Cannabis businesses across Michigan are beginning to unite in an organized effort to address the growing concerns over CBD conversion oils in legal cannabis products. These oils, which are often used to produce synthetic THC, have sparked controversy within the industry. Now, a coalition of cannabis operators is calling for significant reforms and stronger regulatory oversight to tackle what they see as a serious threat to both consumer safety and market integrity.
Leading the charge is Lansing-based company Trap House Company, whose CEO, David Bye, has been vocal in urging lawmakers to take more decisive action. In a forthcoming op-ed for the Lansing State Journal, Bye calls for a ban on hemp-derived THC products and the revocation of licenses for operators who are found to be non-compliant. Such measures would represent a sharp departure from the current penalties, which typically involve fines rather than permanent license suspensions.
“So many of us have worked so hard to make cannabis safe for the people and to bring the market out of the shadows,” Bye stated in an interview with City Pulse. “We must act now to remove the criminal elements from the industry by revoking their licenses permanently and refraining from purchasing synthetic or converted oils. Failing to do so would undermine all the progress we have made.”
The effort to curb the use of CBD conversion oils has become one of the industry's most contentious battles yet. This debate is now taking center stage in every major cannabis market across the country, pitting traditional cannabis operators against the well-funded lobbying efforts of the hemp and vape industries. With each side fighting for its version of the market's future, the stakes have never been higher.
The primary concern driving this movement is consumer safety. Independent third-party testing has revealed that numerous vape cartridges and edible products available in Michigan dispensaries contain unregulated conversion oils and other harmful contaminants, including pesticides banned in the state. Such findings have raised red flags, highlighting a potential risk to public health that many feel needs to be addressed through stricter regulations and enforcement.
Beyond safety, fairness within the industry has become a critical issue. In his op-ed, Bye argues that the widespread use of CBD conversion oil is creating an uneven playing field for local cannabis businesses that operate within legal boundaries. “Those of us who follow the rules are being undercut by a flood of cheap, unregulated THC products,” Bye states. Because CBD conversion oils are far cheaper to produce than conventional cannabis extracts, they have driven down product prices across the board, making it increasingly difficult for compliant operators to stay afloat.
Michigan's cannabis market is already grappling with oversupply due to its relatively open licensing system, which allows a high volume of production. The addition of low-cost, hemp-derived THC products further exacerbates the issue, placing even more pressure on small businesses trying to compete. As a result, many operators feel that the market is being distorted, making it less viable to produce traditional, distillate-based products.
The hemp industry and advocates of hemp-derived THC products have a different vision for cannabis's future. They imagine a market more akin to alcohol, where THC products could be sold in a wide variety of locations, from grocery stores to gas stations. This would significantly broaden access and create new opportunities for hemp-derived products, which are easier and cheaper to produce.
But traditional cannabis businesses, like Trap House Co., see this as a threat to the regulated market they have worked hard to build. They believe the industry should maintain its current model, where all THC products are sold through licensed dispensaries, with rigorous safety standards, taxes, and compliance measures in place. This approach not only prioritizes consumer safety but also ensures that the industry remains transparent and professionally managed.
The discrepancy between these two business models has left many cannabis operators frustrated. Those adhering to Michigan's strict cannabis regulations argue that they face higher fees, stricter oversight, and fewer avenues to market their products, while hemp-derived THC manufacturers enjoy minimal regulations and broader retail access. It's a system that seems to reward cutting corners and poses a risk to the progress made by the legal cannabis industry.
To address this imbalance, advocates like Bye are calling for the state to either regulate or ban the use of CBD conversion oils outright. The issue is likely to dominate the cannabis policy debate in Michigan over the coming year, as it has in other states such as California, which recently banned the sale of hemp-derived THC products altogether.
As the conversation continues, the question remains whether Michigan will follow suit or carve its own path forward in regulating this emerging sector of the cannabis industry.
Lodi Township residents will soon decide on whether to allow limited cannabis cultivation and processing facilities within their community. On November 5th, voters will consider Proposal B, which, if approved, would permit up to five adult-use grow operations and two processing facilities within the township located north of Saline. Retail cannabis stores, however, would remain prohibited.
The proposal represents a potential shift for Lodi Township, which currently prohibits all cannabis establishments. It emerged after a group of residents collected and submitted the required number of petition signatures, which were officially certified by the township in August.
