Rules On Medical Pot Should Stick To Proposal's Spirit

[UrbanFarmer]

Rules on medical pot should stick to proposal's spirit

 

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20100601/OPINION01/6010306/Rules-on-medical-pot-should-stick-to-proposal-s-spirit#pluckcomments

 

 

When Michigan voters approved Proposal 1 in 2008, allowing those with certain chronic illnesses to grow and smoke marijuana medicinally, it is doubtful they also intended that approval to extend to the legalization of pot-smoking clubs.

 

It is a good idea to go back and review the debate over this proposition from September and October of 2008. The Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care had circulated a petition to place the question on the November ballot, and polling indicated that voters were sympathetic to its cause.

 

Another organization called Citizens Protecting Michigan Kids took the opposition point of view. Among the concerns it raised was that legalization of medical marijuana in California had led to the creation of numerous dispensaries and smoke clubs there. In one neighborhood, the group pointed out, there were more smoke clubs and dispensaries than Starbucks coffeehouses.

 

The belief was that, in California, medical marijuana was being used as a cover for recreational use and abuse, and the fear was that it would happen here too.

 

The Coalition for Compassionate Care called that a "scare tactic." Dianne Byrum, the head of the coalition, said it was misleading and unfair to suggest Proposal 1 would just transport California's law to Michigan. She said there were more safeguards in our state's Proposal 1 and in the 11 other states that had also approved medical marijuana, no others had seen smoke clubs or pot shops cropping up.

 

That's not exactly a guarantee, but the implication was that Proposal 1 would not open the door to smoke clubs and dispensaries.

 

Michigan voters accepted that and approved Proposal 1 handily, giving sufferers who get a registry card from the state the ability to grow marijuana for their personal use. It also allowed registered caregivers the ability to grow up to 12 plants each for a maximum of five patients.

 

The proposal didn't say anything about dispensaries, pot shops or smoke clubs. Now, exactly those facilities are in the news.

 

Last week, police raided the Green Leaf Smokers Club, northeast of Williamston in Ingham County, and arrested its owner, the Rev. Frederick Wayne Dagit, on five drug charges, including delivery or manufacture of more than 99 pounds of marijuana. The maximum penalty for that charge is 15 years in prison.

 

Earlier in the week, the Howell City Council had voted 6-1 to amend its zoning ordinance to essentially prohibit dispensaries and smoke clubs. This year, the Green Oak Township Board of Trustees considered an addition to its zoning rules to address the issue. The township has not adopted any rule yet, but has the proposal under review by township officials and its attorney.

 

Here's the essential point. When Michigan voters approved this proposal, they intended to make sure sufferers of chronic illness could get access to their medicine, even though the medicine was marijuana. There was nothing in the debate or in the proposal to indicate that what voters really wanted was to thinly disguise decriminalization of recreational use. Quite to the opposite, proponents said that was a scare tactic.

 

So it appears that if local units of government want to regulate them — to prohibit smoke clubs and dispensaries outright, or pass zoning rules restricting them to a particular part of town — then they are free to do so.

 

They should endeavor to stay within the spirit of Proposal 1. That spirit was to make sure that the sick can possess and take the medication they need, in this case, marijuana, without fear of being arrested or harassed by police. But that can be accomplished without the guarantee of a pot club on Main Street.

 

 

[freemannabis]

Just when I was about to post a reply to say "Good Read; Thanks for the post!; And, "I liked the story," I read the "ending";

 

Of course, now I feel all the more compelled to wonder something else out-loud:

 

"Exactly, what on Earth is SO WRONG with being "RECREATIONAL"?!

 

Rather than retype my thoughts on that, here's a link to one of my earlier posts that reference my points (with the indisputable "help" of Webster's dictionary - Thank You, Webster's!:

 

***

 

"How can anyone be truly compassionate and also be pertinaciously opposed to any "Recreational" use or qualities of Cannabis? Consider this, if you will; According to Websters Dictionary, "Recreation" means: . . . to create anew, restore, refresh [fr. re- (+)creare - to create] . . . refreshment of strength and spirits after work. . . . a means of refreshment or diversion. {as from pain and suffering} Websters also defines the English term "Recreate" as: . . . to create again. . . . to form anew again . . . So, how can the wholesome act of being "Recreational" - alone or communally - by any naturally harmless means attainable - be unhealthy? A "Recreationist," says Webster's, is: . . . One who seeks recreation . . . especially in the outdoors. "Recreate", according to Webster's, is also (firstly) defined as: . . . To give new life or freshness to. . . . REFRESH (their emphasis, not mine, by the way). . . . To take recreation. So, how is the act, state or quality of being, wanting or willing to be "Recreational" not restorative and refreshing to the heart, mind and body? Not to mention the soul of Humanity. Be Free Cannabis Cures - Without Fears Fight the Good Fight. And, Share the Faith"

 

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?//topic/17110-editorial-do-we-need-to-raise-the-bar/page__st__40__p__152053__hl__recreation%20webster__fromsearch__1&

 

***

 

Anyway, thanks, for the post, 'erb!

