Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Ballot Question Committee Amendment...

[bobandtorey]

Thanks to Obama, anyone who tries to grow hemp will be raided at gunpoint by U.S. federal agents, prosecuted for felony crimes and thrown in prison.

 

So why is it okay for Barack Obama to buy industrial hemp grown in China, but keep industrial hemp criminalized in America?

 

Robert Scott Bell asked this question on the August 2, 2012 broadcast of the Robert Scott Bell Show. Download the MP3 here:

http://radio.naturalnews.com/Archive-RobertS...

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036696_Barack_Obama_industrial_hemp_farmers.html#ixzz3wqoe8rRv

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/036696_Barack_Obama_industrial_hemp_farmers.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Barack_Obama_Hemp_Scarf.jpg

 

The hypocrisy is staggering

The scarf is listed as "made in the USA." What the Obama store doesn't tell you is that the scarf is made from imported hemp blend fabric made in China. Unfortunately the Obama administration has confused non-drug industrial hemp with marijuana and blocked American farmers from growing the crop. This outrageous policy has forced American companies to import hemp textiles, auto parts, building materials, nutritious foods and more from overseas increasing our trade deficit and offshoring farming and manufacturing jobs.

 

The world's largest market for hemp products is the United States with retail sales estimated to be $419 million in 2010 and growing annually at around 10 percent. All of these hemp products must be imported from the dozens of countries that allow hemp farming. Chinese farmers are growing 150,000 acres of hemp and planning to expand to more than a million acres due to demand. Farmers in Canada report turning a solid profit on their hemp crops and are expanding their hemp acreage. European farmers are selling their hemp fiber for use by Ford, Daimler Chrysler and BMW for door panels and interior parts. https://www.420magazine.com/forums/hemp-news/172065-obama-campaign-raises-money-hemp-products-while-administration-banning-hemp.html

 

 

 

West Virginia Hemp Law

Year Passed: 2002

Summary: The West Virginia Legislature approved Senate Bill 447 recognizing industrial hemp having no more than 1 percent THC as an "agricultural crop." This legislation also establishes licensing procedures to allow local farmers to "plant, grow, harvest, possess, process [and] sell" hemp commercially.

Statute: W. Va. Code §§ 19-12E-1-12E-9 (2015)

 

[t-pain]

Isn't there already a tax structure in place, for sales/ income?

 

No additional "sin" tax needed on cannabis.

 

All hemp is imported atm, mostly from China. 

Why compare hemp (industrial) to cannabis (med /rec) at all?

They are different markets, different industries.

abrogate does not differentiate between hemp industrial and cannabis med/rec when it says no excise taxes may be levied on cannabis.

 

thats why i am talking about it in the abrogate thread.

[Restorium2]

Fine, then I'm behind MiLegalize and will point out how corporate america(china, etc.) will use abrogate to grow hemp and pot as far as the eye can see, full on with males and all, will come in and spray fields with every chemical known and destroy the state of Michigan with the law YOU guys want to put thru.  I think you are all getting paid off to go for abrogate MI. by corporate interests who are using you for the law you want.  It'll be cheap oversrayed crap that will rule in Mi if abrogate goes thru!

MiLegalize will protect the cottage industry whereas abrogate will open the flood gates.  I'd rather the devil I know than the devil I don't know.  SB660 will look like the kids sand box compared to abrogate.

2 can play at this if you want to?

Doesn't MiLegalize promote hemp?

[Restorium2]

Norby, on 01 Jan 2016 - 1:11 PM, said:

Fine, then I'm behind MiLegalize and will point out how corporate america(china, etc.) will use abrogate to grow hemp and pot as far as the eye can see, full on with males and all, will come in and spray fields with every chemical known and destroy the state of Michigan with the law YOU guys want to put thru.  I think you are all getting paid off to go for abrogate MI. by corporate interests who are using you for the law you want.  It'll be cheap oversrayed crap that will rule in Mi if abrogate goes thru!

MiLegalize will protect the cottage industry whereas abrogate will open the flood gates.  I'd rather the devil I know than the devil I don't know.  SB660 will look like the kids sand box compared to abrogate.

2 can play at this if you want to?

Doesn't MiLegalize promote hemp?

