Pubdate: Sun, 8 Aug 2010
Source: Traverse City Record-Eagle (MI)
Copyright: 2010 The Traverse City Record-Eagle
Contact: http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_128175513.html
Website: http://www.record-eagle.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1336
Referenced: Marijuana Puts Residents at Risk 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n000/a029.html
Referenced: Plan Protects Patients 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n000/a030.html
Referenced: Michigan's law http://drugsense.org/url/8mvr7sW8
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+medical+marijuana
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

TOLERANCE FOR MEDICAL POT RULES

Traverse City, like probably most Michigan cities, appears to be 
behind the curve in terms of setting local rules and regulations for 
the cultivation and use of medical marijuana.

Before the city commission approves proposed new rules, officials 
need to do some clear thinking about the possible long-term 
repercussions of those rules - or the lack of rules - proposed by a 
planning commission committee.

The bedrock problem is that this is brand-new territory as far as 
deciding what laws, if any, a municipality needs to control medical 
marijuana use or if controls even are appropriate. So far, advocates 
have said the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act (HIPAA) protects the right to confidentiality of patients and 
their caregivers, and any effort to license or even identify those 
people could be considered a violation of the law.

Cities also still are grappling with appropriate zoning for the 
various aspects of the Act - patients growing up to 12 plants on 
their own, caregivers being allowed to grow as many as 72 plants, and 
operating a "collective" where medical marijuana can change hands 
among those with medical certification - but, presumably, all without 
any official oversight.

Predictably, medical marijuana activists are, frankly, well ahead of 
officialdom, even though the law was approved by voters almost two 
years ago. Lawsuits already have been filed elsewhere in Michigan 
over new rules and regulations.

For cities that want to regulate marijuana use beyond those certified 
to use medical marijuana, this is all a slippery slope. If the very 
act of trying to ascertain if someone actually is certified can be a 
HIPAA violation, how is a municipality supposed to enforce state and 
federal laws against possession and use of pot?

Critics can imagine local collectives turning into marijuana trading 
posts where people with and without certification come to buy. For 
those without certification, what's the worst thing that can happen? 
And do we really want to place those running collectives in the role 
of policeman?

Wouldn't the very act of trying to verify someone's certification to 
see if they qualify be a HIPAA violation? If it's a violation for the 
police to ask, wouldn't it be the same for caregivers or those who 
run collectives?

And how does this compare with laws that require those who sell 
alcohol to check IDs to ensure the patron is 21 or older? Those who 
drink alcohol are not protected by HIPAA, of course.

Longtime neighborhood activist Adrienne Rossi, who served on a 
citizen planning commission committee to consider zoning rules, 
suggested in a Record-Eagle op-ed that in order to protect the 
integrity of single-family neighborhoods, the city should treat 
cultivation as a home occupation, amend its existing home occupations 
ordinance, and monitor and institute regular police surveillance of 
identified medical marijuana grow sites. She recommended allowing 
cultivation in mixed-use and commercial districts.

Advocate Adam Devaney, however, pointed out in his own Record-Eagle 
op-ed that "even the state of Michigan, which is bringing in large 
amounts of money through application fees, has steadfastly refused to 
entertain the idea of conducting any type of inspections."

Devaney, also a member of the citizen committee, said he concentrated 
on two goals - to "protect the confidentiality of patients and their 
caregivers; and ... limit the potential liability to the City of 
Traverse City ..."

The city, however, also must have other concerns, such as how to 
enforce state and federal marijuana laws outside the 
patient/caregiver situation and how to zone what appear, in the case 
of caregivers anyway, to be retail or commercial activities.

A major reason for concern is the growing disconnect between the 
number of potential patients - people udergoing chemotherapy or 
suffering from a limited list of ailments - and the ever-expanding 
number of people who apparently want to get into the 
caregiver/collective business.

Ads are popping up all over for certification programs and there are 
already plans afoot to create collectives here.

The act, overwhelmingly approved by voters two years ago, simply 
doesn't address that issue.

At its core, this is a good law. People deserve access to effective 
treatment for a disease they didn't ask for. Applying the law, 
however, is proving to be a more difficult decision. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake