Medical Marijuana Backers Protest Proposed Michigan Legislation

[abe supercro]

I've read your rebuttals as well.... no comment.

 

Unity vs. Uniformity? Sorry Folks the jury is still out for me. peace all

[CaveatLector]

A very large part of a lot of people's problem is that they are accustomed to the last admin from this site. He constantly beat into people how great he was and how he would die for them and wouldn't sleep until work got done. He was an attention seeker of the highest order. He, on a daily basis, told us how he was keeping the dogs at bay. One day he acted like we were near the end and the next he would announce that we "won." A little Charlie Sheen-esque. "Winning!"

 

People, I think, have grown to expect that others will tout their accomplishments. I think a lot of the, "what have you done for me lately," crowd needs to realize that there are many people who quietly work behind the scenes and are not big on seeking attention for their accomplishments.

[Hayduke]

Abe, truce it is. I only throw down when people come at me for no reason.

 

It was important to convey the lack of respect the legislators, staff, PAAM, MSP all have for protests, rallies and the like. That is NOT my view by the way it is. Look no further than Wisconson, where the Governor so pissed off folks they recalled him (now will he win again?)... they don't care there either. This is not unique to Michigan and mmj. Look, this is not to say a rally can't make positive contributions. They can for many reasons. But to rely on it as the primary arrow in your quiver is a huge error. That was and remains Joe's difficulty. He just can't get into compromise and being cordial. And like it or not, compromise and cordiality are in fact critical in Lansing if one hopes to make any head way.

 

The unity still holds among pretty diverse separate groups. And let me tell you, we do not all see eye to eye, but we have agreed to move in tandem when we have reason to. There are indeed a handful of people in all the reform groups working long long hours for free, in order to help us avoid getting kicked to the curb. While the Sp Ct cases were not total wins, they were reinvigorators for virtually everyone.

 

It is unity not uniformity. As Francisco (I think it was him) used to say, getting mmj people to do something, is like herding cats. No one could pull off uniformity, and it isn't even desirable, or discussed. Unity is constantly discussed. The glass is half full. It needs to be topped off.

 

The reason I asked for your resume or what you are doing is to point out that mere criticism is easy to do. We are all masters of that deal. It is much harder to act on a plan of action than complain about someone.

 

Believe me, I can be a jerk just like anyone else. Probably a big one in fact. But within CPU there is no tolerance for that. Our members bring each other "up", and expect each of us to be honorable and to do the right thing. That is the only reason I post here at all: to dispel myth and give people more arrows for the quiver.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Hayduke

[Hayduke]

In another thread I supported a get together at the Capitol. Chad is working darn hard to get the people together. His maturity in the recent months is notable and welcome. No one has a more consistent message in Lansing. Medcnman I respect you quite a bit. I just don't agree with you on this matter. That is okay, too, really. This is an ephemeral moment.

 

The Bouchard reality is not something to trifle with.

 

And let me tell you as someone at the table in the leadership meetings: It is far better without Joseph Cain. Are you kidding me? Joe went off the deep end. I wish him well and hope I never intersect his person again. He did the movement no good, and that is just a fact. One reflection of his failure is in the attendance figures in his last two rallies. He invited everyone to join in despite hating them. How big of him. No one wishes Joe harm, poor health or anything negative. He just played the lying nasty banning card so long, people like myself and many many others decided to respond in kind. It is time to move on.

 

We are trying desperately to get past that point. We really wish you would join us.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Hayduke

[Herb Cannabis]

Big Rapids isn't in the middle of no where, it is in the middle of Michigan!

[Herb Cannabis]

Because it's in the middle of no where...next!

 

Big Rapids isn't in the middle of no where, it is in the middle of Michigan, thank you.

[Herb Cannabis]

rumor has it there talk of a course on MM at a local college in BR

 

that might be news

 

Also an old school CC is opening here...of course any and all support is welcome.

 

yall can keep beating those dead hoarses or come help blaze some new territory in the most conservative part of the state.

 

be our bud

rumor has it there talk of a course on MM at a local college in BR

 

that might be news

 

Also an old school CC is opening here...of course any and all support is welcome.

 

yall can keep beating those dead hoarses or come help blaze some new territory in the most conservative part of the state.

 

be our bud

 

I'd like to know more about the "old school cc", how about sending me a pm with some details? Thanks.

[Herb Cannabis]

A rally isn't going to prove a compassion center's importance to a community. That will happen on a case by case basis. Get your center to do tons of volunteer work there. Sign up to clean a highway and get one of those signs with your center's name on it. Read to, and play cards with, seniors. Offer tutoring for kids at a public library. Collect food for your local pantry. Etc.

