Koon Loses At Coa

[CaveatLector]

I don't think this is really true; I don't see any good reason the COA makeup would have changed much during the partisan upheaval we saw last election, specifically because of their concealment of their party politics.

 

Who changed seats changed between Feezel and now?

I'm referring to the Sup Ct. not the COA. In 2010 2 seats were up for election. We added Mary Beth Kelly, a Republican and Brian Zahra, a republican. We lost Corrigan (whom joined in the dissent in Feezel) and Weaver (whom concurred with the majority opinion). I'd have to go back and reread that opinion in order to get a better handle on what I think will happen if Koon goes upstairs.

[Nemosity]

wow....

[Croppled1]

I would not expect any help from the Supreme Court the head Republican Justice Young is considered the father of zero tolerance law . This in effect makes nearly every patient unemployable if they were working . Ironic . I am so sick today from FDA medications with no help in site but it is legal to drive on them . If people only knew what we really went through and the barriers to good people to be treated properly and find solutions to suffering that impedes activity so as to cause a cruel slow death . For many of us the death and additional suffering comes from the medications and surgeries that are forced on us by a denial of reasonable personal care .What suprises me is how people involved in politics know of these decesions before they occur . I had heard this but didn't believe they could be so cruel to patients acting in good faith on this program .I have no doubt that if arrested it could result in my death with how the system has lost records , does not follow ones special circumstances and the severe discrimination and lack of proper treatment of dependent individuals at the same hospitals that create them .That is the hospitals so we can imagine what would occur in jails . Patients in withdrawls are straight jacketed or worse , have heart attacks or strokes from the treatment and die without anyone caring another statistic in the drug war .

[CaveatLector]

Sorry I meant Supreme Court. Sounds like you may be right, but hard to say until we see medical marijuana opinions I guess.

I agree. Definitely hard to say. But if they start upholding these COA rulings then we better be ready for a really bad string of laws. It would be nice to take it out of their hands altogether by getting the legislature to address these issues in a reasonable manner.

[CaveatLector]

One thing is certain, if something isn't done soon then you know people like Jessica Cooper are going to start prosecuting the hell out of these cases. That is really going to f with people.

[puffaway]

Its gonna end up being just like that judge in Traverse City told one of our members last year: "When you got that medical marihuana card you gave up your driver's license".

 

So as Trix said....once LEO gets to run your plate and find out you have a card it will be open season for "easy arrests".

 

Remember....if you let your card expire your name is still in the registry until you send a hand written letter to LARA requesting that your name be removed. I know that the admins don't want to hear this, but you are safer by staying under the radar and off the registry unless everyone can get out there and get signitures on the petitions for legalization. Thats our only hope at this point because it is obvious that our legislators have been convinced by LEO that they need total access to that list.

[+Malamute]

Currently because of Feezel, this ruling means no ACTIVE THC in the system, zero tolerance. it can stay in your system for 6-36 hours fo sho.

 

COOH (inactive THC) is what stays in your system for 10-45 days depending how much you smoke and how fat you are. COOH is not included in zero tolerance policy because of the Feezel decision.

 

Jenneifor Granholm had appointed Corrigan to the SupCt, tilting the court to the democratic side (yea get over it, it is all poitics) and Corrigan cast the deciding vote to partially overturn Derror which said All THC, even non impairing COOH metabolites, was subject to no tolerance policies. (I will confirm) This then made COOH not a schedule I drug. Thank Jennifer Granholm for doing something right that helped us. ;-)

 

My personal fear, is that a case like Koon sent to this Republican Supreme Court, which they took over with the 2010 election, is just frothing to overturn the Feezel decision back to the Derror decision.

 

I can't express how important elections are and our 'community' had the absolute worst election for our cause in 2010. The WORST. Polls show that the group that opposes medical marijuana more than any other group is "The Tea Party". It comes in at 34% support for medical marijuana in the last poll i seen. Republicans in general at least come in at about 45% support. Democrat of course up around 70%.

 

So,.. frick the tea party and the republican base and their poster child Bill Schuette, quit voting Republican in Michigan. They do not like you. They may feign concern but i would not mistake it for support.

