Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
rijuana Retailer

Michigan: Most Residents Live Within 20 Minutes of a Marijuana Retailer​

East Lansing, MI: A supermajority of Michigan residents live in close proximity to a licensed marijuana retail establishment, according to a geographic analysis by the Anderson Economic Group.
Their report indicates that adult-use retail stores are integrated throughout most of the state. “Over 80 percent of Michiganders now live within a 20-minute drive of an adult-use retail store,” said Brian Peterson, AEG director of public policy and economic analysis. “Our analysis shows that the retailers have established themselves across the state in order to meet consumer demand for cannabis.”
The Michigan experience differs from that of some other states, like California, where a majority of cities have prohibited the establishment of local retail stores. In New Jersey, where commercial sales are expected to begin next year, nearly half of cities and towns have opted out of permitting local marijuana businesses.
Nearly 750 commercial retailers are currently operating in Michigan. About 55 percent of retailers cater to medical cannabis patients, while the remaining 45 percent of stores are adult-use facilities.
Full text of the AEG analysis is online. Additional information is available from the NORML fact sheet, ‘Societal Impacts of Cannabis Dispensaries/Retailers.
 

Another tribe entering Michigan’s recreational cannabis market​

Published 16 hours ago



The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in Michigan joined the state’s recreational cannabis market.
According to the Record Eagle of Traverse City, a tribal ordinance approved in 2019 by members went into effect on Aug. 29 and will allow tribal-controlled businesses to develop vertically integrated company models.

Adult-use businesses will be allowed on Grand Traverse Band (GTB) lands in northern Michigan encompassing six counties.
According to the Record Eagle, the tribe’s entry into the adult-use industry follows many other Native American tribes across the U.S., including several others in Michigan:
  • Earlier this year, the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians opened a recreational marijuana store in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and plans to open another five.
  • In 2020, the Bay Mills Indian Community opened an adult-use cannabis shop, also in the Upper Peninsula.
The GTB has not announced where its retail locations will be set up. But by law, they must be on tribal lands such as reservation property in or near Peshawbestown, the Record Eagle reported.
 

People Couldn’t Be Denied Marijuana Licenses Based On ‘Moral Character’ Or Cannabis Convictions Under New Michigan Bill


Michigan marijuana regulators would no longer be allowed to deny a person a medical cannabis license based on their “moral character and reputation” or prior marijuana convictions under a newly filed Senate bill.

Sen. Jeff Irwin (D) introduced the legislation—as well as a separate measure to legalize the possession and cultivation of certain psychedelics—last week.

The purpose of the cannabis bill is to align licensing policy for the state’s medical and recreational market. Under the adult-use legalization law, there’s no exclusionary language about moral character or previous marijuana convictions for license applicants, but the restriction does exist in the medical cannabis law.

SB 619 would strike statutory language allowing the Marijuana Regulatory Agency to deny an applicant based on “integrity, moral character, and reputation.” And it adds lines clarifying that people with marijuana felony or misdemeanor convictions are not automatically disqualified from participating in the program.

Irwin told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview on Monday that the subjective nature of the moral character clause “invites unequal application of the law, it invites favoritism, it invites corruption.”

“I’m certainly not suggesting that that’s what’s happening at the agency. I just think that getting rid of that clause and aligning it with what we passed in 2018 makes a lot of sense,” he said, referring to the recreational legalization ballot measure approved by voters that year.

It’s not just about eliminating a questionable standard for prospective licensees, the senator argued. It’s also about taking additional steps to incentive participation in the legal industry by people who have been harmed by the drug war, removing unnecessary barriers so that they can shift away from illicit cannabis activity and move into the regulated market.

“That’s part of the goal that we need to reach in the state of Michigan if we’re to be the most successful in building the legal market,” Irwin said. “That’s why we need to keep the taxes low. We need to keep the barriers to entry low. We need to welcome people who might have a marijuana conviction on their record into the licensed space. That’s all part of being successful as a state in making sure the majority of transactions are taking place in a safe and regulated legal space.”

The bill is cosponsored by Sens. Sean McCann, Stephanie Chang and Sylvia Santana, all Democrats. Irwin said that while he’s not been guaranteed a committee hearing in the Republican-controlled legislature, he’s optimistic about building bipartisan support for the proposal, especially considering that members of both parties have previously moved to eliminate moral character clauses from other industries.

Both Michigan’s medical and recreational markets have proved lucrative, with the state reporting a record $171 million in sales in July. That translates into $23 million in tax revenue, some of which will go to infrastructure projects, public education and individual jurisdictions.

Last month, state officials also awarded $20 million in marijuana tax revenue to fund a pair of research projects meant to investigate the therapeutic potential of cannabis for military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Michigan officials have also recently taken steps to ensure that residents in the state who legally consume cannabis have certain employment-related protections, with the state attorney general filing a legal brief last month arguing that workers fired from the jobs for marijuana use outside the workplace are still eligible for unemployment benefits.

Irwin’s separate psychedelics legislation comes as the state is becoming a unique hub for the movement to change policies around entheogenic substances, with local chapters of the group Decriminalize Nature pushing their city councils to adopt reforms.

The Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council approved entheogenic decriminalization last year—and in July, local lawmakers passed a resolution to officially designate September as Entheogenic Plants and Fungi Awareness Month.

Efforts are also underway in Grand Rapids to enact a policy change for psychedelics.
 

Cannabis Billboards Face a Ban in Michigan


That's bad news for the cannabis industry, which has turned to billboards as a marketing opportunity.​

Cannabis companies have precious few options when it comes to advertising. With the federal government still listing marijuana as an illegal drug, the industry faces strict regulations on advertising its products and services.
The situation has left companies scrambling to get around advertising restrictions. One outlet for companies has involved placing cannabis billboards on highways in states with legal weed. But earlier this year, California officials mandated the removal of some billboards. And proposed action in Michigan could signal that idea is taking hold in other locations.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Michigan filed a new bill this year banning cannabis advertisements on billboards. Rep. Abdullah Hammoud, a Democrat, is listed as the primary sponsor of the bill. Both he and his co-sponsor, Republican Rep. Mary Whiteford, cited children's exposure to the billboards as one of their main reasons for proposing the change.


"For anybody who needs to access marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, I highly doubt it's a billboard that's their primary source for how to access marijuana. It's 2021," Hammoud said in a news article published on his website.

The Michigan law goes further than the California law.​

Hammoud also cited the California ban as setting a precedent in this area. In early 2021, state officials in California called for the removal of all marijuana billboards on roads that crossed the state's borders into another state. The new rule covers about three dozen state and interstate routes, according to the Associated Press.
However, advertisements can remain on roads entirely inside the California state borders. In Michigan, the proposed ban includes all roads. The bill states: "A person shall not advertise any of the following on a billboard or digital billboard that is located in this state:" The prohibited list includes marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuana accessories, and a marijuana establishment.
The reason behind the California change involved adhering to a court order from a judge in San Luis Obispo County. The judge found cannabis billboards are not allowed on interstate roads under provisions of Proposition 64, the voter-approved referendum that legalized adult-use cannabis in California in 2016.

Why this decision is vital to the cannabis industry​

The move to remove cannabis billboards in Michigan, and the partial ban in California, hurt a cannabis industry that struggles to do much marketing in the current environment. The industry must contend with restrictions on advertising since the product is a Schedule I illegal drug.
Some states also have made it much more difficult. For example, Massachusetts has laws that make cannabis companies prove with data that people over the age of 21 make up at least 85 percent of the audience the planned marketing campaign will reach. The ban includes TV, radio, podcasts, social media, mobile apps, print ads. Billboards reach drivers primarily, and most drivers are over the age of 21, making billboards a popular choice.
However, in the article on Hammoud's site, Whiteford argued that too many children see too many billboards. "I keep seeing these billboards all over. I'm so concerned about children and their exposure if this is allowed to continue," she said.
When politicians invoke concerns about children, that's typically bad news for those who oppose their actions. However, in this case, the news has been good so far for the cannabis industry: Hammoud and Whiteford's bill has remained stalled since April.
 

Pot growers watching bills at state capitol


LANSING, MI — Pot growers across the state are keeping a close eye on bipartisan bills in Lansing that have been introduced by the Legislature to cut the amount of marijuana plants people can grow from 60 to 12.

The measures would also dramatically shrink the amount of pot grown by caregivers. The bills reduce the number of medical patients that can be served by a caregiver growing pot from five to one.

The Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association is backing the bills, citing their study from June that found almost two-thirds of all marijuana sales in the state are outside the legal, licensed market.


Michigan House plan would limit the number of marijuana plants caregivers can grow


HOLLAND — Lawmakers in the Michigan House of Representatives have introduced a plan to update the way the state licenses marijuana growers who sell products to patients as caregivers.

Under changes proposed in House Bills 5300-5302, caregivers would have to register for a Specialty Medical Grower license. With an SMG license, caregivers would only be allowed to sell to a single individual, or patient. Currently, caregivers can sell to up to five different people.

Read each bill:

By limiting the amount of patients a caregiver could sell to, the package, dubbed the Michigan Cannabis Safety Act, would limit caregivers to growing 12 plants, whereas they currently can grow up to 60 if they have five patients (or 12 plants for every patient). Marijuana plants would also have to be grown in an indoor, secure facility.

In a statement, Rep. Jim Lilly, R-Park Township, said the proposed legislation would create safety standards for marijuana products that aren't sold on a commercial scale.

“Michigan has an opportunity to be a national leader in cannabis safety, job creation and economic growth, and these bills help us rein in Michigan’s unlicensed cannabis market that threatens the health of all Michiganders,” said Lilly, who sponsors HB 5300.

“I support speedy passage of this important legislation to help promote cannabis safety, transparency and accountability in a regulated cannabis market. These bills reflect the will of voters who approved medical marijuana and legalization of cannabis in our state.”

The bills also have support from the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association, which says it represents over half of all licensed businesses that produce and grow marijuana in Michigan.
 
Here's another article about what they are trying to pass here in Michigan. Corporate greed at it's finest at work here.... First they stopped the dispensaries from buying overage from our caregivers. Now they are trying to say that caregivers fuel the black market. And imo the only thing that these bills will serve to do is bring the black market back in force. The prices at the dispensaries are insane compared to what patients pay their caregivers.

Michigan Legislature Introduces Bills to Reduce Caregiver Program

Michigan just introduced several bills that would limit what caregivers could provide for their cannabis patients, and people aren’t happy.

Michigan lawmakers proposed three bills yesterday that aim to reduce what caregivers can provide for medical cannabis patients.

The Michigan legislature returned full-time on September 9, and House Bills 5300, 5301 and 5302 were introduced on September 14. This bill package seeks to alter the Medical Marihuana Act, which was initially implemented in 2008. If passed, the bills would reduce caregiver patients from five to only one, and reduce the number of plants a caregiver can grow from 60 to 12, with an additional 12 plants they’re allowed to grow for personal use. One of the bills also creates a license called “specialty medical grower,” which would require a $500 application to get cannabis tested.

According to Mlive.com, these bills were proposed one day before a protest was set to occur. Yesterday, the “Michigan Caregivers United: Rally at the Capitol” protest was held in front of the state capitol in Lansing. The march was held to protest the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturer’s Association (MCMA) and its push to limit caregiver’s allowances for their patients.

“Michigan’s cannabis consumers have lashed out in anger; a boycott of MCMA products and companies affiliated with them has resulted in the resignation of their president, the removal of any reference to individual members on their website, the election of a new board chair to clean up their public relations and the cancellation of orders from MCMA companies by retailers.” The protest has been in the works for some time, with an official press release announcement posted on July 8 in anticipation of these plans.

The MCMA released a study in June through the Anderson Economic Group stating that 70 percent of cannabis sales were made outside of regulated dispensaries, and that illegal sales are the main way that residents are obtaining cannabis.

“Michigan’s unregulated cannabis market poses an immediate threat to the health of all Michiganders, and the Michigan Cannabis Safety Act updates outdated laws to help ensure all Michiganders have access to tested, tracked and labeled cannabis products,” MCMA Board Chair Shelly Edgerton told Mlive.com.

“We look forward to working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to bring Michigan’s unregulated, unlicensed cannabis market in line with the rest of the cannabis industry to help ensure safe, high-quality cannabis is available for all Michiganders.”

The MCMA’s website states that the organization represents “nearly half of all multiple Class C cannabis licenses in Michigan,” which is the most expensive license type, and represents the largest cultivation businesses in the state.

Those who oppose this notion argue that caregivers are not responsible for black market sales, and that there’s no good reason to threaten the caregiver system. Over 250 companies have spoken out in favor of supporting the caregiver program as well as small businesses. Companies such as The Botanical Co. released official statements regarding the MCMA.

“We stand with our fellow industry professionals in their efforts to stop the attack on caregivers. It is our belief that our industry thrives when small businesses and caregivers can flourish,” officials said in a statement. “Our customers and patients remain at the core of what we do and to ensure they continue to have access to the products they rely on, we are actively pursuing the sourcing of high quality products from companies that more align with our mission. We encourage local brands to contact us if they are interested in retail space at our stores. Together, we can make a difference and move our industry forward.”

According to the Marijuana Regulatory Agency in a July report, there are 30,229 caregivers in the state and 251,284 medical cannabis patients that they serve. A majority of these patients suffer from conditions such as chronic pain, arthritis, muscle spasms and PTSD. Meanwhile, the state is taking many steps toward improving social equity and supporting residents’ rights to consume while off the job.
 

Chris Webber building $50 million cannabis operations campus in Detroit


Former Michigan Basketball player and NBA Hall of Famer Chris Webber is bringing a $50 million cannabis operations and training facility to Corktown.

The operation will be called Players Only Holdings and is co-founded with Lavetta Willis. It will focus on real estate development, cannabis cultivation, brand partnerships and creative content development and management.

According to a press release, Players Only will have a 180,000-square foot facility that will include a 60,000 square foot cultivation space, an 8,000 square foot dispensary, a private cannabis consumption lounge and more.

The group has also partnered with cannabis companies Gage Growth Corp. and Cookies U for cannabis products and a comprehensive training program and operations center.

“This will be the shining jewel of Michigan. Everything great in Michigan starts in Detroit, and I am excited to collaborate with Gage to bring our premium line of Players Only products to this community,” Webber said in a release. “Gage is the HOF of cannabis operations. With Fabian Monaco as a teammate, this relationship is a winner on every level.”

The Cookies U training program is an experience that will provide job training and job placement within the cannabis industry.

“This Detroit training and operations facility is only the first step in bringing tangible opportunities to the people of this city – one that means so much to me – while eliminating barriers to an industry with unlimited economic potential,” Webber added in a release.

The facility will be located near Michigan Ave. and the Fisher Service Dr. in Corktown and Southwest Detroit. There will be nine acres of property.
 

It's official: Niles council votes to allow recreational marijuana businesses


NILES — Someday soon — maybe not much more than a year after cannabis was legalized in Michigan — getting marijuana in town could be kind of like getting a beer.

After voting 11 months ago not to allow recreational marijuana businesses, City Council Monday night reversed course by a vote of 6 to 1.

Residents and medical marijuana business owners in attendance at the special meeting gave the council cheers and a big round of applause.

The move now to allow recreational businesses means there will be shops in town where adults from Michigan, Indiana or elsewhere who have the ID to show they’re age 21 or older can purchase state-approved, lab-tested marijuana products, and there will also be sites where they can legally consume pot.

For the city, the move is expected to mean more revenue in licensing fees and taxes, although how much isn’t yet clear, City Administrator Ric Huff said.

Municipalities like Niles that are allowing medical and recreational marijuana businesses are expected to receive a portion of excise tax revenue, he said.

City leaders have also said they hope adult-use marijuana businesses will boost the city economically by generating jobs, trade and other new businesses.

“One thing (this vote) did was show that we are a pro-business community,” Mayor Nick Shelton said, “and hopefully other businesses will want to choose Niles, too.”

Council member Dan VandenHeede continued to sound a note of caution, saying council should slow down to avoid “unintended consequences.”

His was the lone vote in opposition. Council member Georgia Boggs, who has voted no on marijuana measures in the past, was absent.

Medical marijuana business owners hailed the council vote in part because it paves the way for them to enter the recreational, or adult-use, market.

Denise Lynch, owner of Green Stem, a medical marijuana company in Niles, said the city’s allowing recreational marijuana businesses is key for her company to survive because recreational sales will shrink the medical market, maybe dramatically.

Lynch said she and her husband, George, are investing about $1.3 million to create three medical marijuana businesses in the city. They hope to open a provisioning center on 11th Street at the end of the year and then be able to apply for an adult-use sales license.

