Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Ballot Question Committee Amendment...

[Timmahh]

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

 

and the other:

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

 

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

 

The language states "No Excise Taxes shall be allowed or levied for use of cannabis." 

Which part of it is "Gray" or "Misleading"?

[Timmahh]

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

Have not got a tough question yet.

[Timmahh]

I think he is just helping to find the loopholes where prohibitionists may have their way with Abrogate, just as we have pointed out with MILegalize, and has happened with the MMMA. It seems plain that we have to point these things out for any proposal.

 

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

 

Between the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution for These united States of America, and Division 1, Section 1 of the Michigan Constitution, it will be a tough row to hoe to prove it unconstitutional.   We are prepared to take it to the US Supreme if it has to.   I have nothing to lose.

[Timmahh]

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...

B.S. wont bring a suit. Neither will any other AG.  The 9th and 10th Amendments and the Mi Div1, Sec1 Amendments are very clear.

 

This is what I have been saying on this website since I first logged in around the end of 2010, or beginning of 2011.  The Federal Gov, nor the State Gov, Ever had Constitutional Authority to prohibit cannabis, or alcohol, or any other darn plant or substance.  

 

The proof of that is in 96, when Cali legalized Recreational, with an Amendment to their State Constitution, instead of going into Cali guns blazing, the Federal Government started increasing Federal Grants to Cali.  They had to Bribe the Cali Government to do in the State, what the Federal Government does not have the Authority to do.

That is the 10th Amendment.

 

Now, per Amendments 1-9, which do not mention the Governments Authority to ban anything mind you, The Governments included Federal, State, and Local Governments.

 

As a Constitutional Amendment, it will be hard to find actual issue with what has been proposed.

 

 

I have noted more than a few times, the State will get its 2 lbs of flesh via the 6% sales tax on all products that are not Food, Medicine, or otherwise Tax Exempt, aka Agriculture or a Non Profit Org ect....

 

Can not be more clear than that.  When it comes to retail, commercial, industrial, agricultural industries, one would have to be insane to think there will be no Regulations or Sales Taxes on those Industrial purchases.....

 

But when it comes to you, the Resident, or Visitor of the State, that is where the Governments line in the Sand is drawn.

 

 

To boil it down into a nutshell, the Abrogate Prohibition Michigan proposal to Amend the Constitution, as the State itself said it's own Press Release that went around the Wire on December 29th and 30th, it would fully legalize the use of cannabis in Michigan.

I didn't write that Press Release, the State did.

[Timmahh]

I think the reason the MMMA has not had to deal with this is that the legal interpretation used by the Legislature and Courts obviously allows the Public Health Code to stand. Both MILegalize and Abrogate are trying to "abrogate" (whatever that means) or "supercede" the Public Health Code charging statutes. I just don't think that will work long term; the Public Health Code must be amended to fix any problem currently encountered by MMMA participants.

The M.M.M.A. was thrashed because that is what Lansing D.C. has intended to do with it since it was passed by the People in 2008, when the Democrats where in charge I should remind everyone.

 

Here Zap. this will help you out.  It is also very good information to know "Abrogate" is listed in the Michigan Constitution on a few occasions, is very well defined via the courts, and therefore has not 'gray areas' that can be tagged to it.   Particularly when combined with the US 9th Amendment, and the Michigan 1st.

 

I fully expected challenges.  I have said I expect them not only from Mi, but Bull Shuitty Special Interest Groups, all the Big monies, Big Pharma, Alcohol, Tobacco ect..

I also expect Ohio and Illinois to possibly challenge if not Wisconsin. lol  But it would not surprise me one bit to see the Bastages in Washing D.C. make a challenge too.

 

I have contemplated ramifications others are most likely not even aware of.  And solutions to them.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/gallery/image/18353-abrogate-definition/

Edited January 12, 2016 by Timmahh

[Timmahh]

I think the reason the MMMA has not had to deal with this is that the legal interpretation used by the Legislature and Courts obviously allows the Public Health Code to stand. Both MILegalize and Abrogate are trying to "abrogate" (whatever that means) or "supercede" the Public Health Code charging statutes. I just don't think that will work long term; the Public Health Code must be amended to fix any problem currently encountered by MMMA participants.

Hope this helps Zap

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/gallery/image/18354-abrogate-definition-as-used-in-the-state-and-federal-constitution/

 

Abrogate is in Michigan's Constitution, and pretty much all others, as well as it is in the Constitution for These united States of America.  It has been very well defined in the US Court System since the founding of this country.

