By Michael Komorn
Subcommittee Votes Down Anti-Recreational Marijuana Resolution
June 12, 2018
A proposed resolution opposing the recreational use of marijuana has
failed to pass a Livingston County subcommittee, following a tie vote.
The county’s General Government and Health & Human Services Committee
met Monday and discussed the proposed resolution, which asked the
Board of Commissioners to show their opposition to the legalization of
marijuana for general use, as well as encourage others to oppose the
issue through similar resolutions.
Committee members Bob Bezotte and William Green voted in support of
the resolution, as Bezotte stated residents looked to their officials
to take the lead on these types of matters. Dennis Dolan and Gary
Childs voted against the resolution, saying the issue will ultimately
be up to citizens in November’s election when they vote on a ballot
proposal that would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5
ounces of marijuana for personal use. As the committee’s vote was a
tie, the resolution failed and will not move forward as it stands.
Dave Domas, who represents the county’s 3rd district on the Board of
Commissioners, approached the committee during the meeting’s second
call to the public with some heated words. Domas told committee
members, "Anybody that votes against this issue doesn’t belong on this
board. Not now, not ever." The resolution previously came before the
county’s Board of Commissioners and Domas says it was then that he saw
many community members expressing opposition to the legalization of
marijuana, including several youth. He says the kids in attendance
were "victims of recreational marijuana and they didn’t want to share
that bad experience with anyone else", so they asked county officials
"to listen to them and act on their behalf.”
Childs defended his decision to vote against the resolution, again
staing he believes it’s up to Michigan’s residents to decide. He feels
the county has more important things to deal with, specifically naming
the opioid crisis. Childs also responded to Domas’ confronting the
committee, saying some of his information related to the ballot
proposal and potential law was "erroneous".
Domas later told WHMI he “…expected this sort of performance from the
board, based on the way they handled this resolution two weeks ago”,
claiming the committee refused to let it be presented.
Domas says he’s working on presentations he’d like to share with local
units of government that would “present the side of recreational
marijuana that people don’t understand”. He also says the community
shouldn’t be surprised to see a similar resolution make its way to the
Board of Commissioners, adding, “If it dies, a lot of stuff dies with
it, and we’re not gonna let that happen.”
By Michael Komorn
Truth Squad: Counting the flips by Michigan AG candidate Pat Miles
March 27, 2018 Ted Roelofs Michigan Truth Squad
In an increasingly caustic race for Michigan attorney general, former U.S. attorney Pat Miles has come under concerted attack ‒ not only from his Democratic primary opponent, but in a series of articles in the Michigan Progressive, a progressive media site.
Miles, who has tilted centrist in the past, is opposed by Dana Nessel, a progressive and the lead attorney in the federal court case that ended up overturning Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. (Nessel famously unleashed a campaign ad last year touting herself in this #MeToo era as “the candidate who doesn’t have a penis.”)
The drumbeat of Michigan Progressive attacks on Miles carries a common theme: that the Harvard Law-educated attorney has cynically discarded his moderate past to better compete with Nessel on the party’s left flank.
Michigan Progressive contends Miles is setting “a record for flip-flopping” on issues from gay marriage to civil forfeiture, and lists a series of position changes by Miles.
We find the Michigan Progressive attacks mostly accurate, even though the publication overreaches a bit.
Among the position changes cited:
Medical marijuana: “Miles refused to say how he voted on the Medical Marijuana Act, which Michigan voters approved in 2008…Now he claims to have voted for medical marijuana in 2008.”
Marijuana legalization: “Miles had stated for months that he would not take a position on legalization, but follow ‘the will of the voters’ at the ballot box. Two days after a poll was released showing legalization at 61 percent support, Miles reversed his position to be in support of legalization.”
LGBTQ rights: “When Miles ran for Congress against (Republican) Justin Amash in 2010, he opposed same sex-marriage. He also denied a speaking opportunity to an LGBTQ activist as Chairman of the Aquinas College Board, and has troubling anti-LGBTQ ties. Now, he calls himself an ‘ally’ of the LGBTQ community.”
Capital punishment: “Miles said he supported the death penalty in his 2010 congressional run. Now he says he is opposed to it.”
Civil asset forfeiture: “Flip-flopped during the Michigan Radio interview! That's got to be a record.”
In a September interview on “Off the Record,” a Lansing political talk show, host Tim Skubick asks Miles more than once if he voted for the state ballot measure passed in 2008 to legalize medical marijuana, including this exchange:
Skubick: “Did you vote yes on it?”
Miles: “I’m not going to talk about my personal vote on that issue.”
Then earlier this month, on March 7, in a Facebook post, Miles said he “voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2008.”
In that same interview last September, Miles is asked if he backs a 2018 ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana. Miles said then: “It’s up to the voters to decide…I will never use my personal beliefs to undercut what the people decide.”
On March 5, Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA released a poll that found 61 percent of Michigan voters would vote yes on the ballot proposal. Two days later, again on Facebook, Miles wrote, “I've reviewed the language of the ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, and find it to be very thoughtful and well-written, and I support it.”
On gay marriage, Miles was against it before he was for it. In a 2010 candidate survey in his run for Congress, Miles agreed that marriage should “only be between one man and one woman.”
Before that, in 2008, Miles had backed the decision by Aquinas College to cancel a talkby John Corvino, a gay-rights Wayne State University philosophy professor who intended to deliver a lecture entitled "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?"
Miles, the college’s board chairman at the time, said then: “The president is authorized to make those types of decisions regarding on-campus programming and speakers, and his decision was consistent with college and board policy.”
Fast forward to this January, when Miles told Pride Source, a gay rights publication, that his views on gay marriage “evolved” to “where I believe in full equality under the law for everyone and that includes the right of same-sex couples to get married.”
