Kent County Prosecutor Halts Grand Rapids Decrimiliztion Amendment

[THEmichi-icky]

http://www.wwmt.com/...e-gr-6131.shtml

 

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - The Kent County Prosecutor has announced that the Grand Rapids City Charter amendment to decriminalize marijuana will face a challenge in court.

 

According to a release Monday, the prosecutor has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the amendment.

 

In the November 6th election, Grand Rapids voters approved the amendment by a 58 percent majority vote.

 

The amendment would make marijuana a civil infraction and would prohibit police officers from reporting violations to the County Prosecutor.

 

On Monday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order, blocking implementation of the amendment until further notice.

 

A preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for January 9th.

Edited December 3, 2012 by THEmichi-icky

[cristinew]

We try to give the police and pa less work and they could focus on violent crime, but what do they do? They want to wast time on something the people voted for,, I hope someone points this out to them all

[Highlander]

What a tool.

[c2288420]

I thought the "legality" of the amendment was determined prior to being placed on the ballot. What a crock- if it had failed they would have been jumping for joy. How long will the vote of the people be ignored?

Regards,

C

[Kingdiamond]

Let me guess why he wants to do it because its against federal law hopefully this nonsense gets tossed PDQ and the will of the people can be put in place .

[HEMP4LIFE]

well there ya go, what authority dose the PA have to waste time and money on trying to stop a voter passed law being state or local.

maybe if they loose they can pay all court costs for the city and county.

Go catch some real crime like all of the murders running around grand rapids.

this is the dumbest and most stupid thing i have ever heard of.

[Highlander]

It looks like the current Kent county PA was elected in 2010 with 53% of the vote. The recent MJ law passed with 58%

 

Another case of a politician who got less support than MJ did trying to undo the will of the voters.

[THEmichi-icky]

Let me guess why he wants to do it because its against federal law hopefully this nonsense gets tossed PDQ and the will of the people can be put in place .

I think he said on the tv that its because its against state law. this was decrimilization for all, not just thoe who use medically and it made it a misdemeanor for any OFFICER in grand rapids to report marijuana possesion/gifting(within the charter) to the kent county/dea prossecuter. They reported that on both 8 and 13. Edited December 4, 2012 by THEmichi-icky

[CaveatLector]

It looks like the current Kent county PA was elected in 2010 with 53% of the vote. The recent MJ law passed with 58%

 

Another case of a politician who got less support than MJ did trying to undo the will of the voters.

The recent law was a city ordinance. The city of GR is a lot more liberal than the outlying suburbs such as Cascade Twp. Kent county is a Repub. stronghold. What you have is a repub. prosecutor mad at the city. The same pros. that dropped the investigation in that repub. party switching scandal last summer. Edited December 4, 2012 by CaveatLector

[THEmichi-icky]

here's this forSYTH's argument

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/12/why_marijuana_decriminalizatio.html#incart_flyout_news

yoda would say: patience, we must have... medicate safely.

[TheHarvester]

It would be interesting to talk to some of the people who so brazenly ignore the voters wishes and try to find what is behind all this. Is it as simple as a revenue stream being threatened for municipalities, or is it something deeper.

[bobandtorey]

It would be interesting to talk to some of the people who so brazenly ignore the voters wishes and try to find what is behind all this. Is it as simple as a revenue stream being threatened for municipalities, or is it something deeper.

Yup it about money

[nthlghts]

These local votes are symbolic. State trumps local in Michigan. Same reason local cannot ban MMJ, even though they think they can.

[CaveatLector]

It would be interesting to talk to some of the people who so brazenly ignore the voters wishes and try to find what is behind all this. Is it as simple as a revenue stream being threatened for municipalities, or is it something deeper.

It's a philosophical difference. Most conservative republicans are against abortion. It isn't about money. If it were they would rather allow abortions to stop the state from spending money to support low income mothers with 5 kids. Some things aren't about money. That is how it is here. The republicans are against mm. Plain and simple.

[Restorium2]

It's a philosophical difference. Most conservative republicans are against abortion. It isn't about money. If it were they would rather allow abortions to stop the state from spending money to support low income mothers with 5 kids. Some things aren't about money. That is how it is here. The republicans are against mm. Plain and simple.

Mostly true. But it's a fact that the alcohol lobby is fighting us tooth and nail. They want to do whatever they can to slow down marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised if they are greasing the wheels of the legislature in a way to have us restricted as much as possible. And we have good confirmed information that (Kuipers) republicans are wanting to steal the whole show for money. They would if they could. I'm in the camp that everything is about money for them if you dig into it.

 

Example;

Abortion; They just don't want to pay for poor folks abortions. I believe it's about money.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Restorium2

[CaveatLector]

Example;

Abortion; They just don't want to pay for poor folks abortions. I believe it's about money.

