A court order has led to the removal of a ballot proposal aimed at banning adult-use cannabis establishments in Benzonia Township. The proposal asked voters whether the township should pass an ordinance prohibiting adult-use cannabis businesses, referencing provisions in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act to justify the ban.
Benzonia Township currently has four adult-use cannabis businesses, with Lume being the first to open in January 2020. The petition to place this ban on the ballot was initiated by Mary Haan, who stated in an interview with the Record Patriot that she was the sole petition circulator. This marks her sixth attempt to get a measure banning cannabis businesses on the ballot.
The decision to remove the proposal came after a September 3rd hearing in Benzie County's 19th Circuit Court. Judge David Thompson granted a Writ of Mandamus, ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Prosperity for Benzonia, stating the proposal should not have been placed on the ballot.
In an August 19th brief filed on behalf of Prosperity for Benzonia by attorney Kevin Blair of Honigman Business Law Firm, it was argued that the petitions submitted were flawed. According to the brief, the petition forms contained inconsistencies, such as alternating between the terms "ordinance" and "ordinances" and "Benzonia Township" and "Benzonia Townships." Furthermore, the petition only presented a general concept rather than a specific ordinance.
The brief highlighted these issues, noting, "The conceptual proposal language on the Haan petitions cannot possibly be deemed to constitute the requisite actual ordinance because it varies amongst petition sheets, and no iteration garnered enough signatures to appear on the ballot."
Blair expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling, telling the Record Patriot that the decision confirmed the proposal did not meet the legal requirements for inclusion on the ballot. "The ruling confirmed that this does not belong on the ballot and is ineligible to be printed on the ballot because it does not conform with Michigan election laws," Blair stated.
Court records reveal that a similar ballot proposal spearheaded by Haan was also removed in 2022 by a court order, with Prosperity for Benzonia serving as the plaintiff in that case as well. In 2021, Haan filed a lawsuit against Benzonia Township for not including a similar proposal on the 2020 ballot.
Haan expressed frustration over the September 3rd ruling, noting that she had not been informed of the hearing. She criticized the process, claiming the township's voters were being sidelined. "If a citizen hadn't walked into Benzonia Township and asked about the marijuana petition being on the ballot and alerted by the township clerk that it had been scrubbed, we never would have known anything," Haan said. "Our rights as a circulator certainly were pushed aside."
Haan also accused Prosperity for Benzonia of going to great lengths to prevent voters from having a say on the matter.
The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) has officially filed a formal complaint against Exclusive Brands LLC, a licensed cannabis processor operating out of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The complaint, tied to violations under Michigan's Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), highlights several concerning issues that came to light following a routine, unannounced inspection.
The CRA's complaint, filed on September 4th, 2024, outlines several serious allegations against Exclusive Brands LLC, including violations related to untracked cannabis product, improper surveillance system functionality, and failure to maintain accurate records.
Untracked Cannabis Distillate:
During a site inspection conducted by CRA staff on June 26th, 2024, two packages of cannabis distillate, totaling over 4,770 grams (more than 10 pounds), were unaccounted for in Exclusive Brands' physical inventory. Despite the company's claim that the products were destroyed, they were unable to provide sufficient documentation to confirm the destruction, violating the state's requirements for accurate inventory tracking and waste management.
Surveillance System Failures:
CRA investigators also found multiple issues with the company's surveillance system during the inspection. Exclusive Brands was unable to provide immediate access to the system when requested. A follow-up virtual inspection revealed that the company failed to maintain the required 30 days of surveillance footage, a critical requirement under state law. This inability to produce footage raised concerns about the company's compliance with surveillance protocols mandated by the state.
Recordkeeping Violations:
The company failed to maintain accurate records concerning product waste, further violating MMFLA regulations. State law requires businesses to maintain comprehensive records of all marijuana products, ensuring that any waste or disposal is properly tracked and reconciled with inventory systems.
The CRA's formal complaint details five specific violations:
As a result of these alleged violations, the CRA has announced its intention to impose penalties that could include fines, suspension, revocation, or restrictions on the company's licenses. Exclusive Brands LLC holds an active processor license under the MMFLA, which is now at risk depending on the outcome of the case.
The formal complaint has triggered a regulatory process, and Exclusive Brands has several options to respond. The company can request a compliance conference, an informal meeting to address the allegations, or it can request a formal hearing to dispute the charges. If the company does not respond to the complaint within 21 days, a contested case hearing will be scheduled automatically.
This case underscores the strict regulatory environment Michigan cannabis businesses operate within. The CRA has been diligent in enforcing rules surrounding inventory management, surveillance, and recordkeeping, aiming to ensure that businesses comply with the state's legal framework for cannabis operations. Companies that fail to adhere to these standards risk severe penalties, including the potential loss of their licenses.
