TOLERANCE FOR MEDICAL POT RULES

Traverse City, like probably most Michigan cities, appears to be
behind the curve in terms of setting local rules and regulations for
the cultivation and use of medical marijuana.

Before the city commission approves proposed new rules, officials
need to do some clear thinking about the possible long-term
repercussions of those rules - or the lack of rules - proposed by a
planning commission committee.

The bedrock problem is that this is brand-new territory as far as
deciding what laws, if any, a municipality needs to control medical
marijuana use or if controls even are appropriate. So far, advocates
have said the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA) protects the right to confidentiality of patients and
their caregivers, and any effort to license or even identify those
people could be considered a violation of the law.

Cities also still are grappling with appropriate zoning for the
various aspects of the Act - patients growing up to 12 plants on
their own, caregivers being allowed to grow as many as 72 plants, and
operating a "collective" where medical marijuana can change hands
among those with medical certification - but, presumably, all without
any official oversight.

Predictably, medical marijuana activists are, frankly, well ahead of
officialdom, even though the law was approved by voters almost two
years ago. Lawsuits already have been filed elsewhere in Michigan
over new rules and regulations.

For cities that want to regulate marijuana use beyond those certified
to use medical marijuana, this is all a slippery slope. If the very
act of trying to ascertain if someone actually is certified can be a
HIPAA violation, how is a municipality supposed to enforce state and
federal laws against possession and use of pot?

Critics can imagine local collectives turning into marijuana trading
posts where people with and without certification come to buy. For
those without certification, what's the worst thing that can happen?
And do we really want to place those running collectives in the role
of policeman?

Wouldn't the very act of trying to verify someone's certification to
see if they qualify be a HIPAA violation? If it's a violation for the
police to ask, wouldn't it be the same for caregivers or those who
run collectives?

And how does this compare with laws that require those who sell
alcohol to check IDs to ensure the patron is 21 or older? Those who
drink alcohol are not protected by HIPAA, of course.

Longtime neighborhood activist Adrienne Rossi, who served on a
citizen planning commission committee to consider zoning rules,
suggested in a Record-Eagle op-ed that in order to protect the
integrity of single-family neighborhoods, the city should treat
cultivation as a home occupation, amend its existing home occupations
ordinance, and monitor and institute regular police surveillance of
identified medical marijuana grow sites. She recommended allowing
cultivation in mixed-use and commercial districts.

Advocate Adam Devaney, however, pointed out in his own Record-Eagle
op-ed that "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."

Devaney, also a member of the citizen committee, said he concentrated
on two goals - to "protect the confidentiality of patients and their
caregivers; and ... limit the potential liability to the City of
Traverse City ..."

The city, however, also must have other concerns, such as how to
enforce state and federal marijuana laws outside the
patient/caregiver situation and how to zone what appear, in the case
of caregivers anyway, to be retail or commercial activities.

A major reason for concern is the growing disconnect between the
number of potential patients - people udergoing chemotherapy or
suffering from a limited list of ailments - and the ever-expanding
number of people who apparently want to get into the
caregiver/collective business.

Ads are popping up all over for certification programs and there are
already plans afoot to create collectives here.

The act, overwhelmingly approved by voters two years ago, simply
doesn't address that issue.

At its core, this is a good law. People deserve access to effective
treatment for a disease they didn't ask for. Applying the law,
however, is proving to be a more difficult decision.