Jump to content

Sheriffs Assoc And Assoc Of Chiefs Of Police Opinion On Hb 5104


Recommended Posts

this letter was in the same packet as schuette's opinion:




Sept 23, 2014


TO: sen randy richardville

cc: members of the michigan senate


Dear Leader Richardville:


we are writing today to clarify and explain our opposition to hb 4271 and hb 5104, bills that legalize medical marijuana dispensaries and edible, topical, and liquid forms of marijuana for medical use. the mich sheriff's association (MSA) and mich association of chiefs of police (MACP) recognize the bills' intent to allow local control to factor into dispensaries and to find better ways than dangerous inhalation of ingesting or applying medical marihuana. nevertheless, we remain opposed for the reasons below.


enforcement of these bills will prove troublesome at best, and impossible at worst. while we believe local units should have the right to refuse to allow dispensaries or zone them away from schools, churches, and neighborhoods if they are made legal, we believe it will be impossible to regulate them at the local level. differing local standards from community to community will result in a patchwork of confusing ordinances that neither providers nor consumers will be able to understand and quality and safety of the product will suffer. in addition , sheriff offices, police agencies, and local public health departments charged with enforcement and inspection of the dispensaries will have differing standards to enforce within the same county, making enforcement very difficult and costly in time and resources from place to place.


in addition, enforcement of the edible and soluble products is impossible to enforce, giving today's technology. for example, hb 5104 indicates a requirement to have no more than one ounce of marihjuana per sixteen ounces of edible. there is no way to determine what strength the one ounce of product is, and there is no way to determine oif more than one ounce went into the pound of product. there are no standards for potency of different types of marijuana, and there is no way to 'unbake' the edible to determine what ratio of food to product exists. in colorado, these potency issues have resulted in deaths. because law enforcement cannot forensically determine the quantity of marihjuana in a brownie , only that it is there, the bill may very well open the door to protected trafficking of large quantities of marijuana.


the bills also allow a person to sell their excess marihuana to provisioning centers every 60 days. there is no limit on the number of provisioning centers they can sell to in that period. there is also no way to track the sales in real time, let alone sales to multiple provisioning centers. we believe this provision of the bill in its essence legalizes the marihuana trade without enforceable limits. there is no way to know who sold what to whom, where and when.


public safety is also a concern. colorado's experience with full legalization of marijuana can inform michigan in this regard. because marijuana possession and use remain federal crimes, most banks will not provide financial services to marijuana dispensaries. this situation has created a cash-heavy business in colorado, ripe for cash-based crimes like burglary and robbery. a banking system needs to be developed to handle this issue and deter these crimes.


the bills aslo lack sufficient packaging requirements such as thc content, child proof containers, a prohibition on brand/product mimicking or appealing to children, and appropriate health warning labels.


attached to this letter* is a list of proposed changes to hb 4271 and hb5014 to address these concerns and others. also attached are pertinent news articles for your information on this issue that illustrate our points. thank you for your attention to our concerns.


again , at this time we oppose hb 4271 and hb 5104 and urge you to vote no on the bills.




terrence l jungel

executive director

michigan sheriffs association


robert m stevenson

executive director

michigan association of chiefs of police



*i do not know where these attachments can be found, try calling your senator, or the above people/associations and asking for a copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exec. Director Stevenson noted that the “Dispensary Bills” (HB 4271/HB 5104) are out of the House and awaiting vote by the Senate. The Attorney General is concerned about these bills and is drafting an objection. The AG would like MACP to take the lead. A letter needs to be sent as soon as possible.


so the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police works with the AG to lobby the legislature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auburn Hills Police Chief/Director of Emergency Services , Chief Doreen Olko made a post on the auburn hills blog about 5104...


(was also linked from official facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/AuburnHillsPolice )



The Michigan Legislature is considering two bills right now:  HB 4271 and HB 5104 which seek to legalize dispensaries and allow edible, topical andintro.jpg?w=300&h=200 liquid forms of marijuana to be sold.  The Michigan Chiefs of Police and the Michigan Sheriffs Associations are on record as opposed.  By now I think everyone knows that “medical” marijuana  is no different from any other kind of marijuana.  It is still against federal law so there are no prescriptions to be written for marijuana because it can’t be sold in regular pharmacies.  I think that it is also pretty well-known that legalization proponents have used the “medical” aspect as a route toward recreational legalization.  I don’t know how you feel about the issue but here are some things to consider from the chiefs and sheriffs, the people responsible for enforcing laws:

  • Is a person approved to operate a provisioning center required to be a medical marihuana patient or caregiver? If not, then it is far easier to become a distributer rather than a customer, turning common sense and logic on its head
  • Can a convicted drug felon invest in or own a controlling interest in a provisioning center? The proposal only prohibits a convicted drug dealer from being an officer, employee, agent, board member, or operator.
  •  Does the prohibition in the proposed law against any search or inspection by a state official immunize a provisioning center from tax audits, state health and food inspections, or criminal investigation by the State Police?
  •  How will the local regulation of the amount of marihuana purchased from a registered patient or caregiver be meaningful if the patient or caregiver is selling to multiple provisioning centers?
  •  The bill limits the amount of marihuana a distributor can sell to a particular patient or caregiver. The ability of a patient or caregiver to make purchases from multiple provisioning centers renders this limitation meaningless.
  •  While records must be maintained identifying purchasers of marihuana, why are similar records not required for the identification of the marihuana suppliers? Without strict inventory control and record keeping, a provisioning center can easily become a front for an organized drug operation.
  •  Since State/Local Police are prohibited from conducting any inspections or given any authority under this bill, a person making home deliveries for medical marihuana patients could literally have kilos of marihuana in their possession but could not confirm the fact due to the confidentiality in the identity of the customers. This regulatory system will inevitably lead to provisioning centers being used as a front for the illegal distribution of illegal drugs.
  •  The People of the State of Michigan voted to help people with debilitating conditions and illnesses have access to medical marihuana, not create a legalized for-profit marihuana industry. HB 4271 allows for the profiteering of a schedule 1 controlled substance that is still prohibited by federal law.

  HB 4271 and HB 5104 do not adequately provide for patient and child safety.

  •  The proposed legislation doubles the amount of marihuana that a caregiver and a patient can possess. There is no adequate testing procedure to monitor the potency of marihuana in solid, liquid, or gaseous form.
  •  There are also no standards for the THC content of these items. Consequently, one item may contain 5% THC, while another may contain 20% THC. In Colorado, six teenage death are directly attributable to this issue. The legislation makes no attempt to stop the marketing of marijuana or marijuana products to children. The federal government, anti-tobacco groups, and a lawsuit pressured R. J. Reynolds into stopping the use of the cartoon character “Joe Camel” in its advertising because of the cartoon’s appeal to children.   Different strains of marijuana are sold under child appealing names such as “Jilly Bean”, “Bubble Berry”, “Sweet Island Skunk”, “Maui Wowie”, “Chocolope”, “Black Berry”, “Afghan Sweet Delicious”, “Wonder Woman”, “Razzle Dazzle”, “Hawaiian Punch”, “Orange Kush”.

    hersheys-at-war-againts-marijuana-edibleNo proposed regulation as food products or protection for children

 As a Federal Schedule 1 drug, should not it be mandated that this be dispensed only in child proof containers?

 pot-tarts.jpg?w=150&h=99 The Act provides no meaningful deterrence for violators while providing a lucrative marihuana distribution business.

  •  The proposed legislation allows “provisioning centers” to deal in mass quantities of marihuana, with lucrative profits with little to no regulatory oversight. Within the Act there are seventeen potential violations with enumerated penalties. The majority of those violations are simple civil infractions. One is a misdemeanor. Four can be charged under the Public Health Code however, circumvention of the law will not be difficult because the Act contains prohibitions from search or inspection and seizures by law enforcement officers or state regulatory agencies.


  • In a good faith effort to help patients experiencing difficulty obtaining medical marihuana, this bill creates a statutory proposal that is extreme in its lack of regulation or control.   It provides an avenue for organized drug dealers to engage in their illegal activities under the guise of a legitimate business.

You may want to contact your legislator or click on this link to see the sponsoring legislators and share their thoughts on these bills.



i'm surprised auburn hills doesnt have more mmj cases, seems like she is just another crazy prohibitionist.

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

Who cares how much is actually IN it.  It sets up an easy way to assess amounts, your not payed to know how much MJ went into it as there are many different strengths, there is no way for any machine to ever know how much went into it.  Are they that DENSE?  Varying potency doesn't allow for knowledge of how much went into anything, the whole weight system is screwy.  Now they are worried about it!!!!  Besides they have the option to NOT enforce, who really cares what they think.  They aren't paid to make laws, only enforce them and if they can't they should find work elsewhere!


News articles that illustrate their points?  They get their opinion from the news?  Geeesh!!


So focused on defining their "job" that they've lost their humanity!  God forbid MJ move around legally and get in the hands of "unregistered patients"(of which everyone is one).  Like it isn't already doing so.  If you don't get caught it's legal.  I mean people are making subs, launching it into the US, using drones, digging tunnels, shoving stuff in places I wouldn't want to use it after, when are they going to wake up, the war isn't on drugs, it's on human nature!

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think they are conflating the issue.


5104 says that a pound of edibles is EQUAL to one ounce of usable marijuana in our 2.5oz count.


so what they have done is say "AHA! only 1 oz is allowed in 1 pound of edibles."

and then they turned it into some made up issue "there could be any amount of pot in that 1 pound of edibles"


see what they did there? its subtle.


of course, what if you just threw some sprinkles on your 1 pound of pot and called it an edible? ehehe..

i'd have to re-read the bill to see where all of that comes into play, and also if you can have 2 pounds of edibles and it will be counted as 2 oz of "usable marihuana" in your limit? anyone know?

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

God forbid MJ move around legally and get in the hands of "unregistered patients"(of which everyone is one).  Like it isn't already doing so. 

They're trying to perpetuate the illusion that what they do makes a difference, or even has some point other than to steal money from the populace.

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.

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.


  • Create New...