Why a proposed medical marijuana law drew hundreds in protest at Capitol
Wearing small pink sneakers and a smaller pink bow, the youngest medical marijuana patient in Michigan joined hundreds at the Capitol Wednesday protesting changes to state cannabis legislation.
Nine-month-old Anastasia has been a cannabis patient for two-thirds of her life, her grandmother Tanya Kaye told attendees as she held her. Her seizures started less than 24 hours after she was born, at a pace of around 16 to 20 per hour. The family decided to try medical marjiuana as a treatment when she was three months old.
A week later, she was smiling and laughing. Six months later, she was at the rally. Kaye said she’s unable to buy her medicine directly from provisioning centers or processors, so the caregiver system is how the family manages her seizures.
“They cannot profit off of this child, so therefore they’re not interested,” Kaye said.
Kaye was one of two dozen speakers at Wednesday’s rally against proposed changes to Michigan’s medical marijuana laws — together called the Michigan Cannabis Safety Act — which would require caregivers to be licensed as specialty growers or cut their number of patients from five to one. The rally also featured live music, free marijuana seeds, puffs of smoke pouring from the audience and signs reading “Big Pharma doesn’t know me, but my caregiver does” and “the system works fine.”
The rally was organized by Michigan Caregivers United, which says the new legislation jeopardizes the caregiver system. Since Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act passed in 2008, caregivers have operated on a registry, serving a maximum of five patients with an allotment of 12 plants each.
The new bipartisan legislation, introduced Tuesday and potentially taking effect in March 2022, cuts caregiver patients to one each. Those wanting to serve more than one patient would need to get as licensed specialty medical growers, subjecting them to testing requirements reserved for big recreational companies.
The potential dangers of untested marijuana has been a frequent point of criticism for the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association (MCMA), an advocacy group affiliated with large recreational companies such as Skymint and High Life Farms.
The MCMA paid for a mobile billboard near Wednesday’s rally with the tagline “Cancer patients deserve to know what’s in their cannabis,” which was visible on Capitol Avenue throughout the day.
“Michiganders deserve access to safe, tested and tracked cannabis products,” MCMA Executive Director Stephen Linder said in an emailed statement. “The legislation is bipartisan and includes important reforms that make cannabis produced by caregivers subject to the same standards as licensed growers and processors like testing, tracking, licensing and safety for patients and consumers.”
But caregivers say mandated lab testing imposes unreasonable costs on small-scale operations and isn’t that necessary, anyway: Thousands of years of marijuana usage went unimpeded by laboratory testing, said Ryan Bringold, one of the rally’s organizers.
Bringold called the testing push a “boogeyman” meant to confuse the general public by putting forth a positive-sounding change that actually adds costly restrictions to caregivers.
“A caregiver-patient relationship is cultivated over time,” he said in an interview. “We don’t need to test our products through a lab, we know what we’re buying. We’ve put our trust in our caregiver to do that. Those are relationships that go beyond money.”
State Rep. Cynthia Johnson, D-Detroit, told the crowd the legislation was vague at best and an attempt by “corporate kings” to corner the market, which reached $3.2 billion in 2020, by forcing caregivers out of the industry entirely.
“These bills are hiding behind the curtain of ‘safer,’” she said. “‘Safety.’ They’re trying to say the marijuana you’re growing is not safe. Is that true?”
“No,” the crowd responded.
“I don’t think so either,” Johnson said.
Marijuana grown by caregivers is typically less expensive than cannabis sold in stores. Retail prices are high enough to exclude some patients from buying in dispensaries at all.
Licensing and testing fees for current caregivers could further impact pricing. “NO CHANGES TO CAREGIVER LAW,” read one sign at the rally. As one sign at Wednesday’s rally put it: “MY FRIENDS CAN’T AFFORD DISPENSARIES.”
Mike Roby, a 29-year old caregiver who attended the rally, said the new licensing requirements will force some caregivers to break the law and avoid licensing instead of leaving patients without medicine.
Medical cannabis seeds michigan
On June 22, 2020 Michigan’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) updated an advisory bulletin that announced a phase out of its relaxed enforcement of the prohibition against primary caregivers selling medical marijuana to licensed medical marijuana growers and processors.
Prior to March 1, 2020 the MRA had stated that it will not pursue disciplinary action against medical marijuana growers and processors that purchased marijuana products from primary caregivers licensed under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) to help keep up with demand for medical marijuana. Between March 1 and May 31, the MRA began phasing out the amount of purchases from primary caregivers, and on October 1, 2020, the MRA will begin to enforce the stricter standards originally required by statute.
How does this new advisory bulletin affect medical marijuana growers?
Until September 30, 2020, medical marijuana growers will still be able to purchase marijuana flowers from primary caregivers and not face disciplinary action, but they cannot transfer any caregiver produced products to their equivalent recreational-use licensed establishments. They also cannot purchase marijuana concentrates, marijuana vape cartridges, marijuana-infused products, or marijuana plants (other than seeds, seedlings, or tissue cultures) from primary caregivers. A medical marijuana grower is only able to take advantage of this opportunity if it does all of the following:
- documents the receipt of caregiver flower as an external transfer and enters it as inventory in METRC immediately upon receipt;
- only transfers marijuana flower that has been tested in compliance with all laws and administrative rules to other Medical Marihuana Facility Licensing Act (MMFLA) licensed facilities;
- tags or packages all inventory that has been identified in METRC; AND
- only transfers marijuana flower by means of a licensed secure transporter, except where exempted under the MMFLA.
In addition, the weight of marijuana flowers a grower purchases from primary caregivers cannot be greater than the total of the weight of the marijuana flowers that grower harvested between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 (both wet and dry) plus the projected harvest weight (dry) of the marijuana flowers the grower will harvest from its marijuana plants that are in the flowering process on May 31, 2020.
On October 1, 2020 medical marijuana growers will begin facing disciplinary actions for purchasing marijuana flowers from primary caregivers. Under MCL 333.27501(2) of the MMFLA, however, medical marijuana growers will continue to be able to purchase marijuana seeds, seedlings, and tissue cultures from primary caregivers.
How does this new advisory bulletin affect medical marijuana processors?
Until September 30, 2020 medical marijuana processors will be subject to the same requirements for purchases from primary caregivers listed in 1-4 above, and they also can no longer transfer any caregiver produced products to their equivalent recreational-use licensees.
In addition to requirements 1-4 above, however, the marijuana flower obtained from primary caregivers must be processed and not sold or transferred as marijuana flower, and the total weight of marijuana flowers a processor purchases from primary caregivers cannot be more than 50% of the total weight of marijuana flowers that processor purchased from primary caregivers between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020.
On October 1, 2020 medical marijuana processors will begin facing disciplinary actions for purchasing marijuana flowers from primary caregivers.
How does this new advisory bulletin affect primary caregivers?
Primary caregivers are no longer able to sell marijuana concentrates, marijuana vape cartridges, marijuana-infused products, or marijuana plants (other than sales of marijuana seeds, seedlings, or tissue cultures to medical marijuana growers).
Until September 30, 2020 primary caregivers will still be able to sell marijuana flowers to medical marijuana growers and processors, but because these growers and processors face restrictions on the weight of marijuana flowers they are allowed to purchase from primary caregivers during this period, primary caregivers will likely see significantly less demand for their marijuana flowers than previously.
On October 1, 2020 the original statutory requirements for primary caregivers will be enforced. Any licensed facility purchasing marijuana flowers from a primary caregiver will be subject to disciplinary action. Under the original statutory scheme, primary caregivers will only be able to receive compensation for providing marijuana flowers to their registered qualifying patients, and receiving payment for transfers to anyone else will not be protected under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) or the MMMA. Primary caregivers will continue to be able to sell seeds and seedling, however, to licensed medical marijuana growers under MCL 333.26424a(2)(b) of the MMMA and to licensed recreational marijuana growers under MCL 333.27960(1)(a) of the MRTMA.
If you have any more questions regarding this change, or if this upcoming phase out has convinced you to pursue licensing under the MMFLA or MRTMA, the experienced attorneys at Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy in Muskegon are well equipped to help.
Michigan Proposal 1, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2018)
Michigan Proposal 1, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was on the ballot in Michigan as an indirect initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.  The measure was approved.
|A “yes” vote supported legalizing the recreational use and possession of marijuana for persons 21 years of age or older and enacting a tax on marijuana sales.|
|A “no” vote opposed legalizing the recreational use and possession of marijuana for persons 21 years of age or older and enacting a tax on marijuana sales.|
Michigan Proposal 1
Proposal 1 made Michigan the first state in the Midwest to legalize the possession and use of recreational marijuana for adults (age 21 years or older). Individuals were permitted to grow up to 12 marijuana plants in their residences. The measure created an excise sales tax of 10 percent, which was to be levied on marijuana sales at retailers and microbusinesses . Proposal 1 required that revenue from the tax be dedicated to local governments, K-12 education, and road and bridge maintenance. The ballot initiative also legalized the cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp. Municipalities were authorized to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries. 
