State: House Bill Would Allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

[purple pimpernel]

The city of Ypsilanti is considering a special use permit for the "--->>Aspen Gardens" (colorado??)medical marijuana grow operation at 75 S. Catherine St.

 

Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com

 

The city of Ypsilanti Planning Commission this week will consider a special use permit for a medical marijuana grow operation on the city’s southside.

 

The building, which City Planner Teresa Gillotti estimates is at least 5,000 square feet, has been the source of a variety of issues in recent years.

 

Several businesses were operating at 75 Catherine St. without a certificate of occupancy, several additions were constructed without permits and it served for a period as the headquarters of the local Iron Coffins Motorcycle Club.

 

The Iron Coffins are the last owners listed on the city's website. Gilllotti said the property was bought out of foreclosure by the former owners who lost the building to tax foreclosure, then sold it to the group hoping to open the facility.

 

Gillotti didn't say she supports the special permit but listed reasons the positives of a grow operation at the location. Among other pluses, it will bring a legitimate, taxpaying business to the building, she said.

 

“This has been a problematic property, so we’re happy to have new ownership that’s interested in bringing the building up to code ... and having another tax payer in the city,” she said.

 

The applicant named on the special use permit application is AZ Holdings and the grow operation will be named “Aspen Gardens.”

 

Gillotti said she didn’t see any issue with the close proximity to the Chidester Place apartment complex, which is on the same block and has a high number of elderly and disabled residents. She said it could be the second grow operation in the city.

 

--->>“We have another growing operation and we haven’t had any issues with them,” she said of the Green Vitality Remedies on Mansfield Street.

 

--->>Another grow operation hoping to open at 834 Railroad Street is awaiting site plan approval, Gillotti said.

 

Gillotti said grow operations --->>were not impacted by a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision that medical marijuana dispensaries were not addressed in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and therefore illegal.

 

The planning commission will vote on the special use permit after a public hearing at its Wednesday, March 20 meeting.

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/ypsilanti-to-consider-medical-marijuana-grow-operation/

Edited March 18, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[GregS]

This is found in the provisioning bill:

 

"Except for the Michigan medical marihuana act, all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the use of medical marihuana as provided for by this act."

 

IF 4271 is to proceed, this clause must remain. What is of import is that the MMA not be tampered with.

[Restorium2]

This is found in the provisioning bill:

 

"Except for the Michigan medical marihuana act, all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the use of medical marihuana as provided for by this act."

 

IF 4271 is to proceed, this clause must remain. What is of import is that the MMA not be tampered with.

You need to apply the fact that the MMMA IS BEING tampered with now. So that sentence would go in one ear and out the other with the local municapality tamperers that would only want to read the parts that give them MORE POWER. They would take the ball and run with it for as long as they could until we bring the unpredictable Supreme Court down on them.

[purple pimpernel]

"----> The certification centers will also allow for --->>>a central point for the>> 27,000 caregivers within the state to register within the MediSwipe data management system, for maintenance and data management of the >>patient ($$) count of >>each caregiver and revenue.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mediswipe-inc-announces-first-patient-120000577.html

Edited March 18, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[GregS]

You need to apply the fact that the MMMA IS BEING tampered with now. So that sentence would go in one ear and out the other with the local municapality tamperers that would only want to read the parts that give them MORE POWER. They would take the ball and run with it for as long as they could until we bring the unpredictable Supreme Court down on them.

 

Which is why we are looking at options to contest prohibitive local ordinances .

 

Are you in?

[GregS]

"----> The certification centers will also allow for --->>>a central point for the>> 27,000 caregivers within the state to register within the MediSwipe data management system, for maintenance and data management of the >>patient ($$) count of >>each caregiver and revenue.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo...-120000577.html

 

And if we don't, what can they legitimately do to us so long as our protection from penalty remains under the MMA?

[GregS]

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you, Will you still be okay with paying dispensary prices?:

 

 

 

Marijuana dealers get slammed by taxes

 

By Steve Hargreaves | CNNMoney.com – Mon, Feb 25, 2013 6:09 AM EST

 

• Email
  
• Print
  

Thanks to a decades-old law targeting drug runners, entrepreneurs in the nascent medical marijuana industry face a unique burden: an effective federal income tax rate that can soar as high as 75%.

The hefty levy is the result of a 1982 provision to the tax code, known as 280E, that stemmed from a successful attempt by a convicted drug trafficker to claim his yacht, weapons and bribes as businesses expenses, according to 280E Reform, a group working to overturn the statute.

