It's time to clear the haze and define medical marijuana law
(This editorial has been revised to remove an incorrect statement that the Ann Arbor City Council will consider a proposed medical marijuana ordinance this week. The issue is not on this week's council agenda.)
The nation’s most outspoken advocate for medical marijuana has advice for anyone who wants to open a dispensary in Michigan: You better think twice.
“Running a dispensary in Michigan, under current law, is very risky, and I would advise against it," Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, told the Detroit Free Press in a recent interview.
That is how murky the legal situation is in Michigan, where residents strongly favor the concept of medical marijuana, but public officials are struggling with even the most basic questions about how to apply the new state law that allows it.
Ann Arbor, where public sentiment in favor of medical marijuana is particularly strong and where an estimated eight or nine dispensaries already are operating, is among the communities trying to find its way through the legal haze.
Whatever Ann Arbor officials do, they should be guided by an understanding that the community wants people who are eligible for medical marijuana to receive it, and the purpose of local regulations should be to facilitate that intent, and not to thwart it.
In 2004, a proposal to amend the Ann Arbor City Charter to allow the growth and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes when authorized by a physician passed locally with 75 percent of the vote. Four years later, Michigan voters approved a referendum that legalized medical marijuana statewide. That state law went into effect last year.
In the coming weeks, the Ann Arbor City Council will take a first pass at regulating medical marijuana when it considers final approval of a proposed ordinance that would govern the location of dispensaries or medical-marijuana growing operations in the city.
The carefully crafted ordinance was approved unanimously by the city Planning Commission earlier this month after a process that included input from medical marijuana users and the “care givers’’ who provide it. Those discussions led to some seemingly unnecessary restrictions being pruned from the measure.
Among other things, the proposed ordinance defines dispensaries and limits them to downtown, commercial, and manufacturing/industrial districts, as well as in some planned united development districts. It wouldn’t allow drive-through dispensaries, and no one under 18 could enter a dispensary without an adult or guardian.
We think the Planning Commission made a good faith effort in the midst of significant legal uncertainty to create a sensible ordinance. We encourage the City Council to approve it. But make no mistake: This is a first step only.
The city still faces important questions ahead. How will such facilities be licensed? Will they be inspected? Should there be purity standards for the product they grow or sell, as is the case in some other states? Should the city require that the medical marijuana be locally grown, as opposed to imported from other states?
As the city grapples with these and other questions, it should be careful how far it ventures by itself into uncharted legal territory. The same can be said of those who would operate dispensaries.
The state law, for all its good intentions, was a citizen-drafted referendum that was vague or silent on many important issues. It does not, for instance, address dispensaries at all. As state Appeals Court Judge Peter O’Connell recently wrote in a recent opinion: “Pressure and confusion result from trying to operate under a system where no one has stepped forward and stated specifically what actions are legal and what actions are not.’’
The uncertainty is only magnified by the reality that medical marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, though the current administration is taking a lenient stance toward states that have legalized it.
In Michigan, the best solution would be for the state to take a more active role in defining legal issues that could then be applied consistently statewide, as in California and Maine, where all dispensaries are required to be non-profit organizations.
Some cities are simply refusing to allow dispensaries until the legal situation becomes clearer. That’s not a viable option for Ann Arbor, where the support for medical marijuana is too strong to forestall. The public is going to insist that the city move ahead on this issue, and be a leader in setting standards for how and where medical marijuana is distributed.
Absent clarity in Michigan, we will have to look elsewhere for best practices. It would also make sense for cities and city attorneys across Michigan to be in contact with each other to share information and ideas on the issue. To some extent, that’s already happening.
In the meantime, we’d like to see the Ann Arbor City Council approve the ordinance that at least begins to define how dispensaries and growing operations will operate locally, and put the same amount of thought and effort into the regulations that necessarily will have to follow.
Comments
Michigan Reader
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.
@Rick Steeb--Corruption and violence will just move on to other areas of life, they won't decrease if pot would be legalized. In other words, corruption and violence don't really have their roots in prohibition.
Rick
Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.
This Ann Arbor native congratulates Michigan for implementing medicinal Cannabis. Good luck with the devil in the details! I recently renewed my OCBC Patient ID card for the ninth time here in sunny California, and have one urgent piece of advice for my native state: Just LEGALIZE it. We patients pay the same black market prices as the rest of those who use the kind herb. Prohibition brings nothing but corruption and violence, while enriching all the wrong people. Medical-grade Cannabis ought to be sold to ID-carrying adults wherever cigarettes and beer are sold. --Really. To keep Cannabis illegal while tobacco and alcohol are dispensed freely would be *MURDEROUSLY STUPID*. --Richard P Steeb, San Jose California
420
Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 6:56 a.m.
Uncle Sam holds the patent for the active properties of marijuana(cannabinoids), uspatent6630507 (uspatent6630507.com) which clearly states its medical benefits. This is proof of our gov'ts hypocritical position and should be used in the courts. For those who disagrees with it's medicinal value, read on... Application: filed on 2/02/2001 US Patent Issued on October 7, 2003 Assignee: The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services Quote from abstract, "This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases...". Funny, the "new found property" has been in use for thousands of years... Time to evolve...forward please.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 6:02 a.m.
