On May 1, 2012, a new house bill intended to clear the murky waters surrounding the State's Medical Marihuana Act was introduced by Representatives Callton, Daley and Cavanagh.  Unlike many bills introduced in the last year and a half, HB 5580 allows for protected acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, delivery, transfer, transportation and sale of medical marihuana in the State.  The new bill allows for distribution and cultivation sites called "Medical Marihuana Provisioning Centers" ("MMP Centers") to be located at municipalities allowing such businesses.  State criminal law immunities are provided for these centers and their employees as long as their conduct is within the limits of the bill and allowed by the municipalities in which they occur.  Included in the list of protected activities are sales of medical marihuana by the qualified patients and registered caregivers to the MMP Centers and vice versa and transportation of medical marihuana to qualified patients' homes or MMP Centers.  A primary concern of most local governments with respect to physical locations of medical marihuana growth and distribution centers is also addressed in the bill.  It would prohibit their existence within 1,000 feet from any preexisting school and ban the sharing of a building with a physician.

The Act also introduces "Safety Compliance Facilities" for testing medical marihuana for contaminants or potency.  The employees and owners of these facilities are also granted immunities.  Local municipalities are given the right to regulate and license both the MMP Centers and Safety Compliance Facilities. Access to cultivation and growth sites are limited to business employees and in limited instances, others including employees of a municipality required to inspect the activities.  In case of transportation and transfer of medical marihuana, such activities are granted immunity only through those localities where they are allowed.  Non-resident medical marihuana card holders from other states, the definition of usable marihuana and record keeping requirements in relation to confidentiality concerns are also addressed in the proposed bill.

The language of HB 5580 addresses many of the hurdles the Michigan medical marihuana community, law enforcement and the judiciary have tried to navigate since the passage of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.  Although acceptance as proposed is highly doubtful within the current mosaic of State legislation, the Bill would provide for some balance between the medical marihuana community and the State and local government.

A full text of the proposed bill can be found here.

The Kent County Drain Commissioner sought to make improvements to the Waters Drain and to apportion the cost of such improvements to property owners located in the Waters Drain Special Assessment District pursuant to the Michigan Drain Code. Plaintiffs owned land within the special assessment district. As permitted by Section 155 of the Drain Code (MCL 280.155), plaintiffs appealed the apportionment to the probate court. The probate court appointed a three-member board of review. The Hubbard Law Firm represented the Drain Commissioner, and argued before the board of review that the Drain Commissioner's apportionment should be upheld. After hearing, the board of review rejected plaintiffs' challenge and upheld the Drain Commissioner's apportionment. The probate court ordered plaintiffs to pay $6,659.97 for the Drain Commissioner's attorney fees.

This case concerned a provision of the Drain Code that contains broad language giving the probate court discretion to determine the "whole costs and expenses" of the appellate proceeding.

Plaintiffs appealed the ruling, arguing that the "whole costs and expenses" language of Section 158 of the Drain Code MCL 280.158 does not encompass attorney fees. While the statute does not explicitly reference attorney fees, it does provide that an "appellant shall pay the whole costs and expenses of such appeal." The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, accepted The Hubbard Law Firm's argument, and held that the use of the expansive term "whole" in MCL 280.158 reveals the Legislature's intent that a landowner appealing an apportionment must pay the entire or total amount of costs and expenses of the appeal. The Drain Commissioner's legal expenses in defending such an appeal would constitute a portion of the entire or total expenses of an appeal. In light of the Legislature's use of the broad term "whole" to modify the phrase "costs and expenses," the Court of Appeals concluded that the phrase "whole costs and expenses" of MCL 280.158 encompasses attorney fees.

View the Opinion.

For more information about this Opinion, or the Michigan Drain Code in general, contact Attorneys Mark Koerner ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ),Andria Ditschman ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) or Michael Woodworth ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).

On March 1, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee and lawmakers heard comments from key groups on the state of the Medical Marijuana Act, but particularly on the four bills that are in front of the Committee.  The Key groups included associations of patients, compassion clubs, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Michigan State Medical Society and Michigan State Police.  The roster was assembled Wednesday, February 29, 2012, by the office of state Senator John Walsh, R-Livonia, chairman of the committee.

The four bills (HB 4834, 4851, 4853 and 4856) are being considered simultaneously, as a package, and collectively contain nine different proposed changes to Michigan law. The bills would amend various acts related to medical marihuana to:

• require a patient registry identification card to contain a photo ID;
• require registry identification cards to be valid for two years;
• require LARA to privatize portions of the application process for a registry ID card;
• revise confidentiality provisions to apply to private vendors;
• define "bona fide physician-patient relationship" to include an in-person, physical examination of the patient, and revise other definitions, such as "enclosed, locked facility" and "written certification";
• place the penalty for selling marihuana in violation of registry identification card restrictions within the sentencing guidelines; and,
• regulate the transportation of medical marihuana in a motor vehicle and prescribe penalties for a violation.