 

A rally isn't going to prove a compassion center's importance to a community. That will happen on a case by case basis. Get your center to do tons of volunteer work there. Sign up to clean a highway and get one of those signs with your center's name on it. Read to, and play cards with, seniors. Offer tutoring for kids at a public library. Collect food for your local pantry. Etc.

 

Late last winter, a local dispensary donated 2000 lbs of food to a local food pantry and never even received a thank you because of where it came from. Imagine that!

[CaveatLector]

Late last winter, a local dispensary donated 2000 lbs of food to a local food pantry and never even received a thank you because of where it came from. Imagine that!

How do you know why they never received a thank you? A couple years ago I made a significant in-kind donation to Mott's Childrens Hospital in Ann Arbor in the name of my child's 3rd grade class. I/they never received a thank you. I don't know why but I highly doubt it was because it was from a 3rd grade class.

 

However, let's say that IS why they didn't send you a thank you. Does that mean we give up? No. Kill them with kindness.

[Herb Cannabis]

How do you know why they never received a thank you? A couple years ago I made a significant in-kind donation to Mott's Childrens Hospital in Ann Arbor in the name of my child's 3rd grade class. I/they never received a thank you. I don't know why but I highly doubt it was because it was from a 3rd grade class.

 

However, let's say that IS why they didn't send you a thank you. Does that mean we give up? No. Kill them with kindness.

 

I agree, "kill them with kindness."

[+washtenaut]

People, I think, have grown to expect that others will tout their accomplishments. I think a lot of the, "what have you done for me lately," crowd needs to realize that there are many people who quietly work behind the scenes and are not big on seeking attention for their accomplishments.

 

Many people prefer to work quietly behind the scenes. A lot can get done that way and I appreciate those efforts.

 

Although I may not have expressed it to each, I appreciate everyone's efforts to protect our rights and to further our cause. Thank you

 

In a 'group effort' setting such as on this board, 'fighting quietly' has inherent problems for leadership however. When the perceived leaders do not inform the ranks of their actions periodically, distrust will develop. The distrust will not just be of the leaders but also of those close to the leaders and so on. It breeds. Recognizing that fact and addressing it rather than fighting it would help the board, imo.

 

I saw a recent post referencing walking in the other man's shoes and it is cliche but very, very true. The ability to imagine that walk in every interaction is so important it should be taught in school. Imagine the members of this group that were used to being told on a daily basis, what was happening, who we were fighting, and what was our next step. Add to the scene that we were told for many months not to trust the very folks who are now today's leaders.

 

It may be unnatural for you but if the group leaders don't regularly inform the rest of the group of their efforts and our direction, I think the distrust will be hard to shake. To expect otherwise is betting against human nature.

 

Also, if people don't feel that they are participating in any way, they may check back once in a while for info, but they will not feel engaged here. jmho

[cristinew]

leave the law alone

 

We must give the words of the MMMA their

ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate.32

[+Annnie]

That was the theme of the protest.. and now it is reaffirmed by the MSC.. jest sayin..

[+washtenaut]

leave the law alone

 

 

OK, I get that. It is sounding like a chant to me.

 

You WANT the legislature to leave this law alone and you think they should because the SC said to use the ordinary and plain meaning of the words. That should protect medical use, period.

 

On the other hand though, in another thread, you just told me that the SC, in the ruling, said it is not trying to influence legislation.

[SFC]

You can't please everyone. It is too bad that some people would rather be fed BS daily instead of truth when it is there for all to see.

[Hayduke]

Many people prefer to work quietly behind the scenes. A lot can get done that way and I appreciate those efforts.

 

Although I may not have expressed it to each, I appreciate everyone's efforts to protect our rights and to further our cause. Thank you

 

In a 'group effort' setting such as on this board, 'fighting quietly' has inherent problems for leadership however. When the perceived leaders do not inform the ranks of their actions periodically, distrust will develop. The distrust will not just be of the leaders but also of those close to the leaders and so on. It breeds. Recognizing that fact and addressing it rather than fighting it would help the board, imo.

 

I saw a recent post referencing walking in the other man's shoes and it is cliche but very, very true. The ability to imagine that walk in every interaction is so important it should be taught in school. Imagine the members of this group that were used to being told on a daily basis, what was happening, who we were fighting, and what was our next step. Add to the scene that we were told for many months not to trust the very folks who are now today's leaders.

