Jump to content

Livingston County Commissioners Subcommittee Votes Down Anti-Recreational Marijuana Resolution

Recommended Posts



Subcommittee Votes Down Anti-Recreational Marijuana Resolution

June 12, 2018

A proposed resolution opposing the recreational use of marijuana has
failed to pass a Livingston County subcommittee, following a tie vote.

The county’s General Government and Health & Human Services Committee
met Monday and discussed the proposed resolution, which asked the
Board of Commissioners to show their opposition to the legalization of
marijuana for general use, as well as encourage others to oppose the
issue through similar resolutions.

Committee members Bob Bezotte and William Green voted in support of
the resolution, as Bezotte stated residents looked to their officials
to take the lead on these types of matters. Dennis Dolan and Gary
Childs voted against the resolution, saying the issue will ultimately
be up to citizens in November’s election when they vote on a ballot
proposal that would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5
ounces of marijuana for personal use. As the committee’s vote was a
tie, the resolution failed and will not move forward as it stands.

Dave Domas, who represents the county’s 3rd district on the Board of
Commissioners, approached the committee during the meeting’s second
call to the public with some heated words. Domas told committee
members, "Anybody that votes against this issue doesn’t belong on this
board. Not now, not ever." The resolution previously came before the
county’s Board of Commissioners and Domas says it was then that he saw
many community members expressing opposition to the legalization of
marijuana, including several youth. He says the kids in attendance
were "victims of recreational marijuana and they didn’t want to share
that bad experience with anyone else", so they asked county officials
"to listen to them and act on their behalf.”

Childs defended his decision to vote against the resolution, again
staing he believes it’s up to Michigan’s residents to decide. He feels
the county has more important things to deal with, specifically naming
the opioid crisis. Childs also responded to Domas’ confronting the
committee, saying some of his information related to the ballot
proposal and potential law was "erroneous".

Domas later told WHMI he “…expected this sort of performance from the
board, based on the way they handled this resolution two weeks ago”,
claiming the committee refused to let it be presented.

Domas says he’s working on presentations he’d like to share with local
units of government that would “present the side of recreational
marijuana that people don’t understand”. He also says the community
shouldn’t be surprised to see a similar resolution make its way to the
Board of Commissioners, adding, “If it dies, a lot of stuff dies with
it, and we’re not gonna let that happen.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

He says the kids in attendance were "victims of recreational marijuana and they didn’t want to share that bad experience with anyone else", so they asked county officials "to listen to them and act on their behalf.”

This was said with a straight face? If I had heard that live, I would have lost my decorum and burst out in laughter.

