Landlords Allowed To Ban Use Of Marijuana On Property According To New Ammendment

[bobandtorey]

The Michigan House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved on Tuesday an amendment to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act that will protect landlords on prohibiting the use of marijuana on their property, including medicinal marijuana.

The amendment, introduced as Senate Bill 72 by state Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, states that a landlord is not required to lease residential property to any person who smokes or cultivates marijuana on the premises if the lease stipulated a prohibition on the drug.

Attorney and Michigan Cannabis Development Association spokeswoman Denise Pollicellatestified in favor of the amendment, and said it will prevent “unnecessary litigations.”

“This bill codifies what is already existing property laws,” Pollicella said. “We support efforts to clarify any person’s right or responsibilities under the Medical Marihuana Act of 2008 and under Michigan property laws, and this legislation will allow parties to a real estate contract to know in advance what their contractual duties are.”

Pollicella said the the bill will support both patients and caregivers, as well as private property owners.

Although the amendment was approved, it also received opposition from medical marijuana advocacy groups.

Matthew Abel, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the amendment was “completely unnecessary.”

“A landlord already has the right to put any legal provision on a lease,” Abel said. “This is a waste of time.”

Instead of discussing Senate Bill 72, Abel urged the committee to discuss the marijuana dispensaries and marijuana edibles bills.

Edibles and marijuana dispensaries are not covered under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

State Reps. Mike Callton, R-Nashville, and Lisa Posthumus Lyons, R-Alto, introduced on February 2015 a bill that would regulate dispensaries and an additional bill that would clarify what forms of marijuana patients can use and buy.

 

http://statenews.com/article/2015/04/medical-marijuana

[trichcycler]

I fear the ramifications to tenants and the wasted police time used to enforce landlord/tenant agreements. thank you for the article bob

[bobandtorey]

I fear the ramifications to tenants and the wasted police time used to enforce landlord/tenant agreements. thank you for the article bob

Thanks again

 

Why do you fear that do you rent ?

[trichcycler]

"I fear the ramifications to tenants" -

 I'm neither a renter or a landlord, yet I still care.

[+Malamute]

Attorney and Michigan Cannabis Development Association spokeswoman Denise Pollicellatestified in favor of the amendment

 

,

That is one of the dispensary lobbies in Lansing now. They hired a lobbyist.

 

 Denise/they supported the landlord bill, even before the amendment CPU requested was done.

 

They/Denise are also holding a fundraiser for Rick Jones.

[ozzrokk]

,

That is one of the dispensary lobbies in Lansing now. They hired a lobbyist.

 

 Denise/they supported the landlord bill, even before the amendment CPU requested was done.

 

They/Denise are also holding a fundraiser for Rick Jones.

 

 

Wow again someone is going to tell us that we should trust Rick Jones.......... Like we are a bunch of fools or something..........

They do not lobby for me..................

 

Edited to add........... plus they are going to hold another fundraiser for this fool to buy the rope that will hang them.................. Idiots

Edited April 23, 2015 by ozzrokk

[+Malamute]

Yes. Arseholes, idiots, biitches and charlatans.

 

That about covers it.

 

;-p

[+Malamute]

Let me also add, CPU had requested these amendments and got them last session on Jones landlord bill that died in the end(yay).

 

But I wanted to add that NPRA pushed and helped get that amendment to protect Sec 8 compliance.

 

That's all.

 

There are a few groups out there actually looking out for patients and not willing to give up their left nut/ovary for their commercial interests. VERY few groups. And some only part of the time on certain issues.

[iwombat]

You should post this in the Patient Issues forum.  There is not much discussion'

of this on the boards.

 

This is a big deal because they are using paranoia about renters trashing property

for grow houses and creating a bill that allow landlords to ban growing *and* smoking

of Cannabis.

 

I am a renter in a property that allows smoking, but I will likely loose the right to

medicate in my home shortly.

 

According to the law, where else can I go?  Is this not a big deal?

 

There seems to be no opposition to this amendment because common folk

focus on the issue of protecting landlords from grow criminals and innocent

patients like me are getting thrown under the bus.

 

Why is noone else talking about this?

Edited May 5, 2015 by iwombat

[trichcycler]

You should post this in the Patient Issues forum.  There is not much discussion'

of this on the boards.

 

This is a big deal because they are using paranoia about renters trashing property

for grow houses and creating a bill that allow landlords to ban growing *and* smoking

of Cannabis.

 

I am a renter in a property that allows smoking, but I will likely loose the right to

medicate in my home shortly.

 

According to the law, where else can I go?  Is this not a big deal?

 

There seems to be no opposition to this amendment because common folk

focus on the issue of protecting landlords from grow criminals and innocent

patients like me are getting thrown under the bus.

 

Why is noone else talking about this?