 

It may be unnatural for you but if the group leaders don't regularly inform the rest of the group of their efforts and our direction, I think the distrust will be hard to shake. To expect otherwise is betting against human nature.

 

Also, if people don't feel that they are participating in any way, they may check back once in a while for info, but they will not feel engaged here. jmho

 

I respect your viewpoint, but here is the problem. The discussions are inevitably with small numbers of people, and they tend to stretch out over weeks and months. If the contents of the discussions are released and the larger group gets to vet the positions, so to speak, you will quickly be excluded from any further talks. Now while this may be scary to have to wait to find out the information later than you would like, how would you propose changing this dynamic. Truthfully, we have always carved out specific positions that we will not agree to go beyond. Factually those positions are pretty hard to get honored (think about 4834 and the access to the registry question.... warrant was our position, and reasonable suspicion was the Prosecutors and Reps position.... it ended up being voted in as probable cause), and compromise is usually delivered to you from the Reps, not demanded of them. They are the elected officials and hold the votes, never forget that fact, or the fact we play this game on their turf, with many many issues working against us. It is a defensive position. In the end, we opposed the House bill package in the hearings and in the group letter of unity.

 

Today there will be a CPU presentation at the New Detroit CC. It will be a look at the bills as introduced in late June 2011, and comparing them to the House bills that passed on May 2, 2012. If you print up those 8 bills (2 of each of 4), you can see the things we got amended. Some came from CPU some from MMMA some from MACC, and so on. The point is we got very little, in fact NO additional perks through. What was accomplished was fixing up the affirmative defense, access to the registry, and a bunch of smaller word fixes, correcting things that really would have been horrid had they been left in.

 

The final point is this note is to say pretty often current and good information would have been available here, but 'cept CPU was banned from here. That was not our doing or our fault. That was Dear Leader blocking the masses from even hearing a message that did not originate with him. That is no longer the case, and that is why some posting has begun again.

[bobandtorey]

Thank you Dr. Bob. I know I appreciate your dedication and long hard travels to help us all make medical marijuana be considered a viable alternative to pharmacy products.

 

Yes thanks Doc: fro helping us out it means a lot to us you have sent me many E-mails saying that you would be in court for us for FREE thank you again for your support

[bobandtorey]

My favorite blurb from the Suprems on page 14

 

 

 

Our consideration of the availability of the affirmative defense in § 8 and the

immunity conferred under §4 is guided by the traditional principles of statutory construction. However, because the MMMA was the result of a voter initiative, our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate, rather than the Legislature, as reflected in the language of the law itself.31 We must give the words of the MMMA their ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate.32

 

The majority agreed with the defendants that “the MMMA provides two ways in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act. Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in § 8.”

i still think we already had a ruling with this from the C.O.A

why is it so different now?

[+washtenaut]

I respect your viewpoint, but here is the problem. The discussions are inevitably with small numbers of people, and they tend to stretch out over weeks and months. If the contents of the discussions are released and the larger group gets to vet the positions, so to speak, you will quickly be excluded from any further talks. Now while this may be scary to have to wait to find out the information later than you would like, how would you propose changing this dynamic. Truthfully, we have always carved out specific positions that we will not agree to go beyond. Factually those positions are pretty hard to get honored (think about 4834 and the access to the registry question.... warrant was our position, and reasonable suspicion was the Prosecutors and Reps position.... it ended up being voted in as probable cause), and compromise is usually delivered to you from the Reps, not demanded of them. They are the elected officials and hold the votes, never forget that fact, or the fact we play this game on their turf, with many many issues working against us. It is a defensive position. In the end, we opposed the House bill package in the hearings and in the group letter of unity.

 

Today there will be a CPU presentation at the New Detroit CC. It will be a look at the bills as introduced in late June 2011, and comparing them to the House bills that passed on May 2, 2012. If you print up those 8 bills (2 of each of 4), you can see the things we got amended. Some came from CPU some from MMMA some from MACC, and so on. The point is we got very little, in fact NO additional perks through. What was accomplished was fixing up the affirmative defense, access to the registry, and a bunch of smaller word fixes, correcting things that really would have been horrid had they been left in.

 

 

Not saying anyone needs to go to this extent but just as a counterpoint, even the US President has a spokesperson that holds daily news conferences with Q&A. He gives a daily update and then answers questions. When necessary, he says that he cannot speak on certain points.