Enacted in the wake of that PR debacle, the rule bars those selling illegal substances from deducting related expenses on their federal income taxes.

It may have been effective against cocaine dealers and smugglers of other hard drugs, but the law now means purveyors of medical marijuana in the 18 states that have legalized the drug can't can't take typical things like rent or payroll as a business expense. That's taking a heavy toll on this new field.

"I'd personally love to give my employees a raise," said Kayvan Khalatbari, co-owner of Denver Relief, a medical marijuana center in its namesake city. "But because of the industry we're in, that's not always possible."

Khalatbari said Denver Relief does just over $1 million a year in sales, and that not being able to take some standard business deductions costs him tens of thousands of dollars annually. He estimates his effective federal tax rate is about 50%.

For Denver Relief -- one of the largest marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, with a full-time staff of 15 -- the burden isn't killing the business. But for others, it's been lethal.

Jim Marty, an accountant in Colorado specializing in medicinal marijuana tax law, said he has one client that didn't turn a profit in 2009, 2010 or 2011. In 2012, though, she was handed a $300,000 tax bill from the IRS for those three proceeding years.

Entrepreneurs whose businesses are legal under state laws are getting hammered by outdated federal tax rules.

"If you have a license from the state hanging on your wall, that doesn't fit the definition of trafficking," Marty said. "Yet the IRS is aggressively auditing this industry."

He said he often sees clients facing effective tax bills of 65% to 75%. That compares to 15% to 30% for businesses in general.

The Internal Revenue Service did not respond to a request for comment. In a letter to a congressman in 2011, the agency said it was merely enforcing the law, and that Congress needs to change the law if it does not want medicinal marijuana dealers caught up in the provision.

Several groups are working on just that, though it's unclear if the law will be changed anytime soon. The Obama administration has so far not expressed much interest in weighing in on the matter.

Until then, those in the industry will keep looking for crafty ways to minimize their tax bill, and pay the tax man when they can't.

"An emerging industry that can provide hundreds of thousands of jobs is being held back by these crazy tax rates," said Betty Aldworth, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. "We're like any other small businesses, that just happens to be illegal in some states."

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-dealers-slammed-taxes-110900353.html

Edited March 18, 2013 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Which is why we are looking at options to contest prohibitive local ordinances .

 

Are you in?

Of course. I see this is the only way I can keep my anonymous legal home grow. I think the way that the Wyoming municipality problem went is the way to go. They are at the COA level I believe. This takes time, that's why we have to be VERY careful not to go backwards. We basically need a Supreme Court mandate over the locals. The exact opposite direction that the dispensary bill would take us. The dispensary bill might actually stand in the way of fixing this using the Supreme Court. Another red flag if anyone needed another...

[GregS]

Of course. I see this is the only way I can keep my anonymous legal home grow. I think the way that the Wyoming municipality problem went is the way to go. They are at the COA level I believe. This takes time, that's why we have to be VERY careful not to go backwards. We basically need a Supreme Court mandate over the locals. The exact opposite direction that the dispensary bill would take us. The dispensary bill might actually stand in the way of fixing this using the Supreme Court. Another red flag if anyone needed another...

 

Will someone please post a link to or the decision in the Wyoming case?

[Restorium2]

Will someone please post a link to or the decision in the Wyoming case?

This pretty much sums it up.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/08/wyoming_must_either_change_its.html

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

Which is why we are looking at options to contest prohibitive local ordinances .

 

Are you in?

 

are you kidding?? this goes against all our rights to privacy!

 

 

 

And if we don't, what can they legitimately do to us so long as our protection from penalty remains under the MMA?

 

I think you should read below again closely if you haven't allready--

 

 

This pretty much sums it up.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/08/wyoming_must_either_change_its.html

 

IMHO the white paper below sums it up better as that is the direction it's going---

 

http://www.mml.org/pdf/fisher-med-marihuana-white-paper8-5-10.pdf

 

 

3. Home Occupation Ordinances

 

 Home occupation ordinances can be tailored to apply to the products and services of a caregiver, and prohibit caregiver activities in other zoning districts. In a very real sense, such ordinances recognize the fundamental intent of the

 

 

80 Medical marijuana business means any patient that cultivates, produces, sells, distributes, possesses,

 

transports or makes available marijuana in any form to another patient or to a primary caregiver for

 

medical use, or a primary caregiver that cultivates, produces, sells, distributes, possesses, transports or

 

makes available medical marijuana in any form to more than one patient. Possession of more than six

 

marijuana plants and two ounces of a usable form of marijuana by a patient or primary caregiver shall

 

be considered a medical marijuana business. The term medical marijuana business shall include a

 

medical marijuana production facility. The term medical marijuana business shall not include the

 

private possession, production, distribution and medical use of marijuana by an individual patient or an

 

individual caregiver for one patient in the residence of the patient or caregiver to the extent permitted

 

by Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution and any other applicable state law or

 

regulation. Medical Marijuana Local Licensing Authority means the city manager. The city manager

 

shall be the local licensing authority for the purpose of any state law that requires the city to designate

 

a local licensing authority. Also see footnote 21, above.

