Opinion ID: 823286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the mmma

Text: Michigan voters approved the MMMA in November 2008. As a result, the MMMA introduced into Michigan law an exception to the Public Health Code’s prohibition on the use of controlled substances by permitting the medical use of marijuana when carried out in accordance with the MMMA’s provisions.24 This Court first interpreted the MMMA in Kolanek and emphasized that the MMMA exists only as an exception to, and not a displacement of, the Public Health Code: 19 Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289, 296; 795 NW2d 578 (2011), citing Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236; 596 NW2d 119 (1999). 20 Sun Valley Foods, 460 Mich at 236, quoting United States v Turkette, 452 US 576, 593; 101 S Ct 2524; 69 L Ed 2d 246 (1981). 21 People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 330; 817 NW2d 497 (2012), quoting Sun Valley Foods, 460 Mich at 236 (alteration in original). 22 MCR 2.613(C); People v Dawson, 431 Mich 234, 258; 427 NW2d 886 (1988). 23 People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289; 806 NW2d 676 (2011). 24 MCL 333.26427(a). 7 The MMMA does not create a general right for individuals to use and possess marijuana in Michigan. Possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remain punishable offenses under Michigan law. Rather, the MMMA’s protections are limited to individuals suffering from serious or debilitating medical conditions or symptoms, to the extent that the individuals’ marijuana use “is carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the MMMA].”[25] In contrast to some other states’ medical marijuana provisions, the MMMA does not explicitly provide for collective growing operations such as defendant’s.26 Nevertheless, defendant claims that his actions fall within the immunity provision contained in § 4 of the MMMA or, alternatively, within the affirmative-defense provision contained in § 8. In Kolanek, we established the relationship between these two separate protections from prosecution for offenses involving marijuana. Because “the plain language of § 8 does not require compliance with the requirements of § 4,” a defendant who is unable to satisfy the requirements of § 4 may nevertheless assert the § 8 affirmative defense.27 Accordingly, we must examine these provisions independently. Sections 4(a) and 4(b) contain parallel immunity provisions that apply, respectively, to registered qualifying patients and to registered primary caregivers. 25 Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394, quoting MCL 333.26427(a) (alteration in original). 26 For instance, California specifically contemplates that “[q]ualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identifications cards” may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes . . . .” Cal Health & Safety Code 11362.775. Colorado goes one step further and specifically allows medical marijuana dispensaries to engage in common growing operations. Colo Rev Stat 12-43.3-403(2). 27 Kolanek, 491 Mich at 401. 8 Defendant claims that § 4(b) entitles him to immunity as a registered primary caregiver.28 Section 4(b) provides: A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed: (1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process; and (2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and (3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.[29] The plain language of § 4(b) limits the amount of marijuana that a registered primary caregiver can possess and still be entitled to § 4 immunity. In particular, § 4(b)(2) limits the number of marijuana plants that a registered primary caregiver may possess to 12 plants for each registered qualifying patient connected to the primary caregiver through the MDCH’s registration process. Specifically, a caregiver may possess those plants only 28 Defendant does not claim to be a registered qualifying patient. Accordingly, he is not eligible for immunity under MCL 333.26424(a), which applies only to “[a] qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card . . . .” 29 MCL 333.26424(b) (emphasis added). 9 if the registered qualifying patient “has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient . . . .”30 Section 4(a) applies to registered qualifying patients and contains similar limitations on the possession of marijuana plants: a registered qualifying patient may possess up to “12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility,” but only if “the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient . . . .”31 Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that only one of two people may possess a patient’s 12 marijuana plants for the purposes of immunity under §§ 4(a) and 4(b): “either the registered qualifying patient himself or herself, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate his or her marijuana plants, or the qualifying patient’s registered primary caregiver, if the qualifying patient has specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate his or her marijuana plants.”32 Section 4(d) reiterates these limitations in articulating a presumption of “medical use”: There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the . . . primary caregiver: (1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and (2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical 30 MCL 333.26424(b)(2). 31 MCL 333.26424(a) (emphasis added). 32 Bylsma, 294 Mich App at 232. 10 condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.[33] In this case, application of § 4 turns on the amount of marijuana that defendant possessed. Sections 4(b)(2) and 4(d) limit defendant to 12 plants for each of the two patients with whom he is connected through the MDCH’s registration process, a total of 24 plants. Defendant claims that he is entitled to § 4 immunity and that he possessed only the 24 plants that he is allowed to possess under the MMMA. The prosecution asserts that defendant possessed all the plants in the warehouse space, thereby exceeding the limitations established in § 4. In order to evaluate these claims, we must determine what constitutes “possession” within the meaning of the MMMA.