 

Also, there are several negative aspects to the leaders' secret meetings. As mentioned, they breed distrust in the ranks and they discourage the others from participating and expressing their differing viewpoints. The strength of the board is in the participation and in the multiple viewpoints, right?

 

I don't have an answer to this but far and away the chief problem is that the politicians, like Cavanagh, used those patient meetings, your meetings, against us all. Just prior to the House vote he proudly stated to the House members that he was working with the patient groups and that the patients agreed to the reworked bills. That statement, as untrue as it may have been, was cover for anyone of the Reps voting to pass the bills. They can state that they voted Yes on the bills to protect the patients.

 

That hurt us I feel. Had there more openness of everyone's positions throughout the discussions, Cavanagh would not have been able to so easily get away with that devastating proclamation.

 

If politicians were all like honest Abe and you could trust them to keep their word, the behind the scenes efforts would be all that would be needed. The point that I've failed to get across to the secrecy advocates is that a closed door meeting gives the rep way too much latitude. They do not have to carve out a public stance and they work hard at maintaining that undefined position. They will claim ignorance when convenient and they will more easily give into other political pressures when changing their mind is not widely noticed.

 

Making sure that they hear our concerns is good, but making sure the press and public knows that the Reps have heard our concerns is even better. They cannot then easily deny that they were aware of the patient objections. Getting them to commit to helping patients is good, but getting them to commit to helping patients in front of the public and the press is even better. If they vote YES after that, they will have to explain what overrode the patient objections.

[bobandtorey]

what i do is make sure you say ( can i Quote you on that)

[Hayduke]

Not saying anyone needs to go to this extent but just as a counterpoint, even the US President has a spokesperson that holds daily news conferences with Q&A. He gives a daily update and then answers questions. When necessary, he says that he cannot speak on certain points.

 

Also, there are several negative aspects to the leaders' secret meetings. As mentioned, they breed distrust in the ranks and they discourage the others from participating and expressing their differing viewpoints. The strength of the board is in the participation and in the multiple viewpoints, right?

 

I don't have an answer to this but far and away the chief problem is that the politicians, like Cavanagh, used those patient meetings, your meetings, against us all. Just prior to the House vote he proudly stated to the House members that he was working with the patient groups and that the patients agreed to the reworked bills. That statement, as untrue as it may have been, was cover for anyone of the Reps voting to pass the bills. They can state that they voted Yes on the bills to protect the patients.

 

That hurt us I feel. Had there more openness of everyone's positions throughout the discussions, Cavanagh would not have been able to so easily get away with that devastating proclamation.

 

If politicians were all like honest Abe and you could trust them to keep their word, the behind the scenes efforts would be all that would be needed. The point that I've failed to get across to the secrecy advocates is that a closed door meeting gives the rep way too much latitude. They do not have to carve out a public stance and they work hard at maintaining that undefined position. They will claim ignorance when convenient and they will more easily give into other political pressures when changing their mind is not widely noticed.

 

Making sure that they hear our concerns is good, but making sure the press and public knows that the Reps have heard our concerns is even better. They cannot then easily deny that they were aware of the patient objections. Getting them to commit to helping patients is good, but getting them to commit to helping patients in front of the public and the press is even better. If they vote YES after that, they will have to explain what overrode the patient objections.

 

I hear ya. I do humbly disagree, doing things according to the dictates of the Reps was 100% necessary.... sorry for that, but it just was. The dynamic at work with Cavanagh was he wanted his bill passed. To me 4851 is not such a bad bill. Once Cavanagh added the affirmative defense language that was voted on May 2, I didn't have a whole lot of problems with it. Many of our suggestions had been included. The rub came that 4834 (which we hate to this day) was voted on first. We got 22 no votes but needed 29 to defeat it. Cavanagh voted for the bill and it hurt us. His problem was his bill 4851 was voted on second. The AD language was added at the last moment, and likely it would not have been added at all had 4834 gone down in flames.

 

That vote on 4834 was my bone of contention with Rep Cavanagh.

 

The quietness of negotiation really had little to do with anything. We were changing and deleting words, and were not given any leeway to tell them off or give wholesale changes that would be seriously considered. Last fall and summer we gave them our Blue Sky of what we thought they should do. lol.... by November, when they would not as much as discuss any positive revisions, our strategy shifted to defense.

[+Annnie]

The majority agreed with the defendants that “the MMMA provides two ways in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act. Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in § 8.”

i still think we already had a ruling with this from the C.O.A

why is it so different now?

 

It was my plan to use that part of your decision as a defense of why i got to use the defense.. NOW it is plain and clear .. I get a defense.