 

The legislature governed by the extremists in the Republican party and the complete owning of the Executive and Judicial branches, has and will continue to stick it to us. Period.

 

Expect no mercy from the Legislature on this driving issue, they got exactly what they wanted from the COA today.

[Michael Komorn]

Another trial court decision reversed by the Court of Appeals. Bringing the score to 16 rulings by the COA in favor of prosecutors and police, zero for patients and caregivers. Officially reversing at least 8 decisions previously in favor of a patient or caregiver from the trial court. O’Connell finds himself yet again on another panel involving mm. Oddly the Coa I believe may be the only court in Michigan that does not randomly assign the cases. The judges, all judges are elected, but run on a nonpartisan ballet, even though they clearly represent a political party and philosophy. See http://www.facebook....349476768407515 to get engage in stopping this mess. If there is going to be any protections left of the act, this community needs to be ready to vote out the Coa judges that have plagued the implementation of the voter’s intent. This issue is a major issue, and I can tell from the reading of the opinion that the analysis used, as in all the O’Connell decisions, focuses the issue as a public safety concern and the analysis is done in the context of the Public Health Code. This opinion is a long way away from even coming close to truly understanding how medical marihuana works for patients. We have a long way to go yet on this topic. The idea that people are being punished with charges or crimes for what they have in their body without any evidence of impairment are silly. Despite this ruling, and assuming relatively good facts, I am still of the belief that juries don’t want to convict when there is no evidence of impairment.

[Murph]

Hmmm,

 

For one Koon NEVER should have admitted He had smoked marijuana, had a medical marijuana card or even spoke --it's called snitching on yourself (no one can fix stupid) -- if pulled over, keep your Mouth SHUT

and never discuss anything with LEO (you only loose). They are going to do what they want to do and anything you say can and will be used against you -- we all have seen the TV shows, shut up, crack your window and

hand them your Driver's Lic., Proof of Insur, and Registration. If asked to do a PBT the Law says you must (or your Lic. is suspended) as We have implied consent -- so say nothing. Do not answer questions.

 

Second, the Law in Michigan is per se -- any amount of THC in your body and your guilty

 

But this decision is not in compliance with the MMMAct., and is nonsense and it conflicts with People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67(2010) (look at Page 7 bottom of page, and Page 8).

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/10-09/138031/138031-Opinion.pdf

 

Nonetheless, in a per se State (which Michigan is) -- per se means any amount in your body and your Guilty -- problem is no impairments is needed and that is just wrong as if I am NOT impaired and smoked one 4 weeks

ago it is wrong, cruel and unusual, and a dozen other reasons why I should not be convicted -- having said that We need to have the driving laws changed to eliminate "per se" Laws and replace it with impairment based Law where you cannot be guilty unless your impaired.

 

Moral of this case is keep your mouth shut.

 

M

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

COA says you are not allowed to drive w/ any THC in your body

 

.The Michigan Court of Appeals released the following opinion(s) on 4/17/2012.

 

 

/*************************************************

301443 PEOPLE OF MI V RODNEY LEE KOON

Panel: DHS PDO AK

Lower Court: GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, No. 2010-028194-AR

Opinion - Authored - Published (DHS)

 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION April 17, 2012

Plaintiff-Appellant, 9:05 a.m.

v No. 301443

Grand Traverse Circuit Court

RODNEY LEE KOON, LC No. 2010-028194-AR Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and O’CONNELL and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. SAWYER, P.J.

This case presents the question whether the “zero tolerance” provision of MCL 257.625(8), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the driver’s body, still applies if the driver used marijuana under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).1 We conclude that it does.

Defendant was pulled over for speeding 83 miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour zone. The arresting officer smelled intoxicants, and defendant admitted to having consumed one beer sometime within the last couple of hours. Defendant consented to a pat down of his person, voluntarily removed a pipe, and explained that he had a medical marijuana registry card and had last smoked marijuana five to six hours previously. A blood test showed that defendant had active THC in his system. Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a Schedule 1 controlled substance in his body2 under the “zero tolerance” law. The district court concluded that the MMMA protected defendant from prosecution under MCL 257.625(8), unless the prosecution could show that defendant was actually impaired by the presence of marijuana in his body. The circuit court affirmed and concluded that the MMMA supersedes the zero tolerance law. The prosecutor now appeals by leave granted.

