Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Initiated Law 1 of 2008
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427 (2026)

Scope of act; limitations; application of certain provisions of the revised judicature act of 1961.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT


Initiated Law 1 of 2008


333.26427 Scope of act; limitations; application of certain provisions of the revised judicature act of 1961.

7. Scope of Act.

    

    Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it complies with this act.

    (b) This act does not authorize a person to do any of the following:

    (1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, if doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

    (2) Possess marihuana, or engage in the medical use of marihuana, at any of the following locations:

    (A) In a school bus.

    (B) On the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school.

    (C) In any correctional facility.

    (3) Smoke marihuana at any of the following locations:

    (A) On any form of public transportation.

    (B) In any public place.

    (4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.

    (5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.

    (6) Separate plant resin from a marihuana plant by butane extraction in any of the following:

    (A) A public place.

    (B) A motor vehicle.

    (C) Inside or within the curtilage of any residential structure.

    (7) Separate plant resin from a marihuana plant by butane extraction in a manner that demonstrates a failure to exercise reasonable care or reckless disregard for the safety of others.

    (c) Nothing in this act requires any of the following:

    (1) A government medical assistance program or commercial or nonprofit health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marihuana.

    (2) An employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.

    (3) A private property owner to lease residential property to any person who smokes or cultivates marihuana on the premises, if the prohibition against smoking or cultivating marihuana is in the written lease.

    (d) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marihuana to avoid arrest or prosecution is punishable by a fine of $500.00, in addition to any other penalties that may apply for making a false statement or for the use of marihuana other than use that complies with this act.

    (e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act. However, if this act is inconsistent with any part of chapter 10a, 10b, 10c, or 12 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1060 to 600.1088, 600.1090 to 600.1099a, 600.1099b to 600.1099m, and 600.1200 to 600.1212, that part applies.

    

    

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 283, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 546, Eff. Apr. 10, 2017 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 186, Imd. Eff. July 25, 2022

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.

    Enacting section 2 of Act 283 of 2016 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. This amendatory act clarifies ambiguities in the law in accordance with the original intent of the people, as expressed in section 2(b) of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26422:

     "(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.". [Emphasis added.]

     This amendatory act is curative and applies retroactively as to the following: clarifying the quantities and forms of marihuana for which a person is protected from arrest, precluding an interpretation of "weight" as aggregate weight, and excluding an added inactive substrate component of a preparation in determining the amount of marihuana, medical marihuana, or usable marihuana that constitutes an offense. Retroactive application of this amendatory act does not create a cause of action against a law enforcement officer or any other state or local governmental officer, employee, department, or agency that enforced this act under a good-faith interpretation of its provisions at the time of enforcement."

    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 69 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 32× “MCL 333.26427(a). They also specifically stated that the act does not “permit any person” to smoke marijuana “in any public place.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.26427], a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where…”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 9× “Under § 7(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(a), any medical use of marijuana must occur in accordance with the provisions of the act.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 6× “The Court of Appeals held that the “express reference” in § 8 “to § 7 [MCL 333.26427] and the statement in § 7(a) that medical use of marijuana must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA require [King] to comply with the provisions of § 4 concerning…”
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “[29] MCL 333.26427(b)(4). [30] Ante at 85 n. 16.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 5× “See MCL 333.26427(a) (“The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “26427(e). The MMMA broadly defines the “medical use” of marijuana as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or…”
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “MCL 333.26427(a). The MMMA does not permit any person to “[u]ndertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice” or to “[o]perate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or…”
People v. Koon, 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 141 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 6× “13 See MCL 333.26427(a). 14 Significantly, “under the influence” is a term of art used in other provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code.”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 4× “Rather, we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Kolanek.”
Christie Deruiter v. Twp. of Byron, 926 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Under MCL 333.26427(a), the "medical use of marijuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is *281 carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the MMMA].”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “26426, MCL 333.26427(a), and MCL 333.26428. In Docket No.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(6) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Alexan Armen Korkigian (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(a) — 41 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “Under § 7(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(a), any medical use of marijuana must occur in accordance with the provisions of the act.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014). “See MCL 333.26427(a) (“The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). “Rather, we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Kolanek.”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “26426, MCL 333.26427(a), and MCL 333.26428. In Docket No.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). “The Court of Appeals held that the “express reference” in § 8 “to § 7 [MCL 333.26427] and the statement in § 7(a) that medical use of marijuana must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA require [King] to comply with the provisions of § 4 concerning…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b) — 11 cases
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 333.26427(a). They also specifically stated that the act does not “permit any person” to smoke marijuana “in any public place.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). “The Court of Appeals held that the “express reference” in § 8 “to § 7 [MCL 333.26427] and the statement in § 7(a) that medical use of marijuana must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA require [King] to comply with the provisions of § 4 concerning…”
Christie Deruiter v. Twp. of Byron, 926 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Under MCL 333.26427(a), the "medical use of marijuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is *281 carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the MMMA].”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). “Rather, we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Kolanek.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.26427], a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(1) — 7 cases
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 333.26427(a). The MMMA does not permit any person to “[u]ndertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice” or to “[o]perate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or…”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
People of Michigan v. Michael Dean Dupre (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(2) — 1 case
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
People v. Koon, 818 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
People of Michigan v. Thomas Moorman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.26427], a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(3) — 4 cases
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “26427(e). The MMMA broadly defines the “medical use” of marijuana as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or…”
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 333.26427(a). They also specifically stated that the act does not “permit any person” to smoke marijuana “in any public place.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Dean Dupre (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Robert Michael Carlton (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(3)(A) — 2 cases
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 333.26427(a). They also specifically stated that the act does not “permit any person” to smoke marijuana “in any public place.”
People v. Koon, 818 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(3)(B) — 4 cases
People v. Carlton, 880 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 333.26427(a). They also specifically stated that the act does not “permit any person” to smoke marijuana “in any public place.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony, 932 N.W.2d 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Donnevan Lee Coppernoll (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(4) — 11 cases
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). “[29] MCL 333.26427(b)(4). [30] Ante at 85 n. 16.”
People v. Koon, 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 141 (Mich. 2013). “13 See MCL 333.26427(a). 14 Significantly, “under the influence” is a term of art used in other provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code.”
People of Michigan v. Dana Lynn Cook, 918 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “26427(e). The MMMA broadly defines the “medical use” of marijuana as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or…”
People v. Koon, 818 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(5) — 2 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.26427], a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where…”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “26427(e). The MMMA broadly defines the “medical use” of marijuana as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(6) — 1 case
City of Warren v. Clayton Jamers Bezy (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(c)(2) — 3 cases
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 333.26427(a). The MMMA does not permit any person to “[u]ndertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice” or to “[o]perate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or…”
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).
Stephen Kudzia v. Avasi Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(d) — 1 case
People v. Butler-Jackson, 862 N.W.2d 423 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(e) — 14 cases
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). “[29] MCL 333.26427(b)(4). [30] Ante at 85 n. 16.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014). “See MCL 333.26427(a) (“The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.”
People v. Koon, 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 141 (Mich. 2013). “13 See MCL 333.26427(a). 14 Significantly, “under the influence” is a term of art used in other provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code.”
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 333.26427(a). The MMMA does not permit any person to “[u]ndertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice” or to “[o]perate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or…”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.26427], a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(h)(2) — 1 case
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “26427(e). The MMMA broadly defines the “medical use” of marijuana as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or…”
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.