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By FlowerPower99
      Executive Order 2020-01 Executive Order 2020-04 (COVID-19) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-05 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-06 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-07 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-08 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-09 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-10 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-11 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-12 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-13 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-14 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-15 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-16 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-17 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-18 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-19 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-20 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-21 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-22 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-23 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-24 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-25 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-26 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-27 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-28 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-29 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-30 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-31 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-32 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-33 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-34 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-35 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-36 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-37 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-38 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-39 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-40 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-41 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-42 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-43 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-44 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-45 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-46 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-47 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-48 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-49 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-50 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-51 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-52 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-53 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-54 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-55 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-56 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-57 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-58 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-59 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-60 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-61 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-62 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-63 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-64 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-65 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-66 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-67 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-68 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-69 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-70 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-71 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-72 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-73 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-74 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-75 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-76 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-77 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-78 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-79 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-80 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-81 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-82 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-83 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-84 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-85 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-86 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-87 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-88 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-89 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-90 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-91 (COVID-19) (May 18, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-92 (COVID-19) (May 18, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-93 (COVID-19) (May 20, 2020) Executive Order 2020-94 (May 19, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-95 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-96 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-97 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-98 (May 22, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-99 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-100 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-101 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-102 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-103 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-104 (COVID-19) (May 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-105 (May 26, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-106 (COVID-19) (May 28, 2020) Executive Order 2020-107 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-108 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-109 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-110 (COVID-19) (June 1, 2020) Executive Order 2020-111 (COVID-19) (June 1, 2020) Executive Order 2020-112 (COVID-19) (June 3, 2020) Executive Order 2020-113 (COVID-19) (June 4, 2020) Executive Order 2020-114 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-115 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-116 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-117 (COVID-19) (June 9, 2020) Executive Order 2020-118 (COVID-19) (June 11, 2020) Executive Order 2020-119 (COVID-19) (June 11, 2020) Executive Order 2020-120 (COVID-19) (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-121 (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-122 (COVID-19) (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-123 (COVID-19) (June 15, 2020) Executive Order 2020-124 (COVID-19) (June 16, 2020) Executive Order 2020-125 (COVID-19) (June 17, 2020) Executive Order 2020-126 (COVID-19) (June 17, 2020) Executive Order 2020-127 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-128 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) Executive Order 2020-129 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) Executive Order 2020-130 (June 19, 2020) Executive Order 2020-131 (COVID-19) (June 24, 2020) Executive Order 2020-132 (COVID-19) (June 25, 2020) Executive Order 2020-133 (COVID-19) (June 25, 2020) Executive Order 2020-134 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-135 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-136 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-137 (COVID-19) (June 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-138 (COVID-19) (June 29, 2019) Executive Order 2020-139 (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-140 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-141 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-142 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-143 (COVID-19) (July 1, 2020)  