This question can be resolved by looking to the pertinent statutory provisions and considering the basic rules of statutory construction. Like the interpretation of other statutes, our duty when analyzing an initiative law is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the people, presuming that the people meant what the statute plainly expresses, giving all words their ordinary and customary meaning as the voters would have understood them.

 

MCL 257.625(8) provides as follows:

(8) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7212, or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7214.

 

Under MCL 333.7212(1)©, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance despite the passage of the MMMA.

 

Turning to the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a) states in relevant part:

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, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana . . . .

MCL 333.26423(e) defines “medical use” of marijuana as the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

The MMMA also recognizes a number of circumstances under which the medical use of marijuana is not permitted. One of those exceptions specifically states that the protections will not apply to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.4 Thus, the MMMA permits the medical use of marijuana, but it recognizes that the use of marijuana is inconsistent with engaging in some activities at the same time as the use of the marijuana. This is certainly not an irrational provision. For example, it is not uncommon for a medication, whether prescription or over the counter, to be accompanied by a warning not to drive while using the medication. The problem that develops in this case is that, while MCL 333.26423 defines a number of terms used in the MMMA, it does not define the phrase “under the influence of marijuana.”

 

What we are left with is the MMMA, which affords a certain degree of immunity from prosecution for possession or use of marijuana for a medical purpose, and the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, which prohibits operating a motor vehicle while there is any amount of marijuana in the driver’s system. These two provisions are not in conflict. The MMMA (or the Legislature) could have rescheduled marijuana to one of the other schedules. But it did not. Therefore, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Furthermore, while the MMMA does not provide a definition of “under the influence of marijuana,” MCL 257.625(8) essentially does, establishing that any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance, including marijuana, sufficiently influences a person’s driving ability to the extent that the person should not be permitted to drive.

 

In order to conclude that the MMMA authorizes the operation of a motor vehicle with some marijuana in the driver’s system, we would have to supply a definition of “under the influence of marihuana” under MCL 333.26427(b)(4) that conflicts with the provisions of MCL 257.625(8). To do so, we would have to conclude that the MMMA repeals by implication MCL 257.625(8) as applied to marijuana. But it is well established that repeal by implication is disfavored.5 To do so, there must be a clear legislative intent to repeal, and there must not be another reasonable construction.

 

But there is a reasonable construction: the Legislature has determined that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana in the driver’s system. Moreover, this is not in conflict with the MMMA. Not only does the MMMA not extend its protections of the medical use of marijuana to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, but it also recognizes other circumstances in which the medical use of marijuana is not permitted by the MMMA. For example, any medical use of marijuana is not permitted on a school bus, nor does it permit smoking marijuana, even for medical use, on public transportation.7

Indeed, this points out one of the flaws in the argument that defendant has the right to “internally possess” marijuana while driving. While the MMMA does include the term “internal possession” within its definition of “medical use,” that does not equate to a right to internally possess marijuana under any circumstance. As noted above, the MMMA specifically does not permit any medical use of marijuana on a school bus, which presumably includes even internal possession. Similarly, under other circumstances, some, but not all, types of medical use of marijuana is permitted; the example here being that of public transportation, where one can presumably internally possess it, but not smoke it.

 

5 Wayne Co Prosecutor v Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich 569, 576; 548 NW2d 900 (1996). 6 Id.

7 MCL 333.26427(b)(2)(A) and (3)(A)

 

Furthermore, the MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law. Although these individuals are still violating the law by using marijuana, the MMMA sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking.8 In other words, the act grants immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather than the granting of a right. Thus, contrary to defendant’s claim, he does not have a blanket right to internally possess medical marijuana.

 

The point being that the MMMA does not permit all types of medical use of marijuana under all circumstances. There are circumstances under which some uses are permitted and others under which no use is permitted. If the drafters of the MMMA wanted to include immunity for the operation of a motor vehicle in section 4, the act would have to have an explicit grant of immunity either in MCL 333.26424(a) or in MCL 333.26423(e). It does not. Indeed, it explicitly does not permit the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. And in the Motor Vehicle Code, the Legislature has provided a definition of what constitutes being under the influence of marijuana: the presence of any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance, including marijuana. That is to say, while “internally possessing” it.

