Jump to content

How Michigan Is Addressing Medical Marijuana


Recommended Posts

Advocates for more lenient marijuana laws pessimistically await the Michigan House to take up the controversial Senate Bill 660, which would allow pharmacies to distribute medical marijuana and would also grant a single Canadian company a monopoly to be the only supplier the pharmacies could use. It is possible that the House will take up two other related Marijuana bills, and not a third.

HB 4271, the Provisioning Center Act, and HB 5104, which would broaden the definition of usable marijuana in reaction to a ruling in the case of People v. Carruthers, are likely to be heard along with SB 660.

House Bill 4623 which would decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is unlikely to get a hearing. That bill, co-sponsored by Representatives Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, and Mike Shirkey, R-Clarksville, among others, has broad support among people advocating for less harsh approach to marijuana.

Pro-reform advocates point out that marijuana is empirically safer than alcohol, for the consumer, their family and society. They also point to a DEA judge’s ruling that states that marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.

With this in mind, they urge to Legislature to end the practice of arresting those in possession of an ounce or less. However, based on the past actions of the Michigan Legislature, those advocating for better access to medical marijuana patients and caregivers believe that Michigan Republicans are more interested in interfering with the program, than enabling it.

Rep. Irwin has cited a figure of a minimum of $325 million annually spent in Michigan enforcing marijuana prohibition. He also notes that 17 other states – plus the cities of Detroit, Jackson, Lansing, Ypsilanti and Ferndale – also treat possession of an ounce or less as a civil infraction and not an arrestable offense.

A recent poll Epic MRA poll showed that 46 percent of Michigan residents support legalizing and regulating marijuana and another 16 percent are in favor of replacing criminal penalties with fines.

Despite this, it is believed that easing of criminal penalties for an ounce of marijuana or less is unlikely this legislative session.

 

 

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20131201/NEWS02/312010090

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite overwhelming voter approval to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, pot smokers in the city shouldn't feel any freer to spark up at home anytime soon.


City officials said that despite the landslide victory for Proposal M, which allows people 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana on private property without risk of criminal prosecution under city law, the Detroit Police Department won't enforce drug laws any differently.


Proposal M passed 65%-35%. But under federal and state law, possession of marijuana "is still illegal," Detroit City Councilwoman Brenda Jones said.


"We will not be writing an ordinance that says something that's illegal is legal," Jones said.


"It was really a waste of our time," council President Charles Pugh said of the vote.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

any idea how much the fine is in Detroit for possession of less than an ounce, not an arrestable offense ?

Not sure 

But i  say that if you get caught  with Cannabis in side your home you'll go to go but if the Leo is coming to break your door down it won't be for Cannabis in the D 

Edited by bobandtorey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreal...

 

yeah just ignore a vote and the free will of American people....

 

what a putz.

 

they are NOT ALLOWED to ignore the voters no matter what their personal beliefs are they now MUST write the city ordinance and instruct city level officials to follow it.

 

they have no control over state or federal authorities of course... but they CAN NOT just simply ignore a popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

votes, even non fraudulently counted ones, historically have not provided the people with their intended wishes. Most people have never been involved in the removal of a politician who is not enforcing the will of the people who voted for them. Voting in new empty promises chosen form the same teams will result in very similar actions. Removing them is our last vote, and maybe the only one to matter. Never think the wealthy will allow subjects to "vote" their wealth away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreal...

 

yeah just ignore a vote and the free will of American people....

 

what a putz.

 

they are NOT ALLOWED to ignore the voters no matter what their personal beliefs are they now MUST write the city ordinance and instruct city level officials to follow it.

 

they have no control over state or federal authorities of course... but they CAN NOT just simply ignore a popular vote.

i do agree but thats what they did in the D and Ferndale , Lansing, and all the rest

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...