 

81 See footnote 11, above.

82 See footnote 21, and accompanying text on pages 15-16, above, for additional discussion on this issue. A community could attempt to allow a concentration of caregivers, but restrict them to distributing medical marihuana only to the patients who have formally registered them as their caregiver, recognizing that this would be very challenging to enforce.

 

41

 

 Act. That is, by restricting the activity to residential districts, these ordinances implicitly carve out space fit for a private and confidential patient-caregiver relationship to facilitate the lawful cultivation, distribution, and use of marihuana strictly for medical purposes.

 

For a specified purpose unrelated to this report, the Zoning Enabling Act requires the authorization of a home occupation in a single family residence.83 Most communities permit other home occupations for various uses that are not deemed to be inconsistent with the preservation of a residential zoning district. Key among the regulations generally applicable to home occupations would include restrictions on: signage; traffic and parking; visits by customers; amount of space allocated to the use; who may conduct the use (generally, the requirement that the use be accessory to the use of the premises for residential purposes by the owner of the business); and, hours of occupation.

 

A home occupation for caregiver use may also have provisions for: a minimum distance from specified places frequented by children; restriction upon number of caregivers per residence; restriction upon the number of patients that may be

 

served at the residence; requirement for code inspections.

 

At least one ordinance requires business licensure in addition to meeting the home occupation requirements of the ordinance, thus permitting a process for

 

suspension and revocation in the event of violation.

 

4. Sample Licensing and Regulation Ordinance Concept

 

Licensing and regulation is uniformly permitted in all communities. An important consideration that favors this type of approach relates to the absence of strict nonconforming use rights. Under the Zoning Enabling Act,84 once improvements are established for a particular use based on a zoning approval, the property owner can claim to have a “vested right” in such use.85 While the Constitution does not permit a decision under a regulatory ordinance to cause a “taking” of private property rights, the statutory nonconforming use rule does not strictly apply.86

 

The ordinances enacted to date have generally addressed serious issues consistent with local policy. The sample licensing and regulation ordinance set out in Appendix 1 has been prepared with a general disbursement format, together with

 

83 MCL 125.3204 provides : “A zoning ordinance adopted under this act shall provide for the use of a single-family residence by an occupant of that residence for a home occupation to give instruction in a craft or fine art within the residence. This section does not prohibit the regulation of noise, advertising, traffic, hours of operation, or other conditions that may accompany the use of a residence under this section.”

84 MCL 125.3208

85 Heath Township v Sall, 442 Mich. 434, 502 N.W.2d 627 (1993).

86 Norton Shores v Carr, 81 Mich.App. 715, 265 N.W.2d 802 (1978).

 

 

provisions calculated to afford greater protection, efficiency, and capability for law enforcement by requiring information about sites used for caregiver cultivation and distribution activities, and requiring inspections of facilities used for cultivation. While some communities have focused on these issues, it would appear that further emphasis might be worth considering in order to meet head-on the point that, in the absence of local regulation, law and code enforcement may be unfairly and dangerously restricted under the terms of the Act. There are several deficiencies in this regard, including the following:

 

a. Law enforcement officers do not have access to information disclosing locations at which lawful cultivation and distribution is occurring. Officers will thus have a more difficult challenge in attempting to distinguish lawful activities permitted under the Act from unlawful ones; this, in turn, may endanger law enforcement officers and members of the public when confrontations occur, and will certainly lead to unnecessary investigatory inefficiencies. Although law enforcement is expressly precluded under the Act from access to names and addresses of patients and caregivers, securing the identification of the locations where marihuana cultivation and distribution has been permitted under the Act by caregivers would undoubtedly represent

 

important assistance to law enforcement.

