Jump to content

Sb783 Would Make It A Crime For Pt To Possess On Private Property


Recommended Posts

Right on. It is not a stretch to expect the ACLU to chime in. It is civil rights law. It might be better if a trained attorney were to testify in House hearings,  but I will if need be.

Hey I will go with you, we can burn a few and giggle all the way there, we just have to maintain when we are talking to them lol!

 

have oil will travel lol!

 

I dont know how this landlord crap even was thought about, but you can bet it is not for pts or c.g's, it is for leo and the courts to burn us for something they feel they dont have a clear way to now, if I was renting, I would most def talk to the property owner about my medications and needs, if you are looking for federal subsidized housing, just forget about having an indoor grow!

and anyone on mm for their medication can do edibles and vape and no one will know the better, but id stick to medibles and tinctures in a rented apt or house that dont allow smoking!

 

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I will go with you, we can burn a few and giggle all the way there, we just have to maintain when we are talking to them lol!

 

have oil will travel lol!

 

I dont know how this landlord crap even was thought about, but you can bet it is not for pts or c.g's, it is for leo and the courts to burn us for something they feel they dont have a clear way to now, if I was renting, I would most def talk to the property owner about my medications and needs, if you are looking for federal subsidized housing, just forget about having an indoor grow!

and anyone on mm for their medication can do edibles and vape and no one will know the better, but id stick to medibles and tinctures in a rented apt or house that dont allow smoking!

 

 

Peace

Thanks Jim. I hope we can get together somehow. We'll see how it shakes out.

 

What you mention are reasonable accommodations which landowners are required by law to provide. I see no reason to inform a landlord regarding cannabis use only unless it is necessary that his property be modified to provide accommodation, e.g., a fixed in place air filtration system. I count it best not to tell people what they don't need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem with tenants and growing.  It is definitely a problem in my area due to being close to a State border where we have had a significant influx of out of state patients and dollar signs in the eyes caregivers.  Most of the larger landlords in my area already have this written into their leases.  It should definitely be a civil issue for violation of contract, not a criminal issue.

 

But discrimination based on disability will not cover medical marijuana use.  using marijuana is not a disability. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem with tenants and growing.  It is definitely a problem in my area due to being close to a State border where we have had a significant influx of out of state patients and dollar signs in the eyes caregivers.  Most of the larger landlords in my area already have this written into their leases.  It should definitely be a civil issue for violation of contract, not a criminal issue.

 

But discrimination based on disability will not cover medical marijuana use.  using marijuana is not a disability. ;-)

No argument here that using is not a disablility  What then of the statement that it is legitimate treatment of or for a disability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LANSING- After a single hearing, a bill has passed a Michigan Senate Committee that would restrict licensed and registered medical marijuana patients from certain uses of the medicinal herb


on private property. The bill would amend the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMA) and also includes language that disadvantages those patients in landlord/tenant disputes, empowering


landlords to essentially forbid any use or possession of medicinal marijuana.


 


 


SB 783 passed the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 18. The bill was introduced to the Senate only one week earlier; Senator Rick Jones (R- Grand Ledge), the Judiciary Committee


 


Chairman,  co-sponsored the legislation along with fellow Republican Sen. Jim Marleau (R- Lake Orion).


 


Most- but not all- of the citizens who spoke at the meeting opposed the bill.


 


SB 783 would prevent medical marijuana patients from smoking cannabis in any area of their private property that can be viewed by the public. That would include rooms with glass windows,


 


screened porches, in yards or even in fields that are hundreds of feet away from an adjacent property.


 


The main focus of the debate held between the three-panel Judiciary and the citizens in attendance surrounded the rights of patients against the commercial interest of landlords who wish to


 


deny rental agreements to medical marijuana patients.


Josey Scoggins, the energetic activist from Lansing who has fostered a relationship with the Senators and Supreme Court Justices, described some of those who testified in support of the Jones bill as “very confused as to why they were there. Case law exists; it (the bill) is repetitive.”


Scoggins was the first cannabis advocate to testify during the hearing. “They all said their leases had held up in court cases against tenants,” she told TCC. “Some said they had read the Attorney General’s Opinion letter. They were confused as to the purpose of the bill.”


 


Although those testifying on behalf of the landlord organizations were uncertain as to the need to amend the MMA to address issues specific to marijuana-related activity, others were quite clear


about their support of Senator Jones. “I’ve seen tenants from hell,” said Tim Beck, of Detroit, himself a landlord. “Some of these people are so manipulative, so out of control. They are


 


deadbeats. Most of them are deadbeats… Unfortunately there are all kinds of abusive people, including marijuana growers, people who will take advantage (of landlords) if they can…”


 


Beck is a principal in the pro-marijuana legalization organization Safer Michigan Coalition; nevertheless he is a longtime staunch supporter of Rick Jones and is his primary advocate in the


medical marijuana community- often times, Beck is the Senator’s only advocate.


 


 


 


Beck further supported the legislation by saying, “The way things are structured now, it’s a ticking time bomb. When you have this difference between the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and


this property thing… I’m surprised the lawsuits haven’t already hit.”


 


Violations of this proposed law could be severe. According to MLive: “Under the Public Health Code, unsanctioned possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in


 


prison and/or a fine of up to $2,000. Use is punishable by up to 90 days in prison and/or a fine of $100.”


 


The bill’s discriminatory nature- punishing legal smokers for marijuana use while not punishing legal cigarette smokers- was a theme of the debate and was an issue Beck raised as well.


 


 


“I find it philosophically difficult… you can ban marijuana and have people smoking cigarettes. People are medical marijuana patients- it’s healthy. People who are smoking cigarettes, they are


 


not doing it for their health.” Beck concluded with a suggestion to amend the bill. “I’d like to have a thing where all smoking is banned… perfect, no problem at all.”


