We All Need Each Other: A Multi-Faceted Coalition

[imiubu]

Well we will never get full legalization as long as everyone thinks the way you do.

 

Twenty years ago people were saying that we'd never get medical marijuana legal and despite the naysayers we did it.  

 

As long as you think they should impose restrictions  or that's it's OK to impose restrictions you will lose the fight.  In the meantime there are those of us, the same ones that didn't listen when they told us we'd never get medical legal, that are willing to continue to fight for what's right, even if people on our side have given up and won't fight with us.

 

Don't take that tone Celli, as if you and a few others were the only ones that worked to make Prop 1 2008 happen, geesh.

Get off your self made pedestal man.

[Celliach]

Let me ask this of everyone:

 

What would you really rather prefer, a law that only let's us go to licensed facilities to buy well-regulated marijuana for recreational use, or would you rather be able to grow as much as you wanted to in your vegetable garden?

 

It's as simple as that.

[Celliach]

Don't take that tone Celli, as if you and a few others were the only ones that worked to make Prop 1 2008 happen, geesh.

Get off your self made pedestal man.

 

Sorry if the tone came off wrong.  I was just trying to use an example of what we've already done,as a community, that people said couldn't be done.

[imiubu]

Cool   I can get behind that.

[Celliach]

I understand what you are saying, Celliach. There is no difference in police revenue lost between pseudo-legalization and real legalization, theoretically.

 

Exactly!

[greenbuddha]

Let me ask this of everyone:

 

What would you really rather prefer, a law that only let's us go to licensed facilities to buy well-regulated marijuana for recreational use, or would you rather be able to grow as much as you wanted to in your vegetable garden?

 

It's as simple as that.

 

What would "I' like???

 

How about totally 'free' cannabis, in 'unlimited' quantities, that "I" don't have to grow for myself???

 

Hey... I'm all for it!

[Celliach]

What would "I' like???

 

How about totally 'free' cannabis, in 'unlimited' quantities, that "I" don't have to grow for myself???

 

Hey... I'm all for it!

 

That wasn't one of the options.....unfortunately!

[greenbuddha]

Exactly!

 

But a lose is a lose is a lose... 'they' are still going to be against any change in cannabis law.

 

That's a given...  as a community we can 'count' on it!

[greenbuddha]

That wasn't one of the options.....unfortunately!

 

Dog gone it!!!

 

I knew there was flaw in that plan.

[Celliach]

Bummer!  Maybe we should just give up then..............

[greenbuddha]

So, unless the law enforcement lobby magically backs down their overwhelming presence and influence amongst legislators, we can be sure that there will be no legalization bill coming forth from the Legislature, probably ever.

 

No! We can get off our azzes and make sure the current MMJ laws we have are retained and fairly and equitably enforced and we can make sure that any 'recreational cannabis use laws' that come along represent as many positive outcomes as we can possibly get included into it.

 

I still firmly believe that when the other 'recreational' use states start to show a return on the new laws in the form of tax money and new job creation, even Michigan legislators will begin to take a second look at legalization...even the 'conservatives' that now run things in Lansing.

 

And we should have as many of our ducks in a row as we possibly can... no matter HOW a person might feel about 'recreational legalization', in whatever form it might take.

 

It will be coming and probably sooner than most of us think.

[bobandtorey]

No! We can get off our azzes and make sure the current MMJ laws we have are retained and fairly and equitably enforced and we can make sure that any 'recreational cannabis use laws' that come along represent as many positive outcomes as we can possibly get included into it.

 

I still firmly believe that when the other 'recreational' use states start to show a return on the new laws in the form of tax money and new job creation, even Michigan legislators will begin to take a second look at legalization...even the 'conservatives' that now run things in Lansing.

 

And we should have as many of our ducks in a row as we possibly can... no matter HOW a person might feel about 'recreational legalization', in whatever form it might take.

 

It will be coming and probably sooner than most of us think.

Thanks and that sounds like a great plan to me count me inn

[greenbuddha]

OK thanks

IMHO back when this site came to be the founders made it a point to not be  a Legalization site so that is why 

 

Bob, I believe the 'recreational use' law discussion is important because it could affect the MMJ law if we do not take an active part in any 'recreational law' that might come along.

 

I personally don't think a 'recreational use law' should be stopped or hindered... it should be MANAGED so we get the best things included in it that we can.

 

MTCW.

[imiubu]

I understand what you are saying, Celliach. There is no difference in police revenue lost between pseudo-legalization and real legalization, theoretically.

 

zap, you have used the term 'psudo-legalization' a few times now in this thread, could you please elaborate ?

 

So, unless the law enforcement lobby magically backs down their overwhelming presence and influence amongst legislators, we can be sure that there will be no legalization bill coming forth from the Legislature, probably ever.

 

Ouch! This I am not ready to concede to.

[imiubu]

I consider any legalization scheme that includes a plant or weight limit, while manufacture and distribution remain felonies, to be pseudo-legalization, i.e. something like legalization, but not really because people are still being arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to probation or jail routinely for going over some arbitrary limit.

 

As long as MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii) exists as a felony, and cannabis is still a schedule I controlled substance, cannabis is not really legal. It is just a word used to gain the support of unknowing cannabis consumers.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cupjzo55l5vo2l55w2zr0liz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-7401

 

Thank you and I agree.

As I said earlier, that until cannabis is rescheduled restrictions will remain.

 

Thanks for the link also

[Petyr]

I think it needs to be removed from scheduling altogether if we want to grow it like tomatoes.  Aspirin is schedule 4, you can't make aspirin in your basement legally.