 

b. The same lack of information will prevent law enforcement from gaining an understanding with regard to the connection between a caregiver and particular patients (without regard to specific name and address), especially if caregivers operate in the same facility or in close proximity. How will the five-patient limit upon a person acting as a caregiver be enforced as a practical matter? Again, securing the identification of the locations where marihuana cultivation and distribution is lawful

 

would be helpful in the enforcement of the Act.

 

c. The same location information would be indispensable in the enforcement of the Act’s limits on the number of plants a caregiver may cultivate on

 

behalf of patients.

 

d. Given the prohibition upon the disclosure of the name and address of caregivers, and the right of these individuals to cultivate up to sixty marihuana plants, discovering, much less preventing, dangerous plumbing and electrical installations which are unlawful under applicable construction codes is not feasible. In the interest of health and safety, it be would be helpful, and consistent with nearly all other situations, to require inspection of a premises at which substantial facilities are installed to facilitate the cultivation of marihuana plants for others, including plumbing and electrical facilities.

 

A detailed sample concept of a licensing and regulation ordinance is presented for consideration in Appendix 1 of this report. Following is a general outline of the sample ordinance:

 

1. Intent

 

 

 

Definitions

 

Requirement for license

 

The restrictions in this section are based on the following findings:

 

Licensure requirements:

 

Restriction on Distribution

 

The restrictions in this section are based on the following findings:

 

Restrictions:

 

Inspection of Patient Cultivation

 

Penalty for Violation

 

No Vested Rights

 

Severance Clause

 

As in all areas of regulation in general, there is no “one size fits all” ordinance. The alternative set forth in attached Appendix 1 may provide ideas that could be considered by communities in their existing or future ordinances, with the caveat that provisions must be fashioned to fit each respective community taking into account such things as administration, existing ordinance format, community priorities, and the like. Moreover, it is not suggested that any of the provisions in this sample should be expected to escape challenge.

 

D. State Declaratory Judgment Action

 

----->>Once an ordinance regulating caregivers has been enacted by a community, there will be two alternative scenarios that could unfold: One would be for the community to wait for a legal challenge to be initiated, and defend the suit; the other alternative would be for the community – prior to restricting rights, incurring the inevitable costs of administration, and before the initiation of suit by parties claiming to be aggrieved by the ordinance – to explore whether it would be appropriate to initiate a state court declaratory judgment action.

 

It has recently been reiterated that,

 

The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to enable the parties to obtain adjudication of rights before an actual injury occurs.... The plaintiff in a  declaratory judgment action bears the burden of establishing the existence of an actual controversy, as well as the burden of showing that ... it has actually been injured or that the threat of imminent injury exists.87

 

Of course, circumstances and stakes will be different among communities. However, particularly if there are several communities that have common issues that could be presented to a court in conformance with the legitimate purposes of the declaratory judgment remedy, a public purpose could be served by an adjudication of rights for the benefit of all concerned. In such circumstances, it is recommended that the availability and propriety of a state declaratory judgment action be investigated.

 

E. The Enactment of Moratoria

 

Many communities have enacted, or may enact, moratoria on activities related to the Act. The nature and purpose of a moratorium on specified land use activity within a community has been described as follows:

 

As a legitimate public purpose for police power regulation of the use of land, courts have held that interim zoning and building moratoria serve to effectuate the purposes of zoning enabling acts by maintaining the land use status quo within a community pending final adoption of a proposed zoning plan or zoning change. Interim zoning or building moratoria, by freezing land uses within an area, prevent the "race for diligence" leading to acquisition of "vested rights" and establishment of "nonconforming uses" that might otherwise be inconsistent with land uses permitted under a proposed zoning plan or zoning change. Maintenance of the status quo pending final adoption of a zoning plan or zoning change has been held to support, for example, moratoria on specific land uses that were the subject of pending zoning changes. This same rationale has been relied on by courts to uphold zoning moratoria pending adoption or revision of comprehensive zoning plans.88

 

1. Legal Basis

 

In Michigan, Central Advertising Co v St. Joseph Township89 includes the following relevant language addressing a deferral in processing approvals

 

within the zoning context:

 

87 Wolf v. Detroit, 287 Mich.App. 184, --- N.W.2d ---- (2010).

88 1 Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 13:8 (4th ed.) Maintenance of status quo pending

 

decision.

89 125 Mich App 548, 554-555 (1983).