 

 

 

 

 

 

From MiLegalize

Sec. 5. (a) A person may engage in hemp cultivation, acquisition, transfer and exchange of seeds, delivery, processing, manufacture, sale and export of products for commercial purposes and research. All products made from hemp may be possessed or traded for remuneration without the possessor or trader being subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Restorium2

[t-pain]

resto, didnt norby say he was going to stop arguing? why you keep fighting with him? i dont agree with norby's position that other countries will flock to michigan to grow hemp. canada grows hemp, china grows hemp, why bother growing hemp in michigan?

 

 

its possible i dont know the difference between "excise tax" and "sales tax"...

[Wild Bill]

Sales tax is a fee added to items at the point of sale. Excise tax is a tax levied on a specific item like gasoline, alcohol etc.

[imiubu]

wow, I'm not being paid off by anyone. 

I was there at the very beginning.  We met weekly, many folks driving hours to

discuss how to move forward with a total repeal of cannabis... just us 'regular' folks. 

It's referred to as grass roots I believe.

 

Where were you then ?

[Restorium2]

resto, didnt norby say he was going to stop arguing? why you keep fighting with him? i dont agree with norby's position that other countries will flock to michigan to grow hemp. canada grows hemp, china grows hemp, why bother growing hemp in michigan?

 

 

its possible i dont know the difference between "excise tax" and "sales tax"...

Hey,

I just noticed that MiLegalize did what Norby was talking about. I'm sure he didn't know that or he wouldn't have posted like he did. I think he needs to know that. Why didn't you point that out instead of adding more fuel to the fire? You are not very genuine with your advocacy for MiLegalize (putting it nicely). 

[imiubu]

abrogate does not differentiate between hemp industrial and cannabis med/rec when it says no excise taxes may be levied on cannabis.

 

thats why i am talking about it in the abrogate thread.

 

Why does there need to be a differentiation?  The tax structure is already in place.

 

The differentiation and the excised taxing is what is the unfair/ unnecessary division imo.

[t-pain]

two of the articles on abrogate say "no marijuana taxes". i think thats why i was confused.

 

especially because timmah quoted those articles saying abrogate allows for no marijuana taxes, without correcting them in his posts.

 

its difficult sometimes to stay on top of what is accurate and what is editorial. thanks for quoting the language resto, it is better to be accurate. you are right.

 

heres one timmah quotes:

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/49688-abrogate-prohibition-michigan-ballot-question-committee-amendment/?view=findpost&p=543767

This is how real writers articles read.

 

 

The petition, whose form was OK’d 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.”

 

 

http://michican.us/showthread.php?8334-Legalization-or-Abrogation-January-6-2016-by-Evan-Farmer-Writer-for-hybrid-life&p=9321#post9321

 

http://hybrid.life/legalization-or-abrogation/

and the other:

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/49688-abrogate-prohibition-michigan-ballot-question-committee-amendment/?view=findpost&p=543614

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.

 

it would be nice if timmah says clearly that abrogate allows for sales taxes on marijuana and marijuana products.

[Restorium2]

two of the articles on abrogate say "no marijuana taxes". i think thats why i was confused.

 

especially because timmah quoted those articles without correcting them.

 

see, its difficult sometimes to stay on top of what is accurate and what is editorial. thanks for quoting the language resto, it is better to be accurate. you are right.

You are confused about what MiLegalize does and you are out there getting signatures. 

 

When Norby said that Abrogate would promote hemp you obfuscated the facts. You could have easily diffused the situation by saying both proposals did the same thing. But you chose to just add fuel to the fire because you liked it that Norby was cutting down Abrogate. 

[t-pain]

i specifically told norby that his idea was wrong about abrogate. you wanted me to also compare it to milegalize at the same time? i failed to do that, i didnt want to advertise milegalize in the abrogate thread. but if you want me to compare all proposals at once from now on, i'll do that.

 

my bad.

 

where did i write that i was confused about what milegalize does ?

[t-pain]

 

mmma protects bongs. abrogate, not so much.

lmao. Oh T....  Maybe after we Abrogate, a Bong Occurrence Negotiation Group can be started and you can write policies...

So What part of Makes all Prohibition Null and Void is going to not protect your bongs from Billybong? lol

 

all prohibitions on cannabis are removed. i dont see prohibitions on drug paraphrenalia removed. or removing cannabis' identification as a drug removed in your language.

[Wild Bill]

all prohibitions on cannabis are removed. i dont see prohibitions on drug paraphrenalia removed. or removing cannabis' identification as a drug removed in your language.

 

It wouldn't matter if it was used as a drug or for making rope, it would no longer be illegal.

 

What would be the point of trying to charge someone with possessing paraphernalia used for a legal substance?

