The Attorney General first concluded that the Smoking Ban does not apply to marihuana. The Smoking Ban does not apply because the Smoking Ban applies only to tobacco products and marihuana is not a tobacco product. After dismissing the notion that the Smoking Ban applies to marihuana, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does ban the smoking of marihuana in the public areas of food service establishments, hotels, and apartments. Next, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does not prevent an owner of a food service establishment, hotel, or apartment complex from prohibiting either the smoking of or growing of marihuana within on the property.

Although the Attorney General has released this opinion, it is important to note that his opinions are neither legally binding nor are they precedent. As a result, the Michigan courts may come to other conclusions. That said, the Attorney General’s position is well stated and supported by the case law and statutes.

As a business owner, depending on your goals and concerns, it is important to realize that prohibiting just the smoking and growing of marihuana does not guarantee that marihuana will not be consumed on your property. It is important to understand that marihuana may be consumed in other manners. For example, marihuana may be consumed in food and through beverages as well as ingested via vaporizer. Thus, it is important to develop policies that regulate marihuana used via these other methods.

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to immediately close the waterways.  However, the Court did not explain the reasons for its ruling, nor did it indicate whether it would rule to close the waterways at some point.

Just hours after the Court issued its ruling, it was announced that Asian carp DNA had been detected in Calumet Harbor, part of Lake Michigan near Chicago.  It is unclear whether this finding will influence the Supreme Court, or cause it to reconsider its prior ruling.

Michigan has been joined in its fight by Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New York (all the Great Lakes border states except Illinois), as well as Ontario.  President Obama has invited the governors of these states to a summit to be held next month regarding these issues.

Various members of Congress are also looking at possible solutions for the Asian carp problem.  A bipartisan group is looking at measures to poison the Asian carp; to strengthen an electronic barrier in the Chicago waterways; and other options.  Additionally, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (Midland), introduced a bill called the Carp Act, which would close the waterways, and strengthen protections against Asian carp within the waterways, without the Supreme Court’s involvement.

Not surprisingly, the shipping industry opposes the closure of the waterways leading from Chicago to Lake Michigan.  At this point, it appears to be up to the Supreme Court, Congress, and/or the President to decide whether protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp is more important than allowing commercial shipping between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River (through Chicago).

Stay tuned for further updates.  Also, see these articles in The Detroit News for more information: http://bit.ly/cfUu7V, http://bit.ly/83fqws, http://bit.ly/6WoS1, and http://bit.ly/aSDOEd.

This article was written by Melissa L. Demorest, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

This week, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, essentially asking the Court to close all waterways from Illinois leading to Lake Michigan, to prevent Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes.  You may be wondering why the United States Supreme Court is involved.  The answer is that this is a dispute between two states – Michigan and Illinois – and the US Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” over disputes between the states.  28 USC § 1251(a).  Original jurisdiction means that if such a dispute arises, the only court that is allowed to hear that dispute is the US Supreme Court.

Essentially, Michigan’s Attorney General is arguing that the threatened harm to Michigan and the Great Lakes is so severe that the Court should take the drastic measure of closing off all rivers and canals leading from Illinois to Lake Michigan, by closing locks and/or sluice gates.  The Attorney General acknowledges that this would likely harm commercial and pleasure boating traffic in the Chicago area, but maintains that this harm would be insignificant compared to the harm caused by Asian carp reaching Lake Michigan and destroying the Great Lakes fishing industry.

Michigan’s Attorney General has asked the Supreme Court to weigh the environmental and business concerns of protecting the Great Lakes against the business concerns of keeping open the waterways from Chicago to Lake Michigan.  Stay tuned for the Court’s ruling.

See this article in The Detroit News for more information: http://www.detnews.com/article/20091222/METRO01/912220363/1448/LIFESTYLE14/Groups-laud-Cox-in-carp-fight

Also see the Michigan Attorney General’s website for more information: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-34391-228350–,00.html

This article was written by Melissa L. Demorest, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.