[+Malamute]

You are overlooking a couple basic facts,

 

Only 4 of 110 representatives voted against HB 4851.

 

And, they are not willing to go on record, sign any pledge or publicly espouse full support.

 

The few that did and are, did make public statements and those media articles are posted on this site and mine.

 

A few expressed partial support on the Planet green trees radio show.

 

A couple expressed support publicly and yet voted against us anyway.

 

What am i trying to say?

 

You are asking for something that tried, attempted and refused by the vast vast majority of legislators.

 

Cavanagh's statement resulted in massive backlash from patients, caregivers and physicians in which he doesnt 100% support anyway. I would say the Unity letter made it crystal clear where patients stood and the resulting news articles made it as public as we could.

 

Also, CPU was banned from this public site by Joe Cain. We were 100% unable to post anything about what we did and what was going on. It would have made Joe look bad if everyone knew half the stuff Joe was taking credit for was actually what was done and being done by CPU. He had to keep us silent and out of view so an not to expose his lies and deceit. All Fact.

[+Malamute]

"Closed door" meetings?

 

Anyone who goes to the Capital and meets with a Rep. in their office is having a closed door meeting. I know of dozens of groups and hundreds of people OUTSIDE of CPU who has done this.

 

I think it may be a little naive and heavily conspiratorial to follow your logic on this one.

 

You do not make demands with Legislators and you do not "make deals". You go in, tell them their bill sucks because of this, this and this. They either say, i agree, or i disagree and off tot he next office you go. What they do with that information is up to them. In a fantasy world, your Rep's do what you say because your voted them in; in the real world, they hear what you say and smile and BS their way through and tell you " Thank you Mr Washtenaut, i will keep that in mind when considering this legislation, have a nice day."

 

:-)

 

I mean, it isn't like any "group" on our side is going in with $5000 checks and buying influence. (please donate to CannaPac) This is why i tell people phonecalls, letter writing,and meeting with your representatives YOURSELVES is absolutely the same thing we do as CPU. The only difference? We hire someone to help us in Lansing and maybe we do it better than most. We are very professional about what we do. We actually get listened to and have caused very atrocious language to be dropped from the bill language or the entire bill itself dropped.

 

We do what you do. We say, " This is wrong and needs to gotten rid of". But we have no control over what the legislators do or don't do. (refer to lack of $5000 checks) We simply "advocate" for what we believe is the right cause to fight for...

 

 

 

OUR CORE PRINCIPLES

 

l. CPU believes the law as passed by the voters is satisfactory and we do not support any effort to amend or change it in any way: We oppose any attempt to reopen the MMMA.

 

2. CPU believes the Medical Cannabis community needs to be able to defend itself from opponents that could be elected to higher office. Such individuals could make life very difficult for patients, caregivers, physicians and legitimate businesspersons who are providing services to the community.

 

3. On an immediate day-to-day level, CPU is the eyes and ears of the community; maintaining constant vigilance for any threats that emerge from state legislators, interest groups or regulatory authorities that could be hostile to the MMMA.

 

4. CPU is officially neutral on the issue of “dispensaries.” These entities are not mentioned in the MMMA one way or another.

[+Malamute]

Not saying anyone needs to go to this extent but just as a counterpoint, even the US President has a spokesperson that holds daily news conferences with Q&A. He gives a daily update and then answers questions. When necessary, he says that he cannot speak on certain points.

 

I can say i give monthly legislative and court updates at my Compassion Club(Dickinson), i post basic information on my website about what is going on(Michigan Cannabis Patients) and lately, we have been sharing information amongst leaders in the movement. See Unity letter to get an idea of what group leaders are trying to share and advance.

 

I was told a weekly/monthly information newsletter was going to be started by 3MA for their members. I support the idea. I think it would be a good thing. But i have a feeling many people will be disappointed to not find a holy grail within its pages. It will likely be the same stuff you hear on these and other forums, radio shows, newspaper articles and possibly, debriefs from speaking or writing their representaives and Senators.

 

Now, if i were getting paid $10,000 a month, i would be doing daily news conferences as well. Hahaha...

 

Everyone in CPU DONATES their time AND their money to further the cause, unlike in 3MA where the dear leaders have previously milked the funds empty by paying themselves. CPU maintains altruistic motives and exists by the graces of our membership who know professional voices and influence in the Halls lansing is a must and was not being done prior to our existence.

 

But, if you want "daily" updates, please feel free to pay me a wage to do so. :-)