The petition's language was crafted by Ann Arbor attorney Ben Joffe, who collaborated with local farmer Chris Trinkle. Trinkle manages "Made By A Farmer," an agricultural business that grows a variety of vegetables and hemp. According to Joffe, the goal of the proposal is to support Lodi Township’s agricultural community by providing farmers an opportunity to diversify their crops.
“Farming is a difficult industry, especially for small, family-owned farms competing against larger commercial operations,” Joffe stated. “This proposal could provide local farmers a new crop option, allowing those who have farmed for generations to expand their offerings.”
Trinkle echoed Joffe’s sentiments, noting that it could encourage a younger generation to consider farming as a viable career path. “Land and equipment are expensive, and many farms are just scraping by,” Trinkle said. “This would offer farmers another avenue for sustaining their operations.”
Lodi Township officials, including Township Supervisor Janann Godek, have been gathering community input on the proposal. According to Godek, the township conducted a survey to gauge resident opinions on the matter, but responses are still being compiled.
If approved, the next steps are uncertain, as the township would need to review state regulations and establish a framework for implementation. Voters seeking more information are invited to attend an upcoming informational event at 8275 Scio Church Road. Sessions will be held from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 4th, and from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 5th.
Acme Township's cannabis regulations are unlikely to change, despite a recent appeal from the township's sole licensed grow facility. Trustees reaffirmed their stance against expanding cannabis operations during a meeting on Tuesday, following a request from Omeena Farms to secure a non-medical license in addition to its existing medical cannabis cultivation permit.
Brandon Cohen, Managing Member of Omeena Farms, addressed the board and explained that acquiring a non-medical license would provide more flexibility and financial stability for the Bates Road facility. Currently, the farm cultivates 3,000 plants under its two medical licenses and sells its output to another grower downstate that holds both medical and non-medical licenses. Gaining a non-medical license would enable Omeena Farms to directly sell into Michigan's recreational cannabis market.
Cohen added that securing a non-medical license is vital for the business's viability until federal cannabis reform, which could result in a reclassification of cannabis from its current Schedule I status to Schedule III. Such a move would likely impose increased regulation on medical cannabis, making it more valuable in the long term.
"We are trying to float and get by until medical marijuana comes back into what we believe it will be, which is regulated by the FDA," Cohen said.
However, Supervisor Doug White and other trustees reiterated their opposition to allowing recreational cannabis businesses in Acme Township. Multiple residents also voiced their concerns during public comments, noting existing complaints related to odor and outdoor lighting issues at the Omeena Farms facility.
The township's rejection drew criticism from some industry experts, including Don Bailey, a retired Michigan State Police trooper and former member of the state's now-defunct medical marijuana licensing board. Bailey argued that the downturn in Michigan's medical cannabis market was predictable, citing the rapid decline in patient numbers from 330,000 to 90,000 since the state legalized recreational use in 2018.
"Nobody should be able to say that they didn't see this coming," Bailey said.
Cohen countered that while he anticipated a shrinking market, the decline in medical cannabis sales in Michigan has been more severe than expected. He had projected the state's medical market would stabilize at around 3% of the size of the recreational market, a figure that aligns with trends seen in other states, but Michigan's contraction has outpaced this estimate.
Township Planner Lindsey Wolf noted that her department received 14 complaints related to odors at Omeena Farms since February. Cohen acknowledged that more could be done to address the issues and reported that the facility recently invested $12,000 in improved filtration systems. He argued that expanding into non-medical cannabis would provide the necessary funds to further enhance operations and minimize community concerns.
Despite these assurances, trustees remained firm on their position. The board's decision leaves Omeena Farms constrained under its current licensing structure, limiting its ability to access the state's larger recreational market.
The Michigan Supreme Court is considering whether the smell of cannabis can still provide grounds for vehicle searches, now that the substance is legal for adult use in the state. During oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with the implications of legal cannabis possession and its interaction with law enforcement protocols. The debate centers on whether the smell alone constitutes sufficient evidence of illegal activity, such as impaired driving or unlawful public consumption.
This issue arose from the case of Jeffery Scott Armstrong, who faced weapons charges after police officers searched his car solely based on detecting the smell of cannabis. The lower courts, including an appellate panel, had dismissed the charges, finding that the odor of cannabis, without more, did not establish probable cause for a search.
The incident occurred when police officers approached Armstrong's vehicle, which was parked in a public area, and claimed to have detected the scent of cannabis. After removing Armstrong and his companion from the car, officers discovered a firearm. Armstrong, who was not licensed to carry the weapon, was charged with multiple weapons offenses. He argued that since recreational cannabis use became legal in Michigan in 2018, its smell should no longer serve as the sole basis for a search or detention.
