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