In Michigan, the possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes was illegal. Voters approved a ballot initiative, also titled Proposal 1, to legalize the medical use of marijuana in 2008.  As of 2018, marijuana had been decriminalized in multiple jurisdictions in Michigan, including Detroit, Flint, and Grand Rapids. 
As of 2018, both medical and recreational marijuana were illegal under federal law. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Presidents Trump (R) and Obama (D) had not prosecuted most individuals and businesses following state and local marijuana laws. On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) rescinded guidelines, known as the Cole Memo, that deprioritized the enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states where marijuana had been legalized. The DOJ issued the Cole Memo in 2013, following the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Sessions’ DOJ authorized U.S. attorneys to decide which marijuana crimes to prosecute and directed them to consider “federal law enforcement priorities, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on [communitites].”   In April 2018, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) said President Trump told him that “the Department of Justice’s rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado’s legal marijuana industry.” Gardner also said, “Furthermore, President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states’ rights issue once and for all.”    New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (D) responded to Gardner’s statement, saying, “The only way to truly protect states that have legalized marijuana is for Congress to act.” 
The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, a political action committee, led the campaign in support of Proposal 1. The PAC raised $3.73 million. The New Approach PAC contributed $1.78 million to the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. 
Healthy and Productive Michigan led the campaign in opposition to Proposal 1. The Committee to Keep Pot Out of Neighborhoods and Schools PAC also registered to oppose the measure. Together, the committees received $2.67 million, with $1.78 million of the total from Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action). 
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Michigan Proposal 1.
Marijuana Users: use and possession of marijuana
Use and possession
Proposal 1 allowed individuals 21 years of age or older to possess, use, transport, or process 2.5 ounces or less of marijuana or 15 grams of marijuana concentrate. Individuals were allowed to grow up to 12 marijuana plants, as long as the plants are not visible from a public place, and store up to 10 ounces of marijuana from the plants in locked containers in their residences for personal use. Individuals were allowed to share or transfer without payment up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana to other persons 21 years of age or older. Being under the influence of marijuana remained illegal while operating motor vehicles, aircrafts, motorboats, off-road recreational vehicles, or snowmobiles. Smoking marijuana remained illegal in all public places. 
Proposal 1 allowed landlords and leaseholders to prohibit smoking marijuana on their properties. The measure also allowed employers to punish employees for violating workplace drug policies and working under the influence. 
Marijuana Regulation: regulation of marijuana production and sales
The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (DLRA) was made responsible for implementing the initiative and controlling the commercial production and distribution of marijuana. The DLRA’s responsibilities included: 
- granting or denying applications for licenses;
- collecting fees for licenses and fines for violations;
- determining license fee amounts (but not in an amount more than necessary to pay for the initiative’s administration and enforcement) and license qualifications;
- determining standards for safe cultivation, processing, and distribution of marijuana;
- deciding testing, packaging, and labeling standards, including a maximum tetrahydrocannabinol level for marijuana-infused products;
- determining security and record-keeping requirements for establishments;
- providing requirements for marijuana-secure transporters;
- developing reasonable restrictions on advertising and marketing of marijuana;
- promoting participation in the marijuana sector by people from communities that had been impacted by marijuana prohibition and to positively impact those communities;
- regulating the cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp;
- holding public meetings each year to hear public complaints and viewpoints; and
- submitting reports to the governor regarding the number of licenses issued, demographic information, and statements on violations, revenues, and expenses.
Proposal 1 prohibited the DLRA from establishing rules that would: 
- limit the number of licenses that can be granted;
- require customers to provide retailers with identifying information other than age or with personal information other than that needed to make a transaction;
- prohibit marijuana establishments from operating at a shared location of a medical marijuana facility;
- prohibit marijuana growers, marijuana processors, or marijuana retailers from operating within a single facility; and
- be deemed unreasonably impracticable.
Local Control: local and municipal regulation of marijuana
Municipalities were authorized to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries. Marijuana establishments were prohibited from being located in an area zoned exclusively for residential use or within at least 1,000 feet of a public or private school unless a local government adopts an ordinance reducing the distance requirement. 
Marijuana Licenses and Establishments: licenses for marijuana establishments
Licenses and establishments
Proposal 1 authorized the regulatory department to license the following types of establishments: 
- Marijuana retailer: a person licensed to obtain marijuana from marijuana establishments and sell marijuana.
- Marijuana safety compliance facility: a person licensed to test marijuana and certify marijuana for potency and the presence of contaminants.
- Marijuana secure transporter: a person licensed to obtain marijuana from marijuana establishments in order to transport it to other marijuana establishments.
- Marijuana processor: a person licensed to obtain marijuana from marijuana establishments, process and package the marijuana, and sell it to marijuana establishments.
- Marijuana microbusiness: a person licensed to cultivate not more than 150 plants, process and package marijuana, and sell marijuana.
- Class A marijuana grower: a person licensed to cultivate no more than 100 marijuana plants and sell the marijuana to marijuana establishments.
- Class B marijuana grower: a person licensed to cultivate no more than 500 marijuana plants and sell the marijuana to marijuana establishments.
- Class C marijuana grower: a person licensed to cultivate no more than 2,000 marijuana plants and sell the marijuana to marijuana establishments.
The regulatory department was made responsible for deciding testing, packaging, and labeling standards for marijuana. 
The initiative required that all state licenses be valid for at least one year. It also prohibited marijuana establishments from selling tobacco products. 
Taxation of Marijuana Sales: taxes levied on marijuana
Proposal 1 levied an excise sales tax of 10 percent, in addition to the existing 6 percent sales tax, on marijuana sales at retailers and microbusinesses. 
Revenue from Marijuana Sales: allocation of revenue from taxes on marijuana
Proposal 1 required the revenue from the 10 percent excise tax to be placed in a Marihuana Regulation Fund. The revenue was to first be used to fund the initiative’s implementation, administration, and enforcement and, for at least two years or until 2022, provide $20 million each year to one or more USDA-approved clinical trials researching the effectiveness of marijuana for treating medical conditions of U.S. armed services veterans and preventing veteran suicide. The initiative dedicated the remaining revenue as follows: 
(a) 15 percent to municipalities with a marijuana retail store or a microbusiness; (b) 15 percent to counties with a marijuana retail store or a microbusiness; (c) 35 percent to the school aid fund to be used for K-12 education; and (d) 35 percent to the state transportation fund for the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges.
Industrial Hemp: cultivation and sale of industrial hemp
Proposal 1 also legalized the cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp. The initiative defined industrial hemp as a plant of the genus Cannabis with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration not exceeding 0.3 percent.  As of 2018, the state allowed universities and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to grow hemp for research purposes. 
Legal Penalties: penalties for violating the initiative’s provisions
Persons not authorized to possess, cultivate, or deliver marijuana in otherwise legal amounts were to be penalized with a civil infraction and a fine not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana. Persons who possess, cultivate, or deliver not more than twice the amount of marijuana were to be penalized with a civil infraction and a fine not more than $500 and forfeiture of the marijuana for a first violation; with a civil infraction and a fine not more than $1,000 and forfeiture for a second violation; and with a misdemeanor and a fine not more than $2,000 and forfeiture for a third violation. Persons who possessed, cultivated, or delivered more than twice the amount of marijuana were to be penalized with a misdemeanor, but were not to be imprisoned unless the violation was “habitual, willful, and for a commercial purpose or the violation involved violence.” 
Persons under the legal age of 21 and who possess otherwise legal amounts of marijuana were to be fined between $100 and $500 and required to complete between four and eight hours of drug education. 
Text of measure
The ballot title was as follows: 
|“||Proposal 18-1. A proposed initiated law to authorize and legalize possession, use and cultivation of marijuana products by individuals who are at least 21 years of age and older, and commercial sales of marijuana through state-licensed retailers. ||”|
The ballot summary was as follows: 
This proposal would:
- Allow individuals 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption.
- Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers.
- Create a state licensing system for marijuana businesses and allow municipalities to ban or restrict them.
- Permit retail sales of marijuana and edibles subject to a 10% tax, dedicated to implementation costs, clinical trials, schools, roads, and municipalities where marijuana businesses are located.