However, cannabis use in public places and its consumption while operating a vehicle remain illegal, prompting debate over whether officers are justified in investigating cannabis odors emanating from vehicles under these circumstances. Justice Brian K. Zahra raised this point, comparing it to the U.S. Supreme Court's Terry v. Ohio decision, which permits officers to conduct limited searches if they have a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity—an evidentiary standard lower than probable cause.
Justice Zahra argued that a strong cannabis odor could indicate current illegal use, warranting further investigation. He even suggested that it is possible to differentiate between recent and older cannabis smells, stating: "I can tell the difference between an old odor of marijuana and a very fresh odor of marijuana. I don't think it takes an expert to figure that out."
Andrew C. Sullivan of the Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit, representing Armstrong, countered that the presence of a cannabis odor is not reliable evidence that the drug was being used illegally at that specific moment. Sullivan emphasized that cannabis scents can linger on clothing and upholstery for extended periods, making it challenging to pinpoint the time of use or even whether the vehicle occupants were the ones consuming it.
Other justices raised questions about the broader implications of using cannabis odor as a basis for searches. Justice Elizabeth T. Clement asked Sullivan what additional factors might constitute reasonable suspicion if smell alone is insufficient. Sullivan suggested that visible evidence, such as a lit joint or clear signs of driver impairment, would be necessary indicators of ongoing illegal activity.
Justice Megan K. Cavanagh expressed concern over whether legal cannabis use in private settings should be treated differently than other activities, such as possessing alcohol, where legality hinges on context. "How can completely legal conduct give you reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct?" she asked, highlighting the complexities of distinguishing between lawful and unlawful cannabis use based solely on scent.
Jon Wojtala, representing the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, argued that officers should be allowed to investigate a situation if there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, even if an innocent explanation is possible. Wojtala suggested that a strong cannabis odor directed toward a specific vehicle or individual might justify further investigation. However, Justice Clement questioned the practicality of officers discerning whether a smell originated from recent use or was merely residual.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, participating as a friend-of-the-court in support of Armstrong, argued that reasonable suspicion should not justify searches when the suspected violation is only a civil infraction. The ACLU's Ramis J. Wadood emphasized that under Michigan law, public cannabis use is a civil infraction, while driving under the influence is a criminal offense. He argued that the higher standard of probable cause should apply when officers suspect a civil infraction rather than a crime.
Justice David F. Viviano raised concerns that the ACLU's position would prevent officers from acting on circumstantial evidence, even when it suggests a crime might be occurring. He pointed out that if police need to catch someone in the act of consuming cannabis to justify a search, it could significantly hinder enforcement.
The Michigan justices are examining the issue in light of evolving legal interpretations in other states. Just days before the Michigan Supreme Court hearing, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the smell of burnt cannabis alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless vehicle search. Since the legalization of recreational cannabis in Illinois in 2020, courts there have sought to clarify the limits of police authority in similar contexts.
Armstrong's weapons charges were initially dismissed after the Wayne County Circuit Court judge suppressed the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the decision in 2022, leading the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office to seek review by the state's highest court. The Michigan Supreme Court's decision could have significant implications for how cannabis-related searches are conducted statewide.
The case was heard during a special session at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, part of the court's Community Connections program aimed at increasing public engagement with the judicial process.
When Michigan voters approved the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2018, Mason was one of roughly 1,300 municipalities that chose to prohibit sales within its borders. Now, more than five years later, the small city might finally reverse that decision if residents vote to allow two dispensaries to be licensed this November.
The Michigan cannabis industry has expanded rapidly since legalization, reaching $3 billion in total sales last year. By opting out of permitting local dispensaries, Mason missed out on a portion of the revenue distributed through the state's cannabis excise tax. Had the city opted in last year, it would have received over $118,000 in tax-sharing funds, which continue to grow annually.
The City Council decided to put the issue to a public vote this past July, spurred in part by external pressure. Mayor Russell Whipple noted that attorneys have contacted the city twice in the last two years to encourage adding a cannabis-related measure to the ballot. The most recent push came in December 2022, when Ypsilanti-based lawyer Anderson Grandstaff informed the Council of his plans to begin a petition process to force the issue if the city did not act.
