OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP

— Michigan's medical marijuana law remains a "hornet's nest" for municipalities trying to craft local regulations, an expert told local officials Wednesday.

Supervisors from 11 area townships and representatives of several law enforcement agencies gathered at Oshtemo Township Hall for a presentation on the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act by Kenneth Stecker, of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

Stecker, described by Kalamazoo County Sheriff Richard Fuller as the "state's expert" on the act, said he has given his presentation at least 150 to 200 times to municipal groups, medical marijuana advocates and others since Michigan voters authorized the medical use of marijuana in 2008.

"The best way to describe this law is that it's a hornet's nest," Stecker told the Oshtemo Township group, which included about 40 members of the public, Wednesday. "There's a lot of land mines in this law that need to be deciphered and understood."

Many area municipalities have struggled developing regulations. Several, including Kalamazoo, Oshtemo and Texas townships, have put in place moratoriums on medical marijuana activity while they work on ordinances.

Stecker said issues at the forefront currently include how to regulate dispensaries, patient-to-patient transfers, employment policies and patient-physician relationships.

Michigan's act does not allow a third-party collective or cooperative to transfer marijuana from a caregiver to a patient, he said, and a caregiver may only assist the up to five registered patients who have specified that person as their caregiver.

Also, a representative from the state Department of Community Health, which is responsible for the implementation of the act, has said that since Michigan has not established regulatory systems, it does not allow cooperatives.

The Isabella County court decision currently under appeal found that patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries are allowed, while Oakland, Alpena and Kent county courts have all ruled that patient-to-patient transfers are illegal, according to Stecker's presentation.

Yet another issue is whether employers can discipline or terminate employees for medical use of marijuana. Stecker said nothing in the act can require an employer to accommodate the use of marijuana in the workplace or employees working while under the influence. The U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids has ruled that the law protects users from arrest, but not from any employer policies that ban use of the drug, he said.

Stecker said one of the most important things that needs to be addressed is the bona fide physician/patient relationship, since the act does not require that recommending physicians have any history of a counseling relationship with the patient.

Other concerns relating to the Medical Marijuana Act include such things as use by jail inmates or patients on probation or parole, and use in day-care facilities, adult foster care homes, nursing homes, federally subsidized housing, colleges and universities, school zones and workplaces.

Stecker said there are five approaches municipalities can take: wait and see what happens in the Legislature and courts; enact a moratorium; acknowledge the state law in the zoning ordinance; prohibit medical marijuana businesses; or regulate them.

Some municipalities that have prohibited or regulated medical marijuana operations have faced challenges in the courts. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has sued the cities of Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills for allegedly violating patient rights and has also joined a lawsuit against the city of Wyoming.

Stecker said there has been some interest by state legislators in amending and clarifying the act. He noted, however, that amending it would require approval by three-fourths of the membership in both the state House and Senate.

For municipalities taking the wait-and-see approach, legislative change may be a long time coming, according to Stecker. In the meantime, court cases and appeals could determine answers to many of the questions.