The state’s emerging commercial system for adult-use cannabis piggybacks on the commercial system for medical marijuana created in 2016. The medical businesses will be given the first chance to obtain state recreational licenses.

Several residents continued to voice fears that recreational marijuana will be a “destabilizing influence” on the community, as one resident put it, bringing more crime, property damage and marijuana-related traffic accidents.

Council member Gretchen Bertschy said she felt confident industry leaders and business owners will work hard to “keep the industry clean in Niles.”

The state’s evolving marijuana industry has found a home in the city.

The state has allowed at-home growth and use of medical marijuana since 2008 for licensed patients and growers. In 2016, the state created a commercial system for growing, selling and taxing medical marijuana that communities could opt to join, just as they could also opt to allow adult-use marijuana businesses. Niles council voted in 2017 to allow those businesses in town, and they’re just getting up and running this year.


In fact, Huff said, no medical marijuana business in the city is yet in operation. That includes any provisioning center that could become a recreational retail shop, although one in the industrial park might open soon.

The state’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency is poised to begin taking adult-use business applications Nov. 1. Depending on individual business readiness, the first recreational businesses, such as retail shops, could start operating by the first quarter of 2020, or maybe sooner.

The council on Monday adopted ordinances that allow for up to eight businesses where marijuana products could be sold to adults, and up to three licensed establishments where adults could use marijuana.

Other types of businesses include growers, processors, lab testers and transporters.

The rules also would allow for special events where marijuana products could be sold and consumed if an organizer has the proper licenses and city approval.

The favorable vote Monday night was at least in part the result of council turnover last year, after two new members who had spoken in favor of marijuana legalization replaced incumbent members who had voiced more reservations.

Council members had portrayed the so-called opt-out vote by the prior council as a temporary measure until the state wrote rules for recreational establishments.

More than half of the state’s 1,773 cities, villages and townships have opted out of allowing recreational marijuana businesses. Buchanan will be allowing recreational marijuana businesses; Niles Township will not.

The state reported at the end of June that it had collected nearly $11 million in revenue from medical marijuana sales for the first half of the year, while the costs of administering the program for that time were more than $14 million.
 
This is not the will of the people.... it's all corporate greed.

Michigan Lawmakers Approve Bills To Restrict Medical Marijuana Cultivation By Caregivers


“These big money investors, they have made a power move.”

By Marla R. Miller, Michigan Advance

Several bills that change the state’s 2008 voter-approved Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and caregiver program moved out of committee Tuesday and are headed to the House floor.

House Bills 5300-5302, known as the Michigan Cannabis Safety Act, tighten rules for caregivers related to plant allowances, product testing and where they can grow medical marijuana. The new legislation would create a new specialty medical grower (SMG) license for caregivers that includes a variety of regulations.

The House of Representatives Regulatory Reform Committee approved House Bills 5300-5302 and 5319–5321, with most passing 10-2 and a few members abstaining. The committee adopted last-minute changes to HB 5300 and 5301 before the vote, adding language that allows unlicensed caregivers to serve up to five patients from their primary residence. However, unlicensed caregivers could only grow 24 marijuana plants at their home.


The package of bills approved by the Regulatory Reform committee include:
HB 5300: Allows sale to and from licensed specialty medical growers.
HB 5301: Creates a license for a specialty medical grower.
HB 5302: Requires specialty medical growers to use a tracking system.
HB 5319: Exempts the sale of marijuana from a registered primary caregiver or licensed specialty medical grower to a registered qualifying patient from the use tax.
HB 5320: Updates a reference to definition of debilitating medical condition in the public health code.
HB 5321: Exempts the sale of marijuana from a registered primary caregiver or licensed specialty medical grower to a registered qualifying patient from the sales tax.

Under current law, medical marijuana caregivers must register with the state but don’t need a license. They can have up to five patients and grow 12 plants per patient without many rules on testing, labeling or tracking of their products. Caregivers can cultivate a maximum of 72 plants if they are also a registered medical marijuana patient.

Committee Chair Roger Hauck (R-Union Twp.) briefly addressed the audience regarding the substitutes that were adopted during Tuesday’s hearing. The medical marijuana bills were added to the agenda Monday afternoon after the committee postponed voting on them October 19.

“First off, I want to let you know that we recognize it is critical that Michigan’s patients, including those with cancer and other severe or terminal illnesses, are not separated from their caregivers,” he said.

Hauck assured those in the audience that the committee reviews the testimony submitted by constituents. Caregivers and patients packed the October 5 hearing. Hauck ended the hearing before many in attendance had a chance to speak, and many opposed to the bills returned October 19.

Lawmakers and representatives from Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association (MCMA) also testified at the October 5 hearing, citing concerns over the safety of untested medical marijuana grown by caregivers.

Proponents maintain the new laws are designed to ensure all cannabis in Michigan is tested, labeled, tracked and licensed. Others expressed concerns over multiple caregivers setting up grow operations in rural areas as well as residential neighborhoods.

“This helps to ensure patients aren’t separated from their caregivers, while preventing large-scale grow operations from wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods,” Hauck said. “This substitute also maintains the ability for caregivers to utilize the new specialty grower license if they would like to have up to 72 plants and be able to sell their overages.”

Medical caregivers and cannabis activists argue that those who spearheaded Michigan’s grassroots efforts to legalize medical and recreational marijuana are now being pushed out by big cannabis. They counter the bills create excessive regulations for caregivers. Even if caregivers do apply for a specialty medical grower license, the rules make it infeasible to continue with only five patients.

Ryan Bringold, a caregiver from Waterford, organized the September 15 Caregiver Rights Rally at the state Capitol in Lansing and showed up at the Regulatory Reform hearings in October. He maintains caregivers have never had a seat at the table when crafting these proposed laws, and lawmakers have ignored caregivers’ attempts to contact them.

“We will not quit,” he told the Advance. “These big money investors, they have made a power move.”

Bringold is organizing an educational dinner for lawmakers November 9 at Radisson Hotel in Lansing and spent Tuesday afternoon hand-delivering invitations to House lawmakers. He has assembled an educational team to explain the current law, along with the benefits to pediatric patients, veterans, and other chronically ill patients.

“They are not getting the facts,” he said. “We want to tell them the truth and cover every aspect of the law.”

The MCMA represents many of the state’s largest growers, processors and vertically integrated cannabis licensees. All MCMA members are licensed by the Marijuana Regulatory Agency, which would also process, approve and enforce specialty medical grower licenses and related rules. The group, headed up by Republican consultant and lobbyist Stephen Linder, has paid for several studies on Michigan’s cannabis market, illicit sales and voters’ views on testing cannabis, the findings of which were also presented at the October 5 hearing.

MCMA officials have praised the bipartisan legislation, now encouraging the House to pass the legislation without delay.

“We applaud the members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee for taking this major step toward addressing Michigan’s unregulated, unlicensed cannabis market by helping ensure all patients have access to cannabis that is tested, clearly labeled, tracked and licensed,” said Linder in a press release.

The bills will now move to the House floor. Since the bills alter the voter-approved Proposal 1 in 2008, the legislation would require a three-quarters vote of support from both the House and Senate, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) signature.

With Tuesday’s last-minute substitutions, the proposed bills authorize unlicensed caregivers to grow for themselves and serve five patients, but caps the plant count at 24 if they grow at home. Caregivers who want to keep their current five patients and 12 plants per patient count would have to apply for the specialty medical grower license.

In addition, the legislation creates new rules for where and how specialty medical growers can cultivate or manufacture medical marijuana. In particular, they must move to an area that is zoned for agricultural or industrial use.

SMGs would have to test, package, track, label and use secure transport for all medical marijuana products. It also requires the sale or transfer of medical marijuana by SMGs be entered into the state’s METRC system.

The law allows only one licensed specialty medical grower to cultivate marijuana at the same location unless local ordinances “explicitly authorize” more than one SMG can grow at the same site. In addition, each SMG must have a separate enclosed, locked facility with a separate entrance and metered utilities.

State Reps. Jim Lilly (R-Park Twp.) and Richard Steenland (D-Roseville) introduced the bills and contend the changes are about patient and consumer safety. The bills also address what caregivers can do with their overages and crack down on Michigan’s unregulated cannabis supply.

The proposed legislation allows licensed specialty medical growers to sell overages to licensed medical marijuana growers, but not directly to medical marijuana provisioning centers or dispensaries.
 

