Jump to content


Photo

Should Landlords Be Able To Ban Medical Marijuana? Michigan Senate Oks Bill To Amend 2008 Law


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#41 t-pain

t-pain

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,436 posts

Posted 11 March 2015 - 08:12 PM

Cant post a pic....but the policy also states damage done by renters isnt covered.


you dont have renters insurance then.
  • trichcycler likes this

#42 flower pharm

flower pharm

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 188 posts
  • LocationRIGHT BEHIND YOU!

Posted 11 March 2015 - 08:17 PM

you dont have renters insurance then.

doh!



#43 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 09:55 AM

First off im a patient and caregiver.
I support the mma but i also support this bill.
I grow in my home that i own. If i rented my home i wouldnt allow someone to grow in it, unless it was a very limited amount of plants and they renovated a room properly that i was able to inspect.
The fact is, growing a large garden is hard on a house. Unless done properly the humidity, spills, and heat can destroy floors and walls. If electrical isnt run properly the house can burn down. My homeowners specifically states that loses from the cultivation of marijuana are not covered.
How many people know someone that had a renter that tore up their house?
Some hillbilly abusing the system wont think twice about destroying your house to turn profit whey they only stand to lose 1000 dollar security deposit.
Lets be realistic.

I would be the landlord from hell!  No one would have a grow in my investment home/homes!  That is my choice and doesnt mean im against mm, obviously im not against it, but I didnt work my arse off for some one to ruin my retirement,,,,,Im positive there are good people out there that would not burn down my home, but im not willing to take that chance, and this guy is right it isnt covered by ins!

 

No one would want me as a land lord, I would be checking my property all the time, if the yard wasnt kept up like I gave it to them they can expect a 10 day notice to quit!!!!

 

Call me what you want, if you dont agree with me  you must be alot younger than me,,,,,and I dont care what others do with there income property's but it aint happening on mine!

 

Peace


  • trichcycler likes this

#44 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:04 AM

Well stated. I've been in the residential rental market. I don't care if the tenant grows cannabis or parsley indoors. Just don't F-up my house. I can screen tenants and require security deposits accordingly. No need for any new laws.

I agree no law has to be changed, a land lord has rental leases and they can take care of their own, we dont need a law to do that!

 

Personaly I would not allow it, I  have been involved with rentals, right down from detroit rentals to high rise rentals, and you would not beleive the schitt I have seen lmao,,,,,,im so glad it wasnt my property,,,,,there were many I refused to work on because of the crap I see when I walk in the door, as a self employed person, I could not afford equipment for peice of poop rentals and dif equip for zillion dollar mansions like the fords!!

 

Peace



#45 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:05 AM

Good people respect property. Rent to good people and they will respect your property if you respect them, regardless if they grow or not. They are just house plants.

Good people also can turn bad, look at politics cutie pie! :blow-a-heart:

 

Peace



#46 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:10 AM

Yup lots of people turned me down in iron mountain so I had to buy. And im friggin paralyzed with registered service dogs and don't grow.

Thats falls into another law carl,  that one there falls into descrimanation they have to rent to you, even if they have it in there lease, they cant forbid you to have service dogs, you should have taken them to court and they may have bought you that house!

 

I am sorry you had to deal with that!

 

Peace



#47 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:15 AM

and you cant sue the guy who burned down your house because ?

If they had money why would they rent!  You cant get money from a rock,,,,,

 

darn I may make to the 2nd page eventualy.

 

Peace



#48 zapatosunidos

zapatosunidos

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 8,296 posts

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:19 AM

If they had money why would they rent!  You cant get money from a rock,,,,,

 

damn I may make to the 2nd page eventualy.

 

Peace

This is a general problem with being a landlord. Bad or improper insurance on the dwelling is another problem. Neither one has anything to do with patients and their caregivers.

 

I do not support recriminalizing growing and smoking for renters. It is exactly like any other type of property damage by a renter and does not require an amendment to the MMMA. Growing and smoking can be done by responsible people on rented property without causing any damage whatsoever.

 

This legislation is simply prejudicial to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.