I agree with the interview, landlords have always had the right and power to restrict growing and using marijuana on their property. The violations can and most likely has been used to evict non compliant tenants. Now though, this may make that violation of the landlord contract also a violation of the MMMA, not sure.

 

if your landlord allowed your meds then, why not now ?

[iwombat]

This bill is currently in the house judiciary committee.

 

Here is my email to the judiciary committee members, perhaps we can get then to change the language

before this becomes law (probably not likely):

 

To: "KlintKesto@house.mi.gov" <KlintKesto@house.mi.gov>; "PeterLucido@house.mi.gov" <PeterLucido@house.mi.gov>; "KurtHeise@house.mi.gov" <KurtHeise@house.mi.gov>; "JoelJohnson@house.mi.gov" <JoelJohnson@house.mi.gov>; "MartinHowrylak@house.mi.gov" <MartinHowrylak@house.mi.gov>; "TristonCole@house.mi.gov" <TristonCole@house.mi.gov>; "JimRunestad@house.mi.gov" <JimRunestad@house.mi.gov>; "jeffirwin@house.mi.gov" <jeffirwin@house.mi.gov>; "rosemaryrobinson@house.mi.gov" <rosemaryrobinson@house.mi.gov>; "stephaniechang@house.mi.gov" <stephaniechang@house.mi.gov>; "VanessaGuerra@house.mi.gov" <VanessaGuerra@house.mi.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 2:25 PM
Subject: Michigan Senate Bill 72

Dear Representatives,

 

I am writing you about Michigan Senate Bill 72.

 

Specifically:

 

(3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO

 

ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF

 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING MARIHUANA IS IN THE

 

WRITTEN LEASE.

 

Please tell me why this bill equates the damage done by running an illegal

grow house with a patient smoking medical marijuana?

 

I am currently disabled and unemployed and forced by financial necessity

to rent.  I specifically sought out a rental facility that allows smoking in

your private residence because I use medical marijuana to control

disabling muscle spasms caused by neuropathic pain from spinal degeneration

that escapes my neurotin drug therapy.

 

If you don't change the language in this bill, many rental facilities like mine

will similarly conjoin these two completely unrelated situations.  Horror

stories of illegal grow houses trashing the floors and electricity systems

of innocent landlords have absolutely nothing to do with quiet law-abiding

medical cannabis patients.

 

Just ask California which currently has 6,316,413 apartment residents* and 

no cultivation or cannabis smoking restrictions whatsoever.  Today, Michigan

landlords wanting to restrict smoking in their units can do so even without this law.  

However, this law as written allows landlords to prohibit cannabis smoking while

permitting tobacco smoking.  Exactly how is one form of smoking more potentially

damaging than the other?

 

If you pass this bill as written, I could be forced to move from my residence

in as soon as 90 days.

 

I don't understand why Michigan feels the need to demonize helpless patients.

Please adjust the language in this bill clearly separating the issues of cultivation

and consumption.

 

* https://nmhc.org/Content.aspx?id=4708#State_Distribution

Edited May 5, 2015 by iwombat

[iwombat]

I agree with the interview, landlords have always had the right and power to restrict growing and using marijuana on their property. The violations can and most likely has been used to evict non compliant tenants. Now though, this may make that violation of the landlord contract also a violation of the MMMA, not sure.

 

if your landlord allowed your meds then, why not now ?

 

Complicated.  My upstairs neighbor complained last year about the smoke.  Landlord approached me and asked

if I could perhaps open a window.  I was resistant because of the nearby foot traffic and then winter intervened.

I used a lot of concentrates over the winter, so there was not as much smoke, but now they are gone.

Last weekend I began opening the windows and was promptly sent a letter that they received 2 complaints

about the 'odor'.  The windows are closed again, however my landlord has so many restrictions in the lease

I fear they will fully adopt these new ones both because they can, and because apparently the 'odor' is

still scary to your average resident of Michigan.

Edited May 5, 2015 by iwombat

[slipstar059]

If patients, would like to keep the smell down, and the air clean, just buy a 4" carbon scrubber, and a 4" fan from the local hydro shop.  Why rock the boat, you know your neighbors don't like the smell, so make sure they don't have to deal with it. 

 

A lot of bars and restaurants complained about losing business from the smoking ban, but I have to say I don't miss the haze of smoke, while I'm conversing with acquaintances.

 

That said, I don't think opening up the MMMA to interpretation, by our current administration is in the best interest of the 175,000+ cannabis patients of this state.

 

Keep the noise down.

[t-pain]

i agree iwombat. it sucks hard.

 

can install a carbon filter in your smoke room , so it just sucks all the smell right up.

otherwise lease changes and you gonna have to move. plan for the worst ya know...

[Hawkind]

This is a controversial subject at best, no landowner should be forced on a state level to be compliant with a law that is in conflict (illegal) on a federal level. This opens up the landowner to federal prosecution / persecution that he or she does not want. If  I was a landlord I would be thankful for the ruling of protection. You need to look at it from a different perspective.

