Which Dem Senators Caved On 12/14 4Am Cannabis Votes?

[+washtenaut]

I have been trying to learn which Democratic Senator(s) changed their votes from the 12/13 6pm vote on HB4834 that failed to the 12/14 4am vote that passed.

 

Does anyone know who changed their vote and why? There was apparently a deal made between those hours and I'd like to know what our rights were worth.

[HEMP4LIFE]

money changed their minds along withn a few campain perks

all in the name of helping sick people feel better with an alternative choice from conventional medacine.

seems today our votes don matter anymore its happening everywhere grand rapids washington lansing.

just keep electing more republicans and we will see the rich get richer and poor get poorer

[cristinew]

what republicans pushed this is the better question..

[+washtenaut]

Any news yet on which Democratic Senators changes their votes on 4834 from 6pm fail to 4am pass ??

[GanjaWarrior]

what republicans pushed this is the better question..

 

ya that way we can ignore the dems who said they were on our side and sold us out. that way next time you guys can stand around and pretend like we have friends again.

[Restorium2]

I believe it was basically all of them. I think they went from no supermajority to unanimous.

I think a total of 5 held out. We need to zero in. They must have had some backbone to hold out like that. Locked in all night and still standing for us.

[GanjaWarrior]

I think a total of 5 held out. We need to zero in. They must have had some backbone to hold out like that. Locked in all night and still standing for us.

 

yes id love to know who those great men and or women are. proud of them!

[man of steel]

Nevermind, I was looking on the counts for HB 4856. Has anybody found the roll calls published yet? There were two holdouts on HB 4853 apparently.

House Journal 83 is published with votes

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gw2nau45cxxduffelks0dizd))/documents/2011-2012/Journal/House/pdf/2012-HJ-12-14-083.pdf

Edited December 18, 2012 by man of steel

[Hayduke]

In the Senate: Steve Bieda from Warren, and Virgil Smith from Detroit.... they were the D's that switched over after the initial failure of the bills to pass.

[solabeirtan]

House Journal 83 is published with votes

http://www.legislatu...J-12-14-083.pdf

Went through this and it seems to only include 4834 & 4851 :

 

 

House Bill No. 4834, entitled A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “Michigan medical marihuana act,” by amending section 6 (MCL 333.26426). The Senate has substituted (S-5) the bill. The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-5) by a 3/4 vote, ordered that it be given immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title. The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day. Rep. Stamas moved that Rule 42 be suspended. The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor. The question being on concurring in the (S-5) made to the bill by the Senate, The substitute (S-5) was concurred in, 3/4 of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

Roll Call No. 911 Yeas—98 Agema Glardon Lane Price Ananich Goike LeBlanc Pscholka Barnett Graves Lindberg Rendon Bauer Greimel Liss Rogers Bolger Haines Lund Rutledge Brown Hammel Lyons Santana Brunner Haugh MacGregor Schmidt, R. Bumstead Haveman MacMaster Schmidt, W. Byrum Heise McBroom Segal Cavanagh Hobbs McCann Shaughnessy Clemente Hooker McMillin Shirkey

No. 83] [December 14, 2012] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 2893 Constan Horn Meadows Slavens Cotter Hovey-Wright Moss Smiley Crawford Howze Muxlow Somerville Daley Hughes Nesbitt Stallworth Damrow Huuki O’Brien Stamas Darany Jackson Oakes Switalski Denby Jacobsen Olson Talabi Dillon Jenkins Opsommer Tlaib Durhal Johnson Ouimet Townsend Farrington Kandrevas Outman Tyler Forlini Knollenberg Pettalia Walsh Foster Kowall Poleski Yonker Franz Kurtz Potvin Zorn Genetski LaFontaine Nays—7 Callton Irwin Nathan Stapleton Geiss Lipton Stanley

 

In The Chair: Walsh The House agreed to the full title. The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.

