Decriminalization, Who Needs A Caregiver?

[trichcycler]

with decrim in local cities does this mean a grower can now transfer to a non carded person legally in that city on private property to folks over 21?

[Restorium2]

SAGINAW, MI — Voters in the city of Saginaw Tuesday, Nov. 5, showed overwhelming support for a proposal that seeks to decriminalize marijuana in the community.

Though two city precincts had not yet reported vote totals as of 1 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 5, election workers already had tallied 5,237 "yes" votes on the city's Proposal 2, compared to 3,081 "no" votes. By 2 a.m., all precincts were in. The tally was 6,959 in favor to 4,717 opposed, for support of about 60 percent.

Cary Justice, who led the campaign to get the proposal on city ballots, said she was encouraged but not surprised by the results.

"It reiterates kind of what we've known all along," Justice said. "The city of Saginaw's voters have spoke now, and this is what they want."

The proposal adds a new section to Saginaw's city charter that bans city leaders from passing any ordinances that restrict the use, possession or transport of small amounts of marijuana on private property by those 21 or older.

"I would hope that law enforcement takes direction from that and moves on to crimes other than possession of small amounts of marijuana," Justice said.

What exactly the passage of the proposal will mean for residents and visitors to Saginaw is still a uncertain.

Since possession and use of marijuana remains illegal under both state and federal law, many have called into question exactly what Saginaw's proposal sought to achieve.

Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel said, with passage of the proposal, deputies will stop citing people with minor marijuana violations in accordance with the proposal language.

But interim Saginaw Police Chief Robert Ruth and Saginaw County Prosecutor John McColgan Jr. are taking a different stand.

McColgan said he would continue filing marijuana-related charges under state law, regardless of the results of the city ballot proposal. Ruth said he did not see the proposal changing how city officers do their jobs, though he said he would reevaluate the situation again after Election Day based on the results of the decriminalization effort.

A 'wall of wins'

One thing supporters say the proposal will accomplish is that it will move Michigan that much closer to potentially legalizing the drug someday down the road.

"It is just another referendum by the voters," Justice said.

Pointing to support of Michigan's statewide medicinal marijuana proposal and the series of local ballot issues that have passed, Justice called the legalization of marijuana in Michigan "a given."

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/11/marijuana_decriminalization_is.html

[Restorium2]

with decrim in local cities does this mean a grower can now transfer to a non carded person legally in that city on private property to folks over 21?

The key right with medical is legal growing. We are the only ones who get to grow MARIHUANA.... bwa ha ha.

[t-pain]

with decrim in local cities does this mean a grower can now transfer to a non carded person legally in that city on private property to folks over 21?

since MMMA takes precedence over all other laws, if you were a registered caregiver and you sold to a non-patient, you would be violating sec4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

now if you werent a current cardholder, then the MMMA wouldnt apply.

so you could probably call lara to cancel your card and then sell away. but its still illegal under county, state and federal laws to do so.

[Restorium2]

since MMMA takes precedence over all other laws, if you were a registered caregiver and you sold to a non-patient, you would be violating sec4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

now if you werent a current cardholder, then the MMMA wouldnt apply.

so you could probably call lara to cancel your card and then sell away. but its still illegal under county, state and federal laws to do so.

The non patient will have less pressure on them to tell where they got their 'small amount of marijuana'. 

[Norby]

If it was local cops they couldn't ask unless following state county or fed law.  Everything to accomplish said transaction shouldn't even be looked at by local LEO if following the will of the people.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Norby

[trichcycler]

since MMMA takes precedence over all other laws, if you were a registered caregiver and you sold to a non-patient, you would be violating sec4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

now if you werent a current cardholder, then the MMMA wouldnt apply.

so you could probably call lara to cancel your card and then sell away. but its still illegal under county, state and federal laws to do so.

sure, yep. now, growing my own 12, as a patient, not a caregiver..........hmmmmm?

[trichcycler]

and during the transfer on private property an officer of the law would have no way of knowing one was a registered caregiver unless one told him then, or prior. big balled growers with budtrader, craigslist positioning will make rock stars in the industry.

[trichcycler]

If it was local cops they couldn't ask unless following state county or fed law.  Everything to accomplish said transaction shouldn't even be looked at by local LEO if following the will of the people.

?

has it been decim'd in your area? how is that working out concerning the above scenarios?

[Norby]

I have no clue, I know no one here.  Just speculating as always.

[trichcycler]

do you know if its decrim'd in your area?
port huron did, although not my neighborhood, not too far either.


