The case discussed in this note involves marijuana dispensaries.  They're out there folks; maybe not like Santa Monica Blvd, but they're out there.  Take a look at this Directory of Dispensaries.

The Michigan Supreme Court outlawed medical marijuana distribution schemes pot farmers have been using since 2008 to achieve some basic economy of scale and, imagine this, make money from the effort. The Act provides immunities and defenses for legitimate “patients” and “caregivers”, but pecuniary schemes like the one at issue in this casenote are clearly not protected by the MMMA.

Compassionate Apothecary, a medical marijuana dispensary, or “provisioning center”, was the business model that underwent recent scrutiny by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen. The Court’s decision spells the end of these easy distribution schemes.

The Compassionate Apothecary (CA) was a “pot club”, if you will. Except for their revenue generation, this club was run about as close to the requirements of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as possible. Our High Court, however, determined that the scheme did not comply with the Act, largely on pecuniary grounds.

Brandon McQueen was both a registered patient and the primary care giver to three patients. His business partner, Matthew Taylor, cared for two registered qualifying patients. Together, they ran CA, a membership organization with a physical location consisting of lockers for pot storage and transfer. To be a member, you have to verify your status as a “card-carrying” patient or provider.

The High Court’s syllabus best describes how the collective operated:

To be a member of CA, an individual had to be either a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver. Caregivers could only be members of CA if a qualifying patient with whom he or she was connected through the state’s registration process was also a member. Patients and caregivers who were members of CA could rent lockers from CA. Patients would rent lockers from CA when they had grown more marijuana than they needed to treat their own debilitating medical conditions and wanted to make the excess available to other patients. Caregivers would rent lockers when their patients did not need all the marijuana that they had grown. Patients and caregivers desiring to purchase marijuana from another member’s locker could view the available marijuana strains in CA’s display room. After the patient or caregiver had made a selection, a CA employee would retrieve the marijuana from the appropriate locker, weigh and package the marijuana, and record the purchase. The price of the marijuana would be set by the member who rented the locker, but CA kept a service fee for each transaction.

CA’s recorded pricing and service fees placed them out of compliance with the Act. Thus, it was a no-brainer for the High Court to affirm the intermediate appellate court and outlaw dispensaries.

In Ypsilanti, Third Coast Compassion Club takes issue with the decision. Without disclosing whether Third Coast charges different prices for various pot strains, or fees to facilitate transactions, their spokesperson said, “ultimately, we’re a private club, not a public store…” Well, good luck with that…

While the decision no doubt spells hardship for those in the, er, budding industry, Jim Lynch of the Detroit News observes “Panicked Uncertainty”. Hardly; but dedicated legitimate patients must now go underground or grow their own.

Free Press coverage touched on the legislative history of the Act; the Freep spoke with pot lobbyist Tim Beck of Detroit, a retired health insurance executive who was one of the scriveners of the original proposal put on the 2008 ballot. Beck indicated the words “sale” or “dispensary” were far too dangerous to use in the ballot initiative, so they were deliberately kept out of the text of the initiative.

The distribution concept integrated into the MMMA is one of: “grow your own”.  Professional horticulturists were not contemplated by the initiative and are not found within the scope of the Act.

Michigan Attorney General William Schuette, who joined the Isabella County Prosecutor in filing the complaint for a permanent injunction against Compassionate Apothecary as a public nuisance, said the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the MMMA as follows:

 The law does not allow retail sales of medical marijuana.
 Sales or transfers are limited to those between caregivers and their five registered patients.
 Sales or transfers between registered patients are barred.
 Caregivers are not protected when selling or transferring marijuana to unregistered patients.

Among the patients and caregivers that commented to the state’s media yesterday, the theme seemed to be, “where am I gonna get my pot now?” Some medical marijuana patients that spoke with the Oakland Press, the Detroit News and Free Press said they were disappointed in the ruling because it will make marijuana more difficult to obtain.

87th District State Rep Mike Callton (R Nashville) introduced a bill last May which he characterizes as follows:

This isn't about restricting anyone's freedom or access to a substance that is now legal for those with a prescription. This is about making sure patients are safe and the product is safe. Since medical marijuana became legal in Michigan, dispensaries are popping up left and right and we need to make sure these places pass the grandma test.

Well, technically, the Act refers to a physician “certification”, not prescription; like the word “sale”, the word “prescription” does not appear in the MMMA.  So, to fill-in this gap, Rep Callton articulates the “grandma test” on his official website:

If you wouldn't feel safe having your grandma go to one of these places to pick up her medical marijuana, as if she went to a pharmacy, then it needs to be cleaned up or closed down.

Bottom line: the Supreme Court’s decision is a rationale application of the MMMA. Legitimate patients can legally obtain and use marijuana. But, growers beware; and take care not to make a profit, least you find yourself on the wrong side of felony charges.

For now anyway, pot farming is a labor of love…

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

The Oakland County Sheriff's interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the Controlled Substances Act has forced two local marijuana facilities to lock their doors.  One of the pot-growing operations, Big Daddy's Hydro, in Oak Park, closed voluntarily; the other facility, right here in Commerce Township where this blog post is being composed, was the subject of a task-force raid.

The Oakland Press ran a front-page story on Saturday about Big Daddy's Hydro.  The facility was on the receiving end of an Oakland County Sheriff's raid back in January.  Since then, the owners were resolved to carry on their operation; an operation they insisted was legal under the MMA.  Sounds like a movie might be in there somewhere.

Before Hollywood came knocking to negotiate the movie rights to this true crime drama, however, Big Daddy's in Oak Park locked its doors.  The decision was based on the observations of its management group that "patients" were being shook down on the street after leaving the facility.  Also, it did not help that four members of the management group were charged with distribution felonies by the Oakland County Prosecutor.

Big Daddy's is consolidating pot growing and distribution operations into their Chesterfield Township facility in Macomb County, and in Detroit.  Therefore, Big Daddy's alleged violations of the MMA or the Controlled Substances Act are now in the hands of Prosecutors Eric Smith and Kym Worthy.

The more recent raid on the Commerce Township facility presents an example of an increasingly sophisticated approach to medical marijuana enforcement by the Oakland County Prosecutor.  This bust was executed by a joint task force with a federal component; the DEA.  [Remember, marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law.]  Also, the Sheriff has commented publicly that the facility violated the Controlled Substances Act, not the MMA.

Criminal defense attorney Neil Rockind was quoted in the Oakland Press yesterday as saying, "They can try to describe it any way they want.  I know what happened...and if they want to pursue a case then I'll be there."  Yeah, sounds like Neil; never one to shy away from high-stakes criminal defense litigation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals handed prosecutors a serious weapon when it issued its People v McQueen decision last month.  The published, thus binding, decision of the Court of Appeals runs a lance through most MMA distribution schemes; at least if those involved want to make any money from their elaborate growth and distribution operations.

This brings us back to the intent of the medical marijuana referendum that passed overwhelmingly by Michigan voters in the 2008 election.  The MMA is designed to encourage a "grow-your-own" and "trade-among-friends" approach to distribution.

From the outset, those involved in growing pot have been looking to make money from the provisions of the MMA.  Because the Act is silent on pot sales, a legal debate has, er, cropped-up about whether distribution via sale is permitted or proscribed by the Act.

Also, as the Law Blogger has pointed out time and again; the premise of patients getting medical attention from marijuana, although legitimate in a number of cases, is a complete sham in the overwhelming number of patient-care provider relationships.  This scam will likely bring down the MMA in the end.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

This blog has covered the recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Michigan v McQueen which outlawed medical marijuana dispensaries as well as patient-to-patient pot sales.  This appeal is the latest chapter in the pot drama that has gripped our state since the passage of the referendum that legalized medicinal marijuana by a convincing 3/4 popular vote in the 2008 election.

Our readers may recall that the oral arguments in this appeal were the subject of some fanfare when journalist Eric Van Dussen sought to record the arguments, as he did in the People v Anderson medical marijuana case.  Jurisprudence in the making is certainly newsworthy; particularly when it concerns our fledgling yet tortured medical marijuana law.

Now this appeal grinds onward to the Michigan Supreme Court.  So promises Matthew R. Newburg, legal counsel to the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers, appearing as an amicus in the case.

The Court of Appeals granted Van Dussen's request to record the argument on behalf of the media; granted the Attorney General, also an amicus, 10-minutes of appellant's oral argument time; but denied Mr. Newburg's request to get in on the action at oral argument; his 10-minutes [of fame] will have to wait for another case, unless the Supreme Court grants his application for leave to appeal.

The Compassionate Apothecary claims it was simply operating a "club" of about 345 legal pot growers who "traded" various strains of medical marijuana.  In exchange for making a clubhouse available for its pot aficionado membership, Compassionate Apothecary took commissions off the top of all intramural marijuana transactions.

The intermediate appellate court ruled that the act does not authorize such commissions or transactions.  The Isabella County Prosecutor has mailed the appellate opinion to all marijuana dispensaries in the county;  advising them to cease any operations that contravene the appellate court's decision.

Going beyond the bald mechanics of his client's business model, however, Attorney Newburg told Michigan Lawyers Weekly that the MMA expressly provides for transfers from caregivers to patients and also allows patients who "grow-their-own".   The Apothecary's legal counsel also noted that the MMA is silent regarding so-called "patient-to-patient" transfers of the type that apparently went down at the club.

With those arguments in hand, the Compassionate Apothecary now proceeds to the Michigan Supreme Court.  Given the mess that this law has become, the High Court may actually take the bait and grant the Apothecary's application for leave to further appeal so they can sort it all out.

We will follow this one as it develops.  Even if the High Court declines this case, there are others building up behind it that are equally, er, "newsworthy".

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com