As the Michigan cannabis industry continues to expand, cases like this highlight the importance of compliance and the significant consequences of regulatory violations.
A Michigan man was arrested for suspected drunk driving after being caught traveling at speeds exceeding 100 mph, with nearly four pounds of cannabis and thousands of dollars in cash discovered in his possession, according to police.
The incident occurred at 3:48 a.m. on August 30th, when officers stopped a 2023 Ford F-150 at the intersection of Rochester Road and E. Maple Road in Troy. The driver was pulled over for excessive speeding and running a traffic signal.
Officers identified the driver as a 34-year-old resident of Troy. Upon approaching the vehicle, they noted the man’s bloodshot and watery eyes, along with a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. A subsequent check revealed that his driver’s license was suspended.
The man was asked to perform field sobriety tests, which police say he failed. He then took a preliminary breath test, which registered a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15%, nearly twice the legal limit, leading to his arrest.
At the Troy Police Lock-Up Facility, a search of the man revealed over $6,400 in cash in his pockets. Further investigation of his vehicle uncovered two large duffle bags containing approximately 3.93 pounds of cannabis and an additional $12,000 in cash.
After being informed of his chemical test rights while in custody, the suspect refused to take another breath test. Officers obtained a warrant for a blood draw, which was completed, and the case has now been referred to the detective bureau for review and potential charges.
A recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals has blocked ballot proposals in four Oakland County cities—Farmington, South Lyon, Sylvan Lake, and Wixom—that sought to allow cannabis retailers to operate within their limits. The court decision upholds the cities’ efforts to keep these proposals off the November ballot.
The dispute centers around attempts by local ballot committees to amend city charters to permit two adult-use cannabis retailers in each city. The cities argued that these proposed amendments violated state law, specifically Michigan’s cannabis regulations, and would improperly limit municipal authority over local business regulation. The proposed amendments also contained zoning and administrative provisions that, according to the cities, would strip them of their ability to manage business regulations and improperly favor the cannabis industry.
Judges Michelle Rick, Michael Kelly, and Philip Mariani agreed with the cities, ruling that voter-initiated petitions cannot be used to amend city charters to establish regulatory and licensing frameworks for cannabis businesses. The court emphasized that under Michigan’s marijuana law, local regulations are allowed within specific parameters, but using a charter amendment to create a regulatory scheme exceeds what is legally permissible.
“The state marijuana act permits local regulations within certain set parameters, and to honor that intent, local regulation must be permitted within those parameters,” the court wrote. The ruling reaffirmed the trial court’s earlier decision, concluding that voter-initiated charter amendments are not a valid way to implement local cannabis regulations under the state’s marijuana laws.
The court further clarified that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) only allows voter initiatives in a limited capacity—specifically, when voters seek to prohibit or set the number of cannabis retail businesses in a community. The act does not extend the same authority to more detailed regulatory or zoning proposals, such as those in the contested ballot initiatives.
John Fraser, attorney for the ballot question committees, declined to comment on the Court of Appeals decision.
The legal battle began in July when the four cities filed a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court, seeking to have the ballot proposals rejected. On August 8th, Judge Nanci Grant ruled in favor of the cities, stating that the requests made in the proposals went beyond the limits of state law. She noted that the ballot measures attempted to alter city charters in a way that conflicted with existing zoning ordinances and police powers granted to municipalities.
Judge Grant pointed out that Michigan’s cannabis law is clear about the limits of voter-initiated petitions, which are confined to ordinances that either ban cannabis businesses or set the number of establishments allowed. Proposals that attempt to amend city charters to bypass these limitations, she said, are inconsistent with both the MRTMA and the Home Rule City Act (HRCA).
Despite the court rulings, the committees behind the ballot initiatives filed a counter-lawsuit, arguing that they were acting to safeguard the rights of voters. They claimed the cities were unjustly preventing the electorate from deciding on the issue, accusing the municipalities of "unlawful interference" and asserting that the cities’ refusal to allow a vote was based solely on their opposition to the content of the petitions.
The legal tug-of-war is part of a broader conflict in Michigan, where municipalities have the authority to determine whether to permit recreational cannabis businesses. Since Michigan voters legalized cannabis in 2018, several cities have been involved in legal disputes over local licensing and zoning for cannabis businesses. Similar attempts to force cities to allow cannabis retailers have been seen in places like Rochester, Keego Harbor, Grosse Pointe Park, Birmingham, and Troy, though many of these efforts have been unsuccessful. Voters in Grosse Pointe Park, Keego Harbor, Rochester, and Birmingham rejected cannabis-related ballot initiatives, while Troy's initiative failed to make it onto the ballot at all.
