Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Ballot Question Committee Amendment...

[+Malamute]

 

use

noun adhibition, adoption, application, avail, convenience, disposal, disposition, employment, exercitation, exploitation, function, means, purpose, service, serviceability, suitability, usage, usefulness, usus, utility, utilization

 

Associated concepts: actual use, apparent use, beneficial use, best and highest use, business use, charitable use, common use, contingent use, convenient use, corporate use, customary use, declared use, domestic use, dominent use, exclusive use, existing use, forseeable use, hostile use, lawful use, mutual use, nonconforming use, nonpublic use, normal use, offensive use, official use, ordinary use, perrissive use, personal use, primary use, principal use, priiate use, reasonable use, resulting use, secondary use, shifting use, Statute of Uses, suitable use, unfit for use, use and derivate use

 

 

[+Malamute]

 

Every Bad Law (Contractual Law, aka Commercial Code- not Constitutional Law) have all flowed out the tip of a pen at the end of an attorneys hand.

That is just Fact.

 

 

 That is actually completely untrue. Anything but fact.

[+Malamute]

But see, this is why I am always surprised more people do not ask us for advice.  I am not judging your intent. I am merely judging the quality of stated intent.

[+Malamute]

No, it would touch the MMMA< it would Elimnate its Penalties, which no one has been charged under in the State anyways.

 

 

It would also Do away with the 12/2.5 arbitrary limits...  

 

 

 

Medical use requires a contract of agreement which may circumvent the "use of cannabis" coverage in the abrogate proposal.

 

 

p.s. Circumvent isn't the right word,... Allowed in spite of maybe?  This is what you need a Constitutional lawyer for....

 

Would have been helpful for your goals.

[t-pain]

Really? Tell us T. How does this NOT Remove all Penalties for Cannabis Use?

 

 (1) The agricultural, personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial use of cannabis in any form by any person shall be a lawful activity.

(a) Cannabis use by any person who is; the ward of an adult, enrolled in K*12 school, a minor, shall be lawful activity requiring only parental or legal

guardian authorization.

 

(2) All prohibitions on the use of cannabis in any form by any person is hereby null and void, and henceforth abrogated.

 

If it is lawful for all people/persons per 1, and per 2, all Prohibitions on the use is null and void.  All Prohibitions kind of kills ALL Prohibitions that would lead to "Actionable Offence" by Gov via LEO.

 

Then with no Fines per 3 and No Regulation allowed to diminish use, could you explain how you contemplate these supposed felonies you conjored up?

1 and 1a conflict.

1a and 2 conflict within your own language.

 

abrogate says a child is lawful when he/she has authorization.

 

what happens when a child does not have authorization? is it unlawful?

 

the supreme court has said that you cannot make any sentence in the law nugatory. so it must mean something that you carved out this exception.

[Restorium2]

Why didn't you use the Abrogate language from attorney Greg Schmid? I'm sure it's flawless. 

[t-pain]

No, it would touch the MMMA< it would Elimnate its Penalties, which no one has been charged under in the State anyways.

 

It would also Do away with the 12/2.5 arbitrary limits...  

It does away with its Fines. 

 

How is that bad and destructive?  All Drs can Recommend now.  not just MMM A specific Drs.

 

Point out the issues and be Detailed and Specific.

(4) No excise tax, no fines, no regulation to diminish use, shall be levied or allowed for use of Cannabis.

 

"no regulation to diminish growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes."

 

the definition of "Debilitating medical condition" 333.26423b is "regulation to diminish medicinal purposes" by limiting the qualifying conditions.

 

the definition of "Enclosed, locked facility" 333.26423d is "regulation to diminish" the growing of cannabis.

 

hmm maybe i am looking at too small of the details. lets go bigger.

 

Sec. 6. (a) The department shall issue registry identification cards to qualifying patients who submit the following, in accordance with the department's rules:

 

this is a regulation to diminish use.

 

 

(b) The department shall not issue a registry identification card to a qualifying patient who is under the age of 18 unless:

 

this is a regulation to diminish use.