- Change several current violations from crimes to civil infractions.
Should this proposal be adopted?
The full text of the initiative is as follows: 
An initiation of legislation to allow under state law the personal possession and use of marihuana by persons 21 years of age or older; to provide for the lawful cultivation and sale of marihuana and industrial hemp by persons 21 years of age or older; to permit the taxation of revenue derived from commercial marihuana facilities; to permit the promulgation of administrative rules; and to prescribe certain penalties for violations of this act. The people of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act.
Sec. 2. The purpose of this act is to make marihuana legal under state and local law for adults 21 years of age or older, to make industrial hemp legal under state and local law, and to control the commercial production and distribution of marihuana under a system that licenses, regulates, and taxes the businesses involved. The intent is to prevent arrest and penalty for personal possession and cultivation of marihuana by adults 21 years of age or older; remove the commercial production and distribution of marihuana from the illicit market; prevent revenue generated from commerce in marihuana from going to criminal enterprises or gangs; prevent the distribution of marihuana to persons under 21 years of age; prevent the diversion of marihuana to illicit markets; ensure the safety of marihuana and marihuana-infused products; and ensure security of marihuana establishments. To the fullest extent possible, this act shall be interpreted in accordance with the purpose and intent set forth in this section.
Sec. 3. As used in this act:
(a) “Cultivate” means to propagate, breed, grow, harvest, dry, cure, or separate parts of the marihuana plant by manual or mechanical means.
(b) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs.
(c) “Industrial hemp” means a plant of the genus cannabis and any part of that plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry-weight basis, or per volume or weight of marihuana-infused product, or the combined percent of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid in any part of the plant of the genus cannabis regardless of moisture content.
(d) “Licensee” means a person holding a state license.
(e) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis, growing or not; the seeds of the plant; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin, including marihuana concentrate and marihuana-infused products. For purposes of this act, marihuana does not include:
(1) the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted from those stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or any sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination;
(2) industrial hemp; or
(3) any other ingredient combined with marihuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other products.
(f) “Marihuana accessories” means any equipment, product, material, or combination of equipment, products, or materials, which is specifically designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marihuana into the human body.
(g) “Marihuana concentrate” means the resin extracted from any part of the plant of the genus cannabis.
(h) “Marihuana establishment” means a marihuana grower, marihuana safety compliance facility, marihuana processor, marihuana microbusiness, marihuana retailer, marihuana secure transporter, or any other type of marihuana-related business licensed by the department.
(i) “Marihuana grower” means a person licensed to cultivate marihuana and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments.
(j) “Marihuana-infused product” means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible substance, or similar product containing marihuana and other ingredients and that is intended for human consumption.
(k) “Marihuana microbusiness” means a person licensed to cultivate not more than 150 marihuana plants; process and package marihuana; and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to individuals who are 21 years of age or older or to a marihuana safety compliance facility, but not to other marihuana establishments.
(l) “Marihuana processor” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments; process and package marihuana; and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments.
(m) “Marihuana retailer” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments and to sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments and to individuals who are 21 years of age or older.
(n) “Marihuana secure transporter” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments in order to transport marihuana to marihuana establishments.
(o) “Marihuana safety compliance facility” means a person licensed to test marihuana, including certification for potency and the presence of contaminants.
(p) “Municipal license” means a license issued by a municipality pursuant to section 16 of this act that allows a person to operate a marihuana establishment in that municipality.
(q) “Municipality” means a city, village, or township.
(r) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership of any type, trust, or other legal entity.
(s) “Process” or “Processing” means to separate or otherwise prepare parts of the marihuana plant and to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare marihuana concentrate or marihuana-infused products.
(t) “State license” means a license issued by the department that allows a person to operate a marihuana establishment.
(u) “Unreasonably impracticable” means that the measures necessary to comply with the rules or ordinances adopted pursuant to this act subject licensees to unreasonable risk or require such a high investment of money, time, or any other resource or asset that a reasonably prudent businessperson would not operate the marihuana establishment.
Sec. 4. 1. This act does not authorize:
(a) operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana;
(b) transfer of marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under the age of 21;
(c) any person under the age of 21 to possess, consume, purchase or otherwise obtain, cultivate, process, transport, or sell marihuana;
(d) separation of plant resin by butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 degrees Fahrenheit in any public place, motor vehicle, or within the curtilage of any residential structure;
(e) consuming marihuana in a public place or smoking marihuana where prohibited by the person who owns, occupies, or manages the property, except for purposes of this subdivision a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within a municipality that has authorized consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age;
(f) cultivating marihuana plants if the plants are visible from a public place without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids or outside of an enclosed area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the area;
(g) consuming marihuana while operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat, or smoking marihuana within the passenger area of a vehicle upon a public way;
(h) possessing marihuana accessories or possessing or consuming marihuana on the grounds of a public or private school where children attend classes in preschool programs, kindergarten programs, or grades 1 through 12, in a school bus, or on the grounds of any correctional facility; or
(i) Possessing more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana within a person’s place of residence unless the excess marihuana is stored in a container or area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the contents of the container or area.
2. This act does not limit any privileges, rights, immunities, or defenses of a person as provided in the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801, or any other law of this state allowing for or regulating marihuana for medical use.
3. This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer’s property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person’s violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana.
4. This act allows a person to prohibit or otherwise regulate the consumption, cultivation, distribution, processing, sale, or display of marihuana and marihuana accessories on property the person owns, occupies, or manages, except that a lease agreement may not prohibit a tenant from lawfully possessing and consuming marihuana by means other than smoking.
5. All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.
Sec. 5. 1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege:
(a) except as permitted by subdivision (b), possessing, using or consuming, internally possessing, purchasing, transporting, or processing 2.5 ounces or less of marihuana, except that not more than 15 grams of marihuana may be in the form of marihuana concentrate;
(b) within the person’s residence, possessing, storing, and processing not more than 10 ounces of marihuana and any marihuana produced by marihuana plants cultivated on the premises and cultivating not more than 12 marihuana plants for personal use, provided that no more than 12 marihuana plants are possessed, cultivated, or processed on the premises at once;
(c) assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older in any of the acts described in this section; and
(d) giving away or otherwise transferring without remuneration up to 2.5 ounces of marihuana, except that not more than 15 grams of marihuana may be in the form of marihuana concentrate, to a person 21 years of age or older, as long as the transfer is not advertised or promoted to the public.
2. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the use, manufacture, possession, and purchase of marihuana accessories by a person 21 years of age or older and the distribution or sale of marihuana accessories to a person 21 years of age or older is authorized, is not unlawful, is not an offense, is not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, is not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, and is not grounds to deny any other right or privilege.
3. A person shall not be denied custody of or visitation with a minor for conduct that is permitted by this act, unless the person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.
Sec. 6. 1. Except as provided in section 4, a municipality may completely prohibit or limit the number of marihuana establishments within its boundaries. Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be submitted to the electors of the municipality at the next regular election when a petition is signed by qualified electors in the municipality in a number greater than 5% of the votes cast for governor by qualified electors in the municipality at the last gubernatorial election. A petition under this subsection is subject to section 488 of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.488.
2. A municipality may adopt other ordinances that are not unreasonably impracticable and do not conflict with this act or with any rule promulgated pursuant to this act and that:
(a) establish reasonable restrictions on public signs related to marihuana establishments;
(b) regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of marihuana establishments and of the production, manufacture, sale, or display of marihuana accessories;
(c) authorize the sale of marihuana for consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age, or at special events in limited areas and for a limited time; and
(d) designate a violation of the ordinance and provide for a penalty for that violation by a marihuana establishment, provided that such violation is a civil infraction and such penalty is a civil fine of not more than $500.
3. A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring a marihuana establishment with a physical location within the municipality to obtain a municipal license, but may not impose qualifications for licensure that conflict with this act or rules promulgated by the department.
4. A municipality may charge an annual fee of not more than $5,000 to defray application, administrative, and enforcement costs associated with the operation of the marihuana establishment in the municipality.
5. A municipality may not adopt an ordinance that restricts the transportation of marihuana through the municipality or prohibits a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, and a marihuana retailer from operating within a single facility or from operating at a location shared with a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801.