Southern Michigan marijuana dispensaries say more than half of customers are Hoosiers


COLDWATER, Mich. (WANE) — Heading up the interstate, drivers are most likely used to seeing signs for hotels, restaurants or insurance companies. But, since about two years ago, if you’re driving north passed the Angola exit on Interstate 69, you’ll see a handful of billboards advertising marijuana dispensaries that are just over the state border in Michigan.

It turns out those billboards are catching many Hoosiers’ eyes.

“I want to say about 60% of the people that we see are coming from Indiana,” said the manager of a dispensary in Coldwater, who wished to remain unnamed.

Britany Martin, the general manager of Consume Cannabis in Quincy, said Hoosiers make up more than half of her customers, as well. She added that her Indiana customers “usually” try to purchase the “maximum amount they can,” which according to her is 15 grams.

“They’re like, you know, ‘it’s so hush hush where I’m from in Indiana,'” said Martin. “I’m like ‘you know what, well welcome to the green side of things.'”

Michigan legalized recreational marijuana in 2018, meaning it is legal for adults over 21 in Michigan to grow, consume and possess marijuana. The first stores opened in December 2019 in Ann Arbor and Morenci.

The law allows individuals to possess up to 2.5 ounces of the drug and 15 grams of concentrated marijuana.

Therefore, Hoosiers traveling to Michigan to buy marijuana is perfectly legal, as long as they don’t bring what they buy back over state lines. Currently, possession of marijuana in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a possible fine up to $1,000.

If someone in Indiana is caught with less than 30 grams and has a prior drug offense, it is considered a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of not more than $5,000.

“So they come here,” said Martin. “At this moment it does benefit us that they do not have it legal.”

It has also benefited the Wolverine State’s economy for multiple reasons. One being that marijuana is taxed. Another, that it’s bringing more traffic to the area.

“If they’re in this one area, they’re going to be able to stop off and get some food, they’re going to go ahead and put money back into this town as well,” said the dispensary manager who did not want to be named.

Martin said she’s also seen couples make a trip to Michigan for the experience.

“They come up for like a date night or something,” said Martin. “They grab a hotel in the area so that’s just things that, you know, help benefit every business.”

However, she says she’s heard Hoosiers say they wish they could be putting this money back into their own state. A bill to legalize cannabis and establish a cannabis regulatory agency in Indiana is currently under review in the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.
 

Southern Michigan marijuana dispensaries say more than half of customers are Hoosiers


COLDWATER, Mich. (WANE) — Heading up the interstate, drivers are most likely used to seeing signs for hotels, restaurants or insurance companies. But, since about two years ago, if you’re driving north passed the Angola exit on Interstate 69, you’ll see a handful of billboards advertising marijuana dispensaries that are just over the state border in Michigan.

It turns out those billboards are catching many Hoosiers’ eyes.

“I want to say about 60% of the people that we see are coming from Indiana,” said the manager of a dispensary in Coldwater, who wished to remain unnamed.

Britany Martin, the general manager of Consume Cannabis in Quincy, said Hoosiers make up more than half of her customers, as well. She added that her Indiana customers “usually” try to purchase the “maximum amount they can,” which according to her is 15 grams.

“They’re like, you know, ‘it’s so hush hush where I’m from in Indiana,'” said Martin. “I’m like ‘you know what, well welcome to the green side of things.'”

Michigan legalized recreational marijuana in 2018, meaning it is legal for adults over 21 in Michigan to grow, consume and possess marijuana. The first stores opened in December 2019 in Ann Arbor and Morenci.

The law allows individuals to possess up to 2.5 ounces of the drug and 15 grams of concentrated marijuana.

Therefore, Hoosiers traveling to Michigan to buy marijuana is perfectly legal, as long as they don’t bring what they buy back over state lines. Currently, possession of marijuana in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a possible fine up to $1,000.

If someone in Indiana is caught with less than 30 grams and has a prior drug offense, it is considered a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of not more than $5,000.

“So they come here,” said Martin. “At this moment it does benefit us that they do not have it legal.”

It has also benefited the Wolverine State’s economy for multiple reasons. One being that marijuana is taxed. Another, that it’s bringing more traffic to the area.

“If they’re in this one area, they’re going to be able to stop off and get some food, they’re going to go ahead and put money back into this town as well,” said the dispensary manager who did not want to be named.

Martin said she’s also seen couples make a trip to Michigan for the experience.

“They come up for like a date night or something,” said Martin. “They grab a hotel in the area so that’s just things that, you know, help benefit every business.”

However, she says she’s heard Hoosiers say they wish they could be putting this money back into their own state. A bill to legalize cannabis and establish a cannabis regulatory agency in Indiana is currently under review in the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.
Golf in the season of spring in the 90’s was impressive!
Beer drinking was all the vibe!
CANNABIS was demonized?
Will pot ever be legalized as beer is?
 

Bought marijuana recently? State regulators say there's a good chance you should return it.


What is likely the largest marijuana recall in Michigan's history is currently underway after the state's Marijuana Regulatory Agency issued a health and safety bulletin Wednesday evening for many products tested by Viridis Laboratories.

The agency said it has identified inaccurate and/or unreliable results of all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories and Viridis North over a three-month period except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as vape carts, live resin and distillate.

The bulletin said products should be retested for the microbials compliance panel and consumers with weakened immune systems or lung disease are at the highest risk for health-related incidents such as aspergillosis, which is an infection caused by a common mold, suggesting there could be mold in the products.
Viridis representatives said they were working with officials to resolve the issues.

"While we strongly disagree with this decision and firmly stand by our test results, we are fully cooperating with the MRA and working closely with our customers to minimize interruptions and retest affected products at no cost," Greg Michaud, the CEO of Viridis Laboratories, said in an emailed statement.
Viridis Laboratories has labs in Lansing and Bay City. Michaud said the company has been cleared to continue testing at both of its facilities.

Cannabis lawyers say they're hearing that not only are several dispensaries affected, but the vast majority of the products they sell are, too, which could put some companies out of business.

Doug Mains, a partner at the Michigan law firm Honigman, said retailers have told him 65%-70% of their current inventory could be recalled. For some growers, all of their flower in the marketplace could be recalled, he said.

Stephen Linder, executive director of the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association, a lobbying group that represents growers and processors, said in an emailed statement that the recall "will be disruptive to the business operations of some of our members as well as the industry as a whole" but added that product recalls are sometimes a necessary function of a licensed, regulated market.

Consumers who have marijuana products in their possession that meet the recall criteria can return the products to the marijuana sales location where they were purchased so they can be properly disposed of, the agency said. The marijuana products impacted have a test date between Aug. 10, 2021, and Nov. 16, 2021, and have a license number of SC-000009, AU-SC-000113, SC-000014 or AU-SC-000103.a
 

Bought marijuana recently? State regulators say there's a good chance you should return it.


What is likely the largest marijuana recall in Michigan's history is currently underway after the state's Marijuana Regulatory Agency issued a health and safety bulletin Wednesday evening for many products tested by Viridis Laboratories.

The agency said it has identified inaccurate and/or unreliable results of all marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories and Viridis North over a three-month period except for inhalable marijuana concentrate products such as vape carts, live resin and distillate.

The bulletin said products should be retested for the microbials compliance panel and consumers with weakened immune systems or lung disease are at the highest risk for health-related incidents such as aspergillosis, which is an infection caused by a common mold, suggesting there could be mold in the products.
Viridis representatives said they were working with officials to resolve the issues.

"While we strongly disagree with this decision and firmly stand by our test results, we are fully cooperating with the MRA and working closely with our customers to minimize interruptions and retest affected products at no cost," Greg Michaud, the CEO of Viridis Laboratories, said in an emailed statement.
Viridis Laboratories has labs in Lansing and Bay City. Michaud said the company has been cleared to continue testing at both of its facilities.

Cannabis lawyers say they're hearing that not only are several dispensaries affected, but the vast majority of the products they sell are, too, which could put some companies out of business.

Doug Mains, a partner at the Michigan law firm Honigman, said retailers have told him 65%-70% of their current inventory could be recalled. For some growers, all of their flower in the marketplace could be recalled, he said.

Stephen Linder, executive director of the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association, a lobbying group that represents growers and processors, said in an emailed statement that the recall "will be disruptive to the business operations of some of our members as well as the industry as a whole" but added that product recalls are sometimes a necessary function of a licensed, regulated market.