 

 Plaintiff additionally claims that the trial court should have granted an injunction forcing defendant to issue the permit based on a combination of factors. First, the court had invalidated defendant's off-premises sign ordinance. Second, plaintiff had filed an application for a permit. Third, defendant, approximately one week later, adopted a moratorium, which would last until they had adopted a new ordinance with respect to off-premises signs, against the issuance of permits. . . . defendant's failure during this time to issue the sign permit within 30 days after plaintiff had filed an application would ordinarily result in the application's being deemed approved based on defendant's ordinance. However, defendant's adoption of the moratorium would alleviate the problem. Although moratoria are not regarded favorably by the courts, this moratorium was to last only until a new ordinance relating to off-premises signs was adopted and presented to the court. . . . With these considerations in mind, we do not find that the trial court's decision not to issue an injunction mandating that defendant issue the permit was erroneous.

 

Similarly, a “moratorium on the issuance of building permits in a particular district of a city for a reasonably limited time” was not voided by the court. Heritage Hill v Grand Rapids,90. Nor did the Court of Appeals find it to be legally offensive for a township to declare a “brief moratorium on all sewer connections...” BPA

 

II v Harrison Township.91

 

One of the most important cases on this subject, in which the fundamental lawfulness of a moratorium was challenged head-on, is the United States Supreme Court decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.92 In Tahoe, two moratoria were established by an intergovernmental Planning Agency, banning most new development in a specified area from 1981 until 1984, in order to adopt environmental standards and incorporate them into the agency’s regional development plan. In the face of a challenge by numerous property owners, the Supreme Court held that such action did not amount to a categorical taking of private property interests. The Court cautioned, however, that government entities should not generally assume that such lengthy moratoria (more than two years) would receive the same favorable treatment.

 

2. Method of Adoption

 

For the adoption of a moratorium, two alternative enactment vehicles have most frequently been utilized: resolution or ordinance. On which to employ in a given situation, the McQuillin treatise is instructive:

 

90 48 Mich App 765, 768 (1973).

91 73 Mich App 731, 733-734 (1977). Cf. Cummins v. Robinson Township, 283 Mich.App. 677, 770 N.W.2d 421 (2009).

92 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2002).

 

 A resolution in effect encompasses all actions of the municipal body other than ordinances. Whether the municipal body should do a particular thing by resolution or ordinance depends on the forms to be observed in doing the thing and on the proper construction of the charter. In this connection it may be observed that a resolution deals with matters of a special or temporary character; an ordinance prescribes some permanent rule of conduct or government, to continue in force until the ordinance is repealed. . . . Thus, it may be stated broadly that all acts that are done by a municipal corporation in its ministerial capacity and for a temporary purpose may be put in the form of resolutions, and that matters on which the municipal corporation desires to legislate must be put in the form of ordinances.93

 

Of course, if a municipal charter requires an ordinance to take action in the nature of a moratorium, this rule would govern. However, it is suggested that if a community anticipates the enactment of moratoria on a regular basis, thought should be given to establishing an ordinance procedure for such purpose. On the other hand, if putting a moratorium into place in the present context is expected to be a rarely used exercise, perhaps action by resolution would suffice. If time is available, and if all other things are equal, it is recommended here that the use of an ordinance should be

 

considered.

 

If an ordinance is utilized, an expected question would be whether there must be compliance with the more rigorous ordinance adoption procedure prescribed in the Zoning Enabling Act. On this question, no authority was found. Generally speaking, however, the character of the action being taken in the establishment of a moratorium relates to the administration and effect of ordinances; the action only enables the establishment of land use policy. Therefore, the use of the regulatory

 

ordinance enactment process should suffice.

 

When a moratorium is established, a property owner may claim, as in the Tahoe case, that its effect results in a regulatory taking of private property, that it violates due process, or that it amounts to an abuse of discretion. In order to reduce the likelihood of such an adverse judgment against the community, it is recommended that the enacting ordinance or resolution contain an administrative process permitting a claim, to be considered based upon notice and hearing, describing and substantiating that the moratorium results in the violation being alleged. The administrative process should also include the opportunity on the part of the legislative body to cure the violation and fashion relief under the circumstances in the event it determines that, absent relief, a violation will result.

 

 VII. CONCLUSION

 

An approved initiative ballot has put into place Michigan’s “medical marihuana” law. This law creates a defined medical use exception to the general policy that treats activities involving marihuana as criminal acts.

 

Clearly the new law is a challenge for local governments. However, each community must determine whether it needs to make a regulatory response to the new Michigan Act. This determination will ultimately be made based on deliberations that take into consideration the community’s policies and unique circumstances. As noted above, a federal declaratory judgment action may be considered for the purpose of determining whether the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution should apply to invalidate Michigan’s authorization. In the legislative forum, it appears that many will encourage the Michigan Legislature to make certain adjustments that would render the Act more workable for local government.