 

 

House Bill No. 4851, entitled A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “Michigan medical marihuana act,” by amending sections 3 and 8 (MCL 333.26423 and 333.26428). The Senate has substituted (S-3) the bill. The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-3) by a 3/4 vote, ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows: A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promul gation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act,”by amending sections 3, 4, and 8 (MCL 333.26423, 333.26424, and 333.26428). The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day. Rep. Stamas moved that Rule 42 be suspended. The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor. The question being on concurring in the (S-3) made to the bill by the Senate, The substitute (S-3) was concurred in, 3/4 of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

Roll Call No. 912 Yeas—100 Agema Glardon Lane Price Ananich Goike LeBlanc Pscholka Barnett Graves Lindberg Rendon Bauer Greimel Lipton Rogers Bolger Haines Liss Rutledge Brown Hammel Lund Santana Brunner Haugh Lyons Schmidt,

 

R.2894 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [December 14, 2012] [No. 83 Bumstead Haveman MacGregor Schmidt, W. Byrum Heise MacMaster Segal Cavanagh Hobbs McBroom Shaughnessy Clemente Hooker McCann Shirkey Constan Horn McMillin Slavens Cotter Hovey-Wright Meadows Smiley Crawford Howze Moss Somerville Daley Hughes Muxlow Stallworth Damrow Huuki Nesbitt Stamas Darany Jackson O’Brien Stapleton Denby Jacobsen Oakes Switalski Dillon Jenkins Olson Talabi Durhal Johnson Opsommer Tlaib Farrington Kandrevas Ouimet Townsend Forlini Knollenberg Outman Tyler Foster Kowall Pettalia Walsh Franz Kurtz Poleski Yonker Genetski LaFontaine Potvin Zorn Nays—5 Callton Irwin Nathan Stanley Geiss

 

In The Chair: Walsh The House agreed to the full title. The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor. House Bill No. 4851, entitled

 

A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “Michigan medical marihuana act,” by amending sections 3 and 8 (MCL 333.26423 and 333.26428). The Senate has substituted (S-3) the bill. The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-3) by a 3/4 vote, ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows: A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act,”by amending sections 3, 4, and 8 (MCL 333.26423, 333.26424, and 333.26428). The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day. Rep. Stamas moved that Rule 42 be suspended. The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor. The question being on concurring in the (S-3) made to the bill by the Senate, The substitute (S-3) was concurred in, 3/4 of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

Roll Call No. 912 Yeas—100 Agema Glardon Lane Price Ananich Goike LeBlanc Pscholka Barnett Graves Lindberg Rendon Bauer Greimel Lipton Rogers Bolger Haines Liss Rutledge Brown Hammel Lund Santana Brunner Haugh Lyons Schmidt, R.2894 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [December 14, 2012] [No. 83 Bumstead Haveman MacGregor Schmidt, W. Byrum Heise MacMaster Segal Cavanagh Hobbs McBroom Shaughnessy Clemente Hooker McCann Shirkey Constan Horn McMillin Slavens Cotter Hovey-Wright Meadows Smiley Crawford Howze Moss Somerville Daley Hughes Muxlow Stallworth Damrow Huuki Nesbitt Stamas Darany Jackson O’Brien Stapleton Denby Jacobsen Oakes Switalski Dillon Jenkins Olson Talabi Durhal Johnson Opsommer Tlaib Farrington Kandrevas Ouimet Townsend Forlini Knollenberg Outman Tyler Foster Kowall Pettalia Walsh Franz Kurtz Poleski Yonker Genetski LaFontaine Potvin Zorn Nays—5 Callton Irwin Nathan Stanley Geiss

Edited December 18, 2012 by solabeirtan

[man of steel]

Senate Journal 80 and 81

http://www.legislatu...12-SJ-12-13-080

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ytnvwk55kg0dpt45z0rmlfj5))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-SJ-12-14-081

Edited December 18, 2012 by man of steel

[peanutbutter]

This was the first vote. The second vote had four senators switch their vote.

 

Roll Call No. 1001 Yeas—26

Nays—12

Anderson ** switched

Gregory

Hunter

Warren

Bieda ** switched

Hood

Johnson

Whitmer

Gleason ** switched

Hopgood

Smith ** switched

Young

[Spartyon]

what bills passed and when do they go into effect? I read that sunday rag the free press seen nothing about MM in there lame duck coverage.

[Wild Bill]

Will the MMMA be sending an official statement to those who switched to inform them that they can count on us to help defeat them when they seek re-election?

[Dr. Bob]

Have any of you actually read the passed bills? Are you sure they did a disservice to the community by passing them? I think it is a little early for a political hit list.

 

My only problems with them are the expanded list of excluded felons (though the 10 year sundown helped with that), the loss of some telemedicine in the rural areas of the state, and the change from 20 calendar days to 20 business days.

 

What was added included clearly defined outdoor grows (no county by county enforcement), definition of bona fide dr/pt relationship and enclosed/secured location, 2 year cards, the new conditions panel, timely issuance of cards, and a separate fund for all money from the program (rather than send it to the general fund), and quite a few other features that really help patients and caregivers.

