Hoekstra Letter To Me,you Decide

[Kevin]

I don't think we'll ever see much positive change with either a Dem or Repub in office. They're Pepsi and Coke. Same thing, but one is a little sweeter. We need a more powerful 3rd party.

 

 

Peace.

[+420Atheist]

Sounds like he is OK with it as long as it is only for medical use..Not a bad thing.

 

What exactly makes you think that?

 

As you know, the people of Michigan voted to allow medical marijuana.

 

Yes we know what the people of Michigan voted for. This does not imply he agrees or disagrees. It is great political speak because you can take it either way depending on what side you are on.

 

As it currently stands, there are some outstanding issues that must be addressed to ensure that it is strictly used for medicinal purposes.

 

What evidence does he have that anyone is receiving cards that does not have a medical reason? There is no evidence that I am aware of. To me this is clearly an excuse to place limits on MMJ use. If he was really being candid he would have articulated what restrictions is he planing to put in place that will "ensure that it is strictly used for medicinal purposes?"

 

Cox is one of the Attorney Generals who signed a law suite against the Federal Government over the Health Care Bill but on this issue it sounds like he is being completely hypocritical and wants government to be involved in the decision between a patient and doctor when it comes to MMJ.

 

The Cox position to me is clear and indefensible. That is why he is being as non committal and non specific as possible in his reply. He knows his true position will lose him votes.

 

Edited to add: For some reason I thought this letter was from attorney general Cox and not Hoekstra. That still does not change my mind about it being disingenuous.

[+itssortalegal10]

420 atheist asked me

 

"What exactly makes you think that?"

 

When I stated " Sounds like he is OK with it as long as it is only for medical use..Not a bad thing."

 

 

 

This is why i said that...The letter located on the top of page 1 of this topic says

 

"As you know, the people of Michigan voted to allow medical marijuana. As it currently stands, there are some outstanding issues that must be addressed to ensure that it is strictly used for medicinal purposes."

 

And that is what made me say that.

 

However I think I said somewhere on here that what we need is someone who will just make it legal for recreational use...

[+420Atheist]

 

 

And that is what made me say that.

 

 

I guess you and I read that differently. It would not be the first time today. I have sent him a email to clarify his position. My questions did not give him a lot of wiggle room so lets see if he answers.

[wingnut]

The problem is most people vote on how a politician makes them "feel" and not on how their past voting record is. A politician who can make people feel good is likely to get votes but a politician who can make people angry by scapegoating "other" people is likely to get more votes. If everyone would look at the past voting record we would have a whole new government.

 

BTW have you ever wondered why all the presidents in recent years are coming from being state governors and not congressmen like they did before Lincolns time? It is because Governors don't have a big voting record that can be scrutinized.

Right don't go by what they said (all lies) but go on there past record.

[wingnut]

420 atheist asked me

 

"What exactly makes you think that?"

 

When I stated " Sounds like he is OK with it as long as it is only for medical use..Not a bad thing."

 

 

 

This is why i said that...The letter located on the top of page 1 of this topic says

 

"As you know, the people of Michigan voted to allow medical marijuana. As it currently stands, there are some outstanding issues that must be addressed to ensure that it is strictly used for medicinal purposes."

 

And that is what made me say that.

 

However I think I said somewhere on here that what we need is someone who will just make it legal for recreational use...

Yes we cannabis !

[______]

I guess you and I read that differently. It would not be the first time today. I have sent him a email to clarify his position. My questions did not give him a lot of wiggle room so lets see if he answers.

 

I bet a dollar you get the same form letter. Polititions have staff members who do nothing but create non-committal form letters on controversial topics. Never alienate or disagree or disagree with a potential voter.

[Leon]

FINALY SOME DEMOCRATS ARE COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET AND TAKING A STAND ON MM IN CALI...........................

 

 

 

Democratic lawmakers from California are hoping that a proposition to legalize marijuana on the November ballot will help drive progressive voter turnout, but most are so far unwilling to state publicly how they'll vote when the curtain closes. Three House Democrats, however, tell HuffPost that they'll be supporting the measure, which would authorize cities and counties to tax and regulate the sale of marijuana for adults 21 and over.

 

Three may not seem like a high number, but it represents the most public support that legalization has garnered from a single state's delegation -- and it signals the effect that ballot initiatives can have on advancing the public debate over marijuana policy. Many of the rest of the Democrats in the delegation said they were open to supporting it. The state's chapter of the NAACP has also come out in favor of it.

 

The three Democrats to tell HuffPost that they'll vote yes - Reps. George Miller, Barbara Lee and Pete Stark -- represent Bay Area districts and are the first federal legislators to publicly back Proposition 19. Another Democrat, Mike Honda, who represents Silicon Valley, which owes much to consciousness-expanding drugs, said he was leaning toward voting yes. "It's like driving or drinking: We have a certain age, then you have that privilege and if you abuse it you lose it. I don't think this is any different, just like other kinds of legalized behavior," said Honda.

