In July of last year, Lyon Township amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit any use that violates federal law, similar to the ordinances being challenged by the ACLU previously discussed here.  Recently, attorneys on behalf of a medical marihuana patient suffering from HIV, filed suit in Oakland County arguing the Township's ordinance is preempted by state law. For more information, please visit the Oakland Press. 

The Township Board approved a six-month moratorium on "medical marihuana permits," allowing officials time to draft an ordinance.  As quoted by the Plainwell & Otsego Union Enterprise, Township Supervisor John Brokus spoke on the confusion surrounding the Medical Marihuana Act, "Basically, we're going to buy about six months time to decide what we want to do with this," Brokus said. "Between the state and the federal government, they don't know what they're doing, so I don't know how they expect us to know what's going on."  The Planning Commission plans to prepare a draft ordinance.

On January 11, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in People v Kolanek, No. 295125, where, in a case of first impression, the court addressed when a doctor must provide his or her written recommendation to allow an individual to assert the Medical Marihuana Act's affirmative defense.

MCL 333.26428(a)(1) provides that a patient may assert the affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marihuana if the patient can show that a physician "has stated" the patient is likely to receive a benefit from the medical use of marihuana.  The Court interpreted "has stated" to mean that the patient must receive the recommendation before the patient was arrested.  The recommendation must also be obtained after the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act was passed.  This opinion effectively limits the time period in which a physician's recommendation may be used to assert the defense allowed by the MMMA.