 

The MMMA does not provide a protection against prosecution for violating MCL 257.625(8). Driving is a particularly dangerous activity; Schedule 1 substances are considered particularly inimical to a drivers’ ability to remain in maximally safe control of their vehicles; and the danger of failing to do so affects not only the driver, but anyone else in the vicinity.

For these reasons, defendant was properly charged with a violation of MCL 257.625(8) and CJI2d 15.3a may be given at any trial in this case.

8 See People v King, 291 Mich App 503, 507-509; 804 NW2d 911 (2011), lv gtd 489 Mich 957 (2011); see alsoCasias v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 764 F Supp 2d 914, 922 (WD Mich, 2011).

 

9 Defendant contends that the MMMA grants him the “right” to “internally possess” marijuana and, therefore, as long as he does not break any other laws, he can go about his day-to-day activities, including operating a motor vehicle. Defendant further argues that as long as the marijuana does not affect his ability to operate a motor vehicle, he is immune from prosecution. Like most individuals, defendant misconstrues the MMMA. The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana, nor does it grant any citizen the “right” to use or possess marijuana. While this may seem strange to anyone who has encountered the act, it is the process set up by what many have referred to as an inartfully drafted act. What the MMMA does is set up a process where certain individuals cannot be arrested or prosecuted for their law-breaking. These protections, or immunities from lawbreaking, are very limited in scope. In essence, defendant is asking this Court to extend these protections to other activities, such as operating a motor vehicle, a boat, or an airplane. We respectfully decline; it is the Legislature’s job to expand the law, not the court’s responsibility.

 

 

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20120417_C301443_50_301443.OPN.PDF

[Kingdiamond]

Agreed i will not admit to my patient status until absolutely forced to and for future reference its not kool to tell everybody you know of your legal status the less thats known about your card the better .

[free country 420]

the flood gates will open up for the courts and now that the Leo's have are names they will get behind your car and run your plate

it will be over for you

what do you mean they have our names? i wasent aware that that had happened yet?

[+Bethany]

OuCh! WOW, it means in plain language until all of the thc is out of your system you cannot operate a vehicle, and that may take months in some cases..

Whats our Plan???

[+Malamute]

Election or Initiative.

[+Malamute]

Currently because of Feezel, this ruling means no ACTIVE THC in the system, zero tolerance. it can stay in your system for 6-36 hours fo sho.

 

COOH (inactive THC) is what stays in your system for 10-45 days depending how much you smoke and how fat you are. COOH is not included in zero tolerance policy because of the Feezel decision.

 

Jenneifor Granholm had appointed Corrigan to the SupCt, tilting the court to the democratic side (yea get over it, it is all poitics) and Corrigan cast the deciding vote to partially overturn Derror which said All THC, even non impairing COOH metabolites, was subject to no tolerance policies. (I will confirm) This then made COOH not a schedule I drug. Thank Jennifer Granholm for doing something right that helped us. ;-)

 

My personal fear, is that a case like Koon sent to this Republican Supreme Court, which they took over with the 2010 election, is just frothing to overturn the Feezel decision back to the Derror decision.

 

I can't express how important elections are and our 'community' had the absolute worst election for our cause in 2010. The WORST. Polls show that the group that opposes medical marijuana more than any other group is "The Tea Party". It comes in at 34% support for medical marijuana in the last poll i seen. Republicans in general at least come in at about 45% support. Democrat of course up around 70%.

 

So,.. frick the tea party and the republican base and their poster child Bill Schuette, quit voting Republican in Michigan. They do not like you. They may feign concern but i would not mistake it for support.

 

The legislature governed by the extremists in the Republican party and the complete owning of the Executive and Judicial branches, has and will continue to stick it to us. Period.

 

Expect no mercy from the Legislature on this driving issue, they got exactly what they wanted from the COA today.

 

Let me slightly clarify what i mean by the Republican issue to Republican leaning/supporting citizens.

