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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7211 (2026)

Schedule 1; placement of substance.

✓ 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


333.7211 Schedule 1; placement of substance.

Sec. 7211.

    The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978

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).

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 10× “MCL 333.7211. In addition, the Legislature has listed other factors to consider when making a determination regarding the classification of a substance: (a)The actual or relative potential for abuse.”
People v. Tennyson, 790 N.W.2d 354 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “7212(1)(b), with a “high potential for abuse” and no safe medical use, MCL 333.7211. Possession of any amount of heroin constitutes a felony.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “7212(l)(c), meaning that “the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision,” MCL 333.7211. The MMMA does not repeal any drug laws contained in the…”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 333.7211. Schedule 2 controlled substances have “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.”
People v. Turmon, 340 N.W.2d 620 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 333.7211; MSA 14.15(7211), MCL 333.7213; MSA 14.”
People v. Pegenau, 523 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “[8] Schedule one substances, MCL 333.7211; MSA 14.15(7211), have no "accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lack[] accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.”
People of Michigan v. Romon Berry McBurrows, 913 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7212(1)(b) (classifying heroin as a Schedule 1 controlled substance); MCL 333.7211 ("The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks…”
People v. King, 804 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “7212(l)(c), meaning that “the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision,” MCL 333.7211. The MMMA does not repeal any drug laws contained in the…”
People v. Derror, 706 N.W.2d 451 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “29 We also note that this Court held that a former statutory section defining marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, MCL 335.”
People v. O'NEAL, 333 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “5 MCL 333.7211; MSA 14.15(7211) through MCL 333.”
People v. Derror, 715 N.W.2d 822 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 8× “While MCL 333.7211 does not explicitly require that a substance have a pharmacological effect to constitute a schedule 1 controlled substance, the statute does explicitly state that a substance is classified as a schedule 1 controlled substance if it has a high potential for…”
In Re Stark, 645 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “7401 and MCL 333.7211. Or, in another context, successive prosecutions for both felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.