Sec. 7. 1. The department is responsible for implementing this act and has the powers and duties necessary to control the commercial production and distribution of marihuana. The department shall employ personnel and may contract with advisors and consultants as necessary to adequately perform its duties. No person who is pecuniarily interested, directly or indirectly, in any marihuana establishment may be an employee, advisor, or consultant involved in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of this act. An employee, advisor, or consultant of the department may not be personally liable for any action at law for damages sustained by a person because of an action performed or done in the performance of their duties in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of this act. The department of state police shall cooperate and assist the department in conducting background investigations of applicants. Responsibilities of the department include:
(a) promulgating rules pursuant to section 8 of this act that are necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act;
(b) granting or denying each application for licensure and investigating each applicant to determine eligibility for licensure, including conducting a background investigation on each person holding an ownership interest in the applicant;
(c) ensuring compliance with this act and the rules promulgated thereunder by marihuana establishments by performing investigations of compliance and regular inspections of marihuana establishments and by taking appropriate disciplinary action against a licensee, including prescribing civil fines for violations of this act or rules and suspending, restricting, or revoking a state license;
(d) holding at least 4 public meetings each calendar year for the purpose of hearing complaints and receiving the views of the public with respect to administration of this act;
(e) collecting fees for licensure and fines for violations of this act or rules promulgated thereunder, depositing all fees collected in the marihuana regulation fund established by section 14 of this act, and remitting all fines collected to be deposited in the general fund; and
(f) submitting an annual report to the governor covering the previous year, which report shall include the number of state licenses of each class issued, demographic information on licensees, a description of enforcement and disciplinary actions taken against licensees, and a statement of revenues and expenses of the department related to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this act.
Sec. 8. 1. The department shall promulgate rules to implement and administer this act pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to MCL 24.328, including:
(a) procedures for issuing a state license pursuant to section 9 of this act and for renewing, suspending, and revoking a state license;
(b) a schedule of fees in amounts not more than necessary to pay for implementation, administration, and enforcement costs of this act and that relate to the size of each licensee or the volume of business conducted by the licensee;
(c) qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a marihuana establishment, provided that a prior conviction solely for a marihuana-related offense does not disqualify an individual or otherwise affect eligibility for licensure, unless the offense involved distribution of a controlled substance to a minor;
(d) requirements and standards for safe cultivation, processing, and distribution of marihuana by marihuana establishments, including health standards to ensure the safe preparation of marihuana-infused products and prohibitions on pesticides that are not safe for use on marihuana;
(e) testing, packaging, and labeling standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana, including a maximum tetrahydrocannabinol level for marihuana-infused products, a requirement that a representative sample of marihuana be tested by a marihuana safety compliance facility, and a requirement that the amount of marihuana or marihuana concentrate contained within a marihuana-infused product be specified on the product label;
(f) security requirements, including lighting, physical security, and alarm requirements, and requirements for securely transporting marihuana between marihuana establishments, provided that such requirements do not prohibit cultivation of marihuana outdoors or in greenhouses;
(g) record keeping requirements for marihuana establishments and monitoring requirements to track the transfer of marihuana by licensees;
(h) requirements for the operation of marihuana secure transporters to ensure that all marihuana establishments are properly serviced;
(i) reasonable restrictions on advertising, marketing, and display of marihuana and marihuana establishments;
(j) a plan to promote and encourage participation in the marihuana industry by people from communities that have been disproportionately impacted by marihuana prohibition and enforcement and to positively impact those communities; and
(k) penalties for failure to comply with any rule promulgated pursuant to this section or for any violation of this act by a licensee, including civil fines and suspension, revocation, or restriction of a state license.
2. In furtherance of the intent of this act, the department may promulgate rules to:
(a) provide for the issuance of additional types or classes of state licenses to operate marihuana-related businesses, including licenses that authorize only limited cultivation, processing, transportation, delivery, storage, sale, or purchase of marihuana, licenses that authorize the consumption of marihuana within designated areas, licenses that authorize the consumption of marihuana at special events in limited areas and for a limited time, licenses that authorize cultivation for purposes of propagation, and licenses intended to facilitate scientific research or education; or
(b) regulate the cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp.
3. The department may not promulgate a rule that:
(a) establishes a limit on the number of any type of state licenses that may be granted;
(b) requires a customer to provide a marihuana retailer with identifying information other than identification to determine the customer’s age or requires the marihuana retailer to acquire or record personal information about customers other than information typically required in a retail transaction;
(c) prohibits a marihuana establishment from operating at a shared location of a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801, or prohibits a marihuana grower, marihuana processor, or marihuana retailer from operating within a single facility; or
(d) is unreasonably impracticable.
Sec. 9. 1. Each application for a state license must be submitted to the department. Upon receipt of a complete application and application fee, the department shall forward a copy of the application to the municipality in which the marihuana establishment is to be located, determine whether the applicant and the premises qualify for the state license and comply with this act, and issue the appropriate state license or send the applicant a notice of rejection setting forth specific reasons why the department did not approve the state license application within 90 days.
2. The department shall issue the following state license types: marihuana retailer; marihuana safety compliance facility; marihuana secure transporter; marihuana processor; marihuana microbusiness; class A marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 100 marihuana plants; class B marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 500 marihuana plants; and class C marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 2,000 marihuana plants.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the department shall approve a state license application and issue a state license if:
(a) the applicant has submitted an application in compliance with the rules promulgated by the department, is in compliance with this act and the rules, and has paid the required fee;
(b) the municipality in which the proposed marihuana establishment will be located does not notify the department that the proposed marihuana establishment is not in compliance with an ordinance consistent with section 6 of this act and in effect at the time of application;
(c) the property where the proposed marihuana establishment is to be located is not within an area zoned exclusively for residential use and is not within 1,000 feet of a pre-existing public or private school providing education in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12, unless a municipality adopts an ordinance that reduces this distance requirement;
(d) no person who holds an ownership interest in the marihuana establishment applicant:
(1) will hold an ownership interest in both a marihuana safety compliance facility or in a marihuana secure transporter and in a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, a marihuana retailer, or a marihuana microbusiness;
(2) will hold an ownership interest in both a marihuana microbusiness and in a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, a marihuana retailer, a marihuana safety compliance facility, or a marihuana secure transporter; and
(3) will hold an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or in more than 1 marihuana microbusiness, except that the department may approve a license application from a person who holds an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or more than 1 marihuana microbusiness if, after January 1, 2023, the department promulgates a rule authorizing an individual to hold an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or in more than 1 marihuana microbusiness.
4. If a municipality limits the number of marihuana establishments that may be licensed in the municipality pursuant to section 6 of this act and that limit prevents the department from issuing a state license to all applicants who meet the requirements of subsection 3 of this section, the municipality shall decide among competing applications by a competitive process intended to select applicants who are best suited to operate in compliance with this act within the municipality.
5. All state licenses are effective for 1 year, unless the department issues the state license for a longer term. A state license is renewed upon receipt of a complete renewal application and a renewal fee from any marihuana establishment in good standing.
6. The department shall begin accepting applications for marihuana establishments within 12 months after the effective date of this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, for 24 months after the department begins to receive applications for marihuana establishments, the department may only accept applications for licensure: for a class A marihuana grower or for a marihuana microbusiness, from persons who are residents of Michigan; for a marihuana retailer, marihuana processor, class B marihuana grower, class C marihuana grower, or a marihuana secure transporter, from persons holding a state operating license pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801; and for a marihuana safety compliance facility, from any applicant. One year after the department begins to accept applications pursuant to this section, the department shall begin accepting applications from any applicant if the department determines that additional state licenses are necessary to minimize the illegal market for marihuana in this state, to efficiently meet the demand for marihuana, or to provide for reasonable access to marihuana in rural areas.
7. Information obtained from an applicant related to licensure under this act is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
Sec. 10. 1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act or the rules promulgated thereunder, the following acts are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection except as authorized by this act, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege:
(a) a marihuana grower or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana grower who is 21 years of age or older, cultivating not more than the number of marihuana plants authorized by the state license class; possessing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana; acquiring marihuana seeds or seedlings from a person who is 21 years of age or older; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for goods or services;
(b) a marihuana processor or agent acting on behalf of a marihuana processor who is 21 years of age or older, possessing, processing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for goods or services;
(c) a marihuana secure transporter or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana secure transporter who is 21 years of age or older, possessing or storing marihuana; transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for services;
(d) a marihuana safety compliance facility or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana safety compliance facility who is 21 years of age or older, testing, possessing, repackaging, or storing marihuana; transferring, obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for services;
(e) a marihuana retailer or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana retailer who is 21 years of age or older, possessing, storing, or testing marihuana; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; selling or otherwise transferring marihuana to a person 21 years of age or older; or receiving compensation for goods or services; or
(f) a marihuana microbusiness or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana microbusiness who is 21 years of age or older, cultivating not more than 150 marihuana plants; possessing, processing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana from marihuana plants cultivated on the premises; selling or otherwise transferring marihuana cultivated or processed on the premises to a person 21 years of age or older; or receiving compensation for goods or services.