Consumers who have marijuana products in their possession that meet the recall criteria can return the products to the marijuana sales location where they were purchased so they can be properly disposed of, the agency said. The marijuana products impacted have a test date between Aug. 10, 2021, and Nov. 16, 2021, and have a license number of SC-000009, AU-SC-000113, SC-000014 or AU-SC-000103.a
And this was the dispensary weed that the corporate grows are putting out there. The tested stuff. And not the only case of this happening. From the same guys trying to push out the caregivers in the state... :cool:
 

Moldy, contaminated marijuana may be for sale in Michigan after judge lifts recall

Updated: Dec. 15, 2021, 9:22 a.m. | Published: Dec. 15, 2021, 9:12 a.m.


Contaminated and potentially unsafe marijuana may be for sale in Michigan. And it’s no secret.

The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) on Tuesday, Dec. 14, released for sale an unknown quantity of marijuana that failed testing for unacceptably high levels of mold, yeast or fungi, including possible pathogens, like aspergillus, according to an email that was obtained from the MRA through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The decision to release the marijuana was in response to a Dec. 3 ruling by Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray that reversed portions of a massive Nov. 17 recall issued by the MRA.

The MRA placed any marijuana tested by Viridis Laboratories between Aug. 10 and Nov. 16 on hold, until it could be retested. The state’s licensing agency deemed test results issued by Viridis, which operates labs in Lansing and Bay City, “unreliable” or “inaccurate.” The recall, estimated by Viridis in court filings to be about 64,000 pounds of marijuana flower worth an estimated $240 million, didn’t include inhalable concentrates extracted from marijuana.

Related: 18 health complaints linked to Viridis recall

Once the recall was in place, businesses began scrambling to get product retested and cleared so they could restock their shelves. However, some product failed retesting.

Viridis attorneys then successfully overturned a portion of the recall that pertained to any marijuana products tested by the Bay City Viridis location, whether or not it failed testing in the interim, according to the MRA.

As part of its basis for issuing the recall, the MRA focused on several batches of marijuana suspected of being contaminated with aspergillus, MRA Scientific and Legal Section Manager Claire Pattersonon said when she testified in the Court of Claims on Dec. 2.

“As it relates to this recall, we had started noticing in ... our statewide monitoring system that packages were failing for aspergillus and then being sent the next day to the (Viridis) laboratories, at which point they were being reported as passing without remediation by the grower,” MRA Scientific and Legal Section Manager Claire Patterson testified on Dec. 2 at a Court of Claims hearing. “Upon receiving that information, we began requesting additional information from the laboratories.”

The MRA randomly selected licensed labs to retest four samples that had previously failed aspergillus testing but were then passed by Viridis, according to Patterson. All of those samples subsequently failed aspergillus testing. While it’s known some marijuana retested after the initial recall was found to be contaminated, the MRA hasn’t revealed how much failed or was cleared for sale.

“Per the court’s order enjoining the MRA from enforcing the recall as to Viridis North, licensees are permitted to sell or transfer those specific products,” the licensing agency said in an email sent to various businesses Tuesday. “This includes product currently at sales locations.”

The MRA has declined to answer questions about the recall, court order or email, citing litigation and an ongoing investigation into Viridis.

“Eventually a Court of Claims judge said you can’t recall any of the cannabis from Bay City, but he said it in a way that means they have to release from recall all of the Bay City cannabis, even the cannabis that failed testing,” Rick Thompson, the director for the Michigan chapter of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) said Tuesday during Jazz Cabbage Cafe, the marijuana-industry-focused podcast and online show he cohosts. “The MRA, in order to comply with the Court of Claims, had to craft a whole workaround, to get around the computer system that’s specifically designed to not let them do what it is they are now doing.”

Thompson said he never expected the MRA to clear product that has tested positive for biological contaminants

“I can understand where the court order may have forced their hand, but this is beyond the pale,” he said, “This destroys credibility with the entire system ... Wow. That’s confusing on so many levels.”

Cassin Coleman, director of quality and processing at Carbidex, a group of Michigan marijuana businesses, said as long as retailers are labelling their marijuana properly, customers should be able to see where product was initially tested, if it was retested or if it failed. Retailers must also provide upon request a certificate of compliance that details the testing results for any marijuana products and additional information that isn’t included on labelling.

“People who are concerned because they might be immune compromised, they can ask for evidence,” Coleman said. “They can look at the label and choose not to buy the stuff regardless of whether it’s legal to be sold.”

She said higher than allowed levels of yeast and mold don’t usually pose significant health risks.

“In general, most people are not going to be harmed by mold, unless you have an allergy to mold, ” Coleman said. “The pathogenic stuff, it’s unconscionable that, if we have salmonella on it, that we would sell it in the marketplace.

“No one should be OK with doing that, and if they were -- I get the court is saying we can, but that’s selling adulterated product.”

The pathogenic contaminates that Michigan tests for in marijuana includes: salmonella, E. coli and aspergillus.

Prior to the release of marijuana that failed testing before the recall was lifted, the MRA cited at least 18 cases involving “adverse health reactions,” up to hospitalization, attributed to recalled marijuana tested by Viridis.

Viridis Labs was founded by three former Michigan State Police Forensic Division employees: Greg Michaud, Todd Welch and Michele Glinn.

“Per the Court’s ruling, recalled products tested by the Bay City lab are cleared to go back to market, regardless of the results of the unnecessary retests,” said Michaud. “The failed retests have no bearing on the accuracy of our initial laboratory results. Once a sample has cleared point-in-time testing, the associated product goes through a variety of uncontrolled environments from transportation to processing/packaging, and finally to the provisioning centers where the product is handled by staff and customers. Contamination can and does occur at any part of these handling processes.”

Coleman said contamination after marijuana passes testing “is quite common.”

“It’s a plant,” she said. “Just like you can have your bread go bad or your strawberries go bad, or things like that, it’s got organic matter on it. If it’s contaminated even a little bit in moist conditions, that can lead to growth.”

Coleman said consumer studies of marijuana sold in Colorado and Nevada found 25% of marijuana sold would have failed testing by the time it reached customers.

Nevertheless, Coleman believes it’s the ethical obligation of a business not to sell marijuana they know is contaminated.

The MRA began investigating Viridis in November of 2020, based on concerns over test results that yielded higher than industry average THC potency. High THC content is desirable to customers and increases demand and sales prices for certain strains of marijuana.

The MRA conducted audits at both Viridis labs on Oct. 26 and Oct. 27, during which investigators determined Viridis was producing inaccurate, unreliable results. In order to test for aspergillus, as well as other types of yeast and mold that is potentially harmful, testing labs keep marijuana samples in incubators for certain lengths of times while in a temperature-controlled environment. The MRA found that Viridis wasn’t keeping a log of when samples were placed into or removed from incubators and that, at times, incubation temperatures strayed from the targeted range.

The MRA began looking at Viridis more closely after it noticed inconsistencies related to the aspergillus testing.

Viridis currently has an active licensed and is permitted by the MRA to conduct all marijuana safety testing. It has a pending administrative complaint filed against the MRA and remains under investigation by the MRA.

Customers who experience any negative reactions to recalled marijuana, or any products sold in the licensed market, are asked to report it to the MRA via email: MRA-Enforcement@michigan.gov, or by phone, 517-284-8599.
 

Read 18 health complaints linked to massive Michigan marijuana recall

Updated: Dec. 21, 2021, 11:24 a.m. | Published: Dec. 21, 2021, 8:20 a.m.

