Traverse City has reached the one-year milestone since the introduction of recreational cannabis sales, an event that was highly anticipated and, according to local stakeholders, well worth the wait. While many Michigan cities quickly launched recreational cannabis operations following the state's legalization in 2018, Traverse City took a more cautious approach, deliberating extensively on the best practices for implementation. The city's dispensaries only began selling recreational cannabis in March 2023.
The city manager of Traverse City, Liz Vogel, reported a significant financial boost from the state in the form of approximately $709,000, allocated from a 10 percent excise tax on statewide recreational cannabis sales. This payment, which equates to about $59,000 for each of the twelve active dispensaries in the city, will be an annual benefit. Currently, with no designated use for these funds, the city enjoys considerable flexibility in future spending.
The city initially granted 16 dispensary licenses, though several are still in the development stages. The decision on how to use the additional revenue will ultimately lie with the city commission. Discussions have ranged from enhancing local police resources to potentially earmarking funds for specific community projects, though no formal decisions have been made by the newly elected commission.
For local dispensaries, the introduction of recreational sales has been transformative. Justin Elias, president and co-founder of PUFF Cannabis, noted that while the delay in approving recreational sales impacted their finances, the new revenue stream has been robust, multiplying their income compared to medical-only sales. Elias emphasized the economic relief the new market has provided, helping to recoup losses from previous years.
Recreational sales have not only benefited established businesses but have also attracted tourists, further boosting the local economy. Traverse City, known for its picturesque setting and vibrant tourist industry, now offers another attraction for visitors who can easily purchase cannabis recreationally.
Local businesses have seen a positive response from both tourists and residents. Michael Thue, managing partner at Verts Neighborhood Dispensary, highlighted the enthusiasm from customers, particularly those visiting the city. His business focuses on locally sourced products, enhancing its appeal by supporting the regional cannabis industry.
Despite the success, some challenges remain. The market might face a potential contraction as competition intensifies. Both Elias and Thue predict a reduction in the number of operating dispensaries over time, suggesting that those with superior customer service and high-quality products are more likely to endure.
As Traverse City navigates the evolving landscape of recreational cannabis, stakeholders remain optimistic yet realistic about the challenges and opportunities ahead. The city and its cannabis businesses continue to adapt, aiming to sustain growth and support from the community.
In a notable legal revival, a civil asset forfeiture case dating back to 2008 has resurfaced, with implications that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began following a drug raid on a Shiawassee County farmhouse, leading to the arrest and eventual imprisonment of Steven Ostipow for operating a cannabis grow site. In the course of the raid, property belonging to his parents, Gerald and Royetta Ostipow, was seized by the Saginaw County Sheriff's Department and never returned.
Despite the absence of legal justification for retaining the seized assets, including the farmhouse and a 1965 Chevy Nova, numerous appeals have failed to secure the return of the Ostipows' property. The legal battle has spanned several administrations, starting when Charlie Brown was sheriff of Saginaw County and continuing under the current sheriff, Bill Federspiel. The lengthy dispute has profoundly impacted the Ostipow family, leading attorney Phil Ellison to escalate the matter to the nation's highest court.
Ellison has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to address gaps in Michigan's laws regarding civil asset forfeiture. The existing legal framework lacks a mechanism to compel local authorities to return seized assets when no legal ground justifies their retention. "The sheriff was found not to have any right to keep the property, but there is no mechanism in Michigan law that can force, to have a state court require the sheriff to give the property back," Ellison explained.
This case highlights broader issues with civil asset forfeiture laws, often criticized for allowing law enforcement agencies to retain property without sufficient legal basis, sometimes resulting in significant personal losses for individuals involved. The outcomes of previous appeals in favor of the Ostipows have yet to result in the restitution of their assets, underscoring systemic challenges within the legal system.
Sheriff Federspiel has expressed respect for the legal process, stating he will allow the Supreme Court proceedings to unfold before making further comments. Meanwhile, Ellison remains committed to pursuing justice for the Ostipow family, emphasizing the potential to curtail what he views as government abuse through a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.
A Michigan township is currently seeking to have a federal court dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of cannabis entrepreneurs and local developers, who allege that town officials have obstructed their efforts to establish a cannabis dispensary. The township argues that the federal court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.
The lawsuit, initiated by the group Citizens of Lima for Cannabis in March, accuses the township's board of trustees of engaging in a prolonged effort to prevent the opening of a dispensary, despite apparent support from a majority of Lima residents. According to the complaint, this obstruction has resulted in the loss of potential tax revenues estimated between $28,000 and $59,000, based on the financial experiences of other Michigan towns since 2021.
In their motion to dismiss, the township's trustees contend that the lawsuit primarily cites violations of state law, rather than federal law, thus falling outside the purview of federal jurisdiction. They argue that of the three claims presented—violation of a writ of mandamus, civil conspiracy, and a due process violation—only the due process claim tangentially references federal law. This claim involves the trustees' refusal to place an initiative on the 2023 ballot, allegedly rejecting signatures on the grounds that they were collected on the incorrect size of paper. However, the complaint frames this as a violation of the Michigan Constitution, not as a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment or under 42 USC Section 1983, which deals with civil rights violations.
The trustees further state that the lawsuit does not assert diversity of jurisdiction—a condition that could have allowed for federal oversight if the plaintiffs were from different states than the municipality.