 

I do not doubt that you personally have perfectly wonderful positions on policies and are an okie dokie person that obviously supports medical marijuana. The problem is, the people you have and are voting into office do not have your same concerns or interests in mind. You are voting against your own intersts currently voting in these PARTICULAR set of republicans. You need to vote in different republicans during the primaries that actually support your interests. While 40+% of Republican citizens may support medical marijuana, i would guess about 15% of Republican Representatives truly support it with their votes. (I am guessing very high) So what has happened is that we have all of these old "Engler" judges still polluting our Judiciary and highly politically minded republican judges sticking it to the average citizen at every turn they get. We have a republican legislature who has done nothing but attack us from every angle possible with nothing but feigned concern or crocodile tears for the patients while they sponsor and co-sponsor legislation that will totally screew patients,caregivers and physicians.

 

So,.. at this point in Michigan, unless you change horses in the primary and replace your current republican representatives, you are in 100% support of these current bills. If you vote republican you have polluted the courts with these judges that are attacking us. If you voted Republican you are responsible for Bill Schuette, one of the most anti drug zeolots ever, being elected A.G.

 

Shame.

 

Vote for your own interests. Fight in the primaries. Remove as many current republican representatives, Senators, or judges as you can this year.

[JMedical]

The zero tolerance, or metabolite ruling, was handed down by a more liberal sup ct if I am not mistaken. Since that case the make-up of the Sup Ct has changed and it has a conservative majority now. Furthermore, the reasoning in the zero tolerance case was tenuous at best. Therefore, I would not bank on the Sup Ct overturning the COA in this case anytime soon.

 

I think the movement, as a whole, would be better off lobbying the legislature to make accomodations for med mj users and to develop reasonable standards. Any standard who be better than zero tolerance and I can't see why legislators wouldn't be willing to loosen this up a bit when it is clear and obvious that no one is under the influence 2 days subsequent to ingesting.

 

As always, you are a ray of sunshine Caveat.

[Timmahh]

I have always been an conservative independent, and as such vote my conscience. but I have been a victim of the 2 party system, as many are.

 

I would say, to not only be sure to remove the current republican't with a better republican, but perhaps we should be voting in the better candidate, which may be republican, instead of a republican't, not just any democrap, but a conscientious democrat, or perhaps a conservative independent. Someone that holds our constitution as more than some ink scrawled upon some hemp, and our personal liberties as more than a quaint notion...

[mibrains]

unbelievable...

this COA ruling seems so bad for us...

i am sad tonight...

thank you all for your personal insight...

it is not cool that they have seemingly in essence, cut off our ability to operate a motor vehicle... even when not showing any sign of imparement...

i feel sick...

what do you know...

i am....

 

i feel like this proclemation by the coa is worse than it presents itself and we all as a community had probably better react....

somehow...i mean we can vote....but

how do i drive to work tomorrow morning?

knowing i am in violation of the coa ruling?

 

so not cool.....

 

the personal risk meter just flew off the wall....

 

i still feel safer tonight with my registering and having my card...

with all the trouble out there i still know that having that defense is still going to be paramount in the end..

God Bless...

[maxmax]

Another trial court decision reversed by the Court of Appeals. Bringing the score to 16 rulings by the COA in favor of prosecutors and police, zero for patients and caregivers. Officially reversing at least 8 decisions previously in favor of a patient or caregiver from the trial court. O’Connell finds himself yet again on another panel involving mm. Oddly the Coa I believe may be the only court in Michigan that does not randomly assign the cases. The judges, all judges are elected, but run on a nonpartisan ballet, even though they clearly represent a political party and philosophy. See http://www.facebook....349476768407515 to get engage in stopping this mess. If there is going to be any protections left of the act, this community needs to be ready to vote out the Coa judges that have plagued the implementation of the voter’s intent. This issue is a major issue, and I can tell from the reading of the opinion that the analysis used, as in all the O’Connell decisions, focuses the issue as a public safety concern and the analysis is done in the context of the Public Health Code. This opinion is a long way away from even coming close to truly understanding how medical marihuana works for patients. We have a long way to go yet on this topic. The idea that people are being punished with charges or crimes for what they have in their body without any evidence of impairment are silly. Despite this ruling, and assuming relatively good facts, I am still of the belief that juries don’t want to convict when there is no evidence of impairment.

