Milegalize / Mpp / Mcc First Draft Language Released

[Restorium2]

I didn't see your ballot initiative offered.  When it's offered I'm all for it but I won't deny others if they vote for this one and even if a dozen people want this one I'll stand behind it.  I can't do anything myself.

What you can do yourself is some thinking about ballot initiatives before you go all in because it calls itself marijuana legalization. 

[+Malamute]

Well, even though I am working on changes to make it better,.... I have to wonder why someone would say they wont support every adult being able to have 12 plants. How dare they! Or that every adult can travel with 2.5 oz legally. How dare they! Or that every adult can have as much marijuana in their house as they want over 2.5 oz, but it must be locked. How dare they! Or that even if you mess up a little and go over or have too many plants or possession or improperly stored or transported that it will only be a civil fine. How dare those SoB's actually do what we want!

[Restorium2]

Then the intent should read;

 

every adult being able to have 12 plants.  every adult can travel with 2.5 oz legally. every adult can have as much marijuana in their house as they want over 2.5 oz, but it must be locked. How dare they! if you mess up a little and go over or have too many plants or possession or improperly stored or transported that it will only be a civil fine. 

 

Not;

 The intent is to remove the production and distribution of marihuana from the illicit market; prevent revenue generated from commerce in marihuana from going to criminal enterprises or gangs; prevent the distribution of marihuana to persons under 21 years of age; prevent the diversion of marihuana to illicit markets; ensure safety of marihuana and marihuanainfused products; prevent adverse public health consequences; and ensure security of marihuana establishments. 

[Restorium2]

Say what you want them to do right in the intent, not weasel around it so they can change it all up later. Make the ballot language rule what you want, not pander to what they want. 

[Restorium2]

First, it should start out like this;  to provide protections for the recreational use of marihuana; 

[Restorium2]

Then state the protections. We always come back to the INTENT later when they ask what The People voted on. 

[Restorium2]

Think ahead;

If this ballot initiative ever does pass, then the feds will challenge it just like they are saying they will. It might go all the way to the Supreme Court. If it does and it says in the INTENT;  to provide protections for the recreational use of marihuana; 

 

Then it could possibly stand because The People Of Michigan wanted protections FOR the use of recreational marijuana, instead of protections AGAINST the use of recreational marijuana.

[Restorium2]

Here's an example of what happens and why INTENT is so important;

 

Schuette said he is seeking to help county prosecutors clarify the law because while the purpose of the MMMA was to help a narrow class of citizens suffering from debilitating medical conditions, a large number of issues have developed that threaten the original intent of the law

[Restorium2]

That's why I asked who actually wrote this garbage. The intent isn't to help any cannabis users. 

 

I like it as an exercise in eye opening. How not to write a ballot initiative. Show examples of what can go wrong with bad intent.

 

The next thing I would like to address is we need to spell out in the intent as to where the proceeds get spent. 

 

Any Michigan advocate that has been paying attention to the evolution of the MMMA knows the pot holes. 

 

For example; We know there wouldn't be a section 8 defense unless it was mentioned right in the intent of the ballot language. 

 

The INTENT is really important because it's what we always come back to, it's the framework. The 'undeniable'. 

[Restorium2]

Speaking of potholes;

 

Right in the intent;

 

All proceeds go to fixing Michigan infrastructure (ROADS AND BRIDGES) and PUBLIC schools. 

 

If we wrote a ballot initiative that spells out protections for recreational use and also helped Michigan in honorable ways that everyone can see I could be very proud of that, win or lose. I would stand up for that. Whatever it takes, I would be an advocate. 

[Restorium2]

I believe that each and every recreational marijuana law is eventually going to the supreme court, they all will be challenged.

 

So there has to be something in the intent that helps us win with a conservative Supreme Court or what's the point? 

 

There's nothing in this MPP written intent that will help with that. It all looks like protection FROM pot, not protection from federal prosecution for marijuana users, which is where the rubber hits the road right now. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Restorium2

[bax]

well resto, if you are looking at intent it says right there in section 2

 

"The purpose of this act is to make marihuana legal for adults 21 years of age or older"

 

there, no limits on marihuana for adults 21 years or older. thats the intent of this ballot proposal...

[+Malamute]

I would agree the language is more likely to become more conservative than more liberal.

 

But as far as MPP goes and our marijuana laws,.... there is no one to blame but ourselves. There is/was nothing stopping us from passing a new ballot initiative that is better and more to our liking.  But, as I see, no one in Michigan has shown any competence to do it ourselves.  So,... we would have nothing if not for MPP. Michiganders are incompetent, unmotivated, and poorly funded to even save ourselves from our states marijuana laws.

 

 

Noone to blame but ourselves.

 

They will pass what they think has the best chance of passing.  If we don't like it, we can pass a different initiative later.

 

If you are not making that happen, there is no one else to blame but your or ourselves.

[+Malamute]

I have always said, "When I get a million bucks, I guess I get to write the law the way I want to."

 

That aint happening anytime soon.  I don't know anyone willing to give me a million bucks,... so,... I work with those that do and try to get the best we can.

