Michigan Sheriff Offers Guidance To Dispensary Zoning

[bobandtorey]

Want to open up your own medical marijuana dispensary? Recent Federal law now prohibits the use of any federal funds to interfere with medical cannabis laws, taking the risk of ‘big brother’ out of the equation.

Despite the rush of entrepreneurs participating in this new industry, is owning a dispensary as easy as you think?

There are taxes, fees and licensing to consider that can make it quite expensive to even open your doors. Certified public accountant James Campbell stated, “some states require as much as one million dollars in reserve (or surety) to sell or grow cannabis in addition to the fees.”

What about townships?

The simplest way to get your dispensary in hot water, or unwanted attention is by placing a flashing neon-green pot leaf in your front window. How else can you draw in business? Green pot leaf tells the consumer what they need to know, ‘marijuana is available here.”

City ordinances may allow your neon green pot-leaf signage, but know this, a few of the residents will likely take issue with your sign, and subsequently, your business. Keeping it discreet is imperative says Oakland County Michigan Sheriff, Michael Bouchard.

“In 2008, the State of Michigan approved Michigan’s marijuana program and with that, it does allow medicinal marijuana to approved applicants and at that time they receive a certificate from the State. This has opened up the issues of how that would apply to local land use and local zoning. Michigan Building Departments have been getting questions regarding just how it will relate to the local government, particularly regarding paraphernalia, for growing marijuana, for distributing it, and compassion care clubs, etc. There is a bit of a retail trade and also a use trade. 

We need to determine where to site these types of facilities.

 Some communities have been coming up with zoning amendments addressing this issue. 

Auburn Hills recently came up with amendments pertaining to dispensaries, refining the language, regulating them

, restricting them, etc.

“You may find (it) useful as you consider issues that may arise should these businesses become established in your community,” the sheriff added.

Fellow Oakland County police officer Jeremy Doty shared this advice, “being smart and focused politically can make all the difference.” Doty, a narcotics detective and 20 year veteran of the force believes in the healing power of medical cannabis, in fact his wife once worked for the Clinical Relief medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale, MI before starting her own natural health company.

With so much support from top brass, why did the Michigan State Police recently squash any progressive attempts in the Michigan legislature to clarify existing state law? Perhaps, the law in Michigan is perfect already, providing absolute protection from arrest. Too bad Sheriff Bouchard cannot do a better job explaining this to his peers.

SOURCES:

Lake Orion township meeting minutes A. PC-2010-02, Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 78, Article III, Medical Marijuana (Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws): Mr. R. Donald Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., overviewed their correspondence, dated March 22, 2010*; attached proposed text amendment*; and, attached correspondence from Sheriff Michael Bouchard, dated March 8, 2010. “You may find (it) useful as you consider issues that may arise should these businesses become established in your community,” the sheriff wrote.

 

http://marijuanapatients.org/michigan-sheriff-offers-guidance-dispensary-owners/

[bobandtorey]

his wife once worked for the Clinical Relief

 

 didn't see her in Court

[trichcycler]

wait a minute !  providing to more than the five patients named on your cards is not within the MMMA laws, therefore the FEDS can definitely use their funds to

prosecute an individual or company doing so.  

[GregS]

Hmm. Can a corporation be counted as a person and thusly act as a caregiver, taking sec. 8 protection in conducting business between them and the patients who appoint them?

[Natesilver]

wait a minute ! providing to more than the five patients named on your cards is not within the MMMA laws, therefore the FEDS can definitely use their funds to

prosecute an individual or company doing so.

Have you ever read the law? Section 8?

[trichcycler]

sure have! I also read the agreement we make with the state each time we register a patient. Clearly they state only provide to your five patients. Do you have a copy of another law that applies?

[trichcycler]

did you skip section 6 ?

here you go;

"(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana."

[GregS]

sure have! I also read the agreement we make with the state each time we register a patient. Clearly they state only provide to your five patients. Do you have a copy of another law that applies?

I think that  is a useless attempt at a requirement. The law does not limit the numbers of patients a caregiver can have or the alternate, but only five under sec. 4 provisions. It falls under the auspices of administrative law and is in conflict with the MMMA, which we all know trumps all other laws and parts of laws.

Edited January 28, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

I know for a fact that LARA will not register a sixth patient, allowing for legal transfer/growing plants. what of this?

 

is someone here suggesting caregivers can sell marijuana to more than five patients at a time even if they do not possess a card with their name on it?

[GregS]

I know for a fact that LARA will not register a sixth patient, allowing for legal transfer/growing plants. what of this?

 

is someone here suggesting caregivers can sell marijuana to more than five patients at a time even if they do not possess a card with their name on it?

If they are willing to accept the risk, sure. The law is clear. There is no limit in sec. 8. That defending oneself with sec. 8 provisions is expensive and time consuming is clear. Who knows? The findings in the current Supreme Court cases should help delineate options.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Hmm. Can a corporation be counted as a person and thusly act as a caregiver, taking sec. 8 protection in conducting business between them and the patients who appoint them?

What an outright genius observation. Mitt Romney would have to agree with this concept. He is a vociferous advocate of corporations being people. So a corporation could be a caregiver.

 

Edit to add:

On re-reading this sounds like I am being sarcastic to GregS. Didn't mean it that way. I am serious when I say that this is a very astute observation and one that would make Mitt Romney grab his head and say "WTF?".

Edited January 28, 2015 by amish4ganja

[Kingdiamond]

I cant believe Bouchard actually said keep it discreet is that because he cant do anything first hand across 8 mile or is it because hes come to the conclusion that dispensaries are on their way state wide?