As the legal landscape around cannabis continues to evolve, the ruling underscores the limited scope of voter influence over local cannabis regulations and reaffirms municipalities’ rights to control how and where cannabis businesses operate within their boundaries.
In Michigan, where adult-use cannabis has been legal since 2018, parents face the challenge of discussing cannabis in a way that is both informed and thoughtful. Establishing boundaries and fostering open, honest conversations about cannabis use has become a crucial task for families, especially as cannabis becomes more normalized in society.
One key piece of advice that experts offer parents is to approach these discussions with honesty—not only with their children but with themselves regarding their own cannabis use.
"And by being honest, that can also mean parents being transparent with themselves about how they use cannabis," said Christine Murray, a licensed social worker and child therapist.
Since Michigan legalized recreational cannabis for adults 21 and older, conversations about responsible use have become more important. The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to advise against cannabis use for anyone under 21, citing the impact of cannabis on the developing brain. According to Murray, the teenage brain is still forming crucial neural pathways, making it especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis.
"People often think that cannabis is harmless, but they don't always understand the potential complications for a child or teen's brain development," Murray explained. "The brain undergoes significant changes during adolescence, so using cannabis at that age is very different from an adult starting after the age of 25."
For this reason, health professionals emphasize that conversations about cannabis should begin early. Parents should clearly communicate the risks of cannabis use and share any concerns they may have.
Even though cannabis is legally restricted to adults, its increasing presence in Michigan's communities can influence how children perceive it. Colleen Oakes, a prevention specialist, pointed out that young people often mirror the behaviors of the adults around them. This means that the way adults approach cannabis use—whether in moderation or excess—can shape a child's perception of what is normal.
"Parents are role models for their kids," Oakes said. "We encourage adults to be mindful of how they use substances like cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco around their children. Modeling responsible behavior is one of the most effective tools parents have."
In households where cannabis use is legal for adults, setting clear boundaries is crucial. Murray stressed that parents should secure cannabis products in a place where children and teens cannot access them. Additionally, if parents smoke cannabis, it's advised they avoid doing so in front of their children and change clothes afterward to limit exposure.
It's also important to explain to children the difference between adult cannabis use and the risks of underage consumption. By framing the discussion in terms of health and safety, parents can create a more productive and open dialogue.
When parents suspect their children may be experimenting with cannabis, Murray emphasized the importance of approaching the conversation with understanding, rather than judgment.
"When talking to teenagers, it's not about catching them doing something wrong. It's about understanding their experience and helping them navigate it," Murray said. "Parents can ask questions like, 'What makes you want to try cannabis?' or 'What are other ways you can cope when you're feeling stressed?'"
Some teens may use cannabis as a way to manage stress, anxiety, or other emotions. However, Murray cautioned against using substances as a coping mechanism, as it often only provides short-term relief while leading to long-term challenges.
"Teens frequently say, 'It helps me calm down,' or 'It helps me focus,' but just because something feels good in the moment doesn't mean it's good for your overall health," Murray noted.
Parents should be clear about their household's rules and expectations regarding cannabis use, reinforcing that it is not allowed for anyone underage. "Parents shouldn't hesitate to say that cannabis use isn't permitted in their home," Murray said.
For Michigan parents looking for guidance on how to handle these complex conversations, resources are available. Programs like the "Talk. They Hear You." campaign, provide support for families aiming to have honest, productive conversations with their children about substance use.
Two men have been convicted of multiple felonies related to a robbery at a cannabis dispensary in Warren that occurred last year. One of the convicted individuals was employed at the dispensary during the time of the crime.
Lavall Perkins, 64, from Detroit, and Michael Graham, 48, from Eastpointe, were both found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and armed robbery. The charges stem from an incident in June 2023, when the two stole a safe from the Bring Me A Bag dispensary.
The crime took place on June 9th, when Perkins, along with an unidentified accomplice, created a disturbance outside the dispensary. The unidentified accomplice fired shots through the glass door of the business, hitting a victim. After unlocking the door, the assailant fired again as the victim attempted to retreat. Following the attack, both the accomplice and Perkins entered the dispensary and stole a safe before fleeing the scene in a Chevrolet Tahoe.
Graham, who was behind the wheel of the getaway vehicle, was employed at the dispensary at the time of the robbery.
The convictions came after an eight-day trial, during which the jury weighed the evidence and testimonies presented.
"These convictions underscore our community's commitment to holding violent offenders accountable," said Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido. "The jury's decision reflects the compelling evidence and the bravery of the victims who testified. We hope this verdict offers some closure to those impacted by this senseless act of violence."
Helpful Links Categories Recent News