Adverse health complaints linked to Viridis recall​

DateComplaint
11/8/21Submitted from from Cookies in Kalamazoo. Customer had a chemical burning sensation on his throat, then slight paranoia and nausea.
11/18/21I am a regular flower purchaser at a few of the dispensaries listed. I have experienced adverse reactions that I believe is due to this. I originally thought I had covid at the time and was stumped when the test came back negative.
11/18/21I have been smoking flower products bought from a Skymint store in Portage, MI that were tested by Viridis labs between Aug 10th and now, and I have experienced many abnormal side effects from smoking such as: headaches and migraines, pressure behind the eyes, and nausea. I don’t get these reactions from any other flower, which concerns me. I’ve also noticed that some of the flower I have purchased has looked more white and powdery, rather than green and topped with trichomes like it should.
11/18/21I've been having chest pains that I have already talked about with a doctor. Saw the recall notice today and sure enough my weed was tested at viridis lab.
11/18/21I purchased a that is on the recall list. After smoking it I noticed an unusual reaction. By the time I finished it my seizure activity increased not decreased. What do I need to do since I’ve ingested all of the product? How do I see what else I’ve had that was contaminated?
11/18/21My name is and I just read a news report on Viridis labs for a marijuana recall, I currently have some stuff that was tested by them that I will return back where I got it from, however on November 5th I developed flu like symptoms that lasted all week, it started out as a real bad cough to where it was like I was coughing up mucus from my chest or lungs and usually would end with me wheezing and shortness of breath. I was very fatigued along with chills and I also had head and body aches the coughing lasted over a week but seems to have cleared up now as I don’t do it as often just here and there I didn’t think anything of it as i thought maybe it was a bug or flu but after reading the recall article I have a concern if I should worry or not.
11/19/21Good afternoon. I’m writing to you regarding the recent recall of cannabis here in Michigan. I purchased the recalled products nine times within the recall dates of August 10th and November 11th of this year, since I was unaware of the recall until November 18th. I’m also concerned that I was not contacted directly by the company regarding this issue. They request my id at every interaction and have access to to my email and phone numbers. Why were these not utilized to warn people? I purchased all products at: Lume Cannabis Co ... Adrian, Mi. 49221. A few time since August, I have experienced severe but intermittent issues with breathing and lung pain. I wrote it off to weather changes or allergies, but I’m now concerned that it may have been something more. I have retained all product packaging and email confirmations should they be needed.
11/19/21(Redacted) of Dyanamcore LLC. dba Glazed and Confused PC-000529, AU-R-000361. We received a call from a customer this morning who had purchased from Common Citizen, Metrc Package Number which is a package that is in the recall. Our customer reported she purchased the product on the 3rd and had smoked it. On the 4th she stated she had sneezing, runny nose and a cough. Those symptom kept progressing, she took a covid test it was negative, she couldn't get in to see her normal doctor so then went to the ER and was diagnosed with pneumonia or lung infection. Per the MRA's rules we wanted to inform you of what we have learned. I did see that I should note this in Metrc but I am unsure as to how I should do that. Would you have some instruction on how to report this in Metrc?
11/19/21says he was unable to get through to your office but he wanted to speak with someone because he believes he is having an allergic reaction from one of the recalled products. He says he got it from Detroit Herbal Center.
11/19/21I purchased the below container from Lume Cannabis Co. in Honor, MI on 10/13/2021. After using this product, I developed severe pain in my abdomen and was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis. I spent 4 days at Munson medical Center in Traverse City from November 1st through the 4th and was told by doctors that cannabis consumption could be a cause for my condition. After seeing the recall in the news, I thought my condition might have been caused by the contaminated product. I can be reached at (redacted) for further questions
11/19/21Hi, my name is I believe I consumed a lot of this oh, well you tell me because I had to go to the emergency room for what felt like a collapsed lung and fluid in my lung for the last month oh, should I be worried?
11/20/21I am reaching out to discuss my experience with the recent marijuana recall. I got my marijuana from Homegrown Cannabis Co. in Lansing. I have had several strains tested by Viridis. For the past few weeks, I have been experiencing nausea, chills, abdominal pain, extreme weakness.
11/20/21I have recently used two of the products on the recall list from A New Standard in Hazel Park, MI. I have asthma and I am now sick with a chest infection which isn’t Covid or the flu. Please advise.
11/21/21Ok so I’ve been going to a medical dispensary that have served me bud with that date multiple times I got multiple packs with that date. I am now having breathing issues anything I can do about that ? Get something out of it cause that’s not fair to me
11/22/21Last week, on November 16th, I made a purchase from the Patient Station (539 S Huron St, Ypsilanti, MI 48197), to which the batch tasted putrid and of chemicals and caused an adverse reaction in terms of asthma and a headache. I contacted them to inform them and was never told of any recall, and they replaced it. However, the replacement does not say what day it was tested, who tested it, and what the test batch number is. They are all left blank. Can you please advise regarding what the options are to proceed in terms of addressing financial cost and recuperation? Further, I have made another purchase on 8/13/21 from High Profile in Ann Arbor, from Virdis.
11/22/21Last week, on November 16th, I made a purchase from the Patient Station (539 S Huron St, Ypsilanti, MI 48197), to which the batch tasted putrid and of chemicals and caused an adverse reaction in terms of asthma and a headache. I contacted them to inform them and was never told of any recall, and they replaced it. However, the replacement does not say what day it was tested, who tested it, and what the test batch number is. They are all left blank. Can you please advise regarding what the options are to proceed in terms of addressing financial cost and recuperation? Further, I have made another purchase on 8/13/21 from High Profile in Ann Arbor, from Virdis.
11/24/21Adverse reaction reported by employee in connection with marijuana bought from New Standard in Edmore. No details provided.
11/29/21I was given a paper Thursday because I bought several products that was recall I also experience complications at that time how do you go about getting a refund I was told to contact the number on the I call several times no response Sent from my iPhone
11/30/21Adverse reaction with no details provided.
Table: Gus Burns | MLive.com Source: LARA Created with Datawrapper



Eighteen customers reported negative health effects after smoking or otherwise consuming recalled marijuana products tested by Viridis Laboratories, which operates sites in Lansing and Bay City.

“Viridis has tested hundreds of thousands of pounds of cannabis and has never received reports of adverse effects until publicity around the MRA’s ill-advised, retaliatory recall began,” Viridis Laboratories CEO Greg Michaud said. “We have not seen any evidence that the complaints are valid or connected to products we tested, and it’s irresponsible to connect Viridis to any of these complaints at this point without rigorous scientific and medical analysis.”

The Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) on Nov. 17 recalled all marijuana products, except inhalable concentrates, that were tested by Viridis between Aug. 10 and Nov. 16, citing unreliable or inaccurate safety testing results. The MRA has since reported that at least 26% of those products that were retested failed due to having higher than allowable levels of yeast and mold, total coliforms or the presence of aspergillus, a type of mold that is potentially harmful for people with weakened immune systems or lung diseases.

“They’re in the process of investigation right now,” Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) Scientific and Legal Section Manager Claire Patterson testified on Dec. 2.

The MRA said every complaint is investigated but hasn’t revealed whether investigators determined the consumed marijuana is to blame for the negative health effects reported.

MLive obtained the complaints through a Freedom of Information Act request filed after they were mentioned during a court hearing on Dec. 2. In the records, the MRA redacted personal information from complainants, as well as identification numbers for the specific products.

“The email complaints that were provided to MLive via FOIA raise additional concerns,” Michaud said. “Interestingly, the MRA has delayed responding to our recent FOIA requests and continues to be unresponsive to many of our and others’ inquiries for additional information and further explanation, reinforcing our belief that this recall was motivated not by safety concerns but a retaliatory attack on a successful Michigan business.

“We join other Michigan businesses and policymakers in calling for additional oversight and transparency at the MRA so it can transform itself from an unchecked bureaucratic agency run amok into an entity that actually supports rather than harms Michigan’s growing cannabis industry.”

Viridis challenged the recall in the Michigan Court of Claims and won a legal battle to have a portion of the recall lifted. The original recall pertained to product tested in both Viridis labs; however, Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled that the reasoning for recalling marijuana tested in the Bay City lab was “arbitrary.” He lifted the recall on that marijuana in an order Dec. 3, prompting the MRA to in turn release the hold on those products, even if they had failed retesting.

The marijuana was released from hold on Wednesday, Dec. 15.

The MRA on Dec. 16 filed a motion in the Court of Claimsasking the judge to revisit his ruling. The motion for reconsideration said 26 percent, or 58 of 221 marijuana samples that were retested while the recall was in place, failed testing.
 

Michigan’s New Cannabis Liability Insurance Requirements Raise Concerns by Licensees, Insurers

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Michigan has adopted new legislation that unintentionally may make Michigan cannabis companies and their insurers scramble to determine how to comply with onerous regulations around mandatory product liability insurance. Without materially consulting the insurance industry on the feasibility of new insurance mandates, the state has surprised everyone with what appears to be a “leap before you look” decision that is likely to cause unintended problems for the state’s cannabis businesses.

Michigan’s New Mandatory Insurance Requirements for Cannabis Businesses​

The new requirements are set forth within Michigan’s Senate Bill (SB) 461 and Public Act (PA) 55, which are described briefly below.

Michigan Senate Bill 461

The bill, approved by Governor Whitmer in late December 2021, mandates product liability insurance coverage by licensed cannabis businesses. It provides that every licensee or license applicant must file with the state’s Marijuana Regulatory Authority (MRA) “proof of financial responsibility” of at least $100,000 per license for liability for bodily injury resulting from the manufacture, distribution, transportation or sale of “adulterated” cannabis or cannabis products.