[trichcycler]

If they are willing to accept the risk, sure. The law is clear. There is no limit in sec. 8. That defending oneself with sec. 8 provisions is expensive and time consuming is clear. Who knows? The findings in the current Supreme Court cases should help delineate options.

and what of the facts;

 

lara will refuse to connect a sixth patient to a caregivers registry of the max 5 they said.

When we sign and send in the application we are agreeing to the term of 5 patients only.

 

 

show me one case where a cg has more than 5 registered patients ?

Show me one won case of a cg selling to more than those he possesses cards for?

 

thank you

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I just noticed that the dates in this piece are from 2010.

[bobandtorey]

I cant believe Bouchard actually said keep it discreet is that because he cant do anything first hand across 8 mile or is it because hes come to the conclusion that dispensaries are on their way state wide?

Maybe but every time someone says so some just don't agree

[phaquetoo]

and what of the facts;

 

lara will refuse to connect a sixth patient to a caregivers registry of the max 5 they said.

When we sign and send in the application we are agreeing to the term of 5 patients only.

 

 

show me one case where a cg has more than 5 registered patients ?

Show me one won case of a cg selling to more than those he possesses cards for?

 

thank you

follow the law as written and your chance of having problems are near 0, obviously if you start doing cg2p you are not registered with you will have to do a sec 8 if the court allows you to!

 

stay within the law as written and voted on by the people,,,if you have to use section 8 you wont even be able to mention mm or that your a c.g, it is not worth the risk, people who are opening despenses and doing p2p and c.g 2 cg and so on will and do have problems, untill the law is changed to allow for despenses and c.g to be able to supply those despense, just keep doing what you are doing, I would have to think you dont go against the mm law from what I read from you!

 

Peace

[trichcycler]

thanks phaq, for the vote of confidence . you are correct, I never provide for any but the patients I have cards for, and will wait till the lara website shows a different scenario. I do want to explore the hows and whys someone would believe differently than the 5 patient rule, hence the posted concerns.

 

pace'

[Natesilver]

thanks phaq, for the vote of confidence . you are correct, I never provide for any but the patients I have cards for, and will wait till the lara website shows a different scenario. I do want to explore the hows and whys someone would believe differently than the 5 patient rule, hence the posted concerns.

 

pace'

GM- section 8 provides a caregiver a means to legally transfer to more than 5 patients. Again, I can provide you a link to the law if you have not read it. Also, the law trumps any statements on Lara's website.

[phaquetoo]

thanks phaq, for the vote of confidence . you are correct, I never provide for any but the patients I have cards for, and will wait till the lara website shows a different scenario. I do want to explore the hows and whys someone would believe differently than the 5 patient rule, hence the posted concerns.

 

pace'

There is no legal way to do it at this time, yes there are despense and there are some farm markets, but they are not legal, they just happen to be in the right place as to not get busted, but I wouldnt want to have to look over my shoulder every day of my life to open a store and wind up loosing every thing I own including my freedom!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

GM- section 8 provides a caregiver a means to legally transfer to more than 5 patients. Again, I can provide you a link to the law if you have not read it. Also, the law trumps any statements on Lara's website.

What is written in the law that was voted on and not changed by the coa or sc is the law, and we dont need the judges changing our law, we need legilation to change the law for the better any thing a judge rules against us is  law, untill legislation can fix it!

 

lara or the health dept wrote the law and put it up for a vote for the people it was voted in and that is the law!

 

I wouldnt want to do a sec 8 for anything, imagine what you have now, than imagine starting over at your age!

 

Peace

Edited January 28, 2015 by phaquetoo

[phaquetoo]

I honestly dont know why any one would want to be in court and hope to change the law, how has that worked for them so far?

 

Peace

[trichcycler]

GM- section 8 provides a caregiver a means to legally transfer to more than 5 patients. Again, I can provide you a link to the law if you have not read it. Also, the law trumps any statements on Lara's website.

Thank you Nate I have read the law, albeit in a different light as of recent, thank you. I'm not advocating, or on the fence, or considering selling to anymore than those I have cards for, because LARA will explicitly deny my permission to provide to a sixth patient. Your debate is not with me, but with all those who believe as I do/did. I am in no position to argue the point with no dogs in the race..... as five patients proves to be too difficult for me to care for anyways. I don't need convincing, but exploration seems appropriate. I respect your position and appreciate your explanations.

[YesMichigan]

Is it being ignored that this article makes Bouchard sound like a "Medical Marijuana" advocate? His deputy even stated the intent in the article: Fellow Oakland County police officer Jeremy Doty shared this advice, “being smart and focused politically can make all the difference.”

 

"Perhaps, the law in Michigan is perfect already, providing absolute protection from arrest. Too bad Sheriff Bouchard cannot do a better job explaining this to his peers."

 

Wait, what did I just get done reading? This is absurdity wrapped in a riddle intended to mock us.

[YesMichigan]

Quoting myself here; this website is well-known for this type of dodgy clickbait article.

 

I do recall reading that from you but took it in another context. Upon reading the article and pondering I disagree with your assessment and label it as "Misinformation designed to obfuscate the Oakland County Sheriff's position".

 

Being that it is from 2010 I wonder why the website would create that article. To remind the public of his past comments? Something is odd.

[GregS]

and what of the facts;

 

lara will refuse to connect a sixth patient to a caregivers registry of the max 5 they said.

When we sign and send in the application we are agreeing to the term of 5 patients only.

 

 

show me one case where a cg has more than 5 registered patients ?

Show me one won case of a cg selling to more than those he possesses cards for?

 

thank you

You see, my take is, as I said yesterday, that the supposed requirement that we are limited to five patients is not a factor in sec. 8. The LARA requirement is formulated under administrative law and conflicts with the MMMA. All that is left is to refresh ourselves with TerBeek.

Edited January 29, 2015 by GregS