    • By MR49009
      research completed
    • By Michael Komorn
      Truth Squad: Counting the flips by Michigan AG candidate Pat Miles
         March 27, 2018  Ted Roelofs  Michigan Truth Squad
      In an increasingly caustic race for Michigan attorney general, former U.S. attorney Pat Miles has come under concerted attack ‒ not only from his Democratic primary opponent, but in a series of articles in the Michigan Progressive, a progressive media site.
      Miles, who has tilted centrist in the past, is opposed by Dana Nessel, a progressive and the lead attorney in the federal court case that ended up overturning Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. (Nessel famously unleashed a campaign ad last year touting herself in this #MeToo era as “the candidate who doesn’t have a penis.”)
      The drumbeat of Michigan Progressive attacks on Miles carries a common theme: that the Harvard Law-educated attorney has cynically discarded his moderate past to better compete with Nessel on the party’s left flank.  
      Michigan Progressive contends Miles is setting “a record for flip-flopping” on issues from gay marriage to civil forfeiture, and lists a series of position changes by Miles.
      We find the Michigan Progressive attacks mostly accurate, even though the publication overreaches a bit.   
      The claims
      Among the position changes cited:  
      Medical marijuana: “Miles refused to say how he voted on the Medical Marijuana Act, which Michigan voters approved in 2008…Now he claims to have voted for medical marijuana in 2008.”  
      Marijuana legalization: “Miles had stated for months that he would not take a position on legalization, but follow ‘the will of the voters’ at the ballot box. Two days after a poll was released showing legalization at 61 percent support, Miles reversed his position to be in support of legalization.”
      LGBTQ rights: “When Miles ran for Congress against (Republican) Justin Amash in 2010, he opposed same sex-marriage. He also denied a speaking opportunity to an LGBTQ activist as Chairman of the Aquinas College Board, and has troubling anti-LGBTQ ties. Now, he calls himself an ‘ally’ of the LGBTQ community.”
      Capital punishment: “Miles said he supported the death penalty in his 2010 congressional run. Now he says he is opposed to it.”
      Civil asset forfeiture: “Flip-flopped during the Michigan Radio interview! That's got to be a record.”
      The facts
      In a September interview on “Off the Record,” a Lansing political talk show, host Tim Skubick asks Miles more than once if he voted for the state ballot measure passed in 2008 to legalize medical marijuana, including this exchange:
      Skubick: “Did you vote yes on it?”
      Miles: “I’m not going to talk about my personal vote on that issue.”
      Then earlier this month, on March 7, in a Facebook post, Miles said he “voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2008.”
      In that same interview last September, Miles is asked if he backs a 2018 ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana. Miles said then: “It’s up to the voters to decide…I will never use my personal beliefs to undercut what the people decide.”
      On March 5, Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA released a poll that found 61 percent of Michigan voters would vote yes on the ballot proposal. Two days later, again on Facebook, Miles wrote, “I've reviewed the language of the ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, and find it to be very thoughtful and well-written, and I support it.”
      On gay marriage, Miles was against it before he was for it. In a 2010 candidate survey in his run for Congress, Miles agreed that marriage should “only be between one man and one woman.”
      Before that, in 2008, Miles had backed the decision by Aquinas College to cancel a talkby John Corvino, a gay-rights Wayne State University philosophy professor who intended to deliver a lecture entitled "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?"
      Miles, the college’s board chairman at the time, said then: “The president is authorized to make those types of decisions regarding on-campus programming and speakers, and his decision was consistent with college and board policy.”
      Fast forward to this January, when Miles told Pride Source, a gay rights publication, that his views on gay marriage “evolved” to “where I believe in full equality under the law for everyone and that includes the right of same-sex couples to get married.”
      Michigan Progressive also suggested Miles belongs to a church that espouses anti-gay views. The publication shared a 2014 message from Rick Lippert, one-time pastor at Grand Rapids Christian Church, that reads in part: “I do not support homosexuality or ‘homosexual marriage.’”
      But according to Lippert’s LinkedIn account, he had left the church a year earlier, in 2013. Jen Eyer, Miles’s campaign spokesperson, said “anti-LGBT rhetoric has never been and is not currently preached at Grand Rapids Christian Church.”
      On the death penalty, Miles said during his 2010 congressional race that he supported capital punishment for “certain crimes.”
      That sounds similar to his stand in the “Off the Record” interview: “I do believe the death penalty can be appropriate in two very limited circumstances, for mass murders or serial murders where the evidence is absolutely clear that they (crimes) were committed.”
      But at a January 13 meeting with 6th Congressional District voters, Miles apparently again evolved, saying: “I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I am very proud that Michigan was one of the first democracies, Western democracies, to outlaw the death penalty in the world.”
      Finally, on civil forfeiture, Miles seemed to reverse his position at a March 16 appearance with Nessel on Michigan Radio. The practice, in which law enforcement agencies seize assets of individuals before they are convicted of a crime, has had its critics on the left and the right. A state House bill introduced last year would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize assets under $50,000.
      In the Michigan Radio appearance, Miles first states: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate,” he said, including forfeiture “before conviction.”
      Later in the interview, Miles says to interviewer Lester Graham: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better sound-bite for you.”
      He then adds: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.”
      Graham states: “That’s a little different from what you were saying before."
      Miles agrees: “It is.”
      The call: Mostly accurate.
      By and large, Michigan Progressive’s assertion that Miles frequently changes his positions holds up.
      Miles declined to say where he stood on legalizing medical marijuana and legalizing recreational marijuana use. Then he came out in support of both. If not a flip-flop, he took fuzzy stands on both before making it clear (in one case, on the heels of decisive polling) where he stood.
      He opposed gay marriage. He later said he supported it.
      He appears to have expressed different stands on the death penalty in this campaign after supporting it for some crimes in the past.
      On civil forfeiture, Miles changed his stand in the course of a single interview.
      The suggestion that Miles attended a church whose pastor espoused anti-gay views is not supported. And even if it was true, it’s a stretch to impart views from the pulpit to every congregant.
      Hitting back, a Miles campaign spokesperson noted that Liano Sharon, a Michigan Progressive contributor, is Nessel’s cousin. Indeed, Sharon (who acknowledged they are related) shares Nessel’s campaign posts on his Facebook page.