Port Huron votes to decriminalize pot



Beth LeBlanc, Times Herald 7:27 a.m. EST November 5, 2014

A proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession in the city of Port Huron passed Tuesday, with 3,383 votes yes to 3,192 votes no.

"I'm very happy and I'm optimistic about how all this is going to work," said Laura Rigby, the Port Huron woman who helped collect signatures for a petition to get the pot proposal on the ballot.

"I'm interested to see how all this is going to shake down in the end."

Voters were asked to approve an amendment to the city charter that prohibits anything in the code of ordinances from applying to people 21 years of age and older who use, possess, or transfer one ounce of marijuana on private property.

Port Huron Mayor Pauline Repp was uncertain what effect the amendment would have on the city.

"From my understanding, unless the state law changes, there's not any way that the city can enforce it anyway," Repp said.

"If it were to pass, it would show what the majority of the people wanted it, but it doesn't mean that the law would change in Port Huron."

Port Huron officials have said the city amendment would fail to address federal and state law, which outlaws recreational marijuana use.

Rigby said she felt strongly that the issue was something that needed to be decided by the community.

"If you watch nationwide, you can see that this is a movement that has grown and everybody is kind of done with marijuana being a bad thing," Rigby said.

"A lot of the myths about cannabis are being destroyed."

Rigby wondered if the issue was a motivation for people to get to the polling stations.

"I'd like to see how many more people turned out than the last election," Rigby said. "Did this question actually make a difference in turnout?"

Tina Monzo said she voted in favor of the proposal after discussing the issue with her husband.

"I feel people should have their own choice," the 42-year-old Port Huron woman said.

Steve Steinhaus voted against the amendment.

"I feel for the people who have cancer and use it, but I'm against just anybody walking around with marijuana," the 63-year-old Port Huron man said.

 

this is perplexing. does she mean there is no way to enforce against users, or no way to enforce the new amendment? either way, sounds like there will be no enforcement now?(glass half full)

[t-pain]

sure, yep. now, growing my own 12, as a patient, not a caregiver..........hmmmmm?

erm , the sec4k that i quoted applies to both registered patients and registered caregivers.

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

[Norby]

Wait, so patient to patient SHOULD be legal in these places?  It only says if you sell to someone not able to use MEDICAL.

[t-pain]

er i completely misread your question.

 

no, the MMMA says this law is inconsistent with the act and does not apply. therefor nothing about patient to patient transfers has changed. they could still get you on state charges.

Edited November 5, 2014 by t-pain

[Wild Bill]

Local ordinances don't make any difference. The police still enforce the state law not the local ones.

[trichcycler]

who exactly IS allowed to possess, use, and transfer to another person on private property then?

[Wild Bill]

who exactly IS allowed to possess, use, and transfer to another person on private property then?

 

Caregivers and patients can possess, within legal limits.

Patients can use for medical reasons.

Caregivers can transfer to patients connected to them by the registry.

 

Nothing's changed, the vote is symbolic. If every city and township in the state decriminalized they could still enforce the state law.

[Norby]

To a point. Jackson's sheriff? said he would stand by the will of the people and not arrest anyone over 21 for selling or possessing an oucs or less.  Sure, state cops are still there but it does make a difference where the cops actually look the people in the eye who they've sworn to protect, from all threats, foreign and domestic( I know I spliced 2 things together) . .

[Habenero]

er i completely misread your question.

 

no, the MMMA says this law is inconsistent with the act and does not apply. therefor nothing about patient to patient transfers has changed. they could still get you on state charges.

 

 

Local ordinances don't make any difference. The police still enforce the state law not the local ones.

Tpain the MMA and CSA are both state laws.  So they can get you on state charges whether you're a MMA pt or cg or not.  Transfer to a non pt and you aren't protected by the MMA but you aren't protected by local ordinance either.  The local ordinance doesn't come into play.

 

Legalizing it in cities is just the city taking it off their own books as a local criminal ordinance.  The city can set police priorities but that's it.  State law requires that cops enforce state law or they'll lose their state certification.  Cops have some degree of discretion and so does the local prosecutor but the thing to keep in mind is that it's still illegal under state law in the city. So I wouldn't be surprised to see selective enforcement similar to the feds charging people in med mj states.

 

70.14 Police officers; powers, duties, and authority.

 

Sec. 14.

