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.

Michigan municipalities have been busy debating how to properly regulate medical marihuana in their communities.  Below is a summary of recent municipal action:

• City of Adrian:  The Planning Commission recommended regulations to limit medical marihuana operations to one business zoning district and prohibit such operations within 500 feet of a church, school, park or playground.
• City of Ann Arbor:  The City Council delayed a vote of a proposed medical marihuana ordinance until January 18.  The officials are taking a deeper look into whether the city should require caregivers to register with the City.
• City of Dexter:  The Planning Commission approved an amended medical marihuana ordinance to permit dispensaries.
• City of Marshall:  The City Council passed a six-month extension of its medical marihuana moratorium, originally passed in July 2010.
• City of Monroe:  City Council adopted a six-month moratorium regarding the sale and dispensing of medical marihuana.
• Algoma Township:  Passed a 12-month moratorium after receiving a request for a commercial operation.
• Cannon Township: Extended its existing moratorium for six-months allowing the township to debate regulations until June 2011.
• Holland Township:  After working for four months to come up with suitable regulations, planners have scrapped the proposed ordinance to start fresh.

The Grand Rapids Press Editorial Board published its thoughts on how to fix the law that has caused so much confusion.  According to the authors, the patchwork of local ordinances fails to properly solve the problems created by the Act.  The article calls on the Legislature to make changes and provide guidance to local governments.

As we have previously stated, municipalities should not wait for a legislative amendment to address medical marihuana on a local level.  The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, as a citizen-initiated law, may only be amended by a ¾ vote from both houses of the Michigan Legislature.  Such legislative consensus will be a difficult task to complete.

The United States federal government is asking the Michigan Department of Community Health to provide records pertaining to medical marihuana for seven people under federal investigation in the Lansing area.  As of the time of this writing, the Department of Community Health has not complied, citing the potential penalties for disclosing confidential information.

Section 6 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act provides that a person or state agency that "discloses confidential information...is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both."

More information on this conflict between state and federal authorities is available at The Grand Rapids Press.

Plaintiff, the county prosecutor, argued that defendants operated their business contrary to the MMMA and therefore constituted a nuisance per se.  The court disagreed.

Defendants own and operate the Compassionate Apothecary in Mount Pleasant, Michigan.  The court gave the following summary of the day-to-day operations of the business:

Defendants lease lockers on their premises to other registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers, who become "members" of defendants' business upon approved application, within which to store medical marihuana.  Defendants only approve an application for membership if the applicant is a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver with the MDCH.  Once an applicant becomes a member, he or she pays a membership fee, receives a membership number, may lease a locker, and may store medical marihuana in such locker.  The members then purchase or sell the medical marihuana among other members.  Frequently, a registered primary caregiver receives permission from his or her registered qualifying patient to store such patient's marihuana at defendants' business and to sell such marihuana to other members.  Thus, the registered qualifying patient owns the medical marihuana at all times.  Defendants' business does not own, purchase or sell any marihuana; however, defendants collect locker rental fees, membership fees, and receive 20% of the sales price per transfer.  The business also pays a sales tax to the State of Michigan for each transfer.

The court found that "patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients fall soundly within medical use of marihuana as defined by the MMMA."  Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction.

A complaint has been filed against Bloomfield Township seeking a declaratory judgment that the township's ordinances regulating medical marihuana are preempted by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.

The township passed ordinances permitting no more than two registered patients per household, provided that every patient registers their name and address with the township.  Failure to register is a misdemeanor punishable by 93 days in jail, a fine of $500, or both.  While patients are permitted, the ordinance "strictly prohibits" the "cultivation and/or distribution of medical marihuana...."

The complaint was filed on behalf of two anonymous township residents who are both patients and caregivers pursuant to the MMMA.  More information is available here.

According to The Grand Rapids Press, John Ter Beek, a lawyer and register patient, has begun circulating petitions to recall the seven-member city council.  Further, he has scheduled meetings with the ACLU to pursue an injunction on the City's medical marihuana ban.

Mayor Jack Poll, a pharmacist, is concerned because the law does not regulate the distribution through typical medical channels.

The Lansing City Council unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on "medical marihuana establishments" within the City.  Establishments already in operation were required to contact the City to ensure their continued operation.  According to WILX, 62 businesses registered with the City before the moratorium was passed.