(g) leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied, or managed for activities allowed under this act;
(h) enrolling or employing a person who engages in marihuana-related activities allowed under this act;
(i) possessing, cultivating, processing, obtaining, transferring, or transporting industrial hemp; or
(j) providing professional services to prospective or licensed marihuana establishments related to activity under this act.
2. A person acting as an agent of a marihuana retailer who sells or otherwise transfers marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under 21 years of age is not subject to arrest, prosecution, forfeiture of property, disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, denial of any right or privilege, or penalty in any manner, if the person reasonably verified that the recipient appeared to be 21 years of age or older by means of governmentissued photographic identification containing a date of birth, and the person complied with any rules promulgated pursuant to this act.
3. It is the public policy of this state that contracts related to the operation of marihuana establishments be enforceable.
Sec. 11. (a) A marihuana establishment may not allow cultivation, processing, sale, or display of marihuana or marihuana accessories to be visible from a public place outside of the marihuana establishment without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids.
(b) A marihuana establishment may not cultivate, process, test, or store marihuana at any location other than a physical address approved by the department and within an enclosed area that is secured in a manner that prevents access by persons not permitted by the marihuana establishment to access the area.
(c) A marihuana establishment shall secure every entrance to the establishment so that access to areas containing marihuana is restricted to employees and other persons permitted by the marihuana establishment to access the area and to agents of the department or state and local law enforcement officers and emergency personnel and shall secure its inventory and equipment during and after operating hours to deter and prevent theft of marihuana and marihuana accessories.
(d) No marihuana establishment may refuse representatives of the department the right during the hours of operation to inspect the licensed premises or to audit the books and records of the marihuana establishment.
(e) No marihuana establishment may allow a person under 21 years of age to volunteer or work for the marihuana establishment.
(f) No marihuana establishment may sell or otherwise transfer marihuana that was not produced, distributed, and taxed in compliance with this act.
(g) A marihuana grower, marihuana retailer, marihuana processor, marihuana microbusiness, or marihuana testing facility or agents acting on their behalf may not transport more than 15 ounces of marihuana or more than 60 grams of marihuana concentrate at one time.
(h) A marihuana secure transporter may not hold title to marihuana.
(i) No marihuana processor may process and no marihuana retailer may sell edible marihuana-infused candy in shapes or packages that are attractive to children or that are easily confused with commercially sold candy that does not contain marihuana.
(j) No marihuana retailer may sell or otherwise transfer marihuana that is not contained in an opaque, resealable, child-resistant package designed to be significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open and not difficult for normal adults to use properly as defined by 16 C.F.R. 1700.20 (1995), unless the marihuana is transferred for consumption on the premises where sold.
(k) No marihuana establishment may sell or otherwise transfer tobacco.
Sec. 12. In computing net income for marihuana establishments, deductions from state taxes are allowed for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying out a trade or business.
Sec. 13. 1. In addition to all other taxes, an excise tax is imposed on each marihuana retailer and on each marihuana microbusiness at the rate of 10% of the sales price for marihuana sold or otherwise transferred to anyone other than a marihuana establishment.
2. Except as otherwise provided by a rule promulgated by the department of treasury, a product subject to the tax imposed by this section may not be bundled in a single transaction with a product or service that is not subject to the tax imposed by this section.
3. The department of treasury shall administer the taxes imposed under this act and may promulgate rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to MCL 24.328 that prescribe a method and manner for payment of the tax to ensure proper tax collection under this act.
Sec. 14. 1. The marihuana regulation fund is created in the state treasury. The department of treasury shall deposit all money collected under section 13 of this act and the department shall deposit all fees collected in the fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund and shall credit the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. The department shall administer the fund for auditing purposes. Money in the fund shall not lapse to the general fund.
2. Funds for the initial activities of the department to implement this act shall be appropriated from the general fund. The department shall repay any amount appropriated under this subsection from proceeds in the fund.
3. The department shall expend money in the fund first for the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this act, and second, until 2022 or for at least two years, to provide $20 million annually to one or more clinical trials that are approved by the United States food and drug administration and sponsored by a non-profit organization or researcher within an academic institution researching the efficacy of marihuana in treating the medical conditions of United States armed services veterans and preventing veteran suicide. Upon appropriation, unexpended balances must be allocated as follows:
(a) 15% to municipalities in which a marihuana retail store or a marihuana microbusiness is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana retail stores and marihuana microbusinesses within the municipality;
(b) 15% to counties in which a marihuana retail store or a marihuana microbusiness is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana retail stores and marihuana microbusinesses within the county;
(c) 35% to the school aid fund to be used for K-12 education; and
(d) 35% to the Michigan transportation fund to be used for the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges.
Sec. 15. A person who commits any of the following acts, and is not otherwise authorized by this act to conduct such activities, may be punished only as provided in this section and is not subject to any other form of punishment or disqualification, unless the person consents to another disposition authorized by law:
1. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(g), or 4(1)(h), a person who possesses not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or possesses with intent to deliver not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marihuana.
2. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in section 4, a person who possesses not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or possesses with intent to deliver not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5:
(a) for a first violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and forfeiture of the marihuana;
(b) for a second violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and forfeiture of the marihuana;
(c) for a third or subsequent violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000 and forfeiture of the marihuana.
3. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described by section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(d), or 4(1)(g), a person under 21 years of age who possesses not more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana or who cultivates not more than 12 marihuana plants:
(a) for a first violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished as follows:
(1) if the person is less than 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $100 or community service, forfeiture of the marihuana, and completion of 4 hours of drug education or counseling; or
(2) if the person is at least 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marihuana.
(b) for a second violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished as follows:
(1) if the person is less than 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $500 or community service, forfeiture of the marihuana, and completion of 8 hours of drug education or counseling; or
(2) if the person is at least 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $500 and forfeiture of the marihuana.
4. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in section 4, a person who possesses more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, shall be responsible for a misdemeanor, but shall not be subject to imprisonment unless the violation was habitual, willful, and for a commercial purpose or the violation involved violence.
Sec. 16. 1. If the department does not timely promulgate rules as required by section 8 of this act or accept or process applications in accordance with section 9 of this act, beginning one year after the effective date of this act, an applicant may submit an application for a marihuana establishment directly to the municipality where the marihuana establishment will be located.
2. If a marihuana establishment submits an application to a municipality under this section, the municipality shall issue a municipal license to the applicant within 90 days after receipt of the application unless the municipality finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with an ordinance or rule adopted pursuant to this act.
3. If a municipality issues a municipal license pursuant to this section:
(a) the municipality shall notify the department that the municipal license has been issued;
(b) the municipal license has the same force and effect as a state license; and
(c) the holder of the municipal license is not subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the municipal license term.
Sec. 17. This act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its intent as stated in section 2 of this act. Nothing in this act purports to supersede any applicable federal law, except where allowed by federal law. All provisions of this act are self-executing. Any section of this act that is found invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 21, and the FRE is 4.5. The word count for the ballot title is 35, and the estimated reading time is 9 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 18. The word count for the ballot summary is 102, and the estimated reading time is 27 seconds.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia’s entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.
The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol led the campaign in support of the initiative.  Former state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53) was political director of the campaign. 
The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol identified the following organizations as members of its initiative drafting committee: 
- National Patients Rights Association
- Marijuana Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan
- Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) 
- National Business League 
Josh Hovey, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said: 
|“||Just like with alcohol, marijuana prohibition has been a huge failure. Instead of wasting law enforcement resources on a substance that is proven to be less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco, our initiative creates a tightly regulated system that will generate significant revenue for the state that will help fund our roads, public schools, and local governments – three of Michigan’s most under-funded needs. ||”|
Healthy and Productive Michigan led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.    Scott Greenlee, former vice chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, organized the campaign. Randy Richardville, former Republican majority leader of the state Senate, was a spokesperson for the campaign. 
- Detroit NAACP 
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce  (SAM Action) 
- Michigan Sheriffs Association 
- Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police 
- Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals 
- Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan 
- Ted Nugent, musician 
The Committee to Keep Pot Out of Neighborhoods and Schools, a political action committee, issued a statement saying the initiative is “ill-advised and not in the public interest” and that:  
|“||We are on the verge of creating a regulated system for the production of medical marijuana which will provide regulation, taxation and rigorous testing so that patients and doctors will know the products are safe. The ballot proposal puts the public at risk and will be vigorously opposed. ||”|
Kevin Sabet, president and founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, stated: 
Michiganders would do well to slow down and learn from other states: The marijuana experiment has led to increased substance abuse, more impaired drivers on our roads, thriving black markets and continued racial disparities.