 

A Constitutional Amendment does not just 'Supersede' the PHC, it will fully remove cannabis from it perpetually, until the State Constitution is no longer applicable, or the people vote on a new constitutional Amendment.   Unless of course there is some way they can have it deemed 'unconstitutional'.  Which is the line in the sand the State does not want to cross once We the People fully repeal all the prohibitions on Cannabis in Michigan.   

 

The State will be forced to do one of 2 or 3 things.

1. Acquiesce 

2. Deny the People of their "Un-A-Lienable" rights again... for the 3rd time in as many years, 

3. Defer to the Bastages in Washington, D.C.  (see my post about '96 and Cali).

[Timmahh]

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.

 

Patrick Groulx attempted that approach using an 'Indirect Legislative Amendment' earlier in 2015.  He had issues with the BoC. As you well noted, everything you posted would need to be changed... With Abrogate Prohibition Michigan, they would be 'Erased'.

 

Patrick said his Indirect legislative initiative would have to be about 30 inches long to list and strike all that would be removed.

 

Which is why I explained to him why a Constitutional Amendment is the only redress to solve this issue, instead of kicking the can down the road, right upon the Backs of our Children as it was dumped upon ours just 40 yrs ago...... 

 

If you believe Government has that type of 'Authority' over you, then you may be enslaved by Tyrants.

 

 

The reason I got this proposal out of the BoC with a 5 minute Unanimous Decision is because it was correct in form and Format...... and therefore 'Legally Viable' as the Board of Canvassers Attorney fully informed the BoC Staff member that asked if it was even Constitutional. Which it is.

[+Malamute]

.... and unicorns are real too!

 

Timmah, it is like you are always about 50% right on what you say. Small nuggets of facts and truth wrapped in illogical and improperly conceived notions.

[mibrains]

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".

uhm?

what?

400% nope that sure sounds a lot like misguided propaganda and not so much accurate truth.

 

just one recent article shows arrest rates are up which is ridiculous...but not even close to 400%

 

not to mention the majority of people arrested and convicted are still minorities and not specifically card holders.

[mibrains]

The M.M.M.A. was thrashed because that is what Lansing D.C. has intended to do with it since it was passed by the People in 2008, when the Democrats where in charge I should remind everyone.

 

Here Zap. this will help you out.  It is also very good information to know "Abrogate" is listed in the Michigan Constitution on a few occasions, is very well defined via the courts, and therefore has not 'gray areas' that can be tagged to it.   Particularly when combined with the US 9th Amendment, and the Michigan 1st.

 

I fully expected challenges.  I have said I expect them not only from Mi, but Bull Shuitty Special Interest Groups, all the Big monies, Big Pharma, Alcohol, Tobacco ect..

I also expect Ohio and Illinois to possibly challenge if not Wisconsin. lol  But it would not surprise me one bit to see the Bastages in Washing D.C. make a challenge too.

 

I have contemplated ramifications others are most likely not even aware of.  And solutions to them.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/gallery/image/18353-abrogate-definition/

 

uhm tim...

Obama won the 2008 election which put democrats in charge of the white house... the same election as when the MMMA was passed and initiated so if you remember correctly the republicans were in charge when this passed.

[mibrains]

I'd settle for the schedule and charging statutes and let the legislature clean up the rest.

i disagree on this one zap.. and please correct me if i am wrong but i don't think a rescheduling is a good option?

 

cannabis does not fit into any of the current schedules so its an outsider...

 

the first solution that comes to mind is to remove cannabis from scheduling altogether (which won't happen)

or perhaps to create another subsection or schedule for it to exist within...

 

so i just don't currently in today's enviroment see a way to change the schedule of cannabis and have it help us...

 

truth be told i have not spent much time thinking about or researching this option but i delved into the possibilities a couple years ago and i remember finding insurmountable obstacles to this option so im just saying...

[Restorium2]

Fairfax, Virginia (CNN)Bernie Sanders, one might say, is feeling the burn.

The Vermont senator on Wednesday announced his support for reforms that would allow states to legalize marijuana.

He stopped short of calling for nationwide legalization, instead saying the federal government should remove the marijuana from its list of dangerous drugs. Marijuana is classified along with heroin and ecstasy as substances with "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

"In the year 2015, it is time for the federal government to allow states to go forward as they best choose," Sanders said at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, adding that the U.S. should "remove the federal prohibition on marijuana."

He was quick to note, however, that he was "not here advocating that states do it."