 

In all events, it must be recognized that the vote to approve the Michigan Act represents an expression of the opinion that the restricted use of medical marihuana should be permitted for the purpose of helping to ease chronic pain being suffered by citizens in this state due to certain debilitating diseases. Based on such recognition, this report has focused on the means of permitting the fundamental intent of the Act to be carried out, while simultaneously examining the task of local government in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare from the ills that are now very predictable.

 

The Michigan Act creates a parallel system in which the same conduct – cultivation, distribution, and use of marihuana – is at once lawful and unlawful depending on whether the engaged persons have ID Cards. In creating this parallel system, the Act throws a proverbial curveball to local government by mandating that the identity and address of those having ID Cards not be disclosed – even to law enforcement. Looking to the experiences in California, and to local anecdotal experiences in the short time following approval of the Michigan Act, this report has detailed adverse effects of the parallel system. The challenge presented to local government is determining how to most effectively represent the health, safety, and welfare interests of the public, while permitting the implementation of the fundamental intent of the Act, which is the creation of a private and confidential patient-caregiver relationship to facilitate the lawful cultivation, distribution, and use of marihuana strictly for medical purposes.

 

Many communities perceive the need to respond with local regulation to address certain provisions and omissions of the Act. This report has described some of these diverse regulatory responses, and has provided a review with regard to several of the foreseeable legal arguments associated with such responses. By early to mid-2011, many communities will have local regulations in place. Some proponents of the Act will resist regulatory interference, and litigation will undoubtedly ensue, and thus widespread litigation appears to be in the making. In addition, as a result of criminal prosecutions anticipated to arise due to the confusion within the statute, the liberty of many is likely to  be jeopardized. We could be in for a long slog. The Redden concurrence aptly characterized this as the prospect of piecemeal litigation, “leaving defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement, entrepreneurs, cities, municipalities, townships, and others in a state of confusion for a very, very long time.”94 Moreover, in such litigation, it is unlikely that the judicial system will produce results that might be characterized as “victorious” in any sort of broad sense. With the number of people on each of the respective sides, a “win” in a typical court battle will mean a loss to many – all at great expense. Given this set of circumstances, this report will conclude with a recommendation.

 

It is unfortunate indeed that, in the current economic climate, significant time and resources will be devoted to emotional court battles that have a low probability of producing a comprehensive and lasting solution, and that many unsuspecting criminal defendants will have been caught in the statute’s web of uncertainty. This state of affairs provides a sound basis for the pursuit of negotiated solutions to the gathering legal conflicts. The proponents of medical marihuana could come to the bargaining table with legitimate evidence that a sufficient proportion of the public is in support of a defined use of medical marihuana. Local government could come to the table with equally good evidence that the system devised by the Michigan Act compels local regulation in order to avoid serious problems, including an increase in crime, unnecessary adverse impact on children, and safe and effective law enforcement.

 

In the interest of the state’s population at large, it is suggested that the best solution would be to replace the existing statute, and have all sides work with the State Legislature on a statutory arrangement that permits medical marihuana use on relatively narrow terms that would facilitate assistance to those who are truly suffering, and also provide a more organized method of medical marihuana distribution.

 

There is simply no legitimate reason why the process of negotiation, with all parties at the table in good faith, could not reach a sufficient consensus to avoid most of the litigation that is now very predictable once ordinances are enacted. While neither party should be of the view that its position lacks support, it would be appropriate to make a good faith effort to pursue lasting negotiated solutions that could ultimately be supported by all. A critical step necessary to even commence discussions would be the identification of the key parties, and the willingness on the part of those parties to come to the table. Considering the public interest and geographic breadth of this problem, the magnitude of resources at stake, and the likely adverse impact upon the lives of so many, once ordinances are in place and litigation begins as anticipated, perhaps the Governor could utilize the “bully pulpit” of that office for the purpose seating the appropriate parties at the table. The creation of an ad hoc committee by the leadership in the Legislature, with public and private interests represented, could also provide an appropriate a productive forum.

 

If good faith negotiations are commenced, an attempt should be made to concurrently establish uniform, fair, and non-prejudicial terms for maintaining the status  quo in order permit a reasonable opportunity for negotiations to take place. If negotiations were successful in building a consensus, even on some of the more important issues, this would provide a reasonable basis for optimism that the State Legislature could muster the three-fourths vote needed to amend the Act in a manner consistent with the agreement of the parties.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[GregS]

Huh?? Did you bump your head? These are the things we intend to work against.

