Blog Viewer

Medical Marihuana Facility Licensing Act Emergency Rules

By Matthew R. Abel posted 01-24-2018 09:43

  

The Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA) is designed to regulate marijuana dispensaries and clarify the legality of edible products in Michigan. The law also licenses and regulates marijuana growers, processers, testing facilities, and transporters.

The MMFLA took effect December 20, 2016. However, it included a 360-day delay in implementation to enable the state to establish the licensing system required by the act. The process was not completed in time to begin processing applications according to the timelines specified.

As a result, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) issued emergency rules to implement the MMFLA. On December 15, 2017, persons began to apply for state operating licenses in the categories of class A, B, or C grower, processor, provisioning center, secure transporter, and safety compliance facility. Some lawyers practicing in the field of marijuana law were betting on the time the servers would crash at LARA due to the onslaught of electronic filings.

But it was not to be. It seems that fewer than 100 users even registered for the system, with only a few completing the application that day. 

With the 21-page application, the 20-page supplement for each owner and spouse, and a 7-page application for the municipal location, there was not much time to retrieve all the records required. This may not be a marathon, but for most it is more than a sprint.

In addition, the rules are a long way from being clear. For instance, facilities operating at the “same location” as defined by Rule 1(20) do not need to use a “secure transporter.” However, MCL 333.27501(4) provides that “[a] grower license authorizes the grower to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter.”

And then MCL 333.27502(2) states that “[a] processor license authorizes the processor to transfer marihuana only by means of a secure transporter.”

Section 333.27504(1) says that “[a]ll transfers of marihuana to a provisioning center from a separate marihuana facility shall be by means of a secure transporter.”

Isn’t the word separate above, redundant? If not, doesn’t that provision conflict with the two directly above it?

There is also some confusion with Rule 24, which provides that licenses for a grower, a processor, and a provisioning center may exist as separate facilities at the same location if it is allowed under local ordinance, provided that “the municipality shall not limit the type or number of marihuana facilities” under the act. Accordingly, logic (which always has the potential to be useless when considering legislation) would lead one to assume that if a municipality puts any limit on the number of facilities in any category, that co-location may not be allowed.

Luckily, the Detroit ordinances have no caps. Chesaning and Mueller Townships have the same good fortune. Some ordinances will be rewritten, but with only about 30 ordinances on the books so far, we have a lot of local ordinance adoption ahead of us in the next few months and years. 

ICLE, in conjunction with the Marijuana Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, will be filming an on-demand seminar on the emergency rules that will be available in February 2018. Please let us know if you have questions for our experts.

0 comments
59 views

Permalink