 

*shrug*

[mibrains]

[mibrains]

[+Malamute]

 

You have to take the price of the product and all overhead and shipping handling charge off of that too. :-)

 

The numbers are all skewed...

;-p

[bax]

we would have nothing if not for MPP. Michiganders are incompetent, unmotivated, and poorly funded to even save ourselves from our states marijuana laws.

yeah but MMMA and this draft arent good! so flower them! right resto and zap?

 

because the mmma kept the marijuana felonies. so no supporting the MMMA.

 

thats your logic, resto and zap, in your posts said about this draft, applied to the MMMA.

 

If we don't like it, we can pass a different initiative later.

nah, if we dont like it, we can reject it like ohio did, 65/35.

 

how did that work out for ohio? is mpp going to fund a run in ohio in 2018? haha

 

maybe when granholm runs again for mich governor in 2018 and loses to schuette , schuette will leave patients and caregivers alone?

 

nah.

 

so heres your 3 million dollar chance to change the laws. since your republican governor, republican senate, republican house, republican supreme court and republican court of appeals wont help the patients and caregivers.

 

heres your one and only chance.

 

well theres always tim and abrogate. so i guess mpp/milegalize/npra/mcc coalition isnt the "only" group.

 

hey i support tim as well. anything to stop patients from being arrested and harassed.

[Restorium2]

I think the basic problem here is that people assume that a new law by the name of Marijuana Legalization is automatically going to make things better for us in the long run. 

 

That's not a 'given'. It could easily make things worse. So you have to read it and think about where it's 'legs' might carry us with the government we have right now. 

 

I've made some suggestions of how it could be written to help us and how it can be read to hurt us. I see obvious problems with the wording as it is now. 

[bobandtorey]

with a large number of unforeseen consequences. i sure understand what it's going to end up doing to so many and IMHO the next 5 years the Cannabis Lawyers will be very busy i'm just glad some of them know a lot more today then inn 2009 

 

Thanks 

[medmanmike]

Also, just to be clear, I do not blame MPP for the "mistake" of leaving (schedule 1) felonies intact; I believe that was the legislature's mistake. But if they write it the same way 9 years later and don't expect similar results, that is silly.

Of course, we all know the definition of "insanity", right?

Edited March 1, 2017 by medmanmike

[bax]

I think the basic problem here is that people assume that a new law by the name of Marijuana Legalization is automatically going to make things better for us in the long run. 

 

That's not a 'given'. It could easily make things worse. So you have to read it and think about where it's 'legs' might carry us with the government we have right now. 

 

I've made some suggestions of how it could be written to help us and how it can be read to hurt us. I see obvious problems with the wording as it is now.

i agree. but i also look at landlord law, the infused product transport law, and upcoming 5ng bill.

 

what will the mmma have left in 2 years? how much have we lost so far?

 

schuette's 10 page document on mmma all those years ago is getting put into law more and more. remember when a private parking lot for an adults only casino was private property?

 

whats going to come down the pike after the revelation that one dr certified that many patients? i cant even guess. maybe limits on certifications by one dr? wouldnt even need a law for it, LARA could do it administratively with a rule.

 

to kill the fragile "swiss" cheese of the mmma, all they would need is to tighten the noose around the doctors. or maybe constrict the patients protections and rights a little more. maybe limit caregivers to 1 patient or 2, or do away with them once the medical dispensaries show up.

 

worry about the future. but dont ignore the past either. the MMMA has been on the chopping block since day one, both from bad police, schuette, courts AND from the legislature.

 

btw, did you tell the legalize group they also have to protect against 5ng limits? i forgot to, in my comments.

Edited March 1, 2017 by bax

[bax]

What is it about legalization that makes you think it won't be chopped at the same way?

because legalization in other states has not been chopped in the same way. in fact ,the opposite is true. washington is getting home grows, denver/colorado is getting bar-like lounges for smoking. other states are getting old marijuana arrest records expunged.

 

oregon changed its medical marijuana program because , as i read it, the medical marijuana growers wanted to be able to sell plants to the recreational marijuana stores.

 

at least from the summary

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureAnalysisDocument/31739

 

it reads a lot like the dispensary law here in michigan.

 

What is it about the MPP language that you think protects patients and caregivers more than the MMMA?

i said nothing of the sort, this language is missing affirmative defense, which was one of my suggestions to milegalize.

 

but i know, from other states, that legalization for adults decreases marijuana arrests 80-90+%. thats a fact.

 

What makes you think the language we are reading now is going to have any relation to the final language?

i cant predict the future. i'm only talking about this draft, not some hypothetical language in the future.

Edited March 2, 2017 by bax

[Restorium2]

And what is right in front on me sounds like protections against the recreational use of marijuana, not protections for the use of recreational marijuana. 

Until it reads like the MMMA where it says early on in intent; PROTECTIONS FOR THE USE OF MARIJUANA the Supreme Court is going to read it like the people of Michigan were trying to protect themselves from pot rather than clearing a way for our basic right to smoke marijuana.