The bill defines “adulterated” cannabis as “a product sold as marihuana that contains any unintended substance or chemical or biological matter other than marihuana that causes adverse reaction after ingestion or consumption.” “Bodily injury” is defined to exclude the “expected or intended effect or long-term adverse effect of smoking, ingestion, or consumption of marihuana or marihuana-infused product.”

To meet this obligation, the licensee must obtain a liability insurance policy that meets the following statutory requirements:

  • Is issued by a licensed insurance company (or licensed captive insurance company) in this state.

  • Does not include a condition, provision, stipulation, or limitation … that relieves the insurer from liability for the payment of any claim for which the insured may be held liable under the act.
  • Covers bodily injuries to a qualifying patient, including injuries that are caused by the intentional conduct of the licensee (but not if the licensee acted with the intent to harm).
SB 461 further requires an “attestation of compliance” signed by an officer of the licensed insurance company. Failure to maintain the required insurance will result in mandatory suspension of the cannabis license. In addition, the insured licensee must provide 30 days’ written notice to the MRA prior to canceling the liability insurance, and must provide new proof of insurance within 30 days after providing such notice.

A legislative analysis of the bill explains that the purpose of the new law is to avoid insurers relying on certain exclusions to bar coverage when a consumer sues a licensee for harm allegedly caused by the licensee’s product. The legislative analysis states that “some policies issued by insurers to licensees contain certain policy exclusions that could be interpreted by courts as precluding coverage for a claim relating to that exclusion.” The analysis then mentions a “blanket exclusion” barring coverage for substances “whether or not the substance is prohibited or allowed under [Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act].” The new law is an attempt to avoid the situation where a licensee “may find that its policy would not cover a claim made by a person alleging harm from ingesting a product containing one or more of the listed substances.”

Public Act 55

PA 55, which took effect on October 11, 2021, adds section 11a to the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, prohibiting licensees from selling or transferring marijuana to a minor or to a person who is visibly intoxicated at the time of sale. In addition, it allows individuals who are injured or who suffer damage by a minor or visibly intoxicated person to take action against the licensee who sold or transferred the marijuana. Section 11a requires Michigan cannabis retailers and microbusiness licensees to maintain insurance coverage “provided by a licensed and admitted insurance company in Michigan” in a minimum amount of $50,000 for actions brought under section 11a.

The Cannabis Industry Is Insured Primarily by the Non-Licensed Surplus Insurance Market​

The most obvious problem with SB 461 and PA 55 is the requirement that insurance policies may be issued only by “licensed” or “admitted” insurance companies in Michigan. A licensed or admitted insurance company has submitted its forms and rates for approval by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services and may not deviate without permission. Admitted insurers are strictly regulated, must comply with state-mandated reserve requirements and may be guaranteed by the state in the event of insolvency.

Non-admitted carriers provide coverage for risks not available within the admitted market. Sometimes called the “safety valve” of the insurance industry, these surplus lines insurers fill an important need by insuring non-standard or high-risk activity that is declined by the admitted market. Surplus lines carriers often focus on developing innovative insurance for new products or industry sectors that lack a loss history and other actuarial metrics used for pricing. Unlike admitted insurance products, surplus lines coverage has the ability to react to evolving risks and market conditions by quickly changing forms and pricing. Surplus lines insurance often evolves into a standard product in the admitted market after the risk has matured and adequate data has been generated.

It is therefore not surprising that a developing non-standard risk such as cannabis product liability would be embraced by surplus lines carriers and largely shunned as an admitted product. There is a small handful of admitted cannabis insurance products in several states, but they constitute a fraction of the total cannabis insurance industry. Several states certainly have sought to entice the admitted insurance market to underwrite cannabis risks more aggressively, most notably efforts by former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and ongoing work by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Cannabis Working Group. Those efforts, however, have yielded only nominal results in terms of new admitted insurance companies and capacity.

The decision by Michigan to exclude the surplus insurance market from underwriting risky product liability coverage for adulterated cannabis products is difficult to explain. Far from achieving the desired goal of ensuring that Michigan consumers and patients have access to a remedy through effective product liability insurance, the bill effectively prevents the Michigan cannabis industry from working with the most knowledgeable underwriters and brokers who have assisted cannabis companies throughout the country with this unique area of risk management.

Unreasonable Barriers to Insurers​

Just as intriguing is Michigan’s decision to erect seemingly unreasonable barriers to insurers that may otherwise agree to offer product liability coverage in the state. Under SB 461, compliant insurance policies may not include any policy term “that relieves the insurer from liability for the payment of any claim for which the insured may be held liable under the act,” as well as mandatory coverage for even the intentional conduct of the licensee. It is difficult even for insurance coverage attorneys and other policy specialists to understand the meaning of this extremely broad statutory requirement. In fact, the language is so broad that it potentially precludes any otherwise effective policy warranty, exclusion or limitation that may be triggered in response to a product adulteration claim.

This overly broad and ambiguous language should rightly make any insurance company nervous and reluctant to provide cannabis product liability coverage to Michigan cannabis companies. Cannabis product liability insurance claims may be declined or limited under various loss scenarios for a wide variety of reasons based on commonly used policy requirements, exclusions and warranties. Removing the ability of insurance companies to moderate the risk around liability for adulterated cannabis products is simply unrealistic and unwise. Unless the law changes, Michigan licensees will likely be left with fewer insurance choices, higher premiums and, ironically, less-effective coverage.

Michigan Cannabis Licenses Are at Risk​

There is no such thing as a “bulletproof” insurance policy that provides coverage for a class of claims under all circumstances. It is inevitable that there will be claims of adulterated cannabis products that are limited or declined by insurance companies in Michigan based on the specifics of particular loss scenarios. A cannabis license may be suspended, however, if the licensee fails to maintain insurance without provisions that “relieve the insurer from liability for the payment” of an adulteration claim. This appears to present an unreasonable risk to the cannabis license.

We will not be surprised to see license suspensions in Michigan if these insurance requirements are enforced by the MRA. The ability to change carriers also is made more difficult in an already challenging insurance market due to the requirement of providing 30 days’ written notice to the MRA prior to canceling the mandatory insurance. Delays that inevitably arise at policy renewal time will put Michigan licenses at further risk of suspension.

Cannabis Licensees Are Forced to Become “Insurance Specialists”​

Though the law has the commendable goal of helping licensees obtain insurance to cover claims of harm allegedly caused by an adulterated cannabis product, it places an unreasonable burden on cannabis licensees and effectively requires them to be specialists in insurance. If the purpose of the law is to ensure that certain claims against cannabis licensees are covered and not barred by exclusions in insurance policies, a better approach might be for the state’s Department of Insurance to prohibit insurers from including the troublesome exclusions in their policies, rather than legislating onerous insurance requirements that result in the threat of license suspension for out-of-compliance policies. The state already has taken the unusual step of allowing only licensed insurance companies to write this coverage, which causes its own set of problems, as discussed above.

Perhaps the best approach is for open communication by the state authorities with both the admitted and surplus insurance markets to identify a solution that accomplishes the goal of ensuring adequate coverage for adulteration claims while protecting licenses and allowing access to best-in-class cannabis insurance.

The Cannabis Insurance Industry Is Ready to Talk​

If these scenarios do come to pass, they largely will be the result of Michigan legislators and the MRA not effectively engaging and communicating with the cannabis insurance industry. Legislating insurance requirements in a highly regulated and evolving industry characterized by unknown risks should only happen when all stakeholders have been heard. The insurance industry is indeed ready and willing to engage with regulators if given the chance. This should be a learning opportunity for other states that may consider enacting similar mandatory insurance requirements for cannabis businesses.
 

Michigan’s New Cannabis Liability Insurance Requirements Raise Concerns by Licensees, Insurers

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Michigan has adopted new legislation that unintentionally may make Michigan cannabis companies and their insurers scramble to determine how to comply with onerous regulations around mandatory product liability insurance. Without materially consulting the insurance industry on the feasibility of new insurance mandates, the state has surprised everyone with what appears to be a “leap before you look” decision that is likely to cause unintended problems for the state’s cannabis businesses.

Michigan’s New Mandatory Insurance Requirements for Cannabis Businesses​

The new requirements are set forth within Michigan’s Senate Bill (SB) 461 and Public Act (PA) 55, which are described briefly below.

