Pubdate: Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Source: Tri-County Times (Fenton, MI)
Copyright: 2014sTri-County Times
Contact: http://www.tctimes.com/forms/letters/
Website: http://www.tctimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5188
Author: Mark McCabe, Judge
Part-1: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v14/n181/a10.html
Cited: http://mapinc.org/url/D1nxj3jq
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?275 (Cannabis - Michigan)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)

THE LATEST WORD ON THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT - PART 2

In the Ter Beek case, the Circuit Court held that the MMMA was
preempted by the CSA and accordingly the ordinance, which prohibited
any uses in a zoning district contrary to federal, state or local law
was valid.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court and found
that the CSA did not preempt the MMMA and it was possible to comply
with both statutes simultaneously as the limited immunity under the
state statute did not stand as an obstacle to the CSA's regulation or
enforcement of marijuana use.

The Appeals Court also found that the ordinance by its terms was
preempted by the MMMA and was therefore invalid The Michigan Supreme
Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment in a unanimous opinion.

The Supreme Court found that when comparing the provisions of the CSA
with the MMMA, the CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution or
possession of marijuana and these activities are punishable as a
federal offense.

The Court concluded that granting Mr. Ter Beek his requested relief
from the ordinance's prohibitions did not limit his potential exposure
to federal enforcement of the CSA against him. Under the MMMA he has
immunity for MMMA -- compliant conduct under the state statute only.

As to the issue of the MMMA preempting the ordinance, the Court
reasoned in part that since the ordinance permits registered
qualifying patients such as Ter Beek to be penalized by the city for
engaging in MMMA -- compliant medical use, the MMMA preempted the
ordinance and therefore the ordinance was invalid.

In an ending footnote, the Court stated it was not finding that this
outcome prohibited local regulation of marijuana cultivation and
distribution and it was not holding that the MMMA foreclosed all local
regulation of marijuana.

Additionally the case did not require it to decide whether and to what
extent the MMMA might occupy the field of medical marijuana regulation.

This decision answered a number of very important questions on the
MMMA and is available online.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt