256-257; 566 NW2d 514 (1997), quoting Const 1963, art 7, §

has been held pre-empted. [Llewellyn, supra at 323-325 (citations omitted).]

 

The Michigan Right To Farm Act. You as a city do not have the authority to regulate farming in the state of Michigan, even if it is next door to the mayor. This has been upheld in the Michigan Supreme court in multiple court cases. Two of which are Padadelis v. City of Troy and Shelby v. Papesh. Marijuana is a legal crop for caregivers. As long as Caregivers stay within generally accepted agricultural and management practices. The caregiver's intent must be to make a profit.

(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.

 

To Summarize;

(1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. Generally accepted agricultural and management practices shall be reviewed annually by the Michigan commission of agriculture and revised as considered necessary.

 

 

I have a question on the following passage "The caregiver's intent must be to make a profit." Is there a typo here or am I missing something? I thought the statute said CGs can't show a profit so how can a CG intend to make one?

 

Thanks again everyone. You guys ROCK! This is heating up. It appears LE has slithered out from under their rock and asserted themselves into the process. In a week, this town went from singing Kumbya on CG as Home Occ to "put them out on the hwy so the police can keep an eye on them". Its for our own safety, you know. CGs cant be trusted to plug in a light. So we need to be protected from ourselves, and apparently the residents, particularly teens, in this town apparently cant be trusted either because CG as a home occ would result in all kinds of break-ins. Obviously. Why didnt I think of that? Maybe, because I proceed from the basis of trust in dealing with people and adapt my position when they prove themselves untrustworthy.

Edited by Rx420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is this:

 

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia." (42 UAC, Section 1983)

 

Each council member who tries to deprive us of our rights under the law can be prosecuted and convicted. Tossing that out in council chambers usually helps wake them up. There is no immunity that protects them.

 

These ordinances are unconstitutional and unenforceable. What must be considered is that some fool will try to diminish patient and caregiver rights anyway, subjecting them to proceedings and wasted time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, can we jump on off the high horses and answer the question- are rippers a problem? Do home grows attract rippers? If the LEO of some po-dunk town has to expend resources to deal with the problem do they also have a say in how to help solve the problem? :unsure:

 

BB, these ordinances are not changing the Michigan medical marijuana law. If they are local ordinances, as has been suggested, these are only code violations. This is not much different than a city coming in and saying they want all the mailboxes on the street a certain height except this actually has a legitimate government purpose of dealing with rippers.

 

If you don't want to get a code violation traffic ticket then don't tell anybody about your home grow. You are still protected by the MMMA from the felonies and since you chose not to avail yourself of the city plan to grow in one area of one building then keeping it quiet means you won't need to use city police resources when the rippers come calling (because they won't). :thumbsu:

 

I think reasonable solutions like this need to be tried, assessed, and evaluated before we jump into the arena swinging. :thumbsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term compensation for cost is used. Those who saw my resume , when I posted it, knows I designed and implemented a cost accounting system for Georgia Power. Cost is always broken down into components. The primary components of cost, is labor plus materials. Other things can be added such as fixed assets(recovery of the cost of your grow room)...... Each one of those components have many pieces, but you can roll to that level. If a person is a full time caregiver, would it be logical and legal to add a cost component for labor. I think so. The law speaks to the intent, not whether it actually happens or not. So, it's an easy case to win. Show up, educate, speak your mind and if necessary argue your case. Thanks, Bb

Labor is part of cost. Whether you are a full time CG or not. However if your not a full time CG, your labor will be much less, however you produce less so it gets spread thicker. A Full time CG can spread it across all 5 pts, and with 5 PT's, if they are high use it probably is close to a full time job. I try to keep 8 plants in flower for 2 patients, and it can consume a couple hours a day, and every couple weeks it consumes a couple full days. I can only imagine with 45 plants, harvest/trim/manicure would be constant.

 

So, profit is a dirty word, they are not making a profit. They are recovering time used by income. CG's are allowed income, nothing says they are not, the wording in the law is that they may be compensated for costs. As BB said, labor is a cost. And it can still be considered compassionate as long as you aren't gouging for labor.

Cedar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, can we jump on off the high horses and answer the question- are rippers a problem? Do home grows attract rippers? If the LEO of some po-dunk town has to expend resources to deal with the problem do they also have a say in how to help solve the problem? :unsure:

 

BB, these ordinances are not changing the Michigan medical marijuana law. If they are local ordinances, as has been suggested, these are only code violations. This is not much different than a city coming in and saying they want all the mailboxes on the street a certain height except this actually has a legitimate government purpose of dealing with rippers.

 

If you don't want to get a code violation traffic ticket then don't tell anybody about your home grow. You are still protected by the MMMA from the felonies and since you chose not to avail yourself of the city plan to grow in one area of one building then keeping it quiet means you won't need to use city police resources when the rippers come calling (because they won't). :thumbsu: I think reasonable solutions like this need to be tried, assessed, and evaluated before we jump into the arena swinging. :thumbsu:

 

The way they are talking about writing these ords doesnt seem to be much in line with the intent of the law....by requiring all CGs to grow in a common facility on the outskirts of town where space has to be rented or purchased would make it difficult and expensive for one partner to care for another....it strikes me as kind of mafioso in a way...to be a CG in this town for 1 or 5 patients (they dont care) you'll have to,l in essence, "pay tribute" to the person who owns the CG grow property in town or sells the spaces...I could do as you suggest and lay low, but why did we pass a law if in the solution is to stay in the closet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Would you mind if I added this jewel to our document. I think it is important that our folks have the tools and the public is educated on what they are trying to do to our law and the constitution.

 

Be my guest, please.But plz note that it is 42 USC, Section 1983, rather than 42 UAC, Section 1983. That was a typo.

Edited by GregS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...