  • GregS, mibrains, Wild Bill and 1 other like this

#49 phaquetoo

phaquetoo

    master of disaster

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
  • Locationsome where in between summer and winter!

Posted 12 March 2015 - 10:40 AM

This is a general problem with being a landlord. Bad or improper insurance on the dwelling is another problem. Neither one has anything to do with patients and their caregivers.

 

I do not support recriminalizing growing and smoking for renters. It is exactly like any other type of property damage by a renter and does not require an amendment to the MMMA. Growing and smoking can be done by responsible people on rented property without causing any damage whatsoever.

 

This legislation is simply prejudicial to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

I am in no way endorsing changing the law for rentals, rentals have leases and can already take care of this on their own, we dont need to change our law to accomidate any one, If landlords dont want something to happen in there home they put it in the lease!

 

It is that simple,,,,,,,no change to our mm law!

 

Peace


  • zapatosunidos and flower pharm like this

#50 rockinsteady

rockinsteady

    Advanced Member

  • +Chat Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Locationgone fishin'

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:12 PM

LANSING, MI -- Landlords would be granted clear authority to ban medical marijuana use on their property under legislation approved Tuesday by the Michigan Senate.

The legislation, approved in a 34-3 vote and now headed to the House for further consideration, requires a three-quarters majority support in each chamber because it would amend Michigan's voter-approved medical marijuana law.

Sponsoring Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said the bill would simply codify a 2011 opinion from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who determined that apartment owners can prohibit the smoking or growing of marijuana without violating the medical law.

"That's already law under his ruling, but it's very confusing," Jones said. "A lot of judges and police aren't clear on it."

Landlords deserve the option to ban medical marijuana because individuals who smoke in an apartment building can bother other tenants and those who grow plants indoors can cause property damage, according to Jones.

"I have had two homes totally destroyed in my district that were turned into grow operations," said Jones. "They were basically turned into greenhouses."

Sen. Rebekah Warren, one of three lawmakers to vote against the bill, said it was important to keep in mind that the legislation would apply only to registered patients.

"This is people's medicine we're talking about. And when you're talking about rental housing, this is where people live," said Warren, D-Ann Arbor. "So what we did today -- not me, I voted against it -- is say that people can't take their medicine in the place that they reside. That's a challenge."

...

.

.

.

 

If the law codifies a 2011 opinion from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuettewhich applies to "public places", then it would not apply to rental houses since these are not public places. So, the law goes further than the 2011 opinion on what can be prohibited in apartment residences, extending the rule to rental houses which I suppose have "landlords", too.

 

Did anyone else notice that they are using the above opinion, and the MMM Act itself, which prohibits smoking in public places, as a reason to allow landlords to prohibit smoking (or growing) in rental homes, which are not public?


Edited by rockinsteady, 15 March 2015 - 12:25 PM.


#51 t-pain

t-pain

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,436 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:16 PM

the third part of that AG opinion you linked to talks about property owners banning smoking via lease agreements.

#52 rockinsteady

rockinsteady

    Advanced Member

  • +Chat Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Locationgone fishin'

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:41 PM

But the opinion uses the MMM Act as reasoning for allowing any landlord of "other similar facility" prohibit smoking in a rental house.

 

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your third question, that an owner of a hotel, motel, apartment building, or other similar facility can prohibit the smoking of marihuana and the growing of marihuana plants anywhere within the facility, and imposing such a prohibition does not violate the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26421 et seq. 

 

So the opinion did the extending, rather than the law. It just seems odd to keep refering back to the MMM Act "public places" as some sort of starting point to calling the whole world a "public place". All while refering to the MMM Act for some reason.

 

How did the opinion take that leap and get away with it?



#53 t-pain

t-pain

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,436 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:45 PM

it hasnt. otherwise you'd see police getting away with arresting people smoking in their cars or on their lawns.

those cases keep getting tossed out of court. schuette really is a dumbshit, and he was a judge!

recently he said apartment / hotel lobby were 'public places' again, i forgot in what article.
the strange thing is that in colo or wash, hotel lobbies are public places in thier marijuana law, so thats possibly where this nonsense keeps coming from.

or maybe its some straight up bs about where police can arrest you for being intoxicated in a "public place" via some case law.