[greenbuddha]

I believe we need to push to keep 'medical MJ' untaxable at the individual 'patient' and individual 'caregiver' levels as is done with all other medications in Michigan.

 

What should be done regarding the 'taxes' applied to 'dispensary' meds, (if taxes are charged) could be handle differently, depending on how a dispensary system might be put into place, since a 'dispensary' might have to operate on more of a 'business' model of distribution in order to function.

 

JST.

[purple pimpernel]

 

Huh?? Did you bump your head? <<--------

 

 

....maybe I did -->lol

 

but for those lazy folks that don't want to follow the link or dont believe what is happening I think it is still important to put it up....

--you know the CG$ that think the PC bill will be a good thing for CGs in general...

 

---> where does -our- "$upport" go--?

 

 

[GregS]

....maybe I did -->lol

 

but for those lazy folks that don't want to follow the link or dont believe what is happening I think it is still important to put it up....

--you know the CG$ that think the PC bill will be a good thing for CGs in general...

 

---> where does -our- "$upport" go--?

 

Agreed. It is good that you posted it.

[purple pimpernel]

I believe we need to push to keep 'medical MJ' untaxable at the individual 'patient' and individual 'caregiver' levels as is done with all other medications in Michigan.

 

What should be done regarding the 'taxes' applied to 'dispensary' meds, (if taxes are charged) could be handle differently, depending on how a dispensary system might be put into place, since a 'dispensary' might have to operate on more of a 'business' model of distribution in order to function.

 

JST.

 

they tax the "sale" of the medicine----not the medicine ----->(can they 'tax' medicine?)

 

could you imagine how much tax would be on the pounds and hundreds of pounds of actual 'medicine' the dispensaries will have control over--I guess it would be an agri tax?

 

the way they will get their taxes from that will be the licensing and commercial fees to produce it-inspections permits ...etc

[greenbuddha]

 

 

 

 

....maybe I did -->lol

 

but for those lazy folks that don't want to follow the link or dont believe what is happening I think it is still important to put it up....

--you know the CG$ that think the PC bill will be a good thing for CGs in general...

 

---> where does -our- "$upport" go--?

 

 

P, I think your post is an excellent example of why we still need changes in the MJ laws at the FEDERAL level.

 

 

 

 

[greenbuddha]

 

 

they tax the "sale" of the medicine----not the medicine ----->(can they 'tax' medicine?)

 

could you imagine how much tax would be on the pounds and hundreds of pounds of actual 'medicine' the dispensaries will have control over--I guess it would be an agri tax?

 

the way they will get their taxes from that will be the licensing and commercial fees to produce it-inspections permits ...etc

 

 

Oh, be sure Pimper, that the 'taxing' of the 'production' of MJ in ANY form is already being considered in Lansing as well as in other states.

 

That's why we need to be thinking ahead.

 

And thinking with our 'heads'... not our emotions.

[+Malamute]

A registered Cg to their registry connected patient is a "sale".

Edited March 18, 2013 by Malamute

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

 

P, I think your post is an excellent example of why we still need changes in the MJ laws at the FEDERAL level.

 

only rescheduling would benefit --us--and that --->> is going to happen once they have all the tax and regulate laws in effect....then only the large pharmaceuticals (IMO) will be positioned to capatalize on the plant....NOT -us-

 

decriminalization and rescheduling would benefit -us-if these PC state run and regulated formats don't come "online....but they will<<---

and are ----everywhere

 

it is a well orchestrated plan that has been along time in implementing

 

Michigan is going to be one of their "test" models----w medi swipe

 

 

 

 

Oh, be sure Pimper, that the 'taxing' of the 'production' of MJ in ANY form is already being considered in Lansing as well as in other states.

 

That's why we need to be thinking ahead.

 

do you have any idea of the tax revenue generated by these production facilitie$......??

 

it's huge for the areas they are allowed and generates $$$$$!!! thru licensing and regulation fees

 

 

 

 

Agreed. It is good that you posted it.

 

what's the plan??

 

looks kinda dismal from what I know....the PCs will be online by end of year--

remember the articles say ..." to end the current 'dispensary' model".......

I can read between those lines easily....

 

A registered Cg to their registry connected patient is a "sale".

 

I thought they can't "tax" -->medicine ???

.....ahhh but the 'sale' is what they are after--

--very nice of all the lawyers to help with this intricate plan....