Big Marijuana has its eyes set firmly on one goal: profits driven by selling highly potent products. Let’s not expand this failed experiment to the Wolverine State. 
See also: Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures
|Total campaign contributions:|
There was one ballot measure committee, the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, registered in support of the measure. The committee raised $3.73 million and expended $3.55 million.  
The top contributor to the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol was the New Approach PAC, which contributed $1.78 million. 
There were two committees, Healthy and Productive Michigan and the Committee to Keep Pot Out of Neighborhoods and Schools, registered in opposition to the initiative. The committees raised $2.67 million and expended $2.67 million.  
The top contributor to the opposition committees was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action), which donated $1.78 million.  
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative: 
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee: 
|New Approach PAC||$683,500.00||$1,097,391.93||$1,780,891.93|
|Marijuana Policy Project||$470,100.00||$84,105.10||$554,205.10|
|Smokers Outlet Management||$200,000.00||$50,000.00||$250,000.00|
|Marijuana Policy Project Foundation||$0.00||$188,807.91||$188,807.91|
|MI Legalize 2018||$0.00||$170,000.00||$170,000.00|
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative: 
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees: 
|Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action)||$1,566,000.00||$215,018.03||$1,781,018.03|
|Michigan Energy First||$250,000.00||$0.00||$250,000.00|
|Business Leaders for Michigan||$50,000.00||$0.00||$50,000.00|
Michigan ballot question committees filed a total of six campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows: 
|1/31/2018||Annual Report for 2017||1/01/2017 – 12/31/2017|
|2/15/2018||Report #1||1/01/2018 – 2/10/2018|
|4/25/2018||Report #2||2/11/2018 – 4/20/2018|
|7/25/2018||Report #3||4/21/2018 – 7/20/2018|
|10/26/2018||Report #4||7/21/2018 – 10/21/2018|
|12/06/2018||Report #5||10/22/2018 – 11/26/2018|
|1/31/2019||Annual Report for 2018||1/01/2018 – 12/31/2018|
To read Ballotpedia’s methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
- Detroit Free Press: “Most of you don’t smoke marijuana, for medical or recreational use. So you may be wondering, as you hear that Michiganders can vote to make recreational marijuana legal in the Nov. 6 election: Why should I vote yes? Here’s the short answer: Michiganders should vote YES this fall on Proposal 1 because:  Prohibiting it outright does not work (about 15% of Michiganders used marijuana in 2015, according to federal data);  Enforcing laws against weed consumes significant law enforcement resources;  The impact of that enforcement effort falls disproportionately on African Americans, who use marijuana at the same rates as whites, but are four to 10 times more likely to be arrested for it; and  Legalizing marijuana and regulating its possession and use can provide needed tax revenue.” 
- Lansing State Journal: “Momentum is building across the country to legalize marijuana, and nearly 300,000 people in our state already carry medical marijuana cards. Ingham County is among about half of the counties in Michigan where some communities allow medical marijuana dispensaries. Michigan is better served to be on the front edge of this wave – capitalizing on opportunities, embracing regulation and pushing for more significant research on its uses.” 
- The Detroit News: “The primary problem with this proposal is that it won’t do what its name implies: regulate marijuana like alcohol. Prop 1 would leave too much of the marijuana production and distribution network underground, making enforcement of regulatory and tax policies difficult. . The state has considerable leeway in regulating alcohol; it would not have the same ability to manage the distribution and sale of marijuana. For that reason, voters should say No to Proposal 1.” 
See also: Ballotpedia’s approach to covering polls See also: 2018 ballot measure polls
|Michigan Proposal 1, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2018)|
|Poll||Support||Oppose||Undecided||Margin of error||Sample size|
10/25/2018 – 10/27/2018
10/18/2018 – 10/23/2018
|The Glengariff Group
9/30/2018 – 10/2/2018
9/21/2018 – 9/25/2018
9/13/2018 – 9/16/2018
9/8/2018 – 9/9/2018
|The Glengariff Group
9/05/2018 – 9/07/2018
7/19/2018 – 7/21/2018
6/24/2018 – 6/26/2018
5/01/2018 – 5/06/2018
2/24/2018 – 2/27/2018
|Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]|
The following are brief summaries of polls that provided info in addition to overall support and opposition:
- The Glengariff Group (commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV) surveyed 600 likely voters between October 25 and October 27, 2018, finding 57.0 percent of respondents in support of Proposal 1, 40.2 percent opposed, and 2.8 percent undecided. About 86 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 supported Proposal 1, whereas 38.5 percent of respondents over the age of 65 supported Proposal 1. Glengariff Group pollster Richard Czuba said, “Voters know where they stand on the issue of legalization. But the one red flag I’d wave here is that if younger voters don’t materialize at the polls, this is going to be a closer proposal than it’s polling at right now.” 
- EPIC-MRA (commissioned by Detroit Free Press, WLNS-TV 6, WOOD-TV 8, and WJRT-TV 12) surveyed 600 likely voters between October 18 and October 23, 2018, finding 57 percent of respondents in support of Proposal 1, 41 percent opposed, and 2 percent undecided. Josh Hovey, spokesman for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, responded to the poll, saying, “the public recognizes that prohibition causes more harm than the product itself and that regulation and taxation is the way we need to go.” Scott Greenlee, director of Healthy and Productive Michigan, also responded, stating, “Polls are always interesting things. We learned that in the 2016 elections, didn’t we? That’s not the feel we have on the ground.” 
- The Glengariff Group (commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV) surveyed 600 likely voters between September 30 and October 2, 2018. Support for Proposal 1 was 62 percent—the highest level of support for Proposal 1 found by a poll in 2018. Opposition was 35 percent. 
- Between September 13 and 16, 2018, JMC Analytics surveyed 600 likely voters on Proposal 1. Support for the ballot initiative was 43 percent. Opposition to the ballot initiative was 40 percent. The respondents were divided along age groups, with support at 59 percent for 18-34 years of age and 33 percent for 65 years and older. 
- The Glengariff Group (commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV) surveyed 600 likely voters between September 5 and September 7, 2018, on Proposal 1. The media outlets found support for Proposal 1 at 56 percent in their sample of voters. Jonathan Oosting of The Detroit News said age was the most predictive variable of whether a respondent supported or opposed Proposal 1. He said, “Just 37 percent of voters over the age of 65 said they support legalization compared with 79 percent for 18-29 year olds and about 72 percent for 30-39 year olds.” 
- Healthy & Productive Michigan, an opponent of Proposal 1, hired Victory Phones to ask voters about the initiative in early May 2018. The firm surveyed 800 residents, finding support at 48 percent, opposition at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. Scott Greenlee, president of Healthy & Productive Michigan, said, “Previous polls showing majority support didn’t pass the smell test. When polling, it is always important to review how the questions are asked and what size of audience responds.” 
- Michigan NORML, a supporter of Proposal 1, hired polling firm EPIC-MRA to ask voters about the measure in late February 2018. EPIC-MRA surveyed 600 residents, finding support at 61 percent, opposition at 35 percent, and 4 percent undecided or who refused to answer the question. The strongest level of support for the measure, at 87 percent, came from residents between ages 18-34. The strongest level of opposition to the measure, at 58 percent, came from residents who described themselves as strong GOP Tea Party supporters. Of those surveyed, a majority of Democrats (74 percent) and independents (72 percent) supported the initiative, while the percentage of Republicans who supported and who opposed the measure was tied at 48 percent. 
Reports and analyses
The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol commissioned VS Strategies to estimate how much tax revenue the state would generate from marijuana legalization via Proposal 1. VS Strategies estimated that Proposal 1 could generate $129.4 million in 2024 and each year thereafter in tax revenue. Andrew Livingston, a VS Strategies’ analyst, added, “We’re estimating $520 million in taxes from 2020-24. By 2023, Michigan will reach maturity with sales of just under $1.5 billion (for both medical and recreational marijuana).” VS Strategies’ analysis considered about 4 million state residents, along with out-of-state tourists, as potential consumers of marijuana.   
Josh Hovey, a Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol spokesperson, responded to the research, saying, “Roads, schools and local governments have been under-funded in Michigan for years. By voting yes on Proposal 1, we will generate hundreds of millions in new revenue for these vital needs and improve our state. In addition to generating new tax dollars, we will also save millions of dollars each year by ending the failure of marijuana prohibition.” 
