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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7213 (2026)

Schedule 2; 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


333.7213 Schedule 2; placement of substance.

Sec. 7213.

    The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 2 if it finds all of the following:

    (a) The substance has high potential for abuse.

    (b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

    (c) The abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychic or physical dependence.

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

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “MCL 333.7213(a) and (c). The controlled substances listed in schedules 3, 4, and 5 have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and have less potential for abuse and dependence.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “” MCL 333.7213. A substance may be included in Schedule 3 if the substance has a potential for abuse less than a schedule 1 or schedule 2 controlled substance and abuse of the substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence, but the…”
People v. Turmon, 340 N.W.2d 620 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “15(7211), MCL 333.7213; MSA 14.15(7213), MCL 333.7215; MSA 14.”
People of Michigan v. Romon Berry McBurrows, 913 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “See MCL 333.7213 (stating that a substance shall be placed in Schedule 2 if it is found, among other things, that the "substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions").”
People v. Benda, 412 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “15(7212), MCL 333.7213; MSA 14.15(7213), MCL 333.7214; MSA 14.”
People of Michigan v. Romon Berry McBurrows (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7214(b), in part because it has legitimate medical uses, MCL 333.7213 (stating that a substance shall be placed in schedule 2 if it is found, among other things, that the “substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted…”
People of Michigan v. Robert a Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant suggests that Brown is no longer valid because medical marijuana is now a schedule 2 substance under MCL 333.7213(b). However, “[m]arijuana remains a schedule 1 substance in Michigan’s Public Health Code, MCL 333.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7213(a) — 1 case
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.7213(a) and (c). The controlled substances listed in schedules 3, 4, and 5 have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and have less potential for abuse and dependence.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7213(b) — 2 cases
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.7213(a) and (c). The controlled substances listed in schedules 3, 4, and 5 have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and have less potential for abuse and dependence.”
People of Michigan v. Robert a Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant suggests that Brown is no longer valid because medical marijuana is now a schedule 2 substance under MCL 333.7213(b). However, “[m]arijuana remains a schedule 1 substance in Michigan’s Public Health Code, MCL 333.”
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.