 

I am still of the belief that juries don’t want to convict when there is no evidence of impairment. you are right but that is going to take a good lawyer and that will cost you lots of money and most people do not have it

[maxmax]

Hmmm, For one Koon NEVER should have admitted He had smoked marijuana, had a medical marijuana card or even spoke --it's called snitching on yourself (no one can fix stupid) -- if pulled over, keep your Mouth SHUT and never discuss anything with LEO (you only loose). They are going to do what they want to do and anything you say can and will be used against you -- we all have seen the TV shows, shut up, crack your window and hand them your Driver's Lic., Proof of Insur, and Registration. If asked to do a PBT the Law says you must (or your Lic. is suspended) as We have implied consent -- so say nothing. Do not answer questions. Second, the Law in Michigan is per se -- any amount of THC in your body and your guilty But this decision is not in compliance with the MMMAct., and is nonsense and it conflicts with People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67(2010) (look at Page 7 bottom of page, and Page 8). http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/10-09/138031/138031-Opinion.pdf Nonetheless, in a per se State (which Michigan is) -- per se means any amount in your body and your Guilty -- problem is no impairments is needed and that is just wrong as if I am NOT impaired and smoked one 4 weeks ago it is wrong, cruel and unusual, and a dozen other reasons why I should not be convicted -- having said that We need to have the driving laws changed to eliminate "per se" Laws and replace it with impairment based Law where you cannot be guilty unless your impaired. Moral of this case is keep your mouth shut. M M

and don't drive

[maxmax]

Election or Initiative.

 

even if we get the repeal.org going it still won't help you drive

[+Malamute]

I am not speaking about repeal.

 

I am talking about a new medical initiative in 2016 to truly protect patients, caregivers and physicians. Allow for Farmers markets and/or dispensaries. Increase privacy and protections. Protect drivers. Protect workers. Protect Housing.

 

Completely destroy every bad court decision with a new initiative.

 

:-)

 

It's just a matter of finding that million+ bucks to do it that keeps eluding me.

 

Haha.

[+420Atheist]

even if we get the repeal.org going it still won't help you drive

 

Good point. This is devastating news. I guess the next petition drive will have to be for driving. The problem is that will be a tougher sell to the general public. It will take $$$ to educate them.

[Herb Cannabis]

What is the point of owning a car if you can't drive? How much money will be lost to the state in vehicle registration fees, license plates, taxes and so on if the mmj community can't drive?

 

Their will be considerable money lost to the business community as well due to the fact that if we lose our ability to get around, we won't be buying as much either. These judges are not thinking this through very well if you ask me.

 

I wonder what the numbers would look like? Their are approximately 140k registered patients, if you divide by 2 you get a very conservative 70k vehicles. Registration fees lost would equal more than a million dollars per year alone. Now add all the rest and I'd bet the state/business community would be loosing many millions. Mind you now that this is only an uneducated opinion but you understand what I'm trying to convey.

 

MODERATOR: Please tell me how to start a new topic, thank you.

[+420Atheist]

I am not speaking about repeal.

 

I am talking about a new medical initiative in 2016 to truly protect patients, caregivers and physicians. Allow for Farmers markets and/or dispensaries. Increase privacy and protections. Protect drivers. Protect workers. Protect Housing.

 

Completely destroy every bad court decision with a new initiative.

 

:-)

 

It's just a matter of finding that million+ bucks to do it that keeps eluding me.

 

Haha.

 

You hit the post button before me. But ya that is right on.

 

I wonder what would happen if I got pulled over? I have not medicated in 2 months so I would test clean. I think I am done with the program until things get sorted out.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

The only problem with voting in "a better candidate" is that they lie to get elected then once in office they pretty much adhere to the party line which, in the case of Republicans, means anti Medical Marijuana. Better to go with the known entity and vote Democratic, even if you have to hold your nose to do it. Politics in the 21st century revolves around the 2 party system and each party has radically different agendas.