 

One Republican, the libertarian-leaning Dana Rohrabacher, who represents parts of Huntington Beach and Long Beach, said the he was initially planning to endorse the proposition, but thinks it doesn't go far enough to protect employers. "I would say in principle I would vote yes but you always have to read the fine print," he said. "I read into it and it was more than simply preventing people from going to jail. It was that nobody could use that as a criteria for hiring and firing... If somebody wants to hire just non-smokers or non-drinkers that's his or her personal prerogative as far as I'm concerned."

 

Rohrabacher said that if a bill similar to the proposition in California came to the House floor, but didn't include the employer language, he'd vote for it.

 

HuffPost quizzed each member of the California delegation, but perhaps the most unlikely negative response came from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat who represents Marin and Sonoma Counties and is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. No polling has been done specific to her district, but Woolsey's opposition would put her in a dwindling minority in Northern California.

 

In a statement, Woolsey emphasized her support of medical marijuana. "Marijuana use is increasing among today's youth, and as a mother and a grandmother, I am concerned by any initiative that might contribute to increased substance abuse," she said. "While I am not convinced that legalization of marijuana is appropriate at this time, I do believe that doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating diseases. I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 2835, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, which would prevent federal laws from restricting the production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana."

[vitamink]

thats exactly what I told him we are a growing force to be reckoned with,and I know plenty of ppl as well that dont use for them selves but it may be helping someone they love and because it is the will of the PEOPLE leave it alone,the PEOPLE have voted,and that is what the nin-kan-poops are forgetting.

 

What is his email?

[+420Atheist]

I bet a dollar you get the same form letter. Polititions have staff members who do nothing but create non-committal form letters on controversial topics. Never alienate or disagree or disagree with a potential voter.

 

So far he has chosen to ignore my pointed questions. I figured I would either get the same non-committal letter or nothing at all.

[vitamink]

Maybe if we forward letters sent to these tight lipped fools that call themselves polititions to many different news venues (newspaper, raido and tv) along with signatures of a sigificate number of patients they may be forced into coming clean on thier positions on MM. I know one thing I WONT be voting Mike Cox, thats for sure. These so-called polititians wanna play softball, I think its time to play UFC. Does the MMMAS have a way of E-verifying signatures or would there be a more conventional way of this...idk im just medicating and thinkin... mmmmmmmmm Super Bubba!!!

 

[kak1963]

this bites that you cant get a answer from them does any one have the issue of the mi med mag? i think in one of the latter issues they had a write up on how each one felt. but who knows whats a lie there pros at that.

[1337Gr33n]

It's almost easy for California politicians to come out about MMJ. They KNOW that a lot of people in their constituencies want MMJ, especially in the bay area.

Here in MI, it is a different story. Especially in West Michigan. Politics here are the politics of conservatism, even for so-called liberals. No one is very outspoken about much of anything, except what they KNOW people will support. While 63% of us voted for the MMMA, the politicians are still running scared when thinking about "coming out" about this law and us in particular.

[2d]

Dear Ms. Wolf,

 

Thank you for contacting me about medical marijuana. I apologize for the unintentional delay in my response to you.

 

As you know, the people of Michigan voted to allow medical marijuana. As it currently stands, there are some outstanding issues that must be addressed to ensure that it is strictly used for medicinal purposes.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate you letting me know how this issue personally impacts you.

 

Hoekstra has a voting record on medical marijuana by way of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. He does not support medical use of cannabis.

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=869

[Bisharoo]

Used to live in GR myself, so yes, those stateists are different than the ones in Detroit and the ones up north, but none of them is standing for your right to live free, for your own sake, like we need to find quickly if possible!!

Most of our choices seem to always be the lesser of two evils, which leads, over time, to evil becoming more pervasive.

All stateists work for the interests of the state and, at times, against yours. So, we need to get rid of stateists and find more people who respect the rights of each individual to live for their own sake, unimpeded by any force from any king or tyrant or thug or mob or gang or group or individual. As long as you do not infringe on another persons' right to live for their own sake, any infringement on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is, by definition, a form of tyranny.

Is a little tyranny OK as long as we can have some comfort??

When our elected and unelected leaders respect our individual rights, and we insist that they do, then we will all be free to make choices like "I believe I should use this medicinal herb and get off those harmful, deadly pharmacutical drugs" or whatever I choose to do for myself or my family or friends.

Then, when truly free because we live in a civil society, and with our leaders helping and not hindering our progress, we will all be more equipped to help each other, our fellow human beings.

Hey, we've tried the king/thug/dictator/tyrant/mob/group/elected or non-elected official way. We should at least consider a system where each person's individual rights are guaranteed.