Jump to content

Holy Crap, The Federal Government Is Conceding!


Recommended Posts

This is a big deal. The difference between this and past memos is that they US AG called both Governors of the two LEGAL RECREATIONAL USE STATES and informed them that the US Government will not attempt to stop their outright legalization. That is HUGE......... Now whether or not they stand by their word is a different story but it is huge that they are not outright trying to throw the Federal trump card.

I can see your point

but we still can't even have a jury here you have a card yet here in Mich.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I said almost everything they do strengthens the drug cartels...... You tell me what it means..........

 

I am pretty sure that when  WB said that he was throwing a tone of sarcasm in there.......

 

A little sarcasm maybe. But, I believe the cartels are major players in Washington. Their money goes to our congressmen one way or another. Either directly under the table or through PACs.

 

The very fact that cannabis is illegal drives the cartels business and they are not going to give it up easily.

 

Right now congress is receiving more cash from cartels, police & prison guard unions, pharmaceutical and alcohol companies etc. than they are from the cannabis lobby. When that changes then we'll see some real action.

 

You get what you pay for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little sarcasm maybe. But, I believe the cartels are major players in Washington. Their money goes to our congressmen one way or another. Either directly under the table or through PACs.

 

The very fact that cannabis is illegal drives the cartels business and they are not going to give it up easily.

 

Right now congress is receiving more cash from cartels, police & prison guard unions, pharmaceutical and alcohol companies etc. than they are from the cannabis lobby. When that changes then we'll see some real action.

 

You get what you pay for.

 

 

By George, WB, I think you've got it my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the feds realize the cannabis movement is here to stay and there's becoming very little they can do about it

am sorry but just ask the Lansing 7 how it worked out for them

 

Then we have to do what we can to change the laws at the FEDERAL level.

 

Look where the nation was in 2008.  Have we progressed even a little?

 

I'd have to say we have... not far, yes, but it is getting better.

 

When the federal laws say the LEO agencies have to respect state cannabis laws you'll see a HUGE change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Bob we are not talking about state court right now. We are talking about the feds.

 

I think this is more than a Republican and Democrat thing when it comes to cannabis these days. I thing they are all learning that as someone here just said CANNABIS IS HERE TO STAY and there is nothing they can do about it. The momentum is swinging too far in our direction. True traditionally more Dems have been on our side than Repubs but as Wild Bill said alot has to do with where the money is coming from.......

 

And Bob of course that is very true about not getting caught with it is the safest way. But as I have been saying about Michigan I am not interested in that. I am not interested in hiding anymore. I have done it most of my life and do not want to hide anymore, especially when I give the state a 100 dollars to not hide anymore.

Edited by ozzrokk
Link to post
Share on other sites

What this means to my mind is that if a state, including  Michigan, passes pro-cannabis laws,  the feds are at least willing to let the 'state' deal with it under 'state law' as long as things don't get out of hand, like MJ going from 'legal states' into states that don't allow cannabis, etc.

 

Not just legal states to states that don't allow; marijuana is a no-no moving from one state to any other state - allowed or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this memo in my view is the qualifiers. Basically it says the states can do what they want unless the Feds decide they can't.

 

Then there are the usual suspects who use any opportunity for shoveling the democrats good, republicans bad premise by applying the original Obama-phone Lady's reasoning to the Federal government management of marijuana.

 

When has the government or either party done anything to reflect the realities of the human condition?

 

Big government is bad government.

 

Both parties are rotten.

Edited by outsideinthecold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just legal states to states that don't allow; marijuana is a no-no moving from one state to any other state - allowed or not.

 

Laws are meant to be changed when they don't represent what the people want.

 

One day, and in the very near future, you will see an interstate trade of various qualities and grades of cannabis, just like alcohol is transported state to state, of course that will be with federal stamps, etc..

 

Only a matter of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so people don't get frumpy at me for saying that. Here is the last full floor vote they had to allow States to govern use of medical cannabis. Hinchey/Rohrbacher amendment:

 

 

Republican: Aye- 15  Noes- 210

 

Democratic: Aye- 145 Noes- 54

 

Reprinted for those that want to defend the Republicans.  The votes say it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a matter of time.

 

Laws are meant to be changed when they don't represent what the people want.

 

The entire universe is but matter and time. The time separates the mass so everything doesn't happen all a once. We may even see pigs fly, sooner or later...

 

but alas ...

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." MaxPlanck

 

Trouble  is the procedure for changing these Laws has yet to Materialize. It would be very helpful in our Government.  Hopefully its time is coming soon, too,  ehh? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." MaxPlanck

 

 

 

 

I been saying this for a long time.

 

 I can't wait for the "greatest generation" to die off and the first half of the baby boomers.

 

I think the 20's are gonna be roarin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The entire universe is but matter and time. The time separates the mass so everything doesn't happen all a once. We may even see pigs fly, sooner or later...

 

but alas ...

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." MaxPlanck

 

Trouble  is the procedure for changing these Laws has yet to Materialize. It would be very helpful in our Government.  Hopefully its time is coming soon, too,  ehh? 

