Ex-Detroit Officer Says; Change The Law.

[greenbuddha]

US MI: McKinnon: Drop Marijuana Laws

• Get Active
• Subscribe
• Support Us

URL: http://www.mapinc.or...1/n712/a09.html

Newshawk: Herb

Votes: 1

Pubdate: Sun, 11 Dec 2011

Source: Birmingham Eccentric (MI)

Copyright: 2011 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers

Contact: http://www.hometownl...STOMERSERVICE20

Website: http://www.hometownl.../section/NEWS02

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5164

Author: Jay M. Grossman

 

 

 

MCKINNON: DROP MARIJUANA LAWS

 

Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon believes decriminalizing marijuana completely is the best route.

 

Speaking to an audience of about 70 people at the Baldwin Public Library on Dec. 6, McKinnon said in his 33 years as a police officer, drunks were always a bigger problem to deal with than marijuana users. Legalizing the drug would free up police resources for more important cases, he said.

 

Birmingham resident Mike Whitty, an adjunct professor at the University of Detroit Mercy and a vocal advocate on reforming marijuana laws, organized the event as part of the library's lecture series.

 

"It's very exciting when someone of his stature and credibility will speak up publicly on this topic," said Whitty, 69. "More dialogue, more education -- all of that is certainly something the public wants to see happen."

 

Whitty said he's convinced that a growing number of Democrats and Republicans alike can see the benefits of legalizing marijuana and making it a product to tax and regulate -- just like a bottle of wine.

 

"It's happening," he said. "I can list local Republicans and conservatives who concluded we have to approach the laws differently . so there is a crack in that wall of hesitancy and fear."

 

The courts throughout Michigan and other parts of the country still maintain marijuana is a controlled substance and that medical marijuana card holders are not immune to federal prosecution.

 

At the same time, Michigan lawmakers are trying to clarify the state's medical marijuana act passed by the voters in 2008.

 

Whitty said McKinnon taught in the past at U-D Mercy and that's how the two became friends.

MAP posted-by: Jo-D

[Croppled1]

I just hope patients needs do not get lost in the shuffle . As patients we have many needs and requirements recreational users do not . The concept of a " sin " tax to lower use should never be applied to medical cannabis .

[greenbuddha]

I just hope patients needs do not get lost in the shuffle . As patients we have many needs and requirements recreational users do not . The concept of a " sin " tax to lower use should never be applied to medical cannabis .

 

A person has to assume that the use of medical cannabis is a total and seperate issue from use of cannabis by the general public, under whatever term you might choose to refer to it as; recreational use or otherwise.

 

WHY would the 'medical use ' of cannabis be ended or tampered with just because a law might be passed allowing for 'other' uses of cannabis.

 

I'm all ears for anyone that can explain the conflict of the two laws to me... hopefully in a rational and well thought out manner.

[peanutbutter]

I believe the new standard would be obvious signs of intoxication.

 

And to modify that, would require another amendment to be passed by the voters.

[peanutbutter]

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the future.

 

Odd .. I thought I was also.

[greenbuddha]

Just one conflict of many, eventually, drivers will have the percent of THC in their bloodstreams used to determine their impairment. While that might be just fine for "recreational" users it does not protect medical use of cannabis. In this way, legalization can leave patients behind if we are not careful.

 

Oh... we 'will' be careful.

 

And your point is well taken

[greenbuddha]

I believe the new standard would be obvious signs of intoxication.

 

And to modify that, would require another amendment to be passed by the voters.

 

Totally agree!

 

With each person's level of 'tolerance' and 'liver metabolization' always being different, the 'level of functioning' should be the standard used in dealing with 'either' Med cannabis OR 'recreational' use.

[bobandtorey]

It is not scientifically accurate for alcohol impairment either, but is deemed good enough to protect the public from recreational users.

i agree .08 is what they say

in most cases that could be one drink

don't be fooled buy this obvious signs of intoxication. wont work im the court room IMO

[greenbuddha]

While I understand and concur with what you are saying, it is rare (never) that they consult recreational drug users in deciding the criteria for impairment. While we may be able to get away with momentarily having no hard standard for cannabis intoxication, it will be sought immediately after passage and be very difficult to defend against. There is much pseudo scientific data that will be shoved down our throats, very little scientic data to support our position, and it will, yet again, be framed as a massive public safety issue. It is not scientifically accurate for alcohol impairment either, but is deemed good enough to protect the public from recreational users.

 

I do not fault you for believing in democracy, but we need to plan for the future, even if we do get something passed next year.

 

If there is one thing we have discovered from this process, it is that new law does not equal direct action, but that new law plus existing anti-cannabis system equals some different action that we didn't predict. We have a lot of information know about how they act, the things they try, etc. Let's put that to use and not assume we can write something that they won't be able to get around in the courts.

 

I'll use a cleche, if I may?

 

'No one ever said it would be easy'.

 

Again, your points are well taken.

 

We have to do what we can with the elections coming up this November... The odds of our votes making a difference becomes less with each day, I'm all too aware of that, just as many others are.

 

And we can only hope, that with our efforts, and a change of 'political climate', we might just make it.

 

Appreciate your civility and your comments.

[greenbuddha]

It is not scientifically accurate for alcohol impairment either, but is deemed good enough to protect the public from recreational users.

i agree .08 is what they say

in most cases that could be one drink

don't be fooled buy this obvious signs of intoxication. wont work im the court room IMO

 

B&T,

 

I agree with you.

 

LEO and the courts want 'solid proof' in the form of 'measurements and tests'... .0 this and .0 that.

 

And you, like many others that have had to deal with the courts know that what 'really' works in a courtroom is LOTS of money and 'a fast' lawyer... no matter what the 'standards of intoxication, or THC levels or anything else might be... THAT'S the REAL law.

 

Hope you're doing well and that the Holidays are good to you.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks as well as we can be for being inn court for so long and them trying not to let us use the words medical even after the C.O.A said we could they no they can't win if we are able to tell the truth