Ideas For Mpp, Npra, Mlrc And Other Ballot / Legislative Writers

[t-pain]

i put some ideas from this thread into the first post, hope this helps out.

[t-pain]

and also please review your ballot language, sometimes things get messed up!

 

here is a strange thing in oregon's new law:

 

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Legalized_Marijuana_Initiative,_Measure_91_(2014),_Full_text_of_measure

 

 

SECTION 82.
(1) Sections 3 to 73 of this Act and the amendments to ORS 316.680, 475.525, 475.752, 475.856, 475.860, 475.864, and 571.315 by sections 74 to 80 of this Act become operative on July 1, 2015.

SECTION 84. This Act becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is approved by a majority of the votes cast on it.

 

so does the act start 30 days after the vote or in july 2015? no one knows. but these kinds of silly things happen.

[Indigro]

I doubt any of the groups seeking limited rights would care to include this, but...

 

CO has placed the medical rights as a constitutional amendment vs statutes, which offers much better protections & seriously limits the State from arbitrarily changing or amending.

 

Another very nice thing is that they have the recommended use between the doctor & the patient. The State doesnt get to determine what is medically necessary to treat any given patient... that is determined between the doc & patients... and as a consequence, the limits of how much usable meds they can possess at any given time. A doc can discuss the medical condition, mj treatment options, and likely dosage/volumes required to meet the patient's needs. Although it is less common, docs have been known to write recommendations of 99 plants, which courts have recognized as valid. These numbers can be transfered to cg's for the patient as well. BTW... legalization folks that support limited grow rights hate this clause as it competes w their ability to control a monopoly.

[bobandtorey]

Is it fair to say putting any type of reconstructions on possession and or plant count would only end up with more people being arrested

Edited March 29, 2015 by bobandtorey

[Indigro]

Though our medical marijuana act is a statute, it was installed via the constitution as a voter initiative, and requires a 3/4 vote to amend. Is the barrier higher for Colorado? I can't imagine what it would be. How are their patient protections greater than Michigan's?

 

^^^ co has it as a constitutional amendment, so they set positive rights for the patient & cg. To the best of my knowledge, they too require 3/4 vote to make any alterations to the wording of the amendment, at all. So here we have a rules board that seems to arbitrarily change the words, meanings & functioning of the mmj law. I wake up every year & the law is different than I read previously. That doeant happen there. However, 1284 (the disp law & later the rec law) are open to constant amendment like we have here. The patient/cg amendment does not, and in fact, neither of the other two laws even touch the original amendment. I would say it is much better protected vs what we have here.

-----

 

Do they have a weight limit to prevent arrest? If so, how do these written doctor recommendations allowing more work in the field? Is the person arrested and forced to bring them to bear in court, or is there enough case law in support that the police don't bother anymore?

 

^^^ mind u I am not very well experienced w their new disp & rec laws, I am speaking only of the medical amendment & its practices. But each plant a patient/cg has is essentially assigned a weight limit like our 2.5. However, a doc may determine that the patient requires the use of extracts & needs the daily dose of whatever, so they can back track a necessary amount for their crop cycle. That necessary amount may equal 99 plants x 2.5 = 947.5z of raw nugs, before reduction. Lets just say a generous 10% reduction in processing to 95g / 3 mo = appx 30g per mon, or 1g per day. That would be a legal justification for 99 plants to get 1g per day of medically necessary mj oil for a qualified patient. Because it is an amendment that stipulates a lgitimate doctor/patient relationship, and doc rights are legally outlined w/in that amendment, the courts uphold such recommendations. Btw the original reduction & use amounts stem from the original federal medical mj laws as instituted by pres carter & that is still being applied to fed patients today.

 

And yes, the cops & courts have upheld it's validity, to the point that there are people that have been given back dozens of pounds of meds at the police station. Also, the police are held accountable for the meds & property they sieze... if its found unjust by a judge, they have to return the property or they r on the hook for its replacement value, if a suit is filed. So cops (when originally working through the new amendment) made bad arrests & siezures only to have to return it all. Now a days you can have cops make a traffic stop & find a person w 5lbs of nugs & let them go w their mmj stash & only a speeding ticket. This is patients/cgs.

-----

 

I would have to say that our chief problems here have nothing to do with the act itself or the words in it, but with the practices of the court apparatus in certain areas of the state, and the general political dead end of having a legislature and executive jam-packed with Republicans. A sane legislature would have recognized that the public health code prohibition of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance is in direct conflict with the act, both legally and conceptually, and nullified the statutes under which patients and caregivers are currently being charged.