 

(And, double thanks - for the perfectly worthy opportunity to say something TOATALLY RELEVANT on this VERY SPECIAL DAY - the ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL DAY that my now considerably less suffering honey became "Officially Qualified" (that is, justifiably and certifiably registered by the Pseudo Egalatarian Dictators of The State [you know those robotically heartless control-freaks who sure do seem to live and breath merely to relentlessly oppose the naturally bestowed upon us at birth FREEDOMs and WILLs of "We the People" of Michigan / America]) to partake of the bountiful fruits [and endless] blessings of the "Tree of Life"

 

Now, we too can also (VERY HAPPILY!) say, along with a growing number of other health-progressive-minded couples in the world, we have another positive aspect of a healthy life together with our family, friends and compassionate communities everywhere, in common.

 

Thanks all!

 

: )

 

Be FREE!

 

And, SHARE the HARVEST

[greenbuddha]

'LEGALIZE IT' and the problem becomes a 'social issue' rather than a 'law enforcement' game of cops and robbers.

 

And then the issue of who, when, and where becomes a non-issue except for under age use and 'public impairment' which would still remain under law enforcement control... people get to use (yes) recreationally AND LEO gets to keep THEIR jobs as well.

 

But that might be a little TOO easy for everyone.

[boroboro]

I've found it interesting and enlightening to explore people's motivations for opposing recreational use. "Oh, you don't think people should smoke marijuana -- why not?" Then just follow their chain of reasons and explain why each reason is founded on incorrect facts, assumptions, or needlessly puritanical thinking. Most people I've tried this with don't really have any solid fundamental reasons for opposing recreational use, instead it's just the inertia of always having opposed it, combined with incorrect knowledge of the facts.

 

I hope some time can pass under the current law, and then people can gently notice that even if there are some recreational users slipping into the law along with the medical patients, that the sky is not falling and drug crazed hippies are not running naked around the streets and corrupting our innocent youth.

[mizerman]

I've found it interesting and enlightening to explore people's motivations for opposing recreational use. "Oh, you don't think people should smoke marijuana -- why not?" Then just follow their chain of reasons and explain why each reason is founded on incorrect facts, assumptions, or needlessly puritanical thinking. Most people I've tried this with don't really have any solid fundamental reasons for opposing recreational use, instead it's just the inertia of always having opposed it, combined with incorrect knowledge of the facts.

 

I hope some time can pass under the current law, and then people can gently notice that even if there are some recreational users slipping into the law along with the medical patients, that the sky is not falling and drug crazed hippies are not running naked around the streets and corrupting our innocent youth.

That's a great post

 

Mizerman

[peanutbutter]

drug crazed hippies are not running naked around the streets and corrupting our innocent youth.

 

Darn!! I thought the 60's were coming back!

[+JuztBudz]

Now they have gotten my attention...I am mad as a wet hornet and not going to stand by and watch this happen in my county. If they want to take on this battle, then I am up to the task. Here is my reply to the editorial, hope they are ready for an assault, cuz a hard rain is gonna fall on thier biased heads...

 

"So, now we are going to ban "social clubs"? That will also put an end to the Moose Lodge, the V.F.W. and the like. We (medical cannabis patients) are not pariahs, we NEED to socialize, just like any other social being. If you are worried that we are going to drive away from some "pot club" so stoned that we will cause an accident, then you really should consider that those same rules should apply to all in society. You can not legally specify that these "cannabis clubs" cannot exist without closing the doors on all other 'similar' organizations. The intent of this law was to enable patients safe access to medicine, not to further ostrasize us. You would prefer that we go to "the mean streets" to get our medicine? Not gonna happen on my watch! As the leader of the local compassion club (BACC) I will not stand by idly while the rights of my constituency are whittled away by small minded city governments. I hope the city of Howell is prepared to defend their stance in a court room!"

 

This will become a battle for our constitutional right to assemble, one that no city in the U.S. will ever win...

 

Peace...see ya's in the trenches...Doug 'j.b.' Orton

[jamieuke]

Now they have gotten my attention...I am mad as a wet hornet and not going to stand by and watch this happen in my county. If they want to take on this battle, then I am up to the task. Here is my reply to the editorial, hope they are ready for an assault, cuz a hard rain is gonna fall on thier biased heads...

 

"So, now we are going to ban "social clubs"? That will also put an end to the Moose Lodge, the V.F.W. and the like. We (medical cannabis patients) are not pariahs, we NEED to socialize, just like any other social being. If you are worried that we are going to drive away from some "pot club" so stoned that we will cause an accident, then you really should consider that those same rules should apply to all in society. You can not legally specify that these "cannabis clubs" cannot exist without closing the doors on all other 'similar' organizations. The intent of this law was to enable patients safe access to medicine, not to further ostrasize us. You would prefer that we go to "the mean streets" to get our medicine? Not gonna happen on my watch! As the leader of the local compassion club (BACC) I will not stand by idly while the rights of my constituency are whittled away by small minded city governments. I hope the city of Howell is prepared to defend their stance in a court room!"

