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
82 replies to this topic

#61 GregS

GregS

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:20 PM

No matter how you slice it, refusal to permit disabled individuals from treating their conditions is illegal. Protection from discrimination is a civil right, and is spelled out in the laws of the State of Michigan. 



#62 GregS

GregS

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:28 PM

seems there's two questions in this thread?

1)"Should Landlords Be Able To Ban Medical Marijuana?"

2)"Do we need to change laws to punish tenants/patients?"

I believe landlords can currently disallow smoking of any type, indoor gardening, house plants, pets,
the use of marijuana, or st Johns wort for that matter, on the rental premises.
If a tenant chooses to enter into a rental agreement the possible restrictions may be near unlimited. I don't think anyone here believes a patient should be arrested for smoking in a rented apartment, or breaking a lease by having a cat. Can they be evicted for breaking said lease? sure, happens all the time.

Laws to enforce this are attacks on every patient in the registry and undermines our intention. The punishment of the sick, what will they think of next?

Do your homework. There will be a quiz. It will not be true/false. It will not be multiple choice. It will be as difficult as you make it.

http://www.legislatu...th disabilities



#63 trichcycler

trichcycler

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,934 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 05:17 AM

No matter how you slice it, refusal to permit disabled individuals from treating their conditions is illegal. Protection from discrimination is a civil right, and is spelled out in the laws of the State of Michigan.


I do agree Greg.

A) If a disabled(?) person agrees to rent property, not to smoke, and not to garden indoors do you believe this tenant can change his mind at will, and begin breaking the lease to accommodate himself in these manners?

B) would the tenant need to be certified "disabled" for these protections?
  • GregS likes this

#64 Quadcarl

Quadcarl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 06:05 AM

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


Don't work that way.

When you're looking for a rental usually you don't have money to sue someone.

No attorney will for free help me sue a homeowner, there's "nothing " there to get.

This is consistent in any area I've lived unfotunately. So I bought instead :)

If anyone is aware of someone in a wheelchair with service dogs that won such a case I'd be interested in learning more.


Have A Great Day Community :) stay positive

#65 trichcycler

trichcycler

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,934 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 06:44 AM

thinking about it.....I guess if a landlord doesn't want to rent to someone they most likely will not have to. Credit, demeanor, habits, looks even are used to discriminate against all types of individuals unfortunately, even though its wrong, even though there are laws against it....still happening  We don't need more discriminatory laws imo.



#66 GregS

GregS

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 07:09 AM

I do agree Greg.

A) If a disabled(?) person agrees to rent property, not to smoke, and not to garden indoors do you believe this tenant can change his mind at will, and begin breaking the lease to accommodate himself in these manners?

B) would the tenant need to be certified "disabled" for these protections?

It is illegal to prohibit legitimate medical treatment to begin with, at the onset of a lease agreement, or at any time subsequent. If a landlord requires a patient to sign off on their medical rights, the civil right is not somehow magically evaded, and yes, I believe that a patient can disregard any prohibition from use at any time for any reason. It would be interesting to see the case if a landlord would try to evict a determined patient because of medical use, which is protected from just this kind of thing in both MMMA and civil rights law. Please read the law that was posted and tell me if and where you find otherwise. The definition of disability is clearly delineated in the disability law. Beyond that there is no required certification.

 

(d) Except as provided under subdivision (f), “disability” means 1 or more of the following:

(i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic:

(A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's qualifications for employment or promotion.

(B) For purposes of article 3, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from a place of public accommodation or public service.

© For purposes of article 4, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from educational opportunities, programs, and facilities at an educational institution.

(D) For purposes of article 5, substantially limits 1 or more of that individual's major life activities and is unrelated to the individual's ability to acquire, rent, or maintain property. 

(ii) A history of a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i).

(iii) Being regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). (italics mine)


Edited by GregS, 17 March 2015 - 07:25 AM.

  • Timmahh likes this

#67 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,367 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 07:23 AM

Thanks i do agree but we have seen many times Laws that have definition and are clearly delineated i like the one that say's if you have a mmj  card you can't be arrested Law 1 of 2008 comes to mine 



#68 trichcycler

trichcycler

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,934 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 09:45 AM

thank you Greg for clearing that up for me. It's going to be a bright shiny day


  • GregS likes this

#69 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,367 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 10:31 AM

It is illegal to prohibit legitimate medical treatment to begin with, at the onset of a lease agreement, or at any time subsequent. If a landlord requires a patient to sign off on their medical rights, the civil right is not somehow magically evaded, and yes, I believe that a patient can disregard any prohibition from use at any time for any reason. It would be interesting to see the case if a landlord would try to evict a determined patient because of medical use, which is protected from just this kind of thing in both MMMA and civil rights law. Please read the law that was posted and tell me if and where you find otherwise. The definition of disability is clearly delineated in the disability law. Beyond that there is no required certification.

 

(d) Except as provided under subdivision (f), “disability” means 1 or more of the following:

(i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic:

(A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's qualifications for employment or promotion.

(B) For purposes of article 3, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from a place of public accommodation or public service.