 

In short, many of the loopholes that LEO used to prosecute patients were closed, things were more clearly defined so that folks know EXACTLY what is expected of them on both sides of the issue.

 

This 'the sky is falling' mentality doesn't really match what actually made it in to the final versions of the bills. There is no LEO access, no '4 visits a year', no restriction on the acceptable practice of medicine, nothing. Don't listen to what rumor you heard, look at the bills and see what is in them.

 

Seriously, you know it is far easier to make an enemy than a friend. You think threatening a rep or senator, especially one that is on the fence, with political homicide over having to put your meds in a locked box helps this community? Seriously, pick your battles. The vast majority of those bills are merely fluff or commonsense fixes to obvious issues with the original Act.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited December 18, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Herb Cannabis]

Will the MMMA be sending an official statement to those who switched to inform them that they can count on us to help defeat them when they seek re-election?

 

The 3MA with all her glory isn't enough, we need to send a letter with the signatures of every single patient/caregiver, their friends and relatives here in Michigan. This also needs to be done by CPU and all the other MMJ groups. We need to let them know that we are a substantial voting block and remind them that we will remember in November.

[bobandtorey]

Have any of you actually read the passed bills? Are you sure they did a disservice to the community by passing them? I think it is a little early for a political hit list.

 

My only problems with them are the expanded list of excluded felons (though the 10 year sundown helped with that), the loss of some telemedicine in the rural areas of the state, and the change from 20 calendar days to 20 business days.

 

What was added included clearly defined outdoor grows (no county by county enforcement), definition of bona fide dr/pt relationship and enclosed/secured location, 2 year cards, the new conditions panel, timely issuance of cards, and a separate fund for all money from the program (rather than send it to the general fund), and quite a few other features that really help patients and caregivers.

 

In short, many of the loopholes that LEO used to prosecute patients were closed, things were more clearly defined so that folks know EXACTLY what is expected of them on both sides of the issue.

 

This 'the sky is falling' mentality doesn't really match what actually made it in to the final versions of the bills. There is no LEO access, no '4 visits a year', no restriction on the acceptable practice of medicine, nothing. Don't listen to what rumor you heard, look at the bills and see what is in them.

 

Seriously, you know it is far easier to make an enemy than a friend. You think threatening a rep or senator, especially one that is on the fence, with political homicide over having to put your meds in a locked box helps this community? Seriously, pick your battles. The vast majority of those bills are merely fluff or commonsense fixes to obvious issues with the original Act.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

 

John Targowski, a Kalamazoo-based attorney who represents people in the medical marijuana industry, acknowledged some changes clarify that marijuana can be grown outdoors in certain circumstances and clarify that patient and caregiver cards now are valid for two years instead of one.

 

Most of the changes, however, will create more problems in courtrooms for credible medical marijuana users, he said.

 

"It may embolden local prosecutors to prosecute more cases, as tactically some prosecutions will be easier to mount and win against a given law enforcement-citizen encounter involving medical marijuana," he said.

[bobandtorey]

Have any of you actually read the passed bills? Are you sure they did a disservice to the community by passing them? I think it is a little early for a political hit list.

 

My only problems with them are the expanded list of excluded felons (though the 10 year sundown helped with that), the loss of some telemedicine in the rural areas of the state, and the change from 20 calendar days to 20 business days.

 

What was added included clearly defined outdoor grows (no county by county enforcement), definition of bona fide dr/pt relationship and enclosed/secured location, 2 year cards, the new conditions panel, timely issuance of cards, and a separate fund for all money from the program (rather than send it to the general fund), and quite a few other features that really help patients and caregivers.

 

In short, many of the loopholes that LEO used to prosecute patients were closed, things were more clearly defined so that folks know EXACTLY what is expected of them on both sides of the issue.

 

This 'the sky is falling' mentality doesn't really match what actually made it in to the final versions of the bills. There is no LEO access, no '4 visits a year', no restriction on the acceptable practice of medicine, nothing. Don't listen to what rumor you heard, look at the bills and see what is in them.