Sanders' proposal would not only legitimize use in the states that have legalized marijuana but would also solve a major dilemma for owners of marijuana businesses. Those companies, from retailers to growers, largely operate entirely using cash, unable to accept credit cards, deposit their proceeds in banks and issue paychecks because under federal law their business is illegal.

"That means that recognized businesses in states that legalized marijuana should be fully able to use the banking system without fear of federal retribution," he said.

His remarks were greeted with cheers and applause. His campaign said the town hall-style meeting was also streamed to college campuses around the country.

Sanders has previously voiced support for decriminalizing marijuana, or removing the stiff penalties that come with possessing a small amount of the drug.

A key reason, as he explained Wednesday, is "there is a racial component" to enforcement of marijuana laws, with far more black people than white people arrested for marijuana possession.

At the CNN presidential debate in Las Vegas earlier this month Sanders said it is time to "think through this war on drugs" and hinted he was open to states taking the next step, legalization.

Asked how he would vote on a Nevada ballot question that would legalize recreational use, Sanders said, "I would vote yes because I am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for non-violent offenses."

Hillary Clinton said at the debate she was not ready to answer the same question, and wants to study the handful of states, like Colorado, that have already enacted legalization.

[bobandtorey]

uhm?

what?

400% nope that sure sounds a lot like misguided propaganda and not so much accurate truth.

 

just one recent article shows arrest rates are up which is ridiculous...but not even close to 400%

 

not to mention the majority of people arrested and convicted are still minorities and not specifically card holders.

 

According to marijuana seizure statistics from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, marijuana arrests in Michigan increased 371 percent from 2003 to 2011. The DEA doesn’t track how many of those arrests — 140 in 2003 and 659 in 2011 — were related to medical marijuana operations. The Michigan State Police also do not maintain that information.

 

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/05/27/Legal-questions-cloud-medical-marijuana-use-Copy.html#FCmo39bEYYYOyVBu.99

[trichcycler]

thanks for posting bob!


maybe stats are a lie

[+Malamute]

Those are DEA statistics. Federal arrests.

 

Total arrests State +Federal is nowhere near that highof an increase. Deception by statistics.

 

Like i said,... Timmah is almost correct, but never quite.

[+Malamute]

Marijuana possession arrests accounted for 84% of all marijuana arrests in Michigan during 2007.

(Nationally, marijuana possession arrests account for 89% of all marijuana arrests.) There were 16,512

arrests for marijuana possession in Michigan in 2007, and 3,179 arrests for marijuana sales. The arrest

rate for marijuana possession in Michigan was 164 per 100,000 for 2007, while the arrest rate for

marijuana sales was 32. Marijuana arrests also accounted for 56% of all drug arrests in Michigan during

2007.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi2qbCW36TKAhUM6SYKHXOLDJUQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drugscience.org%2FStates%2FMI%2FMI.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFbvFJq-PbRl37t_-w5db_KcZdfTw&sig2=zpUOXliK8ntcAkC0LkrOwg

 

 

Also:

 

http://norml.org/data/item/michigan-marijuana-arrests

 

And a million other sources out there.  As I said. Timmah is always just off or doesn't understand wth he reads or something.

[+Malamute]

I am not even going to go through how Off center Timmah is on all the other statements he made as well.  Just accept that they are mostly incorrect with a splattering of correctness to make it almost believable to those who do not know better.

[Greg Rx]

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.

You are daydreaming. I hope you are right but, not a chance.

[medmanmike]

B.S. wont bring a suit. Neither will any other AG.  The 9th and 10th Amendments and the Mi Div1, Sec1 Amendments are very clear.

 

This is what I have been saying on this website since I first logged in around the end of 2010, or beginning of 2011.  The Federal Gov, nor the State Gov, Ever had Constitutional Authority to prohibit cannabis, or alcohol, or any other darn plant or substance.  

 

............. what the Federal Government does not have the Authority to do.     That is the 10th Amendment.

 

Now, per Amendments 1-9, which do not mention the Governments Authority to ban anything mind you, The Governments included Federal, State, and Local Governments.

 

Ok, this is probably very naive, but if what you are saying is true/accurate, then why hasn't any one - and individual, the ACLU, a State - challenged this in court before now?  

