Blog Viewer

Medical Marijuana: Not in my Backyard?

By Noah Hagan posted 10-16-2012 08:52

  

In 2008, Michigan voters enacted the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), to allow the medical use and cultivation of marijuana and to shield qualified medical marijuana patients from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner” under state law. In 2010, the city of Wyoming told medical marijuana users, “not here!” and passed this zoning ordinance: “Uses that are contrary to federal law, state law, or local ordinance are prohibited.” Sanctions for violating Wyoming’s zoning ordinance include fines, damages, expenses, and costs. Wyoming resident and qualified medical marijuana patient John ter Beek sued the city and claimed that the MMMA preempted Wyoming’s ordinance.  The court of appeals agreed and held Wyoming’s ordinance to be void and unenforceable “to the extent that it prohibits medical use of marijuana in accordance with the MMMA.” Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, No 306240 (Mich Ct App July 31, 2012).

After ter Beek, can a city zone medical marijuana in any way? Wyoming’s ordinance was a blanket prohibition on medical marijuana within city limits. Can a city ordinance place lesser limits on medical marijuana, such as regulating the location of medical marijuana collectives or clubs? Can a city ordinance allow injunctive relief for a medical marijuana-related zoning violation, where the ordinance imposes no fines or other penalties? The court of appeals decision may not be the last word on these issues:  Wyoming’s application for leave to the supreme court is currently pending.

For more discussion on the implications of the MMMA, take a look at Chapter 17 of Michigan Municipal Law

 

1 comment
134 views

Permalink

Comments

10-26-2012 14:15

A significant amount of my practice focuses on employment law counseling and litigation. In regard to addressing employee matters involving medical marijuana users, one perspective is to incorporate a similar prohibition into employment policies as used by Wyoming's ordinance (restrictions against substances that violate federal law).
I appreciate the distinctions between municipal and private sector matters and that the Sixth Circuit recently ended the debate on employee medical marijuana use (Walmart case), but the Ter Beek opinion is interesting with respect to the extent it went to carve out a reason why there was not a per se conflict between Michigan law allowing for medical marijuana use and federal law prohibiting it under any circumstances. While doubtful, there is a chance this distinction will be eliminated because the issue of marijuana classification was being heard by the federal court of appeals. http://www.michiganemploymentlawadvisor.com/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada/changing-the-classification-of-medical-marijuana-what-it-could-mean-for-employers-and-employees/