PLAN PROTECTS PATIENTS

This month, the Traverse City Commission will have the opportunity to
enact a new set of zoning guidelines in response to the passing of
the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act in 2008. This new state-level law
allows qualifying patients to cultivate up to 12 plants or designate
a caregiver to possess them for up to five patients.

Not surprisingly, this compassionate act passed by 63 percent of the
vote. A year and a half after implementation, municipalities are
trying to figure out how to zone land-use impacts in relation to the Act.

Traverse City set up a citizen committee in order to inform the city
about possible guidelines and is to be commended for this. As a
committee member, I had only two principles that I brought to the
table: 1) protect the confidentiality of patients and their
caregivers; and 2) limit the potential liability to the city of
Traverse City by avoiding the types of regulations that have resulted
in numerous lawsuits in cities such as Grand Rapids and Saginaw.

These are not mutually exclusive principles, and the committee was
almost unanimous in its understanding of how we could best accomplish
these goals. Adrienne Rossi represented the minority position on the
committee, and her July 27 forum is a fair representation of her
positions. While I commend her community involvement, the committee
members and the city attorney have rejected the viability of arguing
her positions on this issue in court each time they have been presented.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protects the
right to confidentiality of patients and their caregivers under the
Marihuana Act through the Michigan Department of Community Health. If
the city decides to regulate medical access, the opportunity for
liability increases with every bit of information collected.

Even the state of Michigan, which is bringing in large amounts of
money through application fees, has steadfastly refused to entertain
the idea of conducting any type of inspections. Also, regulating this
state-licensed activity as a home occupation with extra licensing
fees or inspections would make it increasingly likely that the city
would be liable for prohibitively restricting an act allowable under
state law.

All these ideas were soundly rejected time and again in the committee
and at the public hearing by committee members and the city attorney
as currently indefensible in court.

That said, Traverse City is being looked to for leadership in this
region. The types of regulations we impose will set a precedent for
the area. I am not suggesting that this zoning proposal is perfect,
but I will stand on principle and say that the proposed zoning: 1)
protects the confidentiality of patients and their caregivers; and 2)
limits the potential for liability to the city of Traverse City.

We are talking about a vulnerable population that the voters of
Michigan overwhelmingly chose to protect. It is important that we
adopt zoning regulations in Traverse City that represent this. This
zoning proposal goes a long way toward doing just that.