© For purposes of article 4, is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from educational opportunities, programs, and facilities at an educational institution.

(D) For purposes of article 5, substantially limits 1 or more of that individual's major life activities and is unrelated to the individual's ability to acquire, rent, or maintain property. 

(ii) A history of a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i).

(iii) Being regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). (italics mine)

Thanks again 

 

I can see it now after someone is sitting on the curb with all there belongings next to them 



#70 iwombat

iwombat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:28 AM

I don't understand how they can lump together smoking and growing.  I live in a rental property that permits

smoking.  But if this passes, they will be allowed to permit tobacco smoking but ban Cannabis smoking.  How

does this make sense from a damage perspective?

 

(3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO 22 ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES

OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF 23 THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING

MARIHUANA IS IN THE 24 WRITTEN LEASE.

 

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

 

They are using paranoia about grow damage to pass a usage prohibition and no-one seems to be

be paying attention to this.

 

Is this not a big deal?


Edited by iwombat, 05 May 2015 - 09:42 AM.

  • trichcycler likes this

#71 trichcycler

trichcycler

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,934 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:41 AM

I think this is the gateway to widespread concentrate use. Tobacco tolerant landlords now will not be able to deduce the difference between a Marlboro with and without special sauce. :hair:



#72 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,367 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 10:17 AM

I don't understand how they can lump together smoking and growing.  I live in a rental property that permits

smoking.  But if this passes, they will be allowed to permit tobacco smoking but ban Cannabis smoking.  How

does this make sense from a damage perspective?

 

(3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO 22 ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES

OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF 23 THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING

MARIHUANA IS IN THE 24 WRITTEN LEASE.

 

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

 

They are using paranoia about grow damage to pass a usage prohibition and no-one seems to be

be paying attention to this.

 

Is this not a big deal?

 

I agree they are against people using cannabis no mattel how sick someone is or poor it's  all a mess all i can say is 

 

Free The Weed 



#73 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,367 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 06:41 AM

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation that lets landlords prohibit medical marijuana patients from growing or smoking the drug on leased residential property.

The law enacted Tuesday adds another exception to a 2008 voter-approved law that legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

That law already does not require insurers to reimburse people for medical marijuana, nor does it mandate that employers accommodate employees' use of the drug for medical purposes.

 

http://www.freep.com...higan/96420404/



#74 bax

bax

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 590 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:01 AM

http://legislature.m...d-Law-1-of-2008

Search Criteria: Full Text = "lease"; Object Name = mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

0 results.

where is the new language within the law? hmmmmmmm

Edited by bax, 11 January 2017 - 09:01 AM.


#75 zapatosunidos

zapatosunidos

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 8,320 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:17 AM

Has not yet been enrolled.



#76 Retroizzie

Retroizzie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:24 PM

Yea... definetly was going to be needed. Especially learning more now...
Well on the IT side of buisness..

But as a leaser.. why would you want your house or building to be destroyed by renters
Who wont clean up? Ruin your walls... destroy flooring.

Like i know most of you know ... that the plan needs special attention to grow efficently and
Taken care of for patients..

But then every single citizen is just going to grow for usage. No medical implementation.

They probably wont have enough to pay for rent... or damages...

The soil, tools, seeds, lighting all that is pretty routine manual. But thats from your guys perpspective...

From my IT perspective i see it as... darn more markets from your home... how can we redesign e-commerce for renters selling and growing..

But i erased it out mopy mind said naw... america aint ready for that bunny muffin

#77 Wild Bill

Wild Bill

    Doesn't Play Well with Others

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,802 posts
  • LocationFascist Republik of Amerika

Posted 11 January 2017 - 03:01 PM

Perhaps the landlords won't want to enforce this when their properties sit vacant.



#78 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,367 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 04:48 PM

LANSING, Mich. — Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation that lets landlords prohibit Michigan medical marijuana patients from growing or smoking the drug on leased residential property.

 

The law enacted Tuesday adds another exception to a 2008 voter-approved law that legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

That law already does not require insurers to reimburse people for medical marijuana, nor does it mandate that employers accommodate employees’ use of the drug for medical purposes.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, says two rental homes in his district were destroyed after they were “turned into greenhouses to grow marijuana without permission.” He says growing marijuana for medical purposes “doesn’t trump safety or private property rights.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jones says the law codifies a 2011 state attorney general opinion.

 

http://www.thecannab...landlord/71050/

 

If anyone cares to Comment 



#79 Malamute

Malamute

    Advanced Member

  • +CC-Dickinson
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,280 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 05:20 PM

A patient growing 12 plants in a closet destroys nothing. A patient smoking in their home effects no one.

 

Bad people destroy rental homes.

 

I would rather have a smoking, growing patient in my rental than a drunk wife beater.  *shrug*



#80 Malamute

Malamute

    Advanced Member

  • +CC-Dickinson
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,280 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 05:25 PM

Another little known secret that has nothing to do with patients,...

 

 The vast vast majority of 'Drug dealers' pay their rent and never want to cause problems with their landlord.

 

Just sayin'

 

:-)


  • bobandtorey and Wild Bill like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users