The council shall adopt rules for the government of the police, prescribe the powers and duties of police officers and other personnel, and invest them with authority necessary for the preservation of quiet and good order in the village. The police shall suppress riots, disturbances, and breaches of the peace; arrest any person fleeing from justice; apprehend upon view any person found violating a state law or village ordinance in a manner involving a breach of the peace and, unless the violation constitutes a civil infraction, take the offender before the proper magistrate or officer, to be punished; make complaints before the proper magistrate of any person known or believed by the police to have violated a state law or village ordinance; serve process that may be delivered to the police for that purpose; and generally perform duties required by the council for the good government of the village.

History: Add. 1998, Act 254, Imd. Eff. July 13, 1998

[Habenero]

To a point. Jackson's sheriff? said he would stand by the will of the people and not arrest anyone over 21 for selling or possessing an oucs or less.  Sure, state cops are still there but it does make a difference where the cops actually look the people in the eye who they've sworn to protect, from all threats, foreign and domestic( I know I spliced 2 things together) . .

State cops and regional drug task forces could both get you.

 

Local cops are sworn to protect and the oath also includes upholding state law. Ever get stopped by a cop in your own city and have them feel bad for you because you live there? No. They're adrenaline junkies looking to up their arrest count to chase that next promotion.

[Norby]

Read it again.  I said state cops are there.  Yes I said they could uphold state law but the ones that can look you in the eye, meaning the ones who will listen to the sheriff, won't arrest ANYONE for transferring or possessing on private property.  You just said the same thing I did.   The sheriff? of Jackson instructed his police force to not arrest anyone over 21 with an ounce or less.  That's why I said to a point.  To a point it DOES have an effect, if the sheriff or local tells their force NOT to arrest.  Just a little effect but still an effect in that area because of that law.

[Habenero]

Read it again.  I said state cops are there.  Yes I said they could uphold state law but the ones that can look you in the eye, meaning the ones who will listen to the sheriff, won't arrest ANYONE for transferring or possessing on private property.  You just said the same thing I did.   The sheriff? of Jackson instructed his police force to not arrest anyone over 21 with an ounce or less.  That's why I said to a point.  To a point it DOES have an effect, if the sheriff or local tells their force NOT to arrest.  Just a little effect but still an effect in that area because of that law.

I know you said state cops are there. That's why I said "State cops and regional drug task forces could both get you."

 

The sheriff isn't relevant because it's just in the city of Port Huron not the whole county there. What matters is the police chief there. The chief is appointed by the mayor and the mayor said

 

Port Huron Mayor Pauline Repp was uncertain what effect the amendment would have on the city.

"From my understanding, unless the state law changes, there's not any way that the city can enforce it anyway," Repp said.

"If it were to pass, it would show what the majority of the people wanted it, but it doesn't mean that the law would change in Port Huron."

 

She doesn't sound too on board with the whole thing. What ya wanna bet it will be selective enforcement? Cop pulls you over and doesn't like you or hasn't been laid lately then maybe he charges you.  If he charges you with something else then maybe he adds the possession along for the ride. Cops are a holes and it just gives them more power over you.

[Norby]

Jackson.  Not port huron.  Jackson was the last election.  and you're right police chief, I get confused on jurisdictions, there's too many to remember.

 

Jackson is the only police chief I've heard make a statement like that out of all of them.  The rest said they'd enforce state law.  And yes the dea and drug task forces, and whatever other ones they coordinate with(marshalss, border patrol, etc.)  Holy crap there's a lot and they all go after mj, no wonder.  Funny thing is the rise in use.  LOL  Oh so insane you have to be able to laugh.

 

No wait, the mayor of Montrose was talking about how they are adults and don't like the feds/state telling them what to do?  Maybe it was about dispensaries and not legalization.  Would have to find the article where I saw it.

 

Oh and Flint.  I heard it's hard to get the cops to show up if there is someone in your backyard with a gun so...  But they may still use it against people.  I've heard that the cops remarked they have better things to do than go after mj shops/dispensaries and genesee co. has to be one of the 2 best spots in the state for leniency.  I've heard of people let off with expired cards and just told to renew when you can and no charges amongst other stories.  Guess i do know people even if they're just from the grow shops.  Forgot about that.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Norby

[Habenero]

Norby you are a complete fool and an idiot.

 

 

Haha, gotcha!  No, but seriously, I feel like the idiot.  I thought you were referring to GM's post about Port Huron and comparing it to Jackson but I guess you were referring to Jackson only.  My bad.

 

I agree with you.  If the top cops in the local area say they'll be hands off I'd be a bit more comfortable.  Probably would have no issue in Jackson but wouldn't wanna chance it in Port Huron.

[Norby]

I agree.  And I could've easily been the one misinterpretting/went on a tangent.  I have a habit for that.