Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Act 368 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7201 (2026)

Administration of article; adding, deleting, or rescheduling substances.

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

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE


Act 368 of 1978


333.7201 Administration of article; adding, deleting, or rescheduling substances.

Sec. 7201.

    The administrator shall administer this article and may add substances to, or delete or reschedule all substances enumerated in the schedules in sections 7212, 7214, 7216, 7218, and 7220 in compliance with the administrative procedures act of 1969.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 182, Imd. Eff. June 19, 2012

Constitutionality Notes:

    The Legislature's delegation to the Board of Pharmacy of the authority to schedule controlled substances in accordance with detailed criteria is not an unlawful delegation of power. People v Turmon, 417 Mich 638; 340 NW2d 620 (1983).

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of powers and duties of certain health-related functions, boards, and commissions from the Department of Licensing and Regulation to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1991-9, compiled at MCL 338.3501 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

PopularName Notes:

Act 368

AdminRule Notes:

    R 338.3101 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: People v. Turmon, 340 N.W.2d 620 (Mich. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Turmon, 340 N.W.2d 620 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 8× “[1] After initially classifying a number of substances onto one of five schedules, the Legislature delegated to the Board of Pharmacy the power to "add substances to, or delete or reschedule all substances enumerated in the schedules", MCL 333.7201; MSA 14.15(7201), and…”
Bloomfield Twp. v. Kane, 839 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “MCL 333.7201 provides that the “administrator shall administer this article and may add substances to, or delete or reschedule all substances enumerated in the schedules in [MCL 333.”
People v. Endres, 711 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “A “controlled substance” is “a drug, substance, or immediate precursor included in schedules 1 to 5 of part 72” of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7201 et seq. MCL 333.7104(2). Alcohol is not included as a controlled substance in *419 schedules 1 to 5.”
in Re Forfeiture of 2000 Gmc Denali & Contents, 892 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “claimant received her notice, plaintiff filed a complaint for forfeiture asserting that the 1986 El Camino, the 2000 GMC Denali, *567 the motorcycle, the Compaq laptop computer, the Nexus tablet, and the $398 in cash were subject to forfeiture because the items were used or…”
Griffin v. Berghuis, 298 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “The petitioner was convicted of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7201 (2)(a)(iv); possession with intent to deliver cocaine less than 50 grams, Mich.”
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “7104(2) as “a drug, substance, or immediate precursor included in schedules 1 to 5 of part 72 [MCL 333.7201 et seq.l” Marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Public Health Code, MCL 333.”
People v. O'NEAL, 333 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 333.7201; MSA 14.15(7201). In 1979, the board classified pentazocine as a schedule 3 controlled substance.”
People v. 8120 Ravine Road, 390 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “The complaint further alleged that the real estate was subject to forfeiture because (1) it was "property which was used, or intended for use, as a container for a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine or lsd,” (2) it was "property used or intended to be used to facilitate a…”
Zahraie v. Cheeks (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 4× “Defendants argue that the catchall language of MCL 333.7201(1)(e)(x) is unconstitutionally vague because it did not adequately notify them that XLR–11 was illegal because a reasonable person does not know which substances are cannabinoid receptor agonists and mimic the effect of…”
People of Michigan v. Kirsta Beth Zahraie (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Defendants argue that the catchall language of MCL 333.7201(1)(e)(x) is unconstitutionally vague because it did not adequately notify them that XLR-11 was illegal because a reasonable person does not know which substances are cannabinoid receptor agonists and mimic the effect of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7201(1)(e)(x) — 2 cases
Zahraie v. Cheeks (E.D. Mich. 2024). “Defendants argue that the catchall language of MCL 333.7201(1)(e)(x) is unconstitutionally vague because it did not adequately notify them that XLR–11 was illegal because a reasonable person does not know which substances are cannabinoid receptor agonists and mimic the effect of…”
People of Michigan v. Kirsta Beth Zahraie (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Defendants argue that the catchall language of MCL 333.7201(1)(e)(x) is unconstitutionally vague because it did not adequately notify them that XLR-11 was illegal because a reasonable person does not know which substances are cannabinoid receptor agonists and mimic the effect of…”
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.