The City of Wyoming created an ordinance that made it unlawful for someone to do anything on their property in violation of federal law. Ter Beek was a MMMA patient and wished to continue to grow and use marijuana in compliance with the Act. He sued the City alleging that the ordinance was preempted by the MMMA. The City argued that the Act was preempted by Federal Law which prohibits possession and use marijuana in any form.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the federal marijuana prohibition does not preempt the MMMA. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that issues of public health and safety are traditionally left to the states to enforce.
No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.
The sec 4 immunity does not purport to prohibit federal criminalization. 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests in this country are made pursuant to state law. The MMMA simply provides immunity to a small protected class of persons in a limited scope, patients with a medical condition. It does not seek to legalize marijuana in direct contravention to the federal CSA. The mandates of the CSA are in full force within this state to satisfy its stated intent to control a schedule 1 controlled substance
Cities are precluded from enacting ordinances that are in direct conflict with state law which is how the Wyoming law was interpreted with respect to medical marijuana.
McQueen ruling that enjoined a dispensary is distinguishable because the business fell outside the scope of the MMMA where Ter Beek is not outside of the scope of the MMMA.