.....well devised and now soon to be implemented by a carefully crafted design and effort ...years in the making

am I a conspiritoertheorist.....soon we will c-

 

I have been aware of some aspects for some time---

 

my dad is on 27pills a day and mom on 25....

i know they don't pay "tax" on their medicine....they co-pay on the purchase/sale....?

 

 

the whole Michigan effort seems to be very well devised and co-operation at a lot of levels ....IMO

 

hegilian dialectic.......?

[greenbuddha]

 

 

only rescheduling would benefit --us--and that --->> is going to happen once they have all the tax and regulate laws in effect....then only the large pharmaceuticals (IMO) will be positioned to capatalize on the plant....NOT -us-

 

decriminalization and rescheduling would benefit -us-if these PC state run and regulated formats don't come "online....but they will<<---

and are ----everywhere

 

it is a well orchestrated plan that has been along time in implementing

 

Michigan is going to be one of their "test" models----w medi swipe

 

 

 

do you have any idea of the tax revenue generated by these production facilitie$......??

 

it's huge for the areas they are allowed and generates $$$$$!!! thru licensing and regulation fees

 

 

 

 

what's the plan??

 

looks kinda dismal from what I know....the PCs will be online by end of year--

remember the articles say ..." to end the current 'dispensary' model".......

I can read between those lines easily....

 

 

 

I thought they can't "tax" -->medicine ???

.....ahhh but the 'sale' is what they are after--

--very nice of all the lawyers to help with this intricate plan....

.....well devised and now soon to be implemented by a carefully crafted design and effort ...years in the making

am I a conspiritoertheorist.....soon we will c-

 

I have been aware of some aspects for some time---

 

my dad is on 27pills a day and mom on 25....

i know they don't pay "tax" on their medicine....they co-pay on the purchase/sale....?

 

 

the whole Michigan effort seems to be very well devised and co-operation at a lot of levels ....IMO

 

hegilian dialectic.......?

 

 

Pimper, it's never been anything BUT a MONEY game from day one, whether we like it or not. And anyone that forgets that is missing the essence of the issue.

 

Anything produced for the human brain to enjoy or find relief in, is going to have the 'hell' taxed out of it.

 

The best we can do is counteract it as best we can and where we see it.

 

Hegelian? Hell yes.

[GregS]

Fisher is obviously a porn freak. His fixation on it in this paper shows immense familiarity with it. Like so many people in key positions who harp on the issue, he may be expected to tap your foot under the restroom stall wall.

[GregS]

Of course. I see this is the only way I can keep my anonymous legal home grow. I think the way that the Wyoming municipality problem went is the way to go. They are at the COA level I believe. This takes time, that's why we have to be VERY careful not to go backwards. We basically need a Supreme Court mandate over the locals. The exact opposite direction that the dispensary bill would take us. The dispensary bill might actually stand in the way of fixing this using the Supreme Court. Another red flag if anyone needed another...

 

I don't see that happening. Until and unless Wyoming is appealed, it is settled law. Thanks for the link. Will it even make it to the SC? I think not. As long as it stands it is a great decision to use in litigation to enjoin locals to comply, and to vacate restrictions from their books and to prohibit them from continuing to enact them. The writing is on the wall for these municipalities, They have no authority to do this and they understand that the SC will not grant them what they ask. I entirely agree that they will continue with these farces just because they can.

[Restorium2]

I don't see that happening. Until and unless Wyoming is appealed, it is settled law. Thanks for the link. Will it even make it to the SC? I think not. As long as it stands it is a great decision to use in litigation to enjoin locals to comply, and to vacate restrictions from their books and to prohibit them from continuing to enact them. The writing is on the wall for these municipalities, They have no authority to do this and they understand that the SC will not grant them what they ask. I entirely agree that they will continue with these farces just because they can.

They would feel like this dispensary law squarely set them in the drivers seat to push more of these ordinances. It's like a life preserver for the drowning ordinances. Coincidence that this is tossed while they are drowning?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Restorium2

[GregS]

They would feel like this dispensary law squarely set them in the drivers seat to push more of these ordinances. It's like a life preserver for the drowning ordinances. Coincidence that this is tossed while they are drowning?

 

I finally fournd the case of Terbeek v Wyoming.

 

http://www.freep.com.../C419280981.PDF

 

If anything, the decision put us in the driver's seat. I have found that the City had a deadline for appeal that is long past. Did they meet it?

 

I think 4271 is an entirely different animal and that the two are separate issues for the present, but there is potential for one to affect the other.

Edited March 18, 2013 by GregS