[Celliach]

I think it needs to be removed from scheduling altogether if we want to grow it like tomatoes.  Aspirin is schedule 4, you can't make aspirin in your basement legally.

 

Exactly why I always use tomatoes or spearmint for comparison.

[imiubu]

Celli;

 

Do you have a clearly defined proposal/ s towards just how to accomplish what you are wanting?

As I asked b4, how?

Thus far I've not read anything concrete, only vague suggestions.

 

How to we force the Fed Gov to reschedule ?

How exactly do we the people force our will ?

[imiubu]

This is true. An example of its mootness, for lack of a better term, is this thread.

 

imo, this thread is not moot.  We are having a discussion here on how to implement change (?) together.

 

I know, I know... we have not even received the full benefits that are provided to us in the MMMA, as it has not been properly enacted due to so many naysayers... our AG, Prosecutors, Leo, Judicial and Legislative branches etc... are not carrying it out as it was written, in the plain language of the people.

 

Our Legislators are much like those in the Medical field, if they cannot prescribe another pill to 'fix things' (pass another law to fix things they think need 'fixing') they feel like they are not 'doing their job'. imo, it is not necessary to tweak what has so often been referred to as that infamous 'grey area'.  Those people doing so only need to feel their own importance.

again... jmho.

[Celliach]

Celli;

 

Do you have a clearly defined proposal/ s towards just how to accomplish what you are wanting?

As I asked b4, how?

Thus far I've not read anything concrete, only vague suggestions.

 

How to we force the Fed Gov to reschedule ?

How exactly do we the people force our will ?

 

We do it through a state-wide voter referendum to start with.  That's already been discussed many times.  That's not even what I'm talking about.

 

What I'm talking about, and have been talking about all along, is the language used in the proposals we are trying to pass.  My point has been, that if we're going for legalization, why would we limit ourselves to a regulated system where people can still get arrested and put in jail?

 

My debate here hasn't been about how to get proposals passed, but rather the language we use in those proposals.

[greenbuddha]

imo, this thread is not moot.  We are having a discussion here on how to implement change (?) together.

 

I know, I know... we have not even received the full benefits that are provided to us in the MMMA, as it has not been properly enacted due to so many naysayers... our AG, Prosecutors, Leo, Judicial and Legislative branches etc... are not carrying it out as it was written, in the plain language of the people.

 

Our Legislators are much like those in the Medical field, if they cannot prescribe another pill to 'fix things' (pass another law to fix things they think need 'fixing') they feel like they are not 'doing their job'. imo, it is not necessary to tweak what has so often been referred to as that infamous 'grey area'.  Those people doing so only need to feel their own importance.

again... jmho.

 

I agree.  I'll bet you there are people in Washington and Colorado that wish they had taken on this type of discussion before their 'recreational use' laws were written.

 

And I'll bet we will find that NO changes in the federal scheduling of cannabis ever takes place until MORE states pass into law more 'recreational use' laws.

 

The federal and state governments usually don't do anything until they have to... and when enough states make cannabis legal they will HAVE to change the laws OR take action against them.

[Celliach]

imo, this thread is not moot.  We are having a discussion here on how to implement change (?) together.

 

I know, I know... we have not even received the full benefits that are provided to us in the MMMA, as it has not been properly enacted due to so many naysayers... our AG, Prosecutors, Leo, Judicial and Legislative branches etc... are not carrying it out as it was written, in the plain language of the people.

 

Our Legislators are much like those in the Medical field, if they cannot prescribe another pill to 'fix things' (pass another law to fix things they think need 'fixing') they feel like they are not 'doing their job'. imo, it is not necessary to tweak what has so often been referred to as that infamous 'grey area'.  Those people doing so only need to feel their own importance.

again... jmho.

 

The debate isn't about how to implement change, but rather what type of change we want implemented.

[greenbuddha]

And that any progress will come by initiative only, not the legislature.

 

Let's hope so.

 

Can't recall his name, but there has recently already been  a Republican here in the state of Michigan that has put forth the idea of making cannabis legal at the state level to help pay for roads and so on.

 

Maybe someone out there can recall his name... slips my own mind at the moment.

[greenbuddha]

The State of Michigan has its own controlled substances schedule. MCL 333.7212 is where cannabis currently resides (schedule I):

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cupjzo55l5vo2l55w2zr0liz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-7212

 

It is amended in Senator Jones's new rehash of the Pharmaceutical Grade Marijuana bill to schedule II. We could remove cannabis entirely, then remove MCL 333.7401(2)(d), 333.7403(2)(d), and 333.7404(2)(d).

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cupjzo55l5vo2l55w2zr0liz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-7401

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cupjzo55l5vo2l55w2zr0liz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-7403

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cupjzo55l5vo2l55w2zr0liz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-7404

 

Then marijuana would be legal. The legislature will certainly add laws to restrict it again, in addition to the trunk bill.

 

Is the rationale that if we change Michigan's scheduling we could better ignore 'federal' scheduling?

 

I'm asking the question seriously. What do we do with the 'federal scheduling' laws even if we could change Michigan's?

[Wild Bill]

Anything less than giving cannabis the same legal status as a tomato plant leaves the door open for prosecutions. As long as they can prosecute they will be able to steal from the citizenry and keep their immoral programs going strong.

 

Just like distilling your own whiskey. You can buy it from the approved sources but you can't make your own.

 

Look at how they have twisted our medical cannabis program with their 'gray areas'.

 

"Well, looks like you're .000015 nano-grams over your allowed weight. Off to jail with you buddy!"