Cutting Through the Haze

LEGISLATURE MUST ADDRESS AMBIGUITIES OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

It is time for the state Legislature to produce a medical marijuana
law. No more excuses, please.

The chaos created by the Legislature's inaction is unacceptable,
wasteful and unfair.

Courts, prosecutors, police, local government and, yes, users find
themselves scrambling to accommodate the 2008 voter initiative that
unequivocally authorized the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions.

Both South Lyon and Lyon Township officials have placed a moratorium
on related businesses, waiting for attorneys and state legislators to
weigh in on the issue. Perhaps City Attorney Parvin Lee, speaking at
the most recent South Lyon City Council meeting, summed up the
position taken by many municipalities around the state:

"Let the dust settle," he said.

Upon Lee's advice, the council extended the moratorium on medical
marijuana dispensaries for another six months.

There is no doubt where Oakland County law enforcement officials stand
on the issue. They have raided numerous dispensaries and arrested
those associated with the businesses. Oakland County Prosecutor
Jessica Cooper believes the dispensaries are illegal.

This stance has triggered a number of lawsuits, including in Lyon
Township, where resident Steven J. Greene, a certified medical
marijuana user, is suing the township and Oakland County, because he
feels a local ordinance has no right to keep him from growing and
using marijuana in his home. Greene, who has been HIV-positive for 14
years, said he uses the marijuana to help fight nausea associated with
the disease. Greene moved to Lyon Township in 2009. In May 2010,
police were called out on a report that his home was broken into. When
police arrived, they noticed he had marijuana plants. In July, Lyon
Township passed an ordinance saying Greene's marijuana plants violated
federal law.

Unfortunately the medical marijuana language voters approved in 2008
was vague and ambiguous. The law was largely written by the Marijuana
Policy Project, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that wants to reduce
or eliminate penalties for marijuana use. While the language may have
been ambiguous, the support - some 63 percent of Michigan voters - was
not. Recent polls show the support hasn't wavered.

Since the law passed in 2008, the state Legislature has largely
ignored the ambiguities in the law - perhaps another example of
term-limit-induced dysfunction.

Because the medical marijuana law was approved by a voter initiative,
a comprehensive law will require a three-fourths vote of approval from
the Michigan House and Senate. It can be done, but it will take
political courage by some lawmakers who disapprove of any marijuana
use, and it would go directly against the will of a solid majority of
state residents.

One option for Michigan is to adapt or adopt medical marijuana
legislation passed in other states. Colorado, for example, passed a
constitutional amendment in 2000 allowing patients with medical issues
to treat their conditions with marijuana; two comprehensive laws were
passed and signed in 2010. In the broadest sense, they regulate the
marijuana business and doctors who recommend the drug to patients. The
laws impose meaningful limits on dispensaries: Local governments can
ban them, they can't be within 1,000 feet of a school or church, and
owners must be Colorado residents. There are limits on possession,
rules for issuing identification cards and fees for licenses. The law
even requires payment of sales tax.

Some may not like the law and what it allows. But certainly, they can
understand it. This is what the people of Michigan want and need from
their legislators.