Edited by t-pain, 15 March 2015 - 12:48 PM.


#54 ozzrokk

ozzrokk

    Sick and Tired

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 01:32 PM

It appears Schuettee will use anything in anyway to get his point across and that point is that he hates marijuana and could care less that there was a law passed. He will just try and use it against patients and caregivers.


  • t-pain likes this

#55 mibrains

mibrains

    Why do you eat people? Not people...BRAINS

  • Forum Leaders
  • 4,384 posts
  • Location- i seem to end up where i am needed most just in the nick of time.

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:27 AM

http://www.legislatu...me=2015-sb-0072

 

1/29/2015 SJ 7 Pg. 91 INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RICK JONES

1/29/2015 SJ 7 Pg. 91 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 REPORTED FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IMMEDIATE EFFECT

2/12/2015 SJ 13 Pg. 146 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 SUBSTITUTE S-1 CONCURRED IN

3/3/2015 SJ 20 Pg. 232 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

3/10/2015 SJ 23 Pg. 267 PASSED BY 3/4 VOTE ROLL CALL # 41 YEAS 34 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 267 received on 03/10/2015

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 270 read a first time

3/10/2015 HJ 24 Pg. 270 referred to Committee on Judiciary

 

Senate Bill 72 (Substitute S-1 as reported)

Sponsor:  Senator Rick Jones

Committee:  Judiciary

 

 

CONTENT

 

The bill would amend the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act to do the following:

 

 --    Prohibit smoking medical marihuana on private property in violation of a prohibition established by the property owner.

 --    Specify that the Act could not be construed to require a private property owner to lease residential property to a person who smoked or cultivated marihuana on the premises, if a written lease prohibited smoking or cultivating marihuana.

 

The Act authorizes the possession and use of limited amounts of marihuana by individuals suffering from certain conditions who have been issued medical marihuana registry identification cards. The Act provides, however, that it does not permit any person to smoke marihuana on any form of public transportation or in any public place. The bill also specifies that the Act would not permit a person to smoke marihuana on private property in violation of a prohibition established by the property owner.

 

In addition, the bill states that nothing in the Act could be constructed to require a private property owner to lease residential property to a person who smoked or cultivated marihuana on the premises, if that activity were prohibited in the written lease.

 

(Under the Public Health Code, possession of marihuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year's imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $2,000. Use of marihuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $100.)

 

The bill would take effect 90 days after its enactment.

 

MCL 333.26427                                                       Legislative Analyst:  Patrick Affholter

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

The bill would have an indeterminate, but likely negligible, fiscal impact on State and local government. The bill would clarify and potentially expand the areas in which medical marihuana use is prohibited under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. This could result in a marginal increase in the number of individuals found in violation of the Public Health Code provisions outlawing the possession and/or use of marihuana. There are no data to indicate how many offenders this would affect, but the resulting misdemeanors could lead to a marginal increase in incarceration costs for local units and/or community supervision costs for the State.

 

Date Completed:  2-11-15                                                    Fiscal Analyst:  John Maxwell

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.



#56 Malamute

Malamute

    Advanced Member

  • +CC-Dickinson
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,209 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:31 AM

The bill would clarify and potentially expand the areas in which medical marihuana use is prohibited under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. This could result in a marginal increase in the number of individuals found in violation of the Public Health Code provisions outlawing the possession and/or use of marihuana. There are no data to indicate how many offenders this would affect, but the resulting misdemeanors could lead to a marginal increase in incarceration costs for local units and/or community supervision costs for the State.

 

 

That about says everything ya need to know.  Quit finding and creating ways to hassle, incarcerate or intimidate patients for their money and freedom.



#57 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,325 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:45 AM

in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent 

 

We didn't say that but its what we mean ?



#58 slipstar059

slipstar059

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 628 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 02:22 PM

Why do commercial landlords still hesitate to rent to marijuana businesses? In addition to the remote possibility of a landlord getting arrested and prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for violating the Federal Controlled Substances Act, landlords face the very real threat of losing their property via a civil asset forfeiture. The federal government can and does sometimes seize property used for cultivating, manufacturing, or selling marijuana. In recent years, the Federal Government has netted at least one billion dollars from seizing personal and real property used for to manufacture or distribute Federally illegal drugs, including marijuana in states where marijuana is legal. Whether you are a commercial landlord or a marijuana business tenant, you need to know what you can do to help fend off Federal intervention, including asset forfeiture.