 


 


Jones said he would “Consider adding that on the floor” as an amendment during the upcoming Senate debate on the bill. One modification to the bill was considered and adopted in Committee;


 


Sen. Steven Bieda (D- St. Clair Shores), the Committee’s lone Democrat, suggested an amendment while commenting on the testimony given by Denise Pollicella ofCannabis Attorneys of Mid-


Michigan.


Pollicella agreed during post-testimony questioning that landlords should have the right to ban marijuana use in their properties by renters, but stated the change should not come via an


alteration of the MMA but as a change to existing landlord-tenant law. Bieda’s amendment inserted the requirement for the landlord’s prohibition of marijuana use to be written into the lease


agreement; that amendment was adopted unanimously, as was the bill.


 


Scoggins reports that there were “four or five” organizations in attendance that supported the Jones bill, and she praised the Senator for holding a meeting that honored both sides of the


 


argument. Other advocates that provided testimony include Detroit attorney Thomas Lavigne; Robin Schneider, legislative liaison for the National Patients Rights Association; and Brandy Zink,


 


who spoke as a representative of the Michigan chapter of Americans for Safe Access.


Citizens typically are given two opportunities to comment publicly on any bill being considered in a Michigan legislative Committee. These Committees are the only opportunity voters have to


 


speak directly to the elected officials who are to approve or reject the legislation; once passed out of Committee public testimony is ended for that bill’s life in that legislative house.


 


 


Committee Chairpersons have the option to limit public input by passing any bill with a single hearing. SB 783 was considered along with four other bills in the Tuesday Judiciary session- a


session that was scheduled for one-half hour of debate. At the end of the Committee meeting Jones read off the list of people that had filled out comment/speaking cards but were not allowed to


 


address the Committee due to the abbreviated session. Steven and Maria Green of Lansing, the parents of Baby Bree, were among those denied the chance to speak.


 


 


The bill’s path mimics that of SB 660, a bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R- Monroe) in 2013. Richardville introduced the bill to his own Committee, gave it a single


hearing one week later and passed it. SB 660, referred to as the pot-for-pharmacies bill, was passed by the Michigan Senate, had a Committee hearing in the House of Representatives and was


 


signed into law by the Governor within two months time total.


 


http://thecompassionchronicles.com/2014/02/19/one-and-done-again/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

criminalizing cannabis use on private property is outrageous.

 

whether or not your "in view" of the public has absolutely NO BEARING on any safety issues.

 

are our legislators seriously this ignorant?

 

who are they trying to fool with this?

 

it is already dealt with.. in civil court.. there is no reason to pass this nonsense other than to add penalties to cannabis users.

 

not going to fly Mr Rick Jones.  we will not stand by and let you folks pass this one at 0420 while the public is asleep.

 

check your polls senator you are officially on the wrong side of the equation now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Beck is a principal in the pro-marijuana legalization organization Safer Michigan Coalition; nevertheless he is a longtime staunch supporter of Rick Jones and is his primary advocate in the medical marijuana community- often times, Beck is the Senator’s only advocate.

 

:butt2:

 

 

True and i agree some supports have turned to the other side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the edit page for the first post, click 'use full editor' and then you can change the topic

 

something like 'bill would make it a crime for pt to posess on private property'.

 

hope you caregivers dont deliver meds to patients at their workplaces either. or in parking lots. or mcdonalds.

because thats intent to deliver charge.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the edit page for the first post, click 'use full editor' and then you can change the topic

 

something like 'bill would make it a crime for pt to posess on private property'.

 

hope you caregivers dont deliver meds to patients at their workplaces either. or in parking lots. or mcdonalds.

because thats intent to deliver charge.

Did you read possession somewhere in the wording? Or do you think they are going to sneak that one in on us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont have substitute, but heres the introduced bill:

 

 

(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana at any of the following locations:

(a, b and c are already in the law and include jail, school, school bus)

(D) On private property, in violation of a prohibition
established by the property owner. This subparagraph does not apply
to a lessee of private residential property except as to the
owner's prohibition against smoking or growing marihuana.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-SB-0783

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that sentence mixes smoking and growing in a section dealing with posession and all use.

its so confusing, and everyone is focusing on that stupid landlord sentence. ignore it. the problem is most of this state (aside from the parks) is private property and jones is going to make it a crime to posess on private property.

 

patients/caregivers get no sec4/sec8 protection in this bill for violating a private property ban!

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that sentence mixes smoking and growing in a section dealing with posession and all use.

its so confusing, and everyone is focusing on that stupid landlord sentence. ignore it. the problem is most of this state (aside from the parks) is private property and jones is going to make it a crime to posess on private property.

 

patients/caregivers get no sec4/sec8 protection in this bill for violating a private property ban!

This would take a lot of defining by the courts. We would win this for everything but rentals with leases. The 'policy' part would be their hurdle. I believe the courts would say that the 'policy' would have to be known by the offender before it could be considered a crime. Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is like when Schuette wanted section 8 to be only between patients connected through the registry. This is Schuette's handiwork. He stretches so far that the courts can't make it work so it gets worked around. You can't have a law that makes it so you commit a crime by turning around in someone's private driveway. But you can make a law that says a landlord can decide if you smoke in your rental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would take a lot of defining by the courts. We would win this for everything but rentals with leases. The 'policy' part would be their hurdle. I believe the courts would say that the 'policy' would have to be known by the offender before it could be considered a crime.

 

This would take a lot of defining by the courts                 yes

 

 

may i add also $$$

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...
×
×
  • Create New...