MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
Initiated Law 1 of 2008
333.26422 Findings, declaration.
Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:
(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.
(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.
(c) Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.
History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008
Compiler's Notes:
MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:
10. Severability.
Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the bureau of marijuana regulation, see E.R.O. No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001.
For the renaming of the marijuana regulatory agency to the cannabis regulatory agency, see E.R.O. No. 2022-1, compiled at MCL 333.27002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case:
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “” Additionally, MCL 333.26422(b) recognizes that 99 out of every 100 marijuana-based arrests in the United States are made under state law.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “” MCL 333.26422(a). The obvious solution to this problem would simply be to amend the Public Health Code to make marijuana a schedule 2 or schedule 3 controlled substance.”
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015).
· cites it 4× “” MCL 333.26422(c). See also Kolanek, 491 Mich at 393-394 , quoting MCL 333.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014).
· cites it 3× “”); see also MCL 333.26422 (noting that “approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law,” that “changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of…”
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “" MCL 333.26422(b). Under the majority's interpretation of the statute in Derror , however, individuals who use marijuana for medicinal purposes will be prohibited from driving long after the person is no longer impaired.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 2× “MCL 333.26422. 25 MCL 333.26427(a). 26 The MMMA defines “qualifying patient” as “a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “MCL 333.26422(c). Lastly, the majority’s erroneous interpretation of § 4(d) leads the majority to an inadequate analysis regarding its ultimate conclusion that defendants’ facilitation of the transfer of marijuana is enjoinable under MCL 600.”
People v. King, 804 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 333.26422(b). The MMMA further declares that the laws of certain other states “do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015).
“Without that information, we are unable to determine how many marijuana plants and how much usable marijuana Tuttle was allowed to possess under § 4(a) and § 4(b).”
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 3× “§ 333.26422(b) (“changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana”) (emphasis added); People v.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“Unlike the PHC’s classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance, the MMMA, which was enacted as the result of an initiative adopted by voters in the November 2008 election, Redden, 290 Mich App at 76 , declares that as discovered by modern medical research…”
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 333.26422; see also People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65, 93 ; 799 NW2d 184 (2010) (opinion by O’CONNELL, P.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26422(a) — 9 cases
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015).
“Without that information, we are unable to determine how many marijuana plants and how much usable marijuana Tuttle was allowed to possess under § 4(a) and § 4(b).”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“” MCL 333.26422(a). The obvious solution to this problem would simply be to amend the Public Health Code to make marijuana a schedule 2 or schedule 3 controlled substance.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“Unlike the PHC’s classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance, the MMMA, which was enacted as the result of an initiative adopted by voters in the November 2008 election, Redden, 290 Mich App at 76 , declares that as discovered by modern medical research…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26422(b) — 7 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“” MCL 333.26422(a). The obvious solution to this problem would simply be to amend the Public Health Code to make marijuana a schedule 2 or schedule 3 controlled substance.”
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010).
“" MCL 333.26422(b). Under the majority's interpretation of the statute in Derror , however, individuals who use marijuana for medicinal purposes will be prohibited from driving long after the person is no longer impaired.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“” Additionally, MCL 333.26422(b) recognizes that 99 out of every 100 marijuana-based arrests in the United States are made under state law.”
People v. King, 804 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“” MCL 333.26422(b). The MMMA further declares that the laws of certain other states “do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26422(c) — 16 cases
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015).
“” MCL 333.26422(c). See also Kolanek, 491 Mich at 393-394 , quoting MCL 333.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“” Additionally, MCL 333.26422(b) recognizes that 99 out of every 100 marijuana-based arrests in the United States are made under state law.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“MCL 333.26422(c). Lastly, the majority’s erroneous interpretation of § 4(d) leads the majority to an inadequate analysis regarding its ultimate conclusion that defendants’ facilitation of the transfer of marijuana is enjoinable under MCL 600.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014).
“”); see also MCL 333.26422 (noting that “approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law,” that “changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of…”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
“MCL 333.26422. 25 MCL 333.26427(a). 26 The MMMA defines “qualifying patient” as “a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.