Scott Greenlee, president of the opposition PAC Healthy and Productive Michigan, said the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol campaigned on Proposal 1 bringing in $200 million. Greenlee said, “What went wrong? The report is very clear: the numbers do not match their promises.”  He also said, “What impact would it have in Michigan with a $57-billion budget? It’s just not that significant.” 
Senate Fiscal Agency
The Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency released a fiscal analysis of Proposal 1 in October 2018. The Senate Fiscal Agency estimated that Proposal 1 could generate $287.9 million in 2023 in tax revenue. The fiscal analysis said the estimate was “based upon per capita sales data from states that have adopted similar laws.” 
Josh Hovey, spokesperson of the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, responded, “Whether you take our conservative estimate or the state’s more bullish estimate, the key thing is that Proposal 1 will help the state collect significant and much-needed tax revenue to help fund roads, schools and local communities.” 
Scott Greenlee, president of the opposition PAC Healthy and Productive Michigan, stated, “We’re talking about a tiny half a drop in the bucket for the state budget. I know a lot of people are looking at this. It shows further ambiguity of what is actually going to happen.” 
Gubernatorial candidates on ballot initiative
On November 6, 2018, Michigan held a gubernatorial election to select a candidate to succeed term-limited Gov. Rick Snyder (R). Gretchen Whitmer (D) and Bill Gelineau (L) supported the ballot initiative. Bill Schuette (R) opposed the ballot initiative but said that he would respect the will of voters if the measure was approved. To amend the ballot initiative, a three-fourths voted would be needed in each chamber of the Michigan State Legislature along with the governor’s signature. Whitmer won the election.
|Positions of Michigan 2018 gubernatorial candidates in the general election on November 6, 2018|
|Gretchen Whitmer||Whitmer: “I am going to be a “Yes” vote on the initiative. … When this passes, because I believe it will, I will take it very seriously and push forward to make sure we do it right.” |
|Bill Schuette||Spokesperson: “Bill [Schuette] does not personally support legalizing recreational marijuana but as governor he will respect the will of the voters.” |
|Bill Gelineau||Gelineau: “I believe marijuana, like gun ownership, is a fundamental right.”  “I do [support the initiative], reluctantly. I have two criticisms of it. One is that it has an excise tax. . The second thing is. if elected, [I] would pardon all the people who have committed a low-level drug offense who didn’t, in concert with that, commit a violent crime.” |
Click Show to see the positions of candidates that were defeated in the primary election on August 7, 2018.
|Positions of Michigan 2018 gubernatorial candidates defeated in the primary election on August 7, 2018|
|Abdul El-Sayed||El-Sayed: “I believe that we need to legalize marijuana. . When legalization happens, I intend to both pardon and push legislation to expunge records of nonviolent non-violent offenses for marijuana offenses. . We are in a good position to make sure that the use and sale is safe and that the best benefit comes out of it.” |
|Shri Thanedar||Thanedar: “I am fully supportive of the ballot proposal for recreational marijuana. . Once it passes… my focus is going to be on expungement.” |
|Brian Calley||Calley: “I oppose it. I will be voting against it. If it does pass, I will faithfully respect the will of the voters and implement it the best I can.” |
|Patrick Colbeck||Colbeck: “I am opposed to [the initiative]… Having said that, if [voters] do pass it, we’ll find a way to make it work.” |
|Jim Hines||Hines: “I don’t support recreational marijuana. When it goes to the ballot and if the voters of the state were to approve it, then I would support it.” |
|John Tatar||Tatar: “I support the ballot initiative.”  “I would like to see marijuana decriminalized, not necessarily legalized.” |
Legalization initiatives in the U.S.
California Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana, appeared on the ballot in 2010. It was defeated, with 53.5 percent of voters casting “no” votes.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder came out against Proposition 19, saying President Obama’s (D) administration would “vigorously enforce the (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law.” Support for the proposition dropped following Holder’s statement.  Mason Tvert, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the 2010 initiative was defeated because “it was done during a midterm election.” He continued, “If it had been done in a presidential election, things might have turned out very differently. We find that the more people who vote, the more who favor ending marijuana prohibition.” 
In 2012, legalized recreational marijuana advocates saw their first statewide victories in Colorado and Washington. Two years later, voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. approved marijuana legalization, and President Obama revised his position on recreational marijuana, stating, “We’ve got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal.” 
In 2015, voters in Ohio defeated Issue 3, which was designed to legalize the sale and use of marijuana and authorize 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana. 
Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada all had marijuana legalization initiatives on their 2016 general election ballots. The initiatives passed in all of the states but Arizona, where voters rejected the measure 51 to 49 percent. 
As of 2018, one state—Vermont—had legalized the recreational use of marijuana through the legislative process and governor’s signature. On May 11, 2017, the Vermont State Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill to legalize marijuana.  However, Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the legislation.   The Vermont State Legislature approved a second bill to legalize marijuana, and Gov. Scott signed the bill into law on January 22, 2018. 
There were 14 states, including Michigan, with the initiative process that had not voted on ballot measures designed to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, as of 2018. There were a total of 15 remaining states, including Arizona and Ohio, where citizens could petition for initiatives to legalize marijuana.
The following map depicts the legal status of recreational marijuana in different states:
State political context of legalization initiatives
The following table provides information on the political context of the states that had voted on legalization measures as of 2020.
Click “Show” to expand the table.
|Political factors and marijuana ballot measures, 2012-2020|
|State||Measure||Year||Status||Presidential, 2008-2016||State Partisan Control|
|Colorado||Amendment 64||2012||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Divided|
|Washington||Initiative 502||2012||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Democratic|
|Alaska||Measure 2||2014||a||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Republican|
|Oregon||Measure 91||2014||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Democratic|
|Ohio||Issue 3||2015||d||Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump)||Republican|
|Arizona||Proposition 205||2016||d||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Republican|
|California||Proposition 64||2016||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Democratic|
|Maine||Question 1||2016||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Divided|
|Massachusetts||Question 4||2016||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Divided|
|Nevada||Question 2||2016||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Republican|
|Michigan||Proposal 1||2018||a||Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump)||Republican|
|North Dakota||Measure 3||2018||d||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Republican|
|Arizona||Proposition 207||2020||a||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Republican|
|Montana||Initiative 190||2020||a||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Divided|
|New Jersey||Amendment||2020||a||Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton)||Democratic|
|South Dakota||Amendment A||2020||a||Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump)||Republican|
Comparison of legalization initiatives
The following table compares a selection of provisions, including possession limits, local control, taxes, and revenue dedications, of ballot initiatives that were designed to legalize marijuana.
Click “Show” to expand the table.
