Last Night Auburn Hills Banned All Our Rights

[old-hobo]

sorry but the minutes does not say they passed it,instead it says they will send it to the city council. PAGE 45 at the bottom and the top of PAGE 46 is the recorded vote of the board. I'm not trying to be an donkey about this,I live on the west side of state. Im just trying to understand this whole thing.

[MacombCountyCaregiver]

Lets flood them with letters. This is ridiculous. The people already voted for Medical Marijuana. They are undermining the people of this state.

[+RevThad]

Well, just to add my 2 cents to whatever petition is going to be drafted, and to pass on some important points of fact... here are a few important talking points.

 

1. 66% of Oakland County residents voted in favor of Michigan Proposition 1: Allow Medical Marijuana.
   
2. The SCOTUS in its orders MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 , DENIED CERTIORARI in the case of 07-1569 GARDEN GROVE, CA V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA, ET AL. This order validates the ruling of the lower court that states “State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Not Preempted by Federal Law”. Therefore, any local government trying to use preemption to get around the will of the people of our state is illegal and shall not be tolerated.
   
3. Initiated law 1 of 2008 (aka the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act), does not allow for any restrictions to be placed on a registered patient or registered caregiver, other than those included in the law. Further, any municipality that attempts to require licensing and or inspections would also be in direct violation of the plain language of the law.
   

333.26424

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,

 

and

 

333.26426

 

(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

 

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

[boroboro]

1. ...
2. The SCOTUS in its orders MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 , DENIED CERTIORARI in the case of 07-1569 GARDEN GROVE, CA V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA, ET AL. This order validates the ruling of the lower court that states “State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Not Preempted by Federal Law”. Therefore, any local government trying to use preemption to get around the will of the people of our state is illegal and shall not be tolerated.
3. ...

 

Much thanks RevThad -- I hadn't been aware of that point. I tried to read some briefs on that case, but I'm not very fluent in Lawyerese. One particularly relevant quote from a summary of that appeal to the SCOTUS is this:

 

Review is also unwarranted because the

decision below applied settled legal principles to

reach a correct result. The California Court of Appeal

held that California’s identification-card program is

not preempted by the CSA because the CSA expressly

disclaims any congressional intent to occupy the field,

there is no positive conflict between federal and

California law, and the issuance of identification

cards to individuals who cannot be punished under

state law for their medical marijuana use in no way

interferes with the ability of federal officers to enforce

federal law.

 

(CSA = federal Controlled Substances Act)

 

http://www.scotusblo.../09-675_pet.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/...usoppmotion.pdf

[+RevThad]

Yet another interesting tidbit as these localities attempt to hide behind the CSA...

 

But in enacting the CSA,

Congress made it clear it did not intend to preempt the states on the issue of drug

regulation. Indeed, “[t]he CSA explicity contemplates a role for the States in regulating

controlled substances . . . .” (Gonzales v. Oregon, supra, 546 U.S. at p. 251.) It

provides: “No provision of [the CSA] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the

part of 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 . . . and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.”

(21 U.S.C. § 903.) “This express statement by Congress that the federal drug law does

not generally preempt state law gives the usual assumption against preemption additional

force. "

 

Edited to add:

 

Speaking for the majority in Gonzales v. Oregon, Justice Kennedy explained, “The

[CSA] and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical

practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means

to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond

this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine

generally.”

[+JohnQHempseed]

I've pasted an article on last nights Royal Oak meeting

 

Last evening the Royal Oak City Commission voted down a proposed ordinance that would have banned every aspect and use of medical marijuana within the city limits. The proposed ordinance took the Livonia-style language a step further by qualifying the definition of medical facility to specifically exclude medical marijuana uses and referencing this fact repeatedly within the city code of ordinances.The ordinance passed on first reading by a vote of 4-3; it was defeated last night by a 5-2 margin. Commissioner Jim Rasor made an impassioned plea to the other elected officials to remember the oath of office they took to honor the laws of the State of Michigan; Mayor Jim Ellison did not realize the language used created a total and complete ban on everything, and chided Councilmen Semchena and Drinkwine for trying to force through a measure that was deceptively presented and brutally restrictive.

 

 

 

Prior to the Commission meeting, approx. 50 activists rallied in front of the city hall and drew the attention of radio stations, newspapers and television media. The protest action was taking place while some Commissioners entered the building. The Mayor reached his understanding of the severity of the ordinance from the repeated insistence of those that spoke during the Public Comment portion of the meeting, and was visibly upset when the City Attorney confirmed that the activists knew more than the Councilmembers did about the proposed ordinance.

 

 

 

Royal Oak's current moratorium was scheduled to expire on October 20th; as a result of tabling last night's ordinance, Royal Oak was forced to extend their existing moratorium and chose a four month period. There is no doubt that the words and presence of so many activists and Royal Oak residents influenced policy last night. Everyone that reads this letter, please forward it to any other listserv, activist group or individual that would be inspired by the story and who may want to participate in or organize their own action in support of patient's rights.

 

Rick Thompson

[KathywithaK]

Thanks for the update. the rally was great. great speakers. it served its purpose,keep up the good fight it works.

[anon333]

Here are the publicly available email addresses for those that voted for the measure to outright ban MM in Royal Oak, and those that voted against it. Be responsible. Don't spam these individuals with meaningless emails announcing your anger. Be professional and courteous while at the same time ensuring your message gets across. This is public information pulled from various google searches and on the auburn hills website itself.

 

edit: still working on these. I had them all but upon further research the email naming context (first initial last name) isn't the same for the other users. Only verified email accounts will be posted below.

 

Voted YES

bkittle@auburnhills.org

 

 

Voted NO

[1337Gr33n]

These people will only get away with what their citizens allow them to get away with. Go get em AH!

[+Dizledot]

sorry but the minutes does not say they passed it,instead it says they will send it to the city council. PAGE 45 at the bottom and the top of PAGE 46 is the recorded vote of the board. I'm not trying to be an donkey about this,I live on the west side of state. Im just trying to understand this whole thing.

 

OK those minutes are from the planning commission making a recommendation to the counsel . The counsel will either approve or deny the recommendation . The counsel must approve their minutes at the next meeting in order to make the ordinance legal to enforce .

[+RevThad]

Here are the publicly available email addresses for those that voted for the measure to outright ban MM in Royal Oak, and those that voted against it. Be responsible. Don't spam these individuals with meaningless emails announcing your anger. Be professional and courteous while at the same time ensuring your message gets across. This is public information pulled from various google searches and on the auburn hills website itself.

 

edit: still working on these. I had them all but upon further research the email naming context (first initial last name) isn't the same for the other users. Only verified email accounts will be posted below.

 

Voted YES

bkittle@auburnhills.org

 

 

Voted NO

Here is a link with most of their emails...

 

http://www.auburnhillsmi.govoffice3.com/index.asp?Type=B_DIR&SEC={404D03A8-B911-4502-9ED2-F4AF1E3A344B}

[jmorrison71]

These people will just not the process of democracy work. The people overwhelmingly voted for this and now it's law. I feel like they are trying every little thing they can think of to stop us from chosing to use a safer form of medication.

 

I'm guessing that these same counsel people have no problem with the recent release about the state wanting to increase liquor sales by extending hours that bars and party stores may sell liquor. They would have no problem if any of us wanted to open up a bar in their area...as long as it would bring tax revenue to their city.

 

We need to come up with a list of the individuals voting for this and distribute it to the voters so they can make the choice to vote these jokers back into office. The list should also include Michael Douchard and Byron Konchue, along with other PA's.