[Restorium2]

It wouldn't matter if it was used as a drug or for making rope, it would no longer be illegal.

 

What would be the point of trying to charge someone with possessing paraphernalia used for a legal substance?

That makes way too much sense for T. He's just here to bolster MiLegalize and cut down Abrogate. When caught he just pleads ignorance. One thing that is very clear; he shouldn't be in this thread acting like he's trying to keep the peace. 

[t-pain]

i'm trying to get norby to help abrogate, thats why i suggested we should support all initatives. i'm not sure what i've said to upset you resto.

[t-pain]

It wouldn't matter if it was used as a drug or for making rope, it would no longer be illegal.

 

What would be the point of trying to charge someone with possessing paraphernalia used for a legal substance?

because its federally illegal (this is the courts opinion in people v walmart joe i think?)

 

rememeber tommy chong got federal time for selling bongs.

 

i could be wrong. if you think my arguments arent helping just say so and i'll keep my ideas to myself. it doesnt look like tim has agreed with any of them so far.

[Restorium2]

i'm trying to get norby to help abrogate, thats why i suggested we should support all initatives. i'm not sure what i've said to upset you resto.

If you read back in this thread you had the perfect opportunity to bring us together by pointing out that MiLegalize did the same thing with HEMP. Then when I figure that out you tell me to quit arguing with Norby. Only an idiot wouldn't see that you liked Norby cutting down Abrogate with baseless info you could refute but it would shred a negative light on MiLegalize so you stood mute then cried foul when it got back into the subject. Clear enough for you now?

[t-pain]

Has anyone brought up the possible issue of amendment by reference allowing Abrogate to ultimately be held unconstitutional? This may be a problem with MILegalize also.

 

 

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(wxsqydqn3kpketgls3pjvttv))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-IV-25

why hasnt B.S. brought suit against the mmma for this in the 7 years so far?

especially after the supreme court mentioned it in one of the footnotes in ter beek.

 

also i find it kind of dumb that the court wont accept arguments about potential problems like this, instead mentioning it in some footnote and scurrying away. why do they do that...

[Restorium2]

because its federally illegal (this is the courts opinion in people v walmart joe i think?)

 

rememeber tommy chong got federal time for selling bongs.

 

i could be wrong. if you think my arguments arent helping just say so and i'll keep my ideas to myself. it doesnt look like tim has agreed with any of them so far.

BS No one would get charged for a bong to smoke something legal in. That's why tobacco pipes have always been legal. You should keep your biased thinking to yourself, or think first before you post. 

[Restorium2]

why hasnt B.S. brought suit against the mmma for this in the 7 years so far?

Because we are not the first State to the table with the wording we have in the MMMA. 

[t-pain]

if you think my questions are tough, wait until B.S. starts laying into the various proposals.

[mp4c]

Here are all the sections of the public health code that would have to be amended (and re-printed in any proposed legislation) in order to actually repeal prohibition.

 

If a petitioner had a petition with all these sections stapled to it, it would become invalid if even just one page is missing at turn in time. Because of this fact, I personally believe the only way to repeal is through our inept legislature.

 

 

Document Type Description

Section 333.7106 Section Definitions; I to M.

Section 333.7212 Section Schedule 1; controlled substances included.

Section 333.7214 Section Schedule 2; controlled substances included.      

Section 333.7401 Section Manufacturing, creating, delivering, or possessing with intent to manufacture, create, or deliver controlled substance, prescription form, or counterfeit prescription form; dispensing, prescribing, or administering controlled substance; violations; penalties; consecutive terms; discharge from lifetime probation; “plant” defined.

Section 333.7401c Section Manufacture of controlled substance; prohibited acts; violation as felony; exceptions; imposition of consecutive terms; court order to pay response activity costs; definitions.

Section 333.7403 Section Knowingly or intentionally possessing controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, or prescription form; violations; penalties; discharge from lifetime probation.

Section 333.7404 Section Use of controlled substance or controlled substance analogue; violations; penalties.

Section 333.7410 Section Violations by individual 18 years of age or over; "library" and “school property” defined; distribution of marihuana; penalties.

Section 333.7411 Section Possession or use of controlled substance or imitation controlled substance; probation; terms and conditions; violation; discharge and dismissal; deferral of proceedings; nonpublic record of arrest, court proceedings, and disposition; nonpublic record open to certain individuals and entities; purposes; course of instruction or rehabilitation program; conviction of second violation; screening and assessment; costs.