First though, a brief overview of how asset forfeiture works. Forfeiture can be either civil or criminal. Forfeiture of real property used to violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act is governed by 21 U.S.C §§ 881 and 18 U.S.C §§ 983 and 985. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C §881(a)(7):

“[t]he following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them … [a]ll real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment.”

Since cultivating, manufacturing, and distributing marijuana are Federal crimes, real property used to facilitate the commission of those crimes is subject to asset forfeiture.

In civil asset forfeiture cases involving real property, the government actually sues the property itself and the property owner is treated as a third party claimant. Civil forfeitures of real property are initiated as judicial forfeitures, meaning a court with competent jurisdiction must oversee the seizure. The burden of proof is on the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture of real property does not require that the government prove that the landowner is guilty of any crime; it is enough if the government shows that there is a “substantial connection” between the property and the crime alleged. By contrast, criminal forfeiture is against a person only after a conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) for an underlying criminal offense.

Nonetheless, 18 U.S.C §983(d) creates what is known as the “innocent owner defense” to asset forfeiture of real property. “An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.” The term “innocent owner” means an owner who (i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or (ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property (emphasis added).”

In many states where marijuana has been legalized (either for recreational or medical use) the innocent owner defense is usually not available because the marijuana-legal state mandates that the lease explicitly allow for the cultivation, manufacture, or retail sale of marijuana. And, in most if not all, marijuana-friendly States, having a lease that allows for marijuana activity is a requirement to receive an operational license from the state. So then what can landlords and tenants do to prevent asset forfeiture or Federal intervention altogether?

First, as we noted in our post, Marijuana Commercial Leaseholds: Any Resemblance to Regular Leaseholds is Purely Coincidental real property leases that involve a marijuana business should include “escape clauses” listing Federal intervention, changes of Federal enforcement policy, forfeiture threats, and/or Federal enforcement (be it a raid by the DEA or filing of criminal charges by the DOJ) as defaults that constitute lease violations or cancellations.

Leases typically contain a permitted use provision to govern the activities that can take place on the leased property. The permitted use provision for a marijuana business should accurately identify the activities allowed on the property. For example, if a tenant is a marijuana retailer, the permitted use provision should reflect this by explicitly permitting “the retail sale of marijuana.” If the permitted use is unclear, tenants run the risk of breaching the lease by conducting an activity not permitted on the property, which itself could invite Federal scrutiny.

It is also prudent for a marijuana commercial leasehold to set out a strict code of conduct relating to the use of the property. The typical Commercial Broker’s Association lease provides that any illegal activity on the property constitutes a default so just pulling one of these “off the shelf” is not the way to go. One reliable way to handle the illegality issue is to write a lease that explicitly forbids only those actions that violate state (not Federal) law.

Moreover, it is important to include in a marijuana lease provisions relating to hours of operation, the tenant’s treatment of its surrounding commercial neighbors, loitering, odors, the use of hazardous substances at the property, the number of people permitted on the property, and constant compliance with any and all state and local regulatory rules and with the recent Cole Memo from the DOJ.

The bottom line: Federal marijuana prohibition and the fluidity of state law marijuana regulatory schemes mean that standard commercial lease agreements are not sufficient to sustain and protect the landlord/tenant relationship involving a cannabis business. You instead need lease that accounts for the realities of running a marijuana business. Or prepare to face the consequences.
  • trichcycler likes this

#59 mibrains

mibrains

    Why do you eat people? Not people...BRAINS

  • Forum Leaders
  • 4,384 posts
  • Location- i seem to end up where i am needed most just in the nick of time.

Posted 16 March 2015 - 06:01 PM

3/10/2015 SJ 23 Pg. 267 PASSED BY 3/4 VOTE ROLL CALL # 41 YEAS 34 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0



#60 t-pain

t-pain

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,436 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 06:10 PM

our legislature is not our friend.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users