The focus of the second hearing scheduled for March 8 will be on the individuals who want to address the legislative body.  Thursday's hearing is in Lansing, 10 a.m.-noon in Room 519 of the House Office Building (124 N. Capitol Ave.) Individuals interested in attending can call the office of state Rep. John Walsh -- 517-373-3920; or send an e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act is a citizen initiated law which was approved by 63% of the voters in 2008.  Now in 2012, after a year of frustrations, supporters are gearing up to hit the streets (and now the internet) to gather enough signatures to bring a new citizen initiated law proposal to the people.  Recently approved language of the constitutional amendment aims to end the marihuana prohibition as we know it.  The proponents of the initiative have to gather over 322,000 qualifying signatures before July to put the proposal on the ballot in the general elections this November.  To be approved, it has to get more votes in support of the amendment than those against it.

The proposed amendment reads:

"For persons who are at least 21 years of age who are not incarcerated, marihuana acquisition, cultivation, manufacture, sale, delivery, transfer, transportation, possession, ingestion, presence in or on the body, religious, medical, industrial, agricultural, commercial or personal use, or possession or use of paraphernalia shall not be prohibited, abridged or penalized in any manner, nor subject to civil forfeiture; provided that no person shall be permitted to operate an aircraft, motor vehicle, motorboat, ORV, snowmobile, train, or other heavy or dangerous equipment or machinery while impaired by marihuana."

With over 129,000 registered medical marihuana users in the state, the required number of petitions may not be a difficult goal for the proponents of the bill to attain.  However, whether or not the voters will have the same acceptance for free recreational use compared to the 2008 support for limited medical use will remain to be answered on November 6, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments on two of the most cited cases in Michigan's young, but busy, medical marihuana history.

In People v Kolanek, the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not a defendant can assert a Section 8 affirmative defense without first obtaining a valid registry identification card, and the timing of a qualifying physician certification with relation to the arrest.  (Section 8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act provides an affirmative defense for patients who, although they do not have a registry identification card, meet certain criteria for the medical use of marihuana.)

The Supreme Court will also hear the infamous "dog kennel" case: People v King.  In People v King, the Court will determine the definition for the term "enclosed, locked facility" as well as the interplay between different sections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

On December 22, 2011, Governor Snyder signed House Bill 4770.  The bill prevents a public employer from offering medical or other fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals who reside with public employees.  Higher education institutions are exempted from the provisions due to their constitutional autonomy.  The new ban would affect mostly local governments and public schools in Michigan, and apply to health insurance and other fringe benefits for unmarried partners of public employees, whether they're of the opposite or the same sex.  The law is effective immediately, but does not affect union-represented workers until their current collective bargaining agreements expire, or are amended or renewed.

House Bill 4771, on the other hand, got vetoed.  HB 4771 was proposing to add the "fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals" to the list of prohibited subjects of collective bargaining  under Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), instead of banning the benefits altogether.  In vetoing the Bill Governor Snyder reasoned that the bill directly conflicted with Public Act 260 of 2011, signed on December 14, 2011 which amended the PERA giving public employers discretion in deciding whether or not to renegotiate an existing, applicable bargaining agreement upon consolidation of public employers or public services through a merger or interlocal agreement among other changes.

The recent data from the Civil Service Commission puts the number of current employees benefiting from what is widely known as "domestic partners benefits" to 138 and the cost for 2011-2012 to $893,000.  The legislation claims to have passed this law for its potential savings of $8 million.  ACLU of Michigan has vowed to take the law to the courts for violation of equal protection rights.

On December 6, 2011, Senate Bill 8, a bill that would create the "Municipal Partnership Act" was submitted to Governor Snyder for signature.   This act is tie-barred to Senate Bill 9 and 10 and would allow two or more local governments or one or more local governments and a public agency to enter into a contract with each other to form a joint endeavor to perform or exercise any function, service, power, or privilege that the local government or public agency could exercise separately.

The new joint endeavor could use tax revenue that was previously dedicated to pay for the exercise or performance of any function, service, power, or privilege by that local government or public agency individually, to fund the exercise or performance of that function, service, power, or privilege by the joint endeavor.  Moreover, the joint endeavor could levy a tax up to five mills on all taxable property in the areas it served for the purposes of providing revenue to the joint endeavor, but only if approved by a majority of electors served by the endeavor.

The Municipal Partnership Act also makes various topics prohibited subjects of bargaining between a local government or public agency and the bargaining representative of its employees.  Specifically, the following would be prohibited subjects of bargaining under the Act:

• Whether the local government would enter into a contract for a joint endeavor under the proposed Act for or in connection with one or more functions or services;
• The procedures for obtaining the contract for a joint endeavor;
• The identities of the other parties to the contract;
• The contents or language of the contract; and
• The impact of the contract on individual employees or the bargaining unit.

To learn more about the Municipal Partnership Act please contact Andria Ditschman at (517) 886-7139 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Mark Koerner at (517) 886-7109 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pursuant to Michigan's Environmental Indicators Act of 1999, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) worked with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to produce a new report on the quality of Michigan's environment. Entitled "State of Michigan's Environment 2011," the report is divided into three sections: Environmental Measures, Programmatic Measures, and Emerging Contaminants of Concern in Michigan. The Environmental Measures section presents the ecological, physical, and chemical measures used by the State to track environmental quality. The Programmatic Measures section covers those measures used by the State to fulfill state and federal environmental program requirements. The final Emerging Contaminants section examines recognized contaminants with potential for environmental and public health impacts.

Click here for the full report.