Given these arguments, the township asserts that the federal court should dismiss the case as it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The court's decision on this matter is pending.
Eastpointe, Michigan, is at a pivotal juncture regarding its stance on recreational cannabis. Since the legalization of adult-use recreational cannabis in Michigan in 2018, Eastpointe has maintained a cautious approach. Initially, the city opted out of hosting recreational cannabis dispensaries, even as it passed an ordinance in 2021 permitting medical cannabis facilities. This shift marked the entry of the cannabis industry into Eastpointe with the approval of three medical cannabis licenses.
In a progressive move, the Eastpointe City Council is now contemplating an ordinance that would allow recreational cannabis businesses within city limits. This proposal has sparked a lively debate among residents and council members alike. The potential ordinance, drafted by City Attorney Richard Albright at the request of the council, aims to transition existing medical cannabis facilities to recreational ones and possibly allow additional licenses.
Councilwoman Margaret Podsiadlik championed the proposal, citing the economic uplift experienced by other Michigan cities with similar establishments. She highlighted that introducing recreational cannabis businesses could rejuvenate Eastpointe by occupying vacant buildings and boosting local commerce. Similarly, Councilman Harvey Curley supported the initiative, focusing on the substantial tax revenues that recreational cannabis could funnel into city coffers—funds that are not derived from medical cannabis operations. Curley advocated for these funds to be allocated specifically towards enhancing local parks, pointing out the dire state of some recreational spaces in Eastpointe.
However, not all council members are in agreement. Councilman Rob Baker expressed concerns about fairness and legal challenges if the city were to limit recreational licenses to only those businesses currently holding medical ones. He emphasized the risk of lawsuits from potential applicants who might feel excluded from the process.
The public's response has been mixed, with vocal opinions on both sides during council meetings. Supporters of the ordinance argue that legal recreational cannabis facilities will provide regulated, safe environments for purchase and consumption, unlike the uncontrolled black market. They believe that, similar to alcohol, cannabis presence is already a reality, and regulation could help manage its impact more effectively.
Opponents, however, raise significant concerns regarding the social implications of cannabis businesses. They fear increased crime rates, decreased property values, and adverse effects on youth and public health. Notably, long-time resident Lynn Tubben articulated worries about the potential for youth cannabis use leading to broader social issues, such as increased welfare dependence and lower life satisfaction.
Amidst these discussions, rumors of bribery and corruption also surfaced, challenging the council's integrity. These allegations were firmly denied by council members, including Councilwoman Podsiadlik and Councilman DeMonaco, who called for respectful and accusation-free public discourse.
As the debate continues, Eastpointe's leadership remains committed to thoroughly researching the implications of introducing recreational cannabis businesses. Mayor Michael Klinefelt underscored the importance of considering all aspects, including the potential for increased blight associated with vacant buildings, before making a final decision.
In conclusion, Eastpointe stands at a crossroads, balancing economic potential against community concerns. The city's approach to managing this issue will require careful consideration of both the financial benefits and the societal impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis businesses.
Lume Cannabis Company recently launched a new THC-infused seltzer called BUZZN, introducing another cannabis consumption option in Michigan. The beverage, which contains 7.5 milligrams of THC, offers a lighter alternative to alcoholic drinks and is aimed at consumers seeking a social beverage without the effects of alcohol.
Jeff Verlinden, the Director of Retail Operations at Lume, noted the growing popularity of cannabis beverages in Michigan, expressing enthusiasm for their new product line. "Cannabis beverages are gaining traction here, and we're excited to introduce our BUZZN brand to the market," he stated.
These beverages are seen as appealing alternatives for those who prefer not to consume alcohol during social gatherings. "There are people who may not be interested in alcoholic beverages but still want to participate in social settings where others might be drinking," Verlinden explained.
Before any cannabis-infused beverage hits the market, it undergoes a rigorous approval process. Claire Patterson, Scientific Section Manager at Michigan's Cannabis Regulatory Agency, outlined the necessary steps for approval. "Companies must first submit a product plan. Following approval, they work with a chosen laboratory to conduct stability testing to determine shelf life and ensure safety," Patterson described.
Patterson also highlighted differences in how the body processes THC-infused beverages compared to edibles, suggesting they may be metabolized faster. She emphasized the importance of understanding product labeling and dosage. "It's crucial for consumers to start with a low dose and go slow, especially if they are new to cannabis beverages," she advised.
Both Verlinden and Patterson stress the importance of responsible consumption, urging consumers to know their limits and consume THC products safely.
Bronson, Michigan, continues to deliberate on the possibility of allowing businesses dealing in recreational cannabis within city limits. The matter was a focal point of discussion at the recent Bronson City Council meeting held last Monday.
During the meeting, Mayor Matt Watkins, addressing City Manager Brandon Mersman, highlighted the potential of recreational cannabis businesses as a revenue source. However, he emphasized the necessity for further information to aid community understanding and decision-making.
This isn't the first time the topic has come up for discussion; nearly a year ago, the City Council conducted a public hearing that captured diverse community perspectives on the issue. The ongoing deliberations follow the statewide approval of recreational cannabis in November 2018. Despite this approval, Bronson City Council opted out of the law two months after its passage, deciding to wait until Michigan established clear regulations for the industry. It's important to note that communities have the flexibility to opt in at any time, permitting them to authorize and regulate local businesses that sell recreational cannabis.
Helpful Links Categories Recent News