Beek v Wyoming - Rights of Michigan Medical Marihuana Act [MMMA] - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a city could not completely ban the use and cultivation of Medical Marijuana. See Beek v City of Wyoming. The individual challenging a city ordinance argued that the ordinance was in conflict with State law, which makes the ordinance unconstitutional. The City, on the other hand, argued that it was following Federal law, or more precisely the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), and thus the Federal law preempted State law, which would allow its ordinance to be enforceable.

The court had to determine this issue through statutory interpretation, which meant looking to the intent of the laws called into question, including the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the City of Wyoming ordinance, and the CSA. The court explained that the ordinance provided for civil sanctions, yet the MMMA immunity forbids any penalty when acting within the scope and confines of the Act’s provisions.

Moreover, the federal law does not preempt (or overrule) the MMMA because States are allowed maintain specific police powers while the Federal Government enforces its own enactments. The Feds cannot require or mandate States to enforce federal statutes or enactments. Further, even though the Feds are allowed to pass laws criminalizing medical marihuana, it cannot require a State to do the same.

Therefore, the MMMA can be used by anyone within the state, in any county, so long as the individual qualifies for the act and follow it requirements. A city does not have the right to enforce an outright ban on Medical Marihuana.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE.

Controlled Substance Conviction Consequences - Part 2 - Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones - ALL Felonies & Misdemeanors

Part II – Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits

When it comes to controlled substance (or drug) charges here in the State of Michigan, the legislature has drafted a strict set of consequences to inflict onto those convicted of the various types of crimes. Not only are there fines, possible jail time, possible drivers’ license sanctions, and other requirements when convicted of a drug crime, but there are also possible consequences that involve an individual’s housing or public benefits.

The following areas involve possible consequences, and each provides a brief outline of those consequences.

1.    Housing

a.     Private landlords

Private landlords may evict an individual for criminal activity related to the tenancy, which is common in drug cases. Furthermore, private landlords may also deny housing because of a criminal record. A lease or agreement between two individuals is a contract, and thus the terms in that contract are binding, which usually involves provisions about drug activity, use or the like.

b.     Conventional public housing and section 8 subsidies:

   

   Admission to programs: Relevant Authority: 24 CFR Subpart B - Admission

There is a mandatory denial of housing for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. There is a presumption for denial is an individual has been convicted of a drug crime, which includes a family member engaging in illegal drug use. Moreover, there is a discretionary denial for any drug-related criminal activity, and thus an applicant may be required to exclude a family member who has participated in or has been culpable for criminal, alcohol, or drug-related activity.

Termination or eviction: Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1437d; 24 CFR 966.4

Mandatory termination is required for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. However, there is discretionary termination for individuals engaged in illegal drug use. Discretionary termination is present when a tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or a guest engages in any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises or if any other person under the tenant’s control engages in any drug-related activity on the premises. Public Housing Authorities have the authority to evict individuals for drug-related criminal activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control the behavior of other occupants or guests.

2.     Public benefits: Relevant Authority: 21 USC 862a BEM 203

Permanent revocation for an individual convicted of a drug-related felony, and thus he or she cannot receive federal cash assistance or food stamps during his or her lifetime. States are allowed to opt into or out-of that provision. In Michigan, individuals with one prior felony drug conviction will remain eligible for benefits; however, those with more than one felony drug conviction, which occurred after 1996, are not. However certain benefits will be excluded from the ban, which include, but are not limited to, emergency medical services, certain public health benefits, drug treatment programs, Medicaid, Social Security disability, and supplemental Social Security income. If considering moving to another state and having prior felony drug convictions research is advised because other states do enforce the ban described above.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.