 

Seriously, you know it is far easier to make an enemy than a friend. You think threatening a rep or senator, especially one that is on the fence, with political homicide over having to put your meds in a locked box helps this community? Seriously, pick your battles. The vast majority of those bills are merely fluff or commonsense fixes to obvious issues with the original Act.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Sorry Doc i don't agree i know it all sounds good to some people the only thing that would of be good would of been let the truth be heard to al jury

And you still wont be able to do that YET

 

But soon after we win our case

[Dr. Bob]

Sorry Doc i don't agree i know it all sounds good to some people the only thing that would of be good would of been let the truth be heard to al jury

And you still wont be able to do that YET

 

But soon after we win our case

 

You do realize that is right in the bill, don't you.

 

I know John well. I respect his thoughts, and Dave as well. For that matter I know and like you. But the article was long on soundbites and short on facts. I would be curious how, if you follow the provisions of the bills, you will be at higher risk. I can see prosecutors bringing cases like- you could see clearly in the bill what an 'enclosed/secured' location meant an how specifically a greenhouse needed to be constructed, yet you grew in your front yard using 2 foot high chicken wire to 'enclose' it? Here is what you clearly needed to do, you didn't do it.

 

I would be very curious to see what John would say if he were here and had an opportunity to explain his statement. I would also like to see a quality certification doc like Dave explain his.

 

Personally, I think there is a little selective quoting going on to play to the audience.

 

You make a very generic statement Bob, why don't you explain, specifically, what you don't like about the provisions of the bills. Start with 2 year cards, outdoor grows, and the new conditions panel (which was seated in response to this bill).

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Nice to see you posting Dr. Bob!

[t-pain]

In short, many of the loopholes that LEO used to prosecute patients were closed

 

i read the bills. what loophole was closed?

LARA had already sent letters to doctors explaining what was required for doc-patient relationship. (i'm sure you got that letter already)

LARA is the authority to setup the registry, so adding thier already-used rules to the law doesnt change much.

unless there is something i'm missing?

 

trunk car bill - the definition of enclosed locked facility applies to a car.

'security devices' include car alarm and locks.

if you have seen a case law against the transport of plants, i'd like to see it.

 

outdoor growing - over zealous city council members, prosecutors, police, district and even CoA judges tried to make up the law. but yet they were all wrong. was there a case where they were prosecuted for having a locked+secured outdoor grow? king's grow was prosecuted because there was no lock on the back door of his house (or on the closet, where some plants were kept inside).

municipalities already could not restrict the growing of mmj under the law. so there wasnt a way for them to re-zone it anyways.

 

the other items arent loop holes at all: 2 year cards, moving the 2 year jail from the act into the penal code, private company printing cards, excluding felons from being caregivers. the conditions panel was in the law and the state was violating the law for 3 years on that point.

Edited December 19, 2012 by t-pain

[peanutbutter]

No more medical marijuana specialists .. With the exception of those expecting to see the patient on a regular basis.

That directs traffic toward the family doctor. result? restriction of the numbers of people able to be on the program.

 

No tele medicine.result? restriction of the numbers of people able to be on the program.

 

It isn't a matter of if the person qualifies. It's all a matter of numbers. Those numbers are people.

[t-pain]

@bobandtorey : after reading king/kolanek again (specifically, the last paragraph in the opinion), i'm not sure why you guys arent allowed to present section8, or why you arent appealing it in the next court.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

You do realize that is right in the bill, don't you.

 

I know John well. I respect his thoughts, and Dave as well. For that matter I know and like you. But the article was long on soundbites and short on facts. I would be curious how, if you follow the provisions of the bills, you will be at higher risk. I can see prosecutors bringing cases like- you could see clearly in the bill what an 'enclosed/secured' location meant an how specifically a greenhouse needed to be constructed, yet you grew in your front yard using 2 foot high chicken wire to 'enclose' it? Here is what you clearly needed to do, you didn't do it.

 

I would be very curious to see what John would say if he were here and had an opportunity to explain his statement. I would also like to see a quality certification doc like Dave explain his.

 

Personally, I think there is a little selective quoting going on to play to the audience.

 

You make a very generic statement Bob, why don't you explain, specifically, what you don't like about the provisions of the bills. Start with 2 year cards, outdoor grows, and the new conditions panel (which was seated in response to this bill).

 

Dr. Bob

 

2year card wont help anyone if you end up inn Court and still cant use your card

Thats the only improvement i would agree too

[bobandtorey]

@bobandtorey : after reading king/kolanek again (specifically, the last paragraph in the opinion), i'm not sure why you guys arent allowed to present section8, or why you arent appealing it in the next court.

 

I think the judge is going to allow for the Hearing

to show us shes going thought the motion and deny us the right to tell the jury

 

Thats how i see it going

then back to the COA