[+Malamute]

It is still up to the landlord. 

[Wild Bill]

You should post this in the Patient Issues forum.  There is not much discussion'

of this on the boards.

 

This is a big deal because they are using paranoia about renters trashing property

for grow houses and creating a bill that allow landlords to ban growing *and* smoking

of Cannabis.

 

I am a renter in a property that allows smoking, but I will likely loose the right to

medicate in my home shortly.

 

According to the law, where else can I go?  Is this not a big deal?

 

They can't make the law go away so they try to make it impossible to comply with. When cannabis was first made illegal you were only allowed to possess it if you had a tax stamp, the catch was that the government refused to distribute the stamps. Same mentality, different avenue.

[trichcycler]

If  I was a landlord I would be thankful for the ruling of protection. You need to look at it from a different perspective.

Landlords have been forbidding the activity for decades, and allowed to evict for non compliancy......so what ruling of protections were offered to landlords with this ?

[iwombat]

I have no problem with a landlords right to have a non smoking property.

I specifically rented from a smoking allowed property.

 

However, I do not think it is reasonable for a landlord to allow tobacco smoking

but forbid cannabis smoking, which this amendment allows.

 

This feels more like a landlord refusing to rent to a pregnant non-married woman

because they personally don't like it, or are worried their residents won't like it.

 

The letter they sent me stated according to my lease agreement :

 

"you and/or your guests may not engage in a manner that could disturb

or threaten the rights, comfort, health, safety, or convenience of others."

 

Apparently the smell of cannabis is such a threat.  Perhaps they would do

the same thing if I chain smoked cigarettes with my window open, but

I doubt it.

 

My next question is this: what if the smell is coming from vaporized cannabis

instead?

 

Is Vaporizing Cannabis allowed in a non-smoking residence?  I think so,

It is allowed in hospital rooms, so I think it is not considered "smoke".

 

Would the smell of vaporized cannabis also constitute a threat because

it disturbs someone?  Or is the "threat" related to second-hand smoke?

 

I don't see anyone else being persecuted for smoking a cigarette on their patio...

 

I don't like the idea of needing to hide every whif of medicine I take

from my neighbors under penalty of eviction for a disturbance.

 

What would happen if I were vaping everything with my Volcano instead?

No second hand smoke = no threat?

[trichcycler]

I feel ya for sure.

[t-pain]

you could also talk to your neighbors. if they arent raving lunatics anyway. i have raving lunatic neighbors so i wont hold that against anyone.

[GregS]

You should post this in the Patient Issues forum.  There is not much discussion'

of this on the boards.

 

This is a big deal because they are using paranoia about renters trashing property

for grow houses and creating a bill that allow landlords to ban growing *and* smoking

of Cannabis.

 

I am a renter in a property that allows smoking, but I will likely loose the right to

medicate in my home shortly.

 

According to the law, where else can I go?  Is this not a big deal?

 

There seems to be no opposition to this amendment because common folk

focus on the issue of protecting landlords from grow criminals and innocent

patients like me are getting thrown under the bus.

 

Why is noone else talking about this?

We have talked about it. Looking in the archives you will find conversation regarding disability law that may well prohibit it unless the text of the act itself is changed. If you have anything to add we would be glad to hear. I have laid out the case with Jeff Irwin regarding disability law.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48509-should-landlords-be-able-to-ban-medical-marijuana-michigan-senate-oks-bill-to-amend-2008-law/?hl=%20disability%20%20law

 

There is more too, I think.

[Ms Chocolate]

It was not necessary for the legislators to develop a bill that allows landlords to restrict marihuana use. All the landlord had to do was include a no smoking clause in the rental contract, including what is meant by smoking.

 

They could easily say that the rental space could not be used for aquiculture. I parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme would be allowed, state as much.

I agree with state Sen. Rebekah Warren when she said, “In your own home should be the place that you can take your medicine”.  This may be your home, but it’s somebody else house.

What I would prefer is a law that says that all houses offered for sale must state whether it was used for growing cannabis. I don’t usually agree with Sen. Rick Jones, but he is correct in the damage an indoor growth can cause. Even a 12-plant operation can leave the house with water, fire, and mold damage. There may be a smell that stays, as well as dangerous jimmy-rigged fixes.

[solabeirtan]

 

What I would prefer is a law that says that all houses offered for sale must state whether it was used for growing cannabis. I don’t usually agree with Sen. Rick Jones, but he is correct in the damage an indoor growth can cause. Even a 12-plant operation can leave the house with water, fire, and mold damage. There may be a smell that stays, as well as dangerous jimmy-rigged fixes.

 

 

There is already a Disclosure Law requirement for all real estate sales/transfers. It is part of MCL 565 Act 92 <--link... Otherwise your other observations as well as  Mr Abels'  are spot on.