Michigan Localities Just Say “No” to the Law

[XLFD]

In November 2008, the Michigan voters resoundingly passed the “Medical Marijuana Act” (MMA), an initiated bill, with a 63% majority. This law, which went into effect in December 2008, had caregivers and prospective patients registering as early as in the spring of 2009. It allows the limited growing (and use by qualified patients) of marijuana for medical use by those who are registered. The federal laws against marijuana are still on the books, and the restrictions of this bill empathize with that fact in its seventh section:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hrqrbdukpxbo0p45qbg2tl45))/mileg.a...

In 2008, I voted with the minority, contrary to what some would call my libertarian leanings. My reasons were personal; I know/knew some people who abused the drug to extremes, know of three vehicle accidents involving people I know where pot/mind-altering drugs was a contributing factor, and see nothing positive with the casual use of the drug. I never used it myself, and have actively worked to help those who have kick the habit.

In September of 2010, PM and Hamlin Townships, as well as the city of Manistee each passed a moratorium (a legally authorized period of delay) on medical marijuana distribution. On Monday night, Jan. 24, the Ludington City Council will consider imposing a moratorium on the issuance of licenses, permits or approvals for the sale or dispensing of medical marijuana, until zoning issues can be worked out.

“Basically, it’s just to give our planning commission time to figure out the best way to regulate medical marijuana,” City Manager John Shay said about the moratorium he is recommending that the council approve.

Here’s the part of the thread I usually jump on Ludington’s policymakers, but allow me to hold off on that. I actually commend Ludington City Hall for waiting a bit to join the local moratorium bandwagon that happened four months ago, and for not creating any restrictive ordinances which would likely lose if challenged in court. Some cities have done just that, and are likely to pay for it in lawsuits that have the initiated state law prohibiting what they’ve enacted in their local statutes.

Correction: have their citizens pay for their attempt to regulate this law that was passed resoundingly by those same citizens.

It’s reasonable to think that state laws voted in by the initiation process should be considered ‘greater’ law than those passed by the state legislatures. The MM law is fairly responsible, and imposes no real duties on local governments, and similarly does not empower them with new abilities.

 
If a caregiver or patient is following the state law on dispensation of marijuana, can a locality that claims a moratorium on such actually intervene, citing existing federal law for such enforcement, without risking being sued?

 
It may be the libertarian strain in my logic, but I think all local moratoriums are not enforceable, perhaps illegal, and the best thing for any county, township, or city to do is nothing at this point. The MMA has been a law for over two years; society hasn’t crumbled down because of there being no local regulations to dilute the statute.

 
In the city ordinances there are no references to ‘moratoriums’ or ‘marijuana’, nor is there language in the totality of state law that gives local governments the power to invoke a moratorium on an existing state law. I encourage the Ludington City Council to leave it well enough alone— before the ACLU or other civil rights agencies start class action lawsuits on localities that violate the people’s initiated law with illegal moratoria.

[XLFD]

According to the minutes of the Ludington Planning Commission, this topic hasn't even been discussed at their monthly meetings since the law was passed in 2008 until this recent moratorium.  Several Michigan cities/townships have this new law figured into zoning issues, others just keep putting it off. 

The mandate is there, and I think it is a real disservice to the people who voted in the law to have to keep waiting for it to go into effect.  And I don't see any smart entrepreneur starting a marihuana farm in Ludington with all the grief they would get from our LPD, plus the MCSO.

 

 

[Sweater Cows!]

Having done  a reading of the new law I don't see how these 'co-ops' or 'dispensaries' are legal. The law states a caregiver may grow and give their patient MJ if the patient is unable/unwilling to grow or source it them selves.  I did hear a rumor that someone is looking into starting a dispensary. Hard to say if that is true, i only heard it 2nd hand no more like 10th hand.

 

I have read that the way the dispensaries that are operating are doing this is by calling it a "patient to patient" transfer, and saying that is legal. But nowhere in the law does it say (unless I missed it when reading) that a patient may 'transfer' to another patient; it appears to me that this P2P transfer would fall into the category of felony 'deliver/manufacture/sale. I am interested to see this tested by the courts to see how the courts rule as to who can give MJ to whom. As it appears now only a caregiver may give to their five patients that they are signed up for with the state DHS.

 

I see there is a new plant growing store on US 10/31 where the old Habitat for Humanity Restore was at. It doesn't look like they sell anything other than  accessories such as lights and nutrients by the signs in the window.