 

This will become a battle for our constitutional right to assemble, one that no city in the U.S. will ever win...

 

Peace...see ya's in the trenches...Doug 'j.b.' Orton

 

 

 

Doug, you know that you can count on us to be there and to support you and group- anytime.

 

Here is a recent Metro Times story - http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=15103

[welj31]

Now they have gotten my attention...I am mad as a wet hornet and not going to stand by and watch this happen in my county. If they want to take on this battle, then I am up to the task. Here is my reply to the editorial, hope they are ready for an assault, cuz a hard rain is gonna fall on thier biased heads...

 

"So, now we are going to ban "social clubs"? That will also put an end to the Moose Lodge, the V.F.W. and the like. We (medical cannabis patients) are not pariahs, we NEED to socialize, just like any other social being. If you are worried that we are going to drive away from some "pot club" so stoned that we will cause an accident, then you really should consider that those same rules should apply to all in society. You can not legally specify that these "cannabis clubs" cannot exist without closing the doors on all other 'similar' organizations. The intent of this law was to enable patients safe access to medicine, not to further ostrasize us. You would prefer that we go to "the mean streets" to get our medicine? Not gonna happen on my watch! As the leader of the local compassion club (BACC) I will not stand by idly while the rights of my constituency are whittled away by small minded city governments. I hope the city of Howell is prepared to defend their stance in a court room!"

 

This will become a battle for our constitutional right to assemble, one that no city in the U.S. will ever win...

 

Peace...see ya's in the trenches...Doug 'j.b.' Orton

Dam near word for word how I explained it. And will do so again on Monday in Branch. I got your back brother. And you have many supporting you. John Wells

[UrbanFarmer]

Anyway, thanks, for the post, 'erb!

 

Yw!

[greenbuddha]

Now they have gotten my attention...I am mad as a wet hornet and not going to stand by and watch this happen in my county. If they want to take on this battle, then I am up to the task. Here is my reply to the editorial, hope they are ready for an assault, cuz a hard rain is gonna fall on thier biased heads...

 

"So, now we are going to ban "social clubs"? That will also put an end to the Moose Lodge, the V.F.W. and the like. We (medical cannabis patients) are not pariahs, we NEED to socialize, just like any other social being. If you are worried that we are going to drive away from some "pot club" so stoned that we will cause an accident, then you really should consider that those same rules should apply to all in society. You can not legally specify that these "cannabis clubs" cannot exist without closing the doors on all other 'similar' organizations. The intent of this law was to enable patients safe access to medicine, not to further ostrasize us. You would prefer that we go to "the mean streets" to get our medicine? Not gonna happen on my watch! As the leader of the local compassion club (BACC) I will not stand by idly while the rights of my constituency are whittled away by small minded city governments. I hope the city of Howell is prepared to defend their stance in a court room!"

 

This will become a battle for our constitutional right to assemble, one that no city in the U.S. will ever win...

 

Peace...see ya's in the trenches...Doug 'j.b.' Orton

 

 

Go get em, Baby!

 

Sometimes ya gotta help people pull their craniums out of their anus.

 

Thanks, j.b.

[jmac2010]

I just want to know, did proposal 1 have some kind of time limit or are people afraid that it can be revoked by vote? Someone who knows what they are talking about please explain!

[bobandtorey]

I just want to know, did proposal 1 have some kind of time limit or are people afraid that it can be revoked by vote? Someone who knows what they are talking about please explain!

 

i think are Law is good for now anyway until November then they can vote it out if they can get 2/3 of the vote but i don't think that will happen

[greenbuddha]

i think are Law is good for now anyway until November then they can vote it out if they can get 2/3 of the vote but i don't think that will happen

 

To my understanding the MMJ law is LAW.

 

It can't be changed by public vote unless it is put on the ballet at some point... and it has not been put on the ballot for this November's vote.

 

BUT the thing to REMEMBER is that the politicians we vote IN in November... unless they are PRO-MMJ... COULD reverse the 'law' if they can get 2/3 of the legislative bodies to vote against it.

 

SO... VOTING in pro-MMJ people this November is very important... if we can get a good idea of who these pols might be.

 

The more we know the better off we will be.

[bobandtorey]

To my understanding the MMJ law is LAW.

 

It can't be changed by public vote unless it is put on the ballet at some point... and it has not been put on the ballot for this November's vote.

 

BUT the thing to REMEMBER is that the politicians we vote IN in November... unless they are PRO-MMJ... COULD reverse the 'law' if they can get 2/3 of the legislative bodies to vote against it.

 

SO... VOTING in pro-MMJ people this November is very important... if we can get a good idea of who these pols might be.

 

The more we know the better off we will be.

 

The will of the people was clear when the ballot initiative passed by as

large of a margin as it did. I support the will of the people to allow

marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes only and the law should be

enforced as such.

 

Sincerely,

Virg