The Gateway question is interesting - How many crack users started up first with crack or heroine or PCP and did Not Start First with joints? How many Meth addicts started with something a 'bit weaker'? Alcohol may lead to pot - granted. Perhaps tobacco is a gateway too - but as MI has banned all smoking in all public building - is not smoking pot illegal too? Lastly, if pot is such good medicine, (It has some good benefits - no offence to Cancer patients) why has the AMA and others not simply made it medicine - to be sold at Walgreens etc? With a prescription from the medical community (not the fly by night MDs) Cheeto's anyone?
ronn oneal
Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 3:22 a.m.
time to smoke one for the winter cumin in and the summer going out.
Urban Sombrero
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 7:20 p.m.
@johnnya2---well, if you listen to Christine O'Donnell, masturbation IS the route of all evil...
treetowncartel
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 7:17 p.m.
Actually, I think Marijuana is more of buffer drug. Due to the curious nature of adolescents, if they didn't have some hippy bush to experiment with, they would try something else.
johnnya2
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 5:10 p.m.
The idea of a "gateway" drug is just silly. Some people who use marijuana use other harder drugs later on. How many people who use harder drugs use tobacco products? How about caffeine? Aspirin? It is like saying masturbation is a gateway to rape. It is not backed by facts or data, just those who are fear mongers.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 2:09 p.m.
Gateways: Caffeine, then tobacco. But, let's not criticize those drugs. They are somehow 'different'. Not.
dogpaddle
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.
Rulieg, I didn't realize that what defines a gateway drug is legal vs. illegal. I do believe that as a fact, the legal drug of alcohol is THE gateway drug and yes, for some, but not all people, leads to other things and for 1/3 of the nation, problem drinking. Luckily it's not prohibited this time around for those 1/3 of us who exercise moderation with it (or maybe milk really is the gateway drug since that's how most mammals get started, LOL).
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.
Much could change Tuesday, if legalization succeeds in California. If it becomes legal there, it should become legal here.
David Cahill
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 11:05 a.m.
Oop! Sabra and I share a computer, but not a brain. The "milk is a gateway drug" comment is mine, not hers. Too much technology....
sabra caroline briere
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
Studies have shown that every single hard-drug addict started on milk. Milk is the real gateway drug!
Urban Sombrero
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.
Marijuana is NOT a gateway drug! That accusation is just plain ridiculous. If it were, I'd be a heroin junkie on the streets now, considering how much I smoked in college.
rulieg
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.
marijuana is a "gateway" drug BECAUSE it is illegal. if it was legalized, taxed, and distributed like alcohol, it would not be.
dogpaddle
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
To Happy Fun Ball, you're right, while it's still federally illegal, hopefully as more states continue to follow California's lead, we will look back on marijuana prohibition the same way we do alcohol prohibition: that it's a waste of your tax dollars and regulating it will prevent the crime that you mention (keep in mind prohibition led to mob mentality). Perhaps with regulated marijuana and another source of income (tax dollars) going to the cash-strapped state, violent foreign drug cartels and shady street deals will also become history. Do keep in mind that liquor stores still get robbed on occasion. But what I really want to address here is your concern that this is just another way to legalize selling drugs (again, a good way to clean up some crime and to force these 'questionable' businesses to pay taxes: most (I can't speak for everyone) of us have a legitimate health issue (be it cancer, chronic arthritis, hiv, etc.) that you might not see to your naked eye, but symptoms are either alleviated or mitigated by marijuana and not by some synthetic pharmaceutical that some of us don't tolerate well (not knocking pharmaceuticals -thanks to scientific research and knowledge, some manufactured pills are wonder drugs-but also can come with negative side effects). And as for the old tiresome argument that marijuana use leads to other drugs, I can say as an almost senior citizen, that marijuana has never led to other drug use. In fact, I choose not to use alcohol much because it's not healthy for me and I don't tolerate it well. Most people I know who use marijuana either medicinally or in a recreational manner (some people do)have never went on to use other drugs (if you don't count experimenting with that college mushroom tea or what have you 35 years ago). I know the stats - that for the few people who are hard core drug users, yes, they say marijuana was their gateway drug. I'm sure that bank robbers started out taking a candy bar from 7-11.
sabra caroline briere
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:10 a.m.
The proposal to zone certain areas of the City to allow for Marijuana dispensaries ***IS NOT*** on the agenda for Thursday, November 4th's Council meeting. Those concerned about this zoning can contact a member of Council (or all 11) and share their thoughts about the proposed change, but should not expect a vote this week. At this time, I anticipate a final vote in late November or early December.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
1 - Feds consider weed illegal, and if caught with certain amounts - could confiscate retail buildings etc. 2 - Since "MJ" will spread in use - where is the back up data to show no increases in: other illegal drug use, cocaine use, meth use, crime rate increases in the general areas/cities. Are all these users cancer patients who can't keep meds down? Or is this just about selling illegal drugs?
treetowncartel
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.
@ Brad, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Brad
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
So can we now officially drop the phrase "clear the haze" from every single post about medical MJ law? Geez.