 

once those parts are "not allowed constitutionally", would lara be issuing licenses for an unconstitutional mmma law?

 

further it would change the "in accordance with this act" part of the protections in the mmma. how it would change the protections i have no idea, be it positive or negative. does that mean if any parts of the mmma are unconstitutional that no one can successfully be "in accordance with this act" ? rendering all protections null? or simply "in accordance with the remaining constitutional parts of this act" ?

 

i would love to be proven wrong on this.

 

and just to be clear, this is only my opinion. i cant see the future, i hope what i'm saying is factual, these do appear to conflict.

[t-pain]

Hey Timmah,

 

 not to argue, but the definition of "use" is lacking in your language and leaves open some possible loopholes to still allow certain types of prohibition and penalties. 

 

"Use" as defined by your brain is different than "Use" as defined and determined legally.

the answer tim gave last time this came up was that the constitution has to be read differently than the regular mcl. do you have any documentation/case law that says the constitutional law is read differently (more broadly) than the mcl ?

 

before anyone gets too bent out of shape thinking i'm attacking abrogate, i'm not. i looked into the details fully of mcc and milegalize and picked it apart the same way. i just want to maximize the protections and such in each proposal.

[Wild Bill]

If all penalties are removed and the plant is given a neutral legal status then all of the MMMA protections would be completely unnecessary.

[Restorium2]

If the protections are broader than the MMMA in every area what is the point of protecting the MMMA from Abrogate? 

 

Why bring up broadening in a bad light only because it conflicts with the MMMA? What's the logic behind that?

[Restorium2]

If all penalties are removed and the plant is given a neutral legal status then all of the MMMA protections would be completely unnecessary.

Exactly! You beat me to it.

[Timmahh]

 That is actually completely untrue. Anything but fact.

No, it is very trure.  Just depends on ones Perspective.

[+Malamute]

Abrogate doesn't remove all penalties or possible infractions due to improperly defining "use".

 

But it is pretty good as I have said many times.

 

Can it better? Yes!

 

But wtvr.

[Timmahh]

But see, this is why I am always surprised more people do not ask us for advice.  I am not judging your intent. I am merely judging the quality of stated intent.

Again Perspective is Key.

[+Malamute]

No, it is very trure.  Just depends on ones Perspective.

 

No , doesn't matter your perspective. That is simply not true,... at all.

[+Malamute]

Again Perspective is Key.

 

Quality input is key and understanding shortfalls is important.

 

Pre conceived prejudices is a weakness when achieving your goals to the highest degree of effectiveness.

[t-pain]

the prisons are filled with people who thought they had the right "perspective" on the mmma.

[Timmahh]

In many ways, if you had not have defined "use of cannabis" I suspect the simple non defined term of "use" would have offered more than this narrowed definition. Its close.

 

But you didn't even use "use" in the definition...

In Constitutional Law, if it is not directly Prohibited, it is directly allowed.  Defining 'use' in Constitutional Language, aka Civil Law, does not limit the language to only that listed use. as use is not Codified into what can not be done, but some of the things that can be used.

 

Remember. Civil Law, aka Constitutional Language, must be able to be understood by anyone that has a 3rd grade reading ability and comprehension level.

 

Because 'Use' is a list of some uses, and there are no limits with in 'use', and all prohibitions (aka limitations or diminishing of use) have been removed, it will be very hard to find cause for 'actionable offence'.

 

The Press Release that went out last Tuesday was written and released by the State Board of Elections, not Abrogate Prohibition Michigan.

 

 

LANSING (WWJ/AP) – The State Board of Canvassers has approved yet another initiative to legalize recreational cannabis across Michigan.

Abrogate Prohibition Michigan must now collect roughly 315,000 valid voter signatures to qualify the constitutional amendment for the November 2016 statewide ballot. The petition, as approved Tuesday, would fully legalize the use of the cannabis plant in Michigan, allowing for recreational, medicinal, agricultural and other uses. It would not allow marijuana taxes or any regulation to diminish use.