|Comparison of marijuana ballot measure provisions, 2012-2020|
|Measure||Possession limits||Homegrown plants||Local control||State taxes||Revenue|
|Ballot measures that were on the ballot in 2020|
|Arizona Proposition 207 (2020)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate
|• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||• 16% excise sales tax||• community college districts
• police and fire departments and fire districts
• new criminal justice fund (restorative programs, mentoring, and behavioral health)
|South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A (2020)||• 1 ounce of marijuana||• Individuals who live in a jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores could grow up to three marijuana plants in a private residence in a locked space, though not more than six marijuana plants could be kept in one residence at a time||•A local government allowed to ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so||• 15% sales tax||• After the tax revenue is used by the Revenue Department to cover costs associated with implementing the amendment, 50% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to fund state public schools and 50% would be deposited in the state’s general fund|
|Montana I-190 (2020)||• 1 ounce of marijuana||• Individuals could grow up to four marijuana plants and four seedling in a private residence in a locked space||• A local government is not allowed to completely ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so; allowed to pass ordinances to regulate an adult-use provider or adult-use marijuana-infused products that operate in its jurisdiction||• 20% sales tax||• After the tax revenue is used by the Department of Revenue to cover costs associated with implementing the initiative, 10.5% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to the state’s general fund, and the remainder would be appropriated to conservation programs, substance abuse treatment, veterans’ services, healthcare costs, and localities where marijuana is sold|
|New Jersey Amendment (2020)||• Not specified||• Not specified||• Not specified||• Subject to state sales tax
• Prohibits additional state sales taxes on marijuana
|• Not specified|
|Ballot measures that were approved|
|Michigan Proposal 1 (2018)||• 2.5 ounces of marijuana
• 0.5 ounces of marijuana concentrate
|•Grow up to 12 marijuana plants||•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||•10% excise sales tax||•local governments
•road and bridge maintenance
|California Proposition 64 (2016)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 0.3 ounces of marijuana concentrate
|•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||•15% excise sales tax
•$9.25/ounce cultivation tax for flowers
•$2.75/ounce cultivation tax for leaves
|•youth drug education, prevention, and treatment
•prevent and fix environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers
•marijuana DUI prevention and negative health effects programs
|Nevada Question 2 (2016)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 0.125 ounces of marijuana concentrate
|•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||•Permits local ballot measures pertaining to zoning and land use for marijuana establishments||•15% excise sales||•K-12 education|
|Maine Question 1 (2016)||• 2.5 ounces of marijuana and/or marijuana concentrate||• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||• 10% excise sales tax
•The legislature added a $20.94/ounce cultivation tax on flowers and mature plants; $5.88/ounce cultivation tax on marijuana trim; $1.50 tax per immature plant; $0.30 tax per immature plant
|•General Fund (legislature added public health programs and law enforcement programs)|
|Massachusetts Question 4 (2016)||• 10 ounces of marijuana in one’s home
• 1 ounce of marijuana in public
• 0.2 ounces of marijuana concentrate
|• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to limit number of establishments and restrict the time, place, and manner of their operation
• Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries
|• 3.75% excise sales tax (legislature increased to 10.75%)||• General Fund|
|Alaska Measure 2 (2014)||• 1 ounce of marijuana||• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||• $50/ounce cultivation tax||• General Fund|
|Oregon Measure 91 (2014)||• 8 ounces of marijuana in one’s home
• 1 ounce of marijuana in public
• 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate
|• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants||• Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments||• 17% excise sales tax (legislature added the excise sales tax)
• $35/ounce producer tax for flowers
• $10/ounce producer tax for leaves
|• K-12 education
• drug prevention and treatment
• state police
• local law enforcement
|Colorado Amendment 64 (2012)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate
|• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||•Required the state legislature to enact taxes
•In 2013, the legislature’s Proposition AA enacted a 15% excise tax on unprocessed retail marijuana and 10% (increased to 15% in 2017) sales tax on retail sales
|• K-12 public education
• Proposition AA added allocations for local governments, healthcare, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and law enforcement
|Washington Initiative 502 (2012)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 0.25 ounce of marijuana concentrate
|• Illegal||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||•25% excise sales tax (legislature increased the tax to 37%)||• research
• drug prevention, public health education
• dropout prevention, intervention
• General Fund
|Ballot measures that were defeated|
|North Dakota Measure 3 (2018)||• Not specified||• Not specified||• Not specified||• Not specified||• Not specified|
|Arizona Proposition 205 (2016)||• 1 ounce of marijuana
• 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate
|• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants||• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries||• 15% excise sales tax||• school districts and charter schools
• state department of health
• local governments
|Ohio Issue 3 (2015)||• 1 ounce of marijuana and/or equivalent concentrate||• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants with a license||• Municipalities prohibited from banning the development or operation of marijuana establishments||• 15% tax on gross revenue of growth, cultivation, extraction, and manufacure facilities
• 5% tax on gross revenue of retail marijuana stores
|• research and development
• local governments
• mental health and addiction and treatment services
On October 2, 2018, the Michigan State Legislature approved House Bill 4668 (HB 4668), which was designed to ban the possession, use, and sale of marijuana-infused alcoholic beverages. HB 4668 passed the state Senate in a 35-1 vote. The bill passed the state House in a 101-4 vote. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed HB 4668 into law on October 16, 2018. 
Sen. Rick Jones (R-24) said HB 4668 was preemptive in case Proposal 1 passed in November. He said, “Why would you let a disaster happen and then try to play cleanup? It’s so much better to be preemptive.” 
In California, the state Department of Public Health issued a similar regulation banning marijuana-infused alcoholic beverages following the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized marijuana, in 2016. 
Medical marijuana in Michigan
In 2008, voters in Michigan approved Proposal 1, an initiative designed to allow qualifying patients to possess 2.5 ounces of marijuana and 12 marijuana plants for medical use with a physician’s approval. 
In 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that dispensaries could not conduct patient-to-patient sales and that facilitating these types of sales made dispensaries a public nuisance. Attorney General Bill Schuette (R), following the ruling, sent an order to local prosecutors with instructions on how to file public nuisance claims against dispensaries. He said, “Today Michigan’s highest Court clarified that this law is narrowly focused to help the seriously ill, not an open door to unrestricted retail marijuana sales. Dispensaries will have to close their doors. Sales or transfers between patients or between caregivers and patients other than their own are not permitted under the Medical Marijuana Act.” Tim Beck, who was involved in the campaign to pass Proposal 1, said the ruling did not surprise him, stating, “The original intent of the law, as written, did not contemplate dispensaries. It was a deliberate political strategy not to address dispensaries because we wanted to win at the polls, and we were worried there would be blowback because dispensaries had such a bad rap in California.” 
In 2016, the state legislature passed legislation to regulate and license medical marijuana dispensaries, growers, processors, transporters, and testing facilities. The legislation also enacted a 3 percent tax on gross income of dispensaries.  Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the legislation into law, saying, “We can finally implement a solid framework that gives patients a safe source from which to purchase and utilize medical marijuana.”  Existing dispensaries were given a deadline of June 15, 2018, to acquire a license or shut down.  The deadline was extended to September 15, 2018, and then again to October 31, 2018. 
Path to the ballot
Process in Michigan
In Michigan, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirect initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. Signatures older than 180 days are invalid, which means all signatures must be collected within a 180-day window. Petitions for initiated statutes must be filed 160 days prior to the election. Successful initiative petitions are sent to the legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the proposed law. If the legislature does not approve the initiative, it goes on the ballot. If the legislature approves the initiative, it becomes law without needing the signature of the governor.
The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:
- Signatures: 252,523 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was May 30, 2018.
Signature petitions are filed with the secretary of state and verified by the board of state canvassers using a random sample method of verification.
Getting the initiative placed on the ballot
The indirect initiated state statute was filed with the secretary of state’s office on May 5, 2017.  The Board of State Canvassers approved the petition for circulation on May 18, 2017.  The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol stated that signature gathering began before the end of May 2017.  The campaign employed National Petition Management to collect signatures.  Petitioners were required to collect 252,523 valid signatures within any period of 180 days before May 30, 2018, to get the measure certified for the election on November 6, 2018.
Within 40 days of being approved the circulate petitions, the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol reported that more than 100,000 signatures had been collected.  On November 20, 2017, supporters submitted 365,384 signatures for the ballot initiative.  Lissa Satori, a coordinator for the effort, said paid signature gatherers had pre-verified 250,288 of the signatures.  
On April 23, 2018, the staff of the Michigan Department of State completed a random sample of signatures for the initiative. A total of 277,370 signatures were estimated as valid—24,847 more signatures than was required.  On April 26, 2018, the state Board of Canvassers approved the staff’s report, sending the initiative to the Michigan State Legislature for consideration. 
The Michigan State Legislature had 40 days—until June 5, 2018—to adopt or reject the proposal. As the legislature took no action on the proposal the measure was placed on the general election ballot for November 6, 2018.
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $783,535.66 was spent to collect the 252,523 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.10. 
How to cast a vote
In Michigan, polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time in most of the state. Dickinson, Gogebic, Iron, and Menominee counties in the Upper Peninsula are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. 
To vote in Michigan, one must be a United States citizen and a resident of Michigan. A voter must be at least 18 years old by Election Day. 
Voters can register to vote by mail; at county, city, or township clerk’s offices; or by visiting any state department branch office. Same-day registration is available. 
Michigan automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for or update their driver’s license or personal identification cards.
Michigan has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Michigan law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.
Verification of citizenship
Michigan does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Verifying your registration
This page, administered by the Michigan Department of State, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements
Michigan requires voters to present photo identification while voting. 
- Michigan driver’s license
- Michigan personal identification card
- Current driver’s license or personal ID card issued by another state
- Current federal or state government-issued photo ID
- Current U.S. passport
- Current military identification card with photo
- Current student identification with photo from a high school or an accredited institution of higher education
- Current tribal identification card with photo.
A voter who does not have an acceptable form of identification can cast a ballot by signing an affidavit. 
Voters can obtain a state identification card at a secretary of state branch office for $10. Voters over the age of 65, voters who are blind, and voters whose driving privileges have been terminated due to a physical or mental disability can obtain an identification card for free. Additionally, voters who can present a reason for having the fee waived may also obtain an ID for free. Visit the Michigan secretary of state’s page or call (888) SOS-MICH (767-6424) for more information.