[trichcycler]

[Norby]

Vas is das?  Could you better explain the culture thing?  You realize I can swab my clothes right out of the washer and get mold to culture?  If you can not see mold by visual inspection then why would it be a problem?  Anything you smoke has mold spores on it, most things you eat, the air you breathe, etc.  I don't think you can swab actual growing mycelium to culture from my understanding but mold spores that will start a culture when you swab anything unsterilized. You can break off part of a growing mycelium culture and transfer it but if the bud is dried to less than 10% you shouldn't have any actively growing cultures anyway.  Although if there is mycelium that is dried it still contains mycotoxins and would be bad to use in my opinion.  If it is how you state it that test alone could disqualify anything being sold thru a store, which would be concerning and even more concerning is that it woulldn't even catch the mycotoxins present if you forego a visual inspectiong and swab something that is sterilized but still has all the toxins.  Could irradiated moldy buds pass while quality buds with everpresent spores found on it fail?    Don't want to hijack this sideways so start another thread if need be.

 

And Resto I saw that a while back but decided to bow out of the thread till now.  This worries me, the other stuff was just doing the same back to you as you were to Milegalize.  If you knew anything about Milegalize without just downing it outright you would've seen that and not needed to argue.  That's what this is about, digging into both of them and seeing what's up.  I still think both deserve everyone's backing.  Flaws and all.

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.
 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Norby

[mp4c]

Patrick Groulx attempted that approach using an 'Indirect Legislative Amendment' earlier in 2015.  He had issues with the BoC. As you well noted, everything you posted would need to be changed... With Abrogate Prohibition Michigan, they would be 'Erased'.

 

Patrick said his Indirect legislative initiative would have to be about 30 inches long to list and strike all that would be removed.

 

Which is why I explained to him why a Constitutional Amendment is the only redress to solve this issue, instead of kicking the can down the road, right upon the Backs of our Children as it was dumped upon ours just 40 yrs ago...... 

 

If you believe Government has that type of 'Authority' over you, then you may be enslaved by Tyrants.

 

 

The reason I got this proposal out of the BoC with a 5 minute Unanimous Decision is because it was correct in form and Format...... and therefore 'Legally Viable' as the Board of Canvassers Attorney fully informed the BoC Staff member that asked if it was even Constitutional. Which it is.

 

It doesn't really erase them, Section 1 of your language overrides them, as long as use is in accordance with the amendment. Unfortunately, I believe section 2 is amending by reference, and will have no effect.

 

I am very concerned if a child uses or possesses marijuana without parental consent, that they could potentially be charged with a felony. MILegalize also didn't repeal, so we are facing some of the same potential issues once enacted.

 

I'm happy to sign Abrogate's petition as soon as it is in front of me, Tim. I think you all got about as close as you could within the constraints of the initiative process. Best of luck to you and the team.

[beourbud]

Abrogate is like MiLegalize without the greed.

 

Your choice! More legislative shenanigans or Free the Weed.

Edited January 14, 2016 by beourbud

[Timmahh]

 

B.S. wont bring a suit. Neither will any other AG.  The 9th and 10th Amendments and the Mi Div1, Sec1 Amendments are very clear.

 

This is what I have been saying on this website since I first logged in around the end of 2010, or beginning of 2011.  The Federal Gov, nor the State Gov, Ever had Constitutional Authority to prohibit cannabis, or alcohol, or any other darn plant or substance.  

 

............. what the Federal Government does not have the Authority to do.     That is the 10th Amendment.

 

Now, per Amendments 1-9, which do not mention the Governments Authority to ban anything mind you, The Governments included Federal, State, and Local Governments.

 

Ok, this is probably very naive, but if what you are saying is true/accurate, then why hasn't any one - and individual, the ACLU, a State - challenged this in court before now?  

 

That is one of the Million Dollar Questions now isn't it.

[Timmahh]

Amending the Constitution is not passing legislative law.  All Government is authorized Under the Constitution.  Once we amend it, then all government formed under it, aka from Lansing D.C. to the local dog catcher, then must conform to the Amendment...

The state is left with only 2 options to challenge.  Legal via court challenges, which should be expected by any group presenting a cannabis change, or in regards to the Constitution, present new language by referendum, which needs 5% of the signatures in 90 days to put it on the next vote, or to write up a new constitutional amendment to negate the Abrogate Amendment, and beg we the people to pass it, after passing the Abrogate Amendment.


Its ironic, but in the last 14 days, we have gotten overwhelming support from those not in the medical community, while many in the medical side still hold to the concept it wont be allowed by the state, even after getting out of the BoC in just over 5 minutes for Approval, pretty much by my self.   Now you can say I am scratching my own back here, but again, fact does not change the fact that the bus is at the starting line.  So do you want to go party? 
Or are we going to stand around trying to see who can tinkle the most mud off from the mudflaps? lmao

The fact remains the the numbers I have been using have been cited by many in the media long before I referenced them...

Edited January 21, 2016 by Timmahh