      Readers of Michigan Progressive can decide for themselves whether it matters that a key contributor to the publication is Nessel’s second cousin. (Sam Pernick, another Michigan Progressive, said he is the primary author of its articles on Miles.)
      Truth Squad is less concerned about the publication’s editorial standards than whether the arrows it directed at Miles had merit. In most instances, they did.
    • By Michael Komorn
      Great Show last night- we had the world renowned leading specialist in the human cannabinoid system Dr. William Courtney. If you want to learn about the health benefits of Raw Juicing the cannabis plant, this is the show you want to listen to. (Dr. Courtney and the Medical Cannabis Communities favorite Legislature Representative Callton will be speaking tonight Friday 10 12 12 at the Genesys Conference and Banquet Center, 801 Health Park Boulevard, Grand Blanc township, MI 48439). Also calling in was Stephanie Sherer, the executive director of ASA. A longtime activist in the medical cannabis community, she provided many details to the upcoming challenge filed by ASA against the Federal Governments schedule 1 classification of marijuana. A special thanks to our in studio staff and other callers who participated in this informative and exciting show: Jamie Lowell, Peanut Butter, Greg Palowski, Pernell, Q tipper, Rick Thompson, Chad Carr, Kevin Spitler, Charme Gholson. Planet Green Trees is sponsored by” the Michigan Medical Marihuana Association-.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org and Komorn Law-18006563557. The archive to this episode can be found here: http://www.blogtalkr...am-l-courtney-s
      Michael A. Komorn
      Attorney and Counselor
      Email: michael@komornlaw.com
      Website: www.komornlaw.com
      Check out our Radio show:
      CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626
      Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.
      w/ Attorney Michael Komorn
      The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.
    • By trix
      Michigan bills would allow medical marijuana dispensaries, edibles that courts prohibitedhttp://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/michigan_bills_would_allow_med.html
      LANSING, MI -- Michigan's medical marijuana law would be updated to allow for dispensaries and edible products under legislation debated Thursday in a state House committee.
      Legal experts who testified in support of the bills said they are appropriate responses to recent court decisions that limited the voter-approved law, and patients argued that they need easier access to various forms of the drug.
      Still, the proposals face an uncertain future in the state Legislature, which has generally moved to tighten medical marijuana regulations since the successful 2008 ballot proposal.
      House Bill 4271, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville, would let communities decide whether they want to allow dispensaries. Medical marijuana storefronts had operated in Michigan until a February ruling by the state Supreme Court forced them to close.
      "Local control will allow cities, townships and villages to regulate the level they feel most comfortable with," Callton said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. "And for those communities who feel it is inappropriate, it allows them to opt out all together."
      Under Callton's bill, municipalities also could require dispensaries to test their medical marijuana for quality, purity and contaminants -- or contract with a "safety compliance facility" to do so. Patients would be prohibited from using the drug on premises.
      The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not specifically reference dispensaries, providing the basis for the state Supreme Court ruling, but patients who had obtained their medications from such facilities said they made it easier to obtain safe products in forms that suited their needs.
      John Targowski, a Kalamazoo-area attorney who helped write the city's charter amendment that made marijuana the lowest possible priority for local police, has been a wheelchair user since suffering a spinal cord injury in 1999. He testified that he uses medical marijuana to treat pain and post-traumatic stress disorder.
      Dispensaries, he said, had offered him access to a variety of marijuana oils and edibles that he was able to use in a professional environment.
      "I go to court. I meet clients. And sometimes, particularly if it's in the day, if I need medicine I don't want to be knocked out and high," Targowski said. "The ability to pick and choose and experiment within the types of strains and products gives greater leeway to people like me who go to work everyday in a suit."
      Ann Arbor City Attorney Steven Postema, who helped write that city's medical marijuana ordinances, testified in support of the dispensary bill as a means to improve the state law, which he called the "worst" in the country. He challenged lawmakers to "do the right thing" rather than deferring to the Supreme Court decision.
      "It's a second step to the Medical Marihuana Act," he said. "It's not legalization. It's not forcing a community to have a dispensary, but it will be that next step to take dispensaries out of the legal limbo they are in now."
      House Bill 5104, sponsored by state Rep. Eileen Kowall, would update the medical marijuana law to clarify that multiple parts of the plant -- including dried leaves, resin and extracts -- can be eaten or otherwise used by patients.
      The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a July decision, ruled that "pot brownies" are not a usable form of marijuana under the medical law, essentially prohibiting non-smokable forms of the drug, including topical creams, drops and edibles. An appeal request has been filed with the Michigan Supreme Court.
      "Smoking obviously delivers harmful substances to the respiratory system," said Kowall. "The community of marijuana patients and caregivers in Michigan desperately needs alternative delivery methods."
      Rebecca Brown, founder of the Pediatric Cannabis Therapy Group, testified that edible marijuana is the most effective treatment method she's found for her son, who suffers from a rare disorder that causes frequent seizures.
      "This is a deadly disease. It's a genetic mutation. He'll never outgrow it," said Brown, noting that her son once suffered a seizure that lasted 40 minutes but is doing well on medical marijuana. "I am asking you, please, don't let parents live that, please."
      Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township, also testified in support of his proposal that would allow the state to regulate large-scale growing facilities and sell medical marijuana through pharmacies in the event the federal government reclassifies the drug.
      Senate Bill 660, approved in the upper chamber last month, would not replace the state's caregiver-patient model, Kahn said, but would provide patients with the option to access carefully tested and consistently dosed medicine.
      Former state House Speaker Chuck Perricone, now working for Prairie Plant Systems Inc. of Canada, helped write the bill and answered questions from lawmakers on Thursday.
      The bio-pharmaceutical company has been Canada's primary medical marijuana provider for more than a decade and already owns a facility in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
      Committee Chairman Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, took roughly an hour and a half of testimony on the bills before ending the hearing to allow members to attend a scheduled House session.
      A second hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning in Lansing.
  • Create New...