An abortion costs what? $500? Maybe less with the medical (as opposed to surgical) methods now available. Raising that same poor folk's child costs what? 18 years of medicaid, food stamps, etc . . . The math says otherwise. The math says it is philosophical.

Edited December 4, 2012 by CaveatLector

[Restorium2]

An abortion costs what? $500? Maybe less with the medical (as opposed to surgical) methods now available. Raising that same poor folk's child costs what? 18 years of medicaid, food stamps, etc . . . The math says otherwise. The math says it is philosophical.

Right. They don't always make sense. These guys are math challenged. Look at Boehner. Trying all that fuzzy math on us. Poor pickle head. But it's about money, always. They don't plan on paying to raise the child saved from the abortion either. One battle at a time they say. They can get a lot of their base frothed up with the fuzzy abortion tactics. But they don't get the abortion high ground, it's about money, shame on them.

[t-pain]

These local votes are symbolic. State trumps local in Michigan. Same reason local cannot ban MMJ, even though they think they can.

 

prohibition of marijuana laws are already 'selective enforcement' against people of color.

this amendment would stop that 'selective enforcement'.

 

why are the legislators and police forces and prosecutors and judges and even juries so racist? is the real question.

[GanjaWarrior]

Right. They don't always make sense. These guys are math challenged. Look at Boehner. Trying all that fuzzy math on us. Poor pickle head. But it's about money, always. They don't plan on paying to raise the child saved from the abortion either. One battle at a time they say. They can get a lot of their base frothed up with the fuzzy abortion tactics. But they don't get the abortion high ground, it's about money, shame on them.

 

that's ludicrous and obviously based on not one fact but partisan bias and just pure moo poo. obamma continues to harass and pursue legal medical patients, and we know he is a corp whore, its safe to say these politicians are just following the money dropping from obammas pockets.

[GanjaWarrior]

prohibition of marijuana laws are already 'selective enforcement' against people of color.

this amendment would stop that 'selective enforcement'.

 

why are the legislators and police forces and prosecutors and judges and even juries so racist? is the real question.

 

id rather just call them racist, that's what they are. not saying whites dont get caught up in it, but our drug war is racist like it or not.

[Restorium2]

that's ludicrous and obviously based on not one fact but partisan bias and just pure moo poo. obamma continues to harass and pursue legal medical patients, and we know he is a corp whore, its safe to say these politicians are just following the money dropping from obammas pockets.

Say what? That had nothing to do with what I posted Ganja. You might have made a point in there somewhere. Maybe you can elaborate on how it works with my post you quoted? I'm not seeing anything in common between my post and yours.

[CaveatLector]

Right. They don't always make sense. These guys are math challenged. Look at Boehner. Trying all that fuzzy math on us. Poor pickle head. But it's about money, always. They don't plan on paying to raise the child saved from the abortion either. One battle at a time they say. They can get a lot of their base frothed up with the fuzzy abortion tactics. But they don't get the abortion high ground, it's about money, shame on them.

Saying that there is a high ground is giving into the argument put forth by social conservatives.

 

I don't think anyone is that short-sighted to say let's not pay for the abortion but let's do pay for 18 years of state support. Whether they WANT to pay for that support isn't relevant because the programs are already in place and they already MUST pay for it. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Restorium2]

Saying that there is a high ground is giving into the argument put forth by social conservatives.

 

I don't think anyone is that short-sighted to say let's not pay for the abortion but let's do pay for 18 years of state support. Whether they WANT to pay for that support isn't relevant because the programs are already in place and they already MUST pay for it. We will have to agree to disagree.

What I meant was when the pro life folks try to take the moral high ground they are being false. It's about money to the ones at the top. They have their cling-ons that might believe it's about moral high ground, but it's not, it's about money. The alternative is a slap in the face for pro choice people. We don't hate children. The real issue with us is quality of life, and what the alternative to having a choice lays on your doorstep. There are some situations where lack of choice is much worse than having a choice. If you want to sling morals on this issue, then that's the moral high ground here, not taking away a choice.

 

We both know they are also fighting the programs in place to further support children as they mature. Like a one-two punch; Take away your choice and then you go ask the church to help you raise the child. That's their perfect world.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Restorium2

[GanjaWarrior]

Say what? That had nothing to do with what I posted Ganja. You might have made a point in there somewhere. Maybe you can elaborate on how it works with my post you quoted? I'm not seeing anything in common between my post and yours.

 

just read it with what you said its easy really. i said you were wrong and even gave you the option to get back on topic.

[Restorium2]

just read it with what you said its easy really. i said you were wrong and even gave you the option to get back on topic.

Not.