 

As a general rule, changes to the act have been negative under the current implementation of the act across all branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. Each branch has taken the absolutely strictest view of the protections of the act, hyper-qualifying the words to allow them to continue to arrest and prosecute patients and their caregivers at every opportunity, to "clarify" the act by changing the words to further reduce or restrict protections, or to deny due process to patients and their caregivers whenever and wherever possible.

 

^^^ this doesnt happen under the mj amendment... regular alterations & limitations. However, judges out west tend to protect people's rights vs squashing them... at least co judges in relation to patient, cg & doc rights relating mj. Totally different rulings vs here, no doubt. Their court rulings extend rights if anything. Courts here are backwards imo... which gets to ur point below...

-----

 

Examples of this include the courts' ignoring medical marijuana protections during bond or probation, and even still regularly denying a medical defense to cardholders, law enforcement's constant arrests and "sorting it out in court," the legislature's constrictions of the act by way of the Walsh bills in 2012, and LARA's continual games regarding the addition of new conditions. It is a literal wall of obstruction across every state department and bureau that touches medical marijuana, each instance of which must be worked out in a hostile court system with little or no resources.

 

Changing the words to "make them better" as if it is a problem with the act is not a real solution. With the current government, every word on every line has to be worked through and disambiguated in court, even those changes made by professional lawmakers and meant to "clarify" the act, as it turns out.

 

The only solution to this is the true removal of the public health code charging statutes pertaining to marijuana. This would allow all Michigan citizens protections for growing, possessing, and using marijuana for any purpose, in an unqualified manner. Even then certain types of issues would remain due to federal law: housing, employment, insurance, drug testing, child custody/protection, etc.

 

^^^ yes, I agree...the way it is in mi (w/o the support of the courts) makes it very difficult. It is as if the entire gov mechanism is hell bent on limiting, dismantling, or retracting as much of mj law as possible... despite the wull of the people, despite the potential good that come from it, despite how relatively benign mj is to individual people or society as a whole. But then again, this place is more corrupt & slanted as any that I have lived or visited.

-----

 

It's like the real work begins only after it is truly legal (but of course the person-to-person education that will ultimately lead to any positive changes is ongoing).

[+Malamute]

Colorado is 2/3rds to the ballot or a Con. Convention or citizen to ballot.

[Indigro]

^^^ there ya go... a constitutional amendment that doesn't have it's language altered or amended very easily. No rules board that can delete words or create entirely new ones. Yes, courts interpret & apply, but imo their courts protect & extend rights. MI courts limit & diminish.

 

I've spoken to three docs about writing recommendations tied to use & method... they were each too afraid of losing their license. So, if I had to simplify my recommendations as the op originally asked...

1. Place patient & cg rights under constitutional protection,

2. Outline rights & protections for doctors to mitigate their fear & allow for them to write recommendations based on individual medical conditions (including dosage & limits)

3. Outline legal liability for the police in situations their behaviors breach the law,

4. Clearly outline reasonable limits of weight tied to recommendations that can address the pragmatic conaiderations of growing & maintaining an uninterrupted supply for the patient.

 

Just an opinion.

 

And a personal pet peeve would allow cgs to assist as many legally registered patients as they can. I recognize that depending on how this is structured a person could literally collect thousands of assigned plants. It is a likely necessary compromise to limit the numbers, assuming this can even be implemented in MI. Id like to try the idea of dual limits... total number one can grow for & a different (open) standard for assistance. That sets the ground for a dispensary model, where limits on total production size per entity can be managed. Truly trust me on this point... bigger is less manageable & always requires the use of commercial farming techniques. Smaller is better, from a quality perspective.

[rockinsteady]

[nsmn8r]

Jamie Lowell?

 

Is that the same guy that was Anthony Freed's sidekick back in 2009?

Weren't they the ones that used to go around to meetings and tell people about how we need more regulate?ions because caregivers were crooked and old ladies were being forced to give BJs for their medicine?

 

Is this a different guy or is there a snake in the henhouse?

 

I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken.

[Hayduke]

yes nsmn8r, your memory is correct.

 

and some would say if the shoe fits, one must wear it...

 

no need for apologizing when you are spot on...

 

just sayin'

[nsmn8r]

That's who's doing this? Holy phuq howcome no one has mentioned this yet? I'd love to see dispensaries come back but not if it means giving up the caregiver system.

 

If those guys are involved I have to believe it's bad news. I've seen a couple of their speaches. Their message seemed to be that it's too dangerous for the average guy to grow in his basement and patients shouldn't have to deal with the type of shady characters that would dare to try.

[t-pain]

jamie is on the site here i think, you can ask him direct..