Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act is a citizen initiated law which was approved by 63% of the voters in 2008.  Now in 2012, after a year of frustrations, supporters are gearing up to hit the streets (and now the internet) to gather enough signatures to bring a new citizen initiated law proposal to the people.  Recently approved language of the constitutional amendment aims to end the marihuana prohibition as we know it.  The proponents of the initiative have to gather over 322,000 qualifying signatures before July to put the proposal on the ballot in the general elections this November.  To be approved, it has to get more votes in support of the amendment than those against it.

The proposed amendment reads:

"For persons who are at least 21 years of age who are not incarcerated, marihuana acquisition, cultivation, manufacture, sale, delivery, transfer, transportation, possession, ingestion, presence in or on the body, religious, medical, industrial, agricultural, commercial or personal use, or possession or use of paraphernalia shall not be prohibited, abridged or penalized in any manner, nor subject to civil forfeiture; provided that no person shall be permitted to operate an aircraft, motor vehicle, motorboat, ORV, snowmobile, train, or other heavy or dangerous equipment or machinery while impaired by marihuana."

With over 129,000 registered medical marihuana users in the state, the required number of petitions may not be a difficult goal for the proponents of the bill to attain.  However, whether or not the voters will have the same acceptance for free recreational use compared to the 2008 support for limited medical use will remain to be answered on November 6, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments on two of the most cited cases in Michigan's young, but busy, medical marihuana history.

In People v Kolanek, the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not a defendant can assert a Section 8 affirmative defense without first obtaining a valid registry identification card, and the timing of a qualifying physician certification with relation to the arrest.  (Section 8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act provides an affirmative defense for patients who, although they do not have a registry identification card, meet certain criteria for the medical use of marihuana.)

The Supreme Court will also hear the infamous "dog kennel" case: People v King.  In People v King, the Court will determine the definition for the term "enclosed, locked facility" as well as the interplay between different sections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

On December 22, 2011, Governor Snyder signed House Bill 4770.  The bill prevents a public employer from offering medical or other fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals who reside with public employees.  Higher education institutions are exempted from the provisions due to their constitutional autonomy.  The new ban would affect mostly local governments and public schools in Michigan, and apply to health insurance and other fringe benefits for unmarried partners of public employees, whether they're of the opposite or the same sex.  The law is effective immediately, but does not affect union-represented workers until their current collective bargaining agreements expire, or are amended or renewed.

House Bill 4771, on the other hand, got vetoed.  HB 4771 was proposing to add the "fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals" to the list of prohibited subjects of collective bargaining under Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), instead of banning the benefits altogether.  In vetoing the Bill Governor Snyder reasoned that the bill directly conflicted with Public Act 260 of 2011, signed on December 14, 2011 which amended the PERA giving public employers discretion in deciding whether or not to renegotiate an existing, applicable bargaining agreement upon consolidation of public employers or public services through a merger or interlocal agreement among other changes.

The recent data from the Civil Service Commission puts the number of current employees benefiting from what is widely known as "domestic partners benefits" to 138 and the cost for 2011-2012 to $893,000.  The legislation claims to have passed this law for its potential savings of $8 million.  ACLU of Michigan has vowed to take the law to the courts for violation of equal protection rights.