In response, the Council chose to proactively draft its own ordinance and ballot language. "We concluded that it wasn't a bad idea to let the people decide," said Whipple. "If the residents agree, we'll move forward with drafting an ordinance, and the Council will consider adopting it."
The Council introduced the ballot language in March, and by July 15th, members voted unanimously to place the measure on the November ballot. Whipple explained that working with Grandstaff on crafting the language allowed Mason to maintain some control over the process. "If we were going to do this, we thought it would be better if we wrote it ourselves to ensure there's consistency," he said. "We wanted to have some semblance of control over what the law would say."
If the measure is approved, the next step would involve updating local zoning ordinances to define where dispensaries could be located. "We'll need to thoroughly review our zoning to see which areas would be suitable for cannabis businesses," Whipple explained. "But we won't invest too much effort until we know that residents want this."
There's reason to believe the proposal may pass. In 2018, 57% of Mason voters supported legalizing recreational cannabis—slightly higher than the 56% state average. Given this, local advocates like Miles Mendoza are optimistic. Mendoza, a Mason resident and cannabis industry employee, attended the Council's July 15th meeting to voice his support for the proposal and to urge the city to prioritize local hiring if the measure passes.
"Cannabis businesses can have a positive impact if they're run by people who invest in the community," Mendoza said, emphasizing that many facilities outside Mason employ a high percentage of local residents. He also suggested the city consider allowing cannabis cultivation operations, noting that the proposed ordinance currently only addresses retail dispensaries.
Not all Mason residents are on board. Trish Walley, a resident since 2020, plans to vote against the proposal. "I moved here partly because there are no dispensaries in Mason," said Walley, who is in recovery. "You already smell it everywhere. We don't need it on every block like in Lansing."
Walley argued that the city should focus on attracting businesses that would contribute to the community in other ways, such as a new grocery store or other services that align with the town's "family-oriented" values. "If people want cannabis, they can go to places where it's available," she said.
Should the measure pass in November, the city could begin the process of revising zoning and accepting dispensary license applications by early next year. "There's still a lot to work out," Whipple cautioned. "We want to approach this carefully, taking into account feedback from both supporters and those who have concerns."
The outcome will likely be influenced by how well the proposal is communicated to residents leading up to the vote. If passed, Mason would join a growing list of municipalities choosing to benefit from the expanding cannabis market and the potential revenue that comes with it.
With Halloween just around the corner, many Michiganders are gearing up for the season—decorating their homes, planning costumes, and mapping out parties. But beyond the traditional festivities of trick-or-treating and haunted houses, there's an entire culture of fall activities that have become closely associated with Halloween, like pumpkin patches, apple orchards, and corn mazes.
Now, Minnesota has added a new twist to these seasonal staples with the nation's first haunted cannabis maze. Instead of weaving through towering corn stalks, visitors navigate through fields of cannabis plants. It's a novel attraction that fuses Halloween thrills with the growing cannabis industry, and it raises an interesting question: could Michigan be next to embrace this trend?
Michigan is already a major player in the cannabis world. Since legalizing recreational cannabis in 2018, the state has seen significant economic growth tied to the industry, with new dispensaries and cultivation facilities springing up across the state. With Michigan consistently ranking among the top states for cannabis consumption, introducing a cannabis maze—haunted or not—seems like a natural fit.
The cannabis maze in Minnesota taps into two growing trends: immersive, interactive experiences and the increasing acceptance of cannabis as part of everyday life. As cannabis becomes more integrated into culture, it makes sense that farms would explore creative ways to connect with their communities, especially during the fall season when people are seeking unique, festive activities.
While Michigan hasn't announced any plans to replicate Minnesota's haunted cannabis maze, it's not hard to imagine it being a hit here. The state's numerous cannabis farms could easily offer similar attractions, blending the excitement of Halloween with the novelty of a cannabis-themed experience. Whether or not the maze would be haunted, the opportunity to explore fields of cannabis plants could be a draw for both cannabis enthusiasts and those simply looking for something new to do this fall.
Would a haunted cannabis maze take off in Michigan? The answer is likely yes. With the state's robust cannabis culture and appetite for unique attractions, such an event could quickly become a popular fall activity. Whether you're looking for a spooky adventure or simply an excuse to spend an afternoon in the crisp autumn air, a cannabis maze could be a new way for Michiganders to celebrate the season.
So, would you try to navigate a cannabis maze in Michigan, or would you stick to the more traditional fall activities?
Helpful Links Categories Recent News