We All Need Each Other: A Multi-Faceted Coalition

[greenbuddha]

For instance, they would likely add cannabis to the public smoking ban.

 

 

Yep... the Colorado legislators are right now looking at a bill that would make the 'smell' of burning cannabis illegal in public. If the odor blows into your neighbor's yard, and they complain, you can be fined, etc.

 

But this very thing is why we need to be looking at this issue. The more we can foresee the better we can plan for eventualities.

[Celliach]

Actually, if you think about it, there's a lot of money in full legalization too in the form of sales taxes and business licenses.

[greenbuddha]

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!"

 

I have that same Utopian dream myself, Brother Bill.

 

If only it was like in the old days, eh?

[imiubu]

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.

 

Rep. Mike Callton (R-Nashville)

Pot for potholes.

[greenbuddha]

The controlled substances schedule is why marijuana is still considered illegal. As long as it includes marijuana, growing cannabis will be considered illegal.

 

Getting both the 'federal' and the 'state' rescheduling  to occur at the same time is probably not going to happen. And if the feds don't change we can still be prosecuted under federal law.

 

But changing the scheduling at the 'states' ' level could help put pressure on the feds to change at their end of things, at least that would be the hope.

[greenbuddha]

Rep. Mike Callton (R-Nashville)

Pot for potholes.

 

You are definitely getting a ride in my red fire engine!

[imiubu]

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.

 

Okay, got ya.  I will be the 1st to admit that I am a little hard headed and it may take a little pounding the point home until I get

that 'ah ha' moment.

 

Now I would like to know what groups are pushing what initiatives so that we can properly explore the language thereof.

You know I am not as organized as you are Celli.. I need a lil help here

 

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

 

Right.

 

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.

 

Could you tell me more about this 'rehash' of Senator Jones' please ?

 

Man, how do you guys keep up with all this stuff ?

[imiubu]

You are definitely getting a ride in my red fire engine!

 

[imiubu]

Okay, got ya.  I will be the 1st to admit that I am a little hard headed and it may take a little pounding the point home until I get

that 'ah ha' moment.

 

Now I would like to know what groups are pushing what initiatives so that we can properly explore the language thereof.

You know I am not as organized as you are Celli.. I need a lil help here

 

 

Right.

 

 

Could you tell me more about this 'rehash' of Senator Jones' please ?

 

Man, how do you guys keep up with all this stuff ?

 

I was sincerely inquiring about these things, if anyone has answers that would be awesome

 

Thanks

[imiubu]

I would like to know what groups are pushing what initiatives so that we can properly explore the language thereof.

You know I am not as organized as you are Celli.. I need a lil help here

 

I was sincerely inquiring about these things, if anyone has answers that would be awesome

 

Thanks

[Celliach]

I think 4271 is the only thing being pushed right now.

 

Sorry been really busy lately.  Was out on a scouting trip through the woods looking for a quartz crystal location.

[Hayduke]

there are a number of things being pushed constantly.  Senator Jones bill, which has not yet been introduced (I believe)... would need rescheduling to take place at the Federal level to to make an impact.

 

My money is on NO MJ bills being passed this year.

[imiubu]

Well now, I am not at all sure what your point has been through out this thread Celli.

Guess I don't understand how to get referendums written, who writes them etc... etc..

4271 as is sucks .. who fights the pro - provision center peeps trying to take away individual

grow rights if...

Well, I guess I am just too low on the totem pole to understand what is going on at the top.

 

zap, I guess the thread was moot, shrug.

[Celliach]

My point was that we are not all on the same page, nor do we all want the same end result, so it's hard to form a coalition of all the groups.

[greenbuddha]

My point was that we are not all on the same page, nor do we all want the same end result, so it's hard to form a coalition of all the groups.

 

 

Sounds like the United Nations...

 

Money and effort going everywhere and nothing getting done.

 

But... ever onward... I suppose.

[Celliach]

Well it's hard to get people to sign onto something that goes against their wishes and/or interests.

[greenbuddha]

Well it's hard to get people to sign onto something that goes against their wishes and/or interests.

 

Oh, the cannabis issue will be the same as it is with everything else... when enough money or self interest comes their way, people will suddenly become ready to sign on.

 

We are all slaves to our own self interests.

[Celliach]

I think you missed the main point I was debating.

[greenbuddha]

I think you missed the main point I was debating.

 

Do please enlighten me on your main point?

 

Problem is, your point will be as meaningless as mine appears to be.

 

But do please try.

[Celliach]

My point was that since we can't agree on what the outcome should be, we can't work together to achieve our goals.  You can't make a coalition of people if they don't agree to what the final outcome should be.   For example. I won't work with anyone that thinks we should have regulation because I don't believe in regulation.  Why should I help someone achieve something that I don't believe in?

[greenbuddha]

My point was that since we can't agree on what the outcome should be, we can't work together to achieve our goals.  You can't make a coalition of people if they don't agree to what the final outcome should be.   For example. I won't work with anyone that thinks we should have regulation because I don't believe in regulation.  Why should I help someone achieve something that I don't believe in?

 

As I said, everyone has a level of acceptance related to what they want.

 

You want 'no regulation', that is a self interest that dictates your involvement in the cannabis issue. 

 

We all have our 'wants and desires'... and good luck to all us in in getting those met.

 

Again... onward... I suppose. 

[imiubu]

My point was that we are not all on the same page, nor do we all want the same end result, so it's hard to form a coalition of all the groups.

 

so, back right where we started then hu?

[imiubu]

geesh, what a wasted thread.

[Celliach]

Not really.   There are people that didn't understand why we aren't all standing up for the same thing or working together, and we've given them a better understanding of the problems.

[greenbuddha]

so, back right where we started then hu?

 

 

But at least I still have my fire truck with a new bell.

 

Whether we like it or not eventually the 'majority' will define what happens... that you can count on.

 

Ding ding...