[Lisa O'Brien]

I'm with you, from what I read the dispensaries are illegal. The grower must sell directly to his/her patients - there is no middle man. The grower I believe can only sell to 5 people, I thought about doing this but I don't see how much money could be made off it - I don't think I could charge a cancer patient top dollar to ease their suffering, and I would probably go broke.

[Willy]

Location, location, location

[Dave]

I've debated on who is right in this guys situation. On the one hand I can understand Wal Mart's position, they have a long standing policy in regards to any drug use.... if you use and they drug test you, your fired, period. On the other hand, this guy is obviously using the marijuana law in the way it was intended. In the end though, I think I have to agree with the judges ruling. Had there been any sort of mention in Michigan's law stating specifically that a business could not fire someone for using medical marijuana then I might give the former Wal Mart employee the edge here. I feel bad for him that he lost his job and all but he broke a rule with his employer that clearly stated that if you use, your gone.

I personally don't care all that much if people want to smoke pot, be it for medicinal or recreational purposes but, at least as far as recreational usage goes, if your going to use you are well aware of the illegality of using it and you alone are responsible for anything that might happen.

 

Judge: Wal-Mart can fire man for medical marijuana use

Michigan law legalizing medical marijuana doesn't stop private businesses from firing people for drug use, a federal judge said Friday in dismissing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

 U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker said the law, approved by voters in 2008, bars authorities from prosecuting people for marijuana use but doesn't tell private employers what to do.

Joseph Casias, 30, was an inventory-control manager at a Walmart in Battle Creek, 50 miles south of Lansing, until he tested positive for marijuana in 2009. He has a medical-marijuana card and smokes pot to alleviate symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer.

Under Casias' theory of the case, "no private employer in Michigan could take any action against an employee based on an employee's use of medical marijuana," Jonker said. "This would create a new protected employee class in Michigan and mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment."

STATE LAW:
• Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Casias, said it would appeal.

"A choice between adequate pain relief and gainful employment is an untenable one that no patient should ever be forced to make," attorney Scott Michelman said.

Wal-Mart said it was pleased with the decision and sympathetic to Casias' medical problems.

"We have to consider the overall safety of our customers and associates, including Mr. Casias," spokesman Greg Rossiter said. "Until further guidance is available, we'll always default to what we believe is the safest environment."

Casias, who was associate of the year at his store in 2008, declined to comment. He remains unemployed, ACLU spokesman Will Matthews said.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110212/NEWS06/110212008/Judge-Wal-Ma...

[Willy]

This has got to be one of the most stupid rulings by a judge that I have heard and another reason not to shop at Wal-mart. Sorry Dave. The man has a diagnosed disease and is using pot to help in his fight againts the complications. What fool business besides Wal-mart or even more foolish judge would throw an employee out on their ear like that. As far as I am concerned Wal-mart is discriminating againts a sick employee. 

[Dave]

Public relations wise, I don't think it was a good move for Wal Mart to do what they did. That said though, a judge should make rulings by what is in the law, not on what he thinks or how he think things should be. In hindsight, it was a mistake when the law was written to not include some sort of limitations so that this sort of situation would never happen and really, why there was no rule wrote into the law is a inexcusable.

We all hate activist judges, the judge in this case did what he should of done and went by the rule of law, not by what his heart may or may not of felt.

[XLFD]

The question I have to ask about this case is why is a FEDERAL district judge having jurisdiction over a case where Michigan law is being interpreted?   Federal laws about marijuana are a bit different, and weighed into the decision more than I think it should have in this instance. 

A Michigan jury would have come out with a different verdict, I believe, given the popular mandate the law received in 2008.  And I think it is a pyrrhic victory for Wal-Mart, as this seems to be something that could arouse the anger of all the pot-smokin' rednecks who frequent that establishment.  I expect to see a dramatic decrease in the amount of munchies sold at Wal-Marts, LOL.

[Willy]

XLFD

I'm assuming that when  Wal-mart fired this man, it did so under the Federal law which is contrary to Michigan law, so the defendent was required to file in a Federal court to have his case heard. I think it was a sneaky back door act by Wal-mart because they knew they would not prevail in a Michigan court.

[Willy]

Dave

I think your correct. After rethinking the situation, the judge was required to rule on Federal statutes and Michigans laws were not considered. The judge may even have had sympathy for the man but legally his hands were tied.

[Willy]

2 billboards - common sense =