 

 

"I think I just heard an oink from above", Alfred E. Newman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

States will now have to pay for the enforcement that the feds once paid for, can Michigan afford this? This might also mean re-writing some laws to make things fit into what the feds want.

No state will be able to afford it. Without the feds to hand confiscated assets over to state and local LEAs, enforcement will diminish or cease. Civil asset forfeiture is a federal policy. I am unaware there are any state laws that require or permit it. It is a double whammy. A huge part of their funding comes from forefeiture, and it is no longer justified that they waste both money from any other source and their time on us.

 

It's time we rang the legislature's bell to inform them that it is necessary, under these circumstances, to act proactively to assure that Forces are brought into line with the diminished need for enforcement, and with haste. We can expect that remaining police personnel will make a grab for that cash, possibly in wages, benefits, and perks, rendering their compensation excessive.

 

What legislative committees handle that?

Edited by GregS
Link to post
Share on other sites

No state will be able to afford it. Without the feds to hand confiscated assets over to state and local LEAs, enforcement will diminish or cease. Civil asset forfeiture is a federal policy. I am unaware there are any state laws that require or permit it. It is a double whammy. A huge part of their funding comes from forefeiture, and it is no longer justified that they waste both money from any other source and their time on us.

 

It's time we rang the legislature's bell to inform them that it is necessary, under these circumstances, to act proactively to assure that Forces are brought into line with the diminished need for enforcement, and with haste. We can expect that remaining police personnel will make a grab for that cash, possibly in wages, benefits, and perks, rendering their compensation excessive.

 

What legislative committees handle that?

 

 

http://www.nicholslawyers.com/In-The-News/ID/203/Overview-of-Michigans-Drug-Forfeiture-Statute

 

When law enforcement officials execute a search warrant pursuant to an investigation of the illegal possession, delivery, or manufacture of controlled substances, this is often times followed with a seizure of property. Property seized under Michigan’s Controlled Substance Act (MCL 333.7101 et seq.), which has a value of $50,000 or less, falls under this Act’s forfeiture provisions (MCL 333.7521 to 333.7533). Specifically, MCL 333.7521(f) broadly defines what property may be seized:

Any thing of value that is furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance…that is traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance…or that is used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this article.
 In other words, the law gives officials wide latitude to determine what property to seize. There are circumstances where officials do not need a court order to seize property. MCL 333.7522 allows the police to seize property:
(a) Incident to a lawful arrest…©There is probable cause to believe that the property is directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety. (d) There is probable cause to believe that the property was used or is intended to be used in violation of this article or section 17766a.
          Challenging the seizure is an often over-looked process in criminal cases. The procedure is outlined in MCL 333.7523©. Above all else, time is critical. After receiving a forfeiture notice, the person challenging the forfeiture only has 20 days to file a written claim in the property and post the required bond. The bond has to be 10% of the value of the claimed property, but not less than $250 or more than $5,000. What if the property is only worth $1000? A bond of $250 must still be posted. Both the written claim and the bond have to be posted with the “local unit of government or the state”. In Ingham County, generally, both have to be filed with the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office. Once the claim and bond have been posted, the Prosecutor must “promptly” bring the forfeiture proceedings before the trial court.
          During the forfeiture proceedings, the prosecutor must prove that the property seized was related to the “exchange” of controlled substances by “preponderance of the evidence”. (In re Forfeiture of $25,505; 220 Mich.App. 572; 560 NW2d 341 (1996)). A clearer definition of this standard says that “Anything of value that can be traced to an exchange for a controlled substance is subject to forfeiture.” (In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420; 194 Mich.App. 134; 486 NW2d 326 (1992)). Later cases have stated that there must be “A substantial connection between [property] seized from claimant and exchange of controlled substance”. (In re Forfeiture of $275; 227 Mich.App 462; 576 NW2d 431 (1998)). In other words, there has to be a strong connection and the prosecutor cannot simply rely on a cop’s “Mere suspicion” to prove their case. (See id).  
          If a person’s cash is seized, the reverse becomes true. It is then up to the person who filed a forfeiture claim and bond – not the prosecutor – to prove that the cash seized was not related to the “exchange” of controlled substances. There is a strong presumption that “Any money that is found in close proximity to any property that is subject to forfeiture…is presumed to be subject to forfeiture [as well]”. (MCL 333.7521(f)). When it comes to cash, the person challenging the money forfeiture has an even higher standard to meet. Specifically that person must rebut this presumption “by clear and convincing evidence”. (MCL 333.7521(f)). 
          While some of the forfeiture provisions may be confusion, at least one thing is clear: “If no claim is filed or bond given within the 20-day period…the property is forfeited and [the prosecutor] shall dispose of the property.” (MCL 333.7523(d). 
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Generally Judiciary committee.  But they have added a new committee in the House this session; Criminal Justice. I assume those are the target committees to be used for forfeiture reform.

The Civil Service Commission answers to the governor, who includes his request for funding in his budget to the legislature. He is on the list too, and maybe moreso. Police unions bargain with the commission. They can be expected to yelp long and loud.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28pkm5o0450eayqrvyceodl5z0%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-XI-5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...