Section 333.7413 Section Conviction of second or subsequent violation; penalty.

Section 333.7416 Section Recruiting, inducing, soliciting, or coercing minor to commit felony; penalties; exception.

Section 333.7451 Section “Drug paraphernalia” defined.

Section 333.8105 Section Definitions; M to P.

Section 333.8107 Section Definitions; Q to T.

Section 333.8109 Section Manufacturing, distributing, prescribing, or dispensing pharmaceutical-grade cannabis; license required.

Section 333.8115 Section Rules.

Section 333.8152 Section Enhanced pharmaceutical-grade cannabis card; issuance by department; conditions; surrender of registry identification card.

Section 333.8303 Section Records; notification; prohibited acts; destruction of marihuana determined not pharmaceutical-grade cannabis; standards; manner of irradiation.

Section 333.8307 Section Operation.

Edited January 11, 2016 by mp4c

[Timmahh]

MILegalize does not require testing for anything other than infused products that are sold commercially. Local ordinances allowing for commercial activity could include more testing requirements, however, but will still only be restricted to product destined for commercial sale.

 

The patients and caregivers, or adults wishing to grow for whatever personal reason they may have- who choose to not be involved in the commercial market- will not have any mandates for testing.

 

Many patients and caregivers choose to have product tested for a variety of reasons. Testing labs such as Act are able to perform a variety of tests to determine the basic profile, to look deeper into the composition of cannabinoids, and for contaminants.

 

Act will perform an actual culture to determine mold. All mold cannot be seen by visual inspection and it is irresponsible to offer results based on just a visual observation.

 

MILegalize took input from members of the community from all over and considered the input- contrary to the baseless claims being made here. If an idea was not used, it does not mean that it was not considered.

 

The end result is what is believed to be the best chance to significantly move things forward. Meaning it covers a lot of important ground and still has the ability to pass when it makes it to ballot for the 2016 election.

 

Abrogate will not have enough signatures in time for 2016. Others have claimed that the language contains some fatal flaws that would render it useless via a legal challenge, and voters have not been keen on approving constitutional amendments in recent elections.

 

MCC is rumored to be reviving its dead campaign to take advantage of the discovery, made by MILegalize, that the 180 window does not have the same limitations for valid signatures as previously believed. The expected statement to announce MCC's revival- however- has not happened. As of right now- there is no confirmation that MCC has resumed its effort. They may be back on the street and we just haven't heard of it yet.

 

MCC is ultimately useless anyway, if not dangerous, because it relies on the corrupted and inept legislature that has demonstrated no ability to do anything reasonable on this issue- to implement the law and expand government in order to facilitate whatever unknown set of rules it may create. The lobbying frenzy we see now over the stupid distribution bill will only get worse, if MCC were to be successful.

 

Although, not considered ideal in some ways- MILegalize is currently the only viable choice with which to move forward in 2016.

 

In my opinion- MCC should just go away, the Abrogate group should use the 2012 repeal language, or language that has been thoroughly vetted by legal counsel that would result in the same goal- and begin collecting for a 2018 or 2020 run.

 

For this year- any realistic chance of achieving better policy- rests with MILegalize. www.MILegalize.com

 

 

A.P.M. has a full 180 days. Not sure what you are referring too?  We are Ready to go....

 

So Is most of Michigan.  

 

As my Dad use to say "bunny muffin or get off the Pot." lol

We can beg the servants in Lansing D.C. for crumbs, or we can tell the Servants how it is going to be from now on.

 

Like it or not, Abrogate Prohibition Michigan will be on the ballot, and the Electorate will pass it by a large margin.

 

Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Because Michigan Legislators Create More Criminals, and Cartel Monopolies.

[Timmahh]

One thing that I think most of us forget is that outside of regular users not many people care one way or the other about legalizing cannabis. If you think there's going to be a great outcry because no one got what they thought they were getting then think about how much the average voter is upset because the medical law has been twisted so badly.

Over the last 3 weeks, as I was in talks with various printers, business people, hospital staff ect.  None of them were even aware the arrest rates have went up to nearly 400% since the act passed.

 

As I told them that little tidbit, a look came across their faces like I was a long time trusted friend and I just knee'd them square in the balls... 

Then when I explained the vast majority were Card Holders, the painful expression of shock that they had, started to turn into gritting teeth.

 

Most the Public have no clue about what has been happening with the MMM Act.

 

And most of these people were "Republicans".

Edited January 12, 2016 by Timmahh