Michigan Senate Bill 461

The bill, approved by Governor Whitmer in late December 2021, mandates product liability insurance coverage by licensed cannabis businesses. It provides that every licensee or license applicant must file with the state’s Marijuana Regulatory Authority (MRA) “proof of financial responsibility” of at least $100,000 per license for liability for bodily injury resulting from the manufacture, distribution, transportation or sale of “adulterated” cannabis or cannabis products.

The bill defines “adulterated” cannabis as “a product sold as marihuana that contains any unintended substance or chemical or biological matter other than marihuana that causes adverse reaction after ingestion or consumption.” “Bodily injury” is defined to exclude the “expected or intended effect or long-term adverse effect of smoking, ingestion, or consumption of marihuana or marihuana-infused product.”

To meet this obligation, the licensee must obtain a liability insurance policy that meets the following statutory requirements:

  • Is issued by a licensed insurance company (or licensed captive insurance company) in this state.

  • Does not include a condition, provision, stipulation, or limitation … that relieves the insurer from liability for the payment of any claim for which the insured may be held liable under the act.
  • Covers bodily injuries to a qualifying patient, including injuries that are caused by the intentional conduct of the licensee (but not if the licensee acted with the intent to harm).
SB 461 further requires an “attestation of compliance” signed by an officer of the licensed insurance company. Failure to maintain the required insurance will result in mandatory suspension of the cannabis license. In addition, the insured licensee must provide 30 days’ written notice to the MRA prior to canceling the liability insurance, and must provide new proof of insurance within 30 days after providing such notice.

A legislative analysis of the bill explains that the purpose of the new law is to avoid insurers relying on certain exclusions to bar coverage when a consumer sues a licensee for harm allegedly caused by the licensee’s product. The legislative analysis states that “some policies issued by insurers to licensees contain certain policy exclusions that could be interpreted by courts as precluding coverage for a claim relating to that exclusion.” The analysis then mentions a “blanket exclusion” barring coverage for substances “whether or not the substance is prohibited or allowed under [Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act].” The new law is an attempt to avoid the situation where a licensee “may find that its policy would not cover a claim made by a person alleging harm from ingesting a product containing one or more of the listed substances.”

Public Act 55

PA 55, which took effect on October 11, 2021, adds section 11a to the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, prohibiting licensees from selling or transferring marijuana to a minor or to a person who is visibly intoxicated at the time of sale. In addition, it allows individuals who are injured or who suffer damage by a minor or visibly intoxicated person to take action against the licensee who sold or transferred the marijuana. Section 11a requires Michigan cannabis retailers and microbusiness licensees to maintain insurance coverage “provided by a licensed and admitted insurance company in Michigan” in a minimum amount of $50,000 for actions brought under section 11a.

The Cannabis Industry Is Insured Primarily by the Non-Licensed Surplus Insurance Market​

The most obvious problem with SB 461 and PA 55 is the requirement that insurance policies may be issued only by “licensed” or “admitted” insurance companies in Michigan. A licensed or admitted insurance company has submitted its forms and rates for approval by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services and may not deviate without permission. Admitted insurers are strictly regulated, must comply with state-mandated reserve requirements and may be guaranteed by the state in the event of insolvency.

Non-admitted carriers provide coverage for risks not available within the admitted market. Sometimes called the “safety valve” of the insurance industry, these surplus lines insurers fill an important need by insuring non-standard or high-risk activity that is declined by the admitted market. Surplus lines carriers often focus on developing innovative insurance for new products or industry sectors that lack a loss history and other actuarial metrics used for pricing. Unlike admitted insurance products, surplus lines coverage has the ability to react to evolving risks and market conditions by quickly changing forms and pricing. Surplus lines insurance often evolves into a standard product in the admitted market after the risk has matured and adequate data has been generated.

It is therefore not surprising that a developing non-standard risk such as cannabis product liability would be embraced by surplus lines carriers and largely shunned as an admitted product. There is a small handful of admitted cannabis insurance products in several states, but they constitute a fraction of the total cannabis insurance industry. Several states certainly have sought to entice the admitted insurance market to underwrite cannabis risks more aggressively, most notably efforts by former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and ongoing work by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Cannabis Working Group. Those efforts, however, have yielded only nominal results in terms of new admitted insurance companies and capacity.

The decision by Michigan to exclude the surplus insurance market from underwriting risky product liability coverage for adulterated cannabis products is difficult to explain. Far from achieving the desired goal of ensuring that Michigan consumers and patients have access to a remedy through effective product liability insurance, the bill effectively prevents the Michigan cannabis industry from working with the most knowledgeable underwriters and brokers who have assisted cannabis companies throughout the country with this unique area of risk management.

Unreasonable Barriers to Insurers​

Just as intriguing is Michigan’s decision to erect seemingly unreasonable barriers to insurers that may otherwise agree to offer product liability coverage in the state. Under SB 461, compliant insurance policies may not include any policy term “that relieves the insurer from liability for the payment of any claim for which the insured may be held liable under the act,” as well as mandatory coverage for even the intentional conduct of the licensee. It is difficult even for insurance coverage attorneys and other policy specialists to understand the meaning of this extremely broad statutory requirement. In fact, the language is so broad that it potentially precludes any otherwise effective policy warranty, exclusion or limitation that may be triggered in response to a product adulteration claim.

This overly broad and ambiguous language should rightly make any insurance company nervous and reluctant to provide cannabis product liability coverage to Michigan cannabis companies. Cannabis product liability insurance claims may be declined or limited under various loss scenarios for a wide variety of reasons based on commonly used policy requirements, exclusions and warranties. Removing the ability of insurance companies to moderate the risk around liability for adulterated cannabis products is simply unrealistic and unwise. Unless the law changes, Michigan licensees will likely be left with fewer insurance choices, higher premiums and, ironically, less-effective coverage.

Michigan Cannabis Licenses Are at Risk​

There is no such thing as a “bulletproof” insurance policy that provides coverage for a class of claims under all circumstances. It is inevitable that there will be claims of adulterated cannabis products that are limited or declined by insurance companies in Michigan based on the specifics of particular loss scenarios. A cannabis license may be suspended, however, if the licensee fails to maintain insurance without provisions that “relieve the insurer from liability for the payment” of an adulteration claim. This appears to present an unreasonable risk to the cannabis license.

We will not be surprised to see license suspensions in Michigan if these insurance requirements are enforced by the MRA. The ability to change carriers also is made more difficult in an already challenging insurance market due to the requirement of providing 30 days’ written notice to the MRA prior to canceling the mandatory insurance. Delays that inevitably arise at policy renewal time will put Michigan licenses at further risk of suspension.

Cannabis Licensees Are Forced to Become “Insurance Specialists”​

Though the law has the commendable goal of helping licensees obtain insurance to cover claims of harm allegedly caused by an adulterated cannabis product, it places an unreasonable burden on cannabis licensees and effectively requires them to be specialists in insurance. If the purpose of the law is to ensure that certain claims against cannabis licensees are covered and not barred by exclusions in insurance policies, a better approach might be for the state’s Department of Insurance to prohibit insurers from including the troublesome exclusions in their policies, rather than legislating onerous insurance requirements that result in the threat of license suspension for out-of-compliance policies. The state already has taken the unusual step of allowing only licensed insurance companies to write this coverage, which causes its own set of problems, as discussed above.

Perhaps the best approach is for open communication by the state authorities with both the admitted and surplus insurance markets to identify a solution that accomplishes the goal of ensuring adequate coverage for adulteration claims while protecting licenses and allowing access to best-in-class cannabis insurance.

The Cannabis Insurance Industry Is Ready to Talk​

If these scenarios do come to pass, they largely will be the result of Michigan legislators and the MRA not effectively engaging and communicating with the cannabis insurance industry. Legislating insurance requirements in a highly regulated and evolving industry characterized by unknown risks should only happen when all stakeholders have been heard. The insurance industry is indeed ready and willing to engage with regulators if given the chance. This should be a learning opportunity for other states that may consider enacting similar mandatory insurance requirements for cannabis businesses.
This is utterly idiotic. Yes, these businesses need liability insurance in case someone falls on their wet floor and that sort of thing...but product liability?

This shit is mandatory tested PRIOR to shipment to to dispensaries....or do your dispensaries up there grown their own?

In Maryland, growers and retail stores are seperate, all cannabis is tested prior to going to the dispensary, and here there would be zero logic in holding a dispensary liable for state mandated tested weed much most of it in pre-packs from the growers.

That and any organization that still calls it "marihuana" (with this spelling) gets my contempt....which ain't really all that hard to earn! hahaha
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top