Michigan Progressive also suggested Miles belongs to a church that espouses anti-gay views. The publication shared a 2014 message from Rick Lippert, one-time pastor at Grand Rapids Christian Church, that reads in part: “I do not support homosexuality or ‘homosexual marriage.’”
But according to Lippert’s LinkedIn account, he had left the church a year earlier, in 2013. Jen Eyer, Miles’s campaign spokesperson, said “anti-LGBT rhetoric has never been and is not currently preached at Grand Rapids Christian Church.”
On the death penalty, Miles said during his 2010 congressional race that he supported capital punishment for “certain crimes.”
That sounds similar to his stand in the “Off the Record” interview: “I do believe the death penalty can be appropriate in two very limited circumstances, for mass murders or serial murders where the evidence is absolutely clear that they (crimes) were committed.”
But at a January 13 meeting with 6th Congressional District voters, Miles apparently again evolved, saying: “I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I am very proud that Michigan was one of the first democracies, Western democracies, to outlaw the death penalty in the world.”
Finally, on civil forfeiture, Miles seemed to reverse his position at a March 16 appearance with Nessel on Michigan Radio. The practice, in which law enforcement agencies seize assets of individuals before they are convicted of a crime, has had its critics on the left and the right. A state House bill introduced last year would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize assets under $50,000.
In the Michigan Radio appearance, Miles first states: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate,” he said, including forfeiture “before conviction.”
Later in the interview, Miles says to interviewer Lester Graham: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better sound-bite for you.”
He then adds: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.”
Graham states: “That’s a little different from what you were saying before."
Miles agrees: “It is.”
The call: Mostly accurate.
By and large, Michigan Progressive’s assertion that Miles frequently changes his positions holds up.
Miles declined to say where he stood on legalizing medical marijuana and legalizing recreational marijuana use. Then he came out in support of both. If not a flip-flop, he took fuzzy stands on both before making it clear (in one case, on the heels of decisive polling) where he stood.
He opposed gay marriage. He later said he supported it.
He appears to have expressed different stands on the death penalty in this campaign after supporting it for some crimes in the past.
On civil forfeiture, Miles changed his stand in the course of a single interview.
The suggestion that Miles attended a church whose pastor espoused anti-gay views is not supported. And even if it was true, it’s a stretch to impart views from the pulpit to every congregant.
Hitting back, a Miles campaign spokesperson noted that Liano Sharon, a Michigan Progressive contributor, is Nessel’s cousin. Indeed, Sharon (who acknowledged they are related) shares Nessel’s campaign posts on his Facebook page.
Readers of Michigan Progressive can decide for themselves whether it matters that a key contributor to the publication is Nessel’s second cousin. (Sam Pernick, another Michigan Progressive, said he is the primary author of its articles on Miles.)
Truth Squad is less concerned about the publication’s editorial standards than whether the arrows it directed at Miles had merit. In most instances, they did.
By Michael Komorn
Great Show last night- we had the world renowned leading specialist in the human cannabinoid system Dr. William Courtney. If you want to learn about the health benefits of Raw Juicing the cannabis plant, this is the show you want to listen to. (Dr. Courtney and the Medical Cannabis Communities favorite Legislature Representative Callton will be speaking tonight Friday 10 12 12 at the Genesys Conference and Banquet Center, 801 Health Park Boulevard, Grand Blanc township, MI 48439). Also calling in was Stephanie Sherer, the executive director of ASA. A longtime activist in the medical cannabis community, she provided many details to the upcoming challenge filed by ASA against the Federal Governments schedule 1 classification of marijuana. A special thanks to our in studio staff and other callers who participated in this informative and exciting show: Jamie Lowell, Peanut Butter, Greg Palowski, Pernell, Q tipper, Rick Thompson, Chad Carr, Kevin Spitler, Charme Gholson. Planet Green Trees is sponsored by” the Michigan Medical Marihuana Association-.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org and Komorn Law-18006563557. The archive to this episode can be found here: http://www.blogtalkr...am-l-courtney-s
Michael A. Komorn
Attorney and Counselor
Check out our Radio show:
CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626
Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.
w/ Attorney Michael Komorn
The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.
By Guest Josh_Colton
The purpose of this bulletin is to advise municipalities (cities, townships, and villages) of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s (BMMR) intentions regarding municipality authorization of medical marihuana facilities. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change.
Under the Medical Marihuana Facility Licensing Act (MMFLA), MCL 333.27101 et seq., a municipality has the discretion to adopt an ordinance authorizing one or more types of marihuana facilities to operate within its boundaries.
An applicant that is located in a municipality without an authorizing ordinance is ineligible for state marihuana facility licensure. The Bureau intends to rely on the local municipality’s authorizing ordinance to determine whether an applicant is in compliance with relevant provisions of the MMFLA. Information that will be considered includes the following:
The types of marihuana facilities (growers, processors, provisioning centers, safety compliance facilities, and/or secure transporters) allowed to operate in the municipality. If applicable, the maximum number of each type of marihuana facility allowed to operate in the municipality. Any zoning regulations that apply to marihuana facilities within the municipality, including whether licensees may apply for special use permits. More information regarding municipalities and the MMFLA:
Municipalities shall not impose regulations regarding the purity or pricing of marihuana. Municipalities shall not impose regulations that conflict with statutory regulations for licensing marihuana facilities. There is no deadline for municipalities to adopt authorizing ordinances. Municipalities are not required to “opt out” or prohibit marihuana facilities within their boundaries. This bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. It is intended to be advisory only, in anticipation of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ promulgation of emergency rules consistent with statutory requirements. Potential licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their licensure applications and operations comply with the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act and associated administrative rules.