Earlier this year, groups began gathering signatures for two other ballot measures that would legalize recreational marijuana use and regulate the drug. One initiative is being led by traditional marijuana activists. The other has backing from a Republican political operative working on the behalf of anonymous business interests.

It’s uncertain if any proposal will make it to a public vote.

 

 

[Timmahh]

1 and 1a conflict.

1a and 2 conflict within your own language.

 

abrogate says a child is lawful when he/she has authorization.

 

what happens when a child does not have authorization? is it unlawful?

 

the supreme court has said that you cannot make any sentence in the law nugatory. so it must mean something that you carved out this exception.

How exactly do you think they conflict?  

[imiubu]

Hey Tim,  what time is the kick off meeting scheduled on the 13th?

I missed that info somehow.

[t-pain]

In Constitutional Law, if it is not directly Prohibited, it is directly allowed.  Defining 'use' in Constitutional Language, aka Civil Law, does not limit the language to only that listed use. as use is not Codified into what can not be done, but some of the things that can be used.

 

Remember. Civil Law, aka Constitutional Language, must be able to be understood by anyone that has a 3rd grade reading ability and comprehension level.

 

Because 'Use' is a list of some uses, and there are no limits with in 'use', and all prohibitions (aka limitations or diminishing of use) have been removed, it will be very hard to find cause for 'actionable offence'.

whats your source for these claims?

[t-pain]

How exactly do you think they conflict?

(1) The agricultural, personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial use of cannabis in any form by any person shall be a lawful activity.

(a) Cannabis use by any person who is; the ward of an adult, enrolled in K*12 school, a minor, shall be lawful activity requiring only parental or legal guardian authorization.

 

(2) All prohibitions on the use of cannabis in any form by any person is hereby null and void, and henceforth abrogated.

 

(4) No excise tax, no fines, no regulation to diminish use, shall be levied or allowed for use of Cannabis.

 

 

wouldnt requiring a parental authorizaiton be a regulation to diminish use?

wouldnt a requirement for parental authorization be a prohibition on the use of cannabis by any person?

 

i reserve my claim about 1 and 1a conflicting as you say constitutional amendments are read more broadly than mcl. so i will wait until i can read those guidelines/rules for reading the constitution.

[Timmahh]

1 and 1a conflict.

1a and 2 conflict within your own language.

 

abrogate says a child is lawful when he/she has authorization.

 

what happens when a child does not have authorization? is it unlawful?

 

the supreme court has said that you cannot make any sentence in the law nugatory. so it must mean something that you carved out this exception.

 

Yes it means LEO has to bring them back to their parent to see if the parents have authorized the use.  If not, then that would depend on the Parent.

You have to remember, there are no Penalties allowed, for anyone for use.  A Minor would be taken back to their parents.  If the parents then decided they do no Authorize their kids 'use', then it is up to the parent to punish the child for use.

 

Now, If said Parent wants Police to arrest Little Jimmy Joint, then that is the parents choice.. But the kid can not be charged with any "cannabis" offense.

They can only be charged as a Delinquent ect.

 

Keep in mind,  number 2. removes ALL Prohibitions, fines and penalties for cannabis use.  

 

The rest of the laws will still be in place.

 

I understand your concept on this point, but if there are no longer any fines, or penalties, then the Cops have nothing to Arrest for, unless the Parent or Legal Guardians tell the cops to arrest little Jimmy Joint.  Then they will have to find something that is actually an "Actionable Offense".

[Timmahh]

Why didn't you use the Abrogate language from attorney Greg Schmid? I'm sure it's flawless. 

I have read it in full.  A few times a month ago. Spoke with Greg for a good hour... His only concern was the Impaired driving questions with Abrogate......

 

Many seem to forget this Country was not Founded by Attorneys.

 

The proposal Mr. Schmidt submitted would put cannabis deeply with in the Bureau of the Purple Gang, errr Mi Alcohol Commission.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Timmahh

[t-pain]

but thats what i'm trying to say, 1a is now an exception to removing all laws against cannabis.

 

1a specifically allows for penalties on cannabis.