Jump to content

Closing In On Legalization


bobandtorey

Recommended Posts

Organizers for one of two full-fledged ballot initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana statewide hope to have the necessary 250,000 valid signatures in the next six weeks to make the November 2016 election.

The Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee, calling itself MILegalize, is approaching its 180-day collection period around the Christmas holiday.

“We’ve been saying we want to give people the gift of freedom for Christmas,” said Jeff Hank, chairman of MILegalize. Without disclosing the number of signatures gathered so far, Hank said the group is “on pace, within the capability” to make their goal.

MILegalize is one of two active campaigns looking to legalize recreational marijuana among adults. Along with the Michigan Cannabis Coalition, the two groups have taken different approaches to designing a regulatory structure.

While MILegalize is organized largely by longtime marijuana activists in the state, MCC’s leadership includes experienced conservative political operatives.

Matt Marsden, MCC’s spokesman and a Republican political consultant, could not be reached for comment.

However, The Detroit News reported late last month that the MCC abruptly stopped collecting signatures for its campaign. Marsden told the paper it was a “strategic pause” to analyze the 210,000 signatures it had already collected.

Marsden is the co-founder of RevSix Data Systems, a southeast Michigan voter data company that is largely funding the campaign.

In addition to the groups’ leadership, key details separate their regulatory models. MI- Legalize would allow people 21 and older to grow up to 12 plants at home, while MCC calls for two to four flowering plants if a municipality allows it.

The MCC plan generally emphasizes growing cannabis at state-licensed commercial operations, rather than in homes, that would later be sold at retail outlets.

“What we’re trying to do is create a new retail market, a new industry,” Marsden told City Pulse in July. “Two flowering plants could generate a lot (of usable cannabis) per household. I don’t know that it’s politically feasible to win a ballot proposal if the little old lady next door is afraid she’s going to have 12 flowering plants growing next door to her.”

Unlike MILegalize, the Cannabis Coalition intentionally leaves out specifics on tax rates and protection from prosecution that would later be set by a paid, five-member Cannabis Control Board.

The MI Legalize proposal sets a maximum 10 percent excise tax rate for non-medical pot sold. That revenue would be directed to education, transportation and local units of government.

“We always say we don’t have a full solution, but we have a partial solution,” Hank said, referring to the concept of “pot for potholes,” or marijuana revenue helping fund roads.

The two groups have reportedly raised similar amount of money based on campaign finance reports filed in late October. Each had raised more than $300,000 at the time.

“We’re definitely far down the line, much farther than people thought we would make it,” Hank said.

The Michigan Responsibility Council, which earlier this year was exploring a possible 2016 ballot initiative, has backed off of its legalization efforts to focus on medical marijuana policy, said Suzie Mitchell, the Council’s president and CEO.

‘Vindicated’ by Ohio vote 

A variety of factors differentiate the situation in Michigan with a pot legalization referendum that was voted down by Ohio voters this month, 64 percent to 36 percent.

It was held in an off-election year and was criticized even by legalization advocates for giving exclusive commercial growing rights to 10 facilities.

“After seeing Responsible Ohio go down, we feel vindicated,” Hank said. “We took the exact opposite approach to legalization because we figured there would be a similar attempt in Michigan. When we got going we tried to prevent that oligarchy model.”

Hank sees an advantage in attempting to get the question before Michigan voters during a presidential election year.

Mitchell, whose group is advocating state legislators to amend proposed medical marijuana dispensary regulations to limit the number of grow facilities (see related story), believes the Ohio vote won’t impact Michigan’s efforts.

“It’s a totally different set of circumstances,” she said. “All we know is voters did not want site-specific grows in Ohio in 2015.”

Meanwhile, public polling shows steadily increasing support nationwide for legalizing recreational marijuana.

According to a presentation from local polling firm EPIC-MRA in Lansing last week, a nationwide Gallup poll last month found 58 percent of respondents said marijuana should be legal for recreational use. That’s a roughly 30 percent swing over the past 20 years. 

A December 2014 poll of Michigan voters showed 50 percent would be a “yes” vote on legalization.

While Hank is optimistic about the strong public support if the question reaches voters, there’s still one glaring hurdle.

“Until the signatures are in, it’s not over,” he said. “But we believe if we get on the ballot, we’ll win.”

 

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12393-Closing-in-on-legalization.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It’s a totally different set of circumstances,” she said. “All we know is voters did not want site-specific grows in Ohio in 2015.”

 

That's your opinion. Mine is they didn't want to add to the people going to prison over marijuana. People understand that 'legal' means no more penalties for having it, or growing it, or selling it, or giving it away, or making food with it, or transporting it.

 

The test is to ask yourself; Can I go to jail for marijuana? 

 

If the answer is YES then it's not legal and you really shouldn't have lied in the title of the proposal. People really hate to be lied to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It’s a totally different set of circumstances,” she said. “All we know is voters did not want site-specific grows in Ohio in 2015.”

 

That's your opinion. Mine is they didn't want to add to the people going to prison over marijuana. People understand that 'legal' means no more penalties for having it, or growing it, or selling it, or giving it away, or making food with it, or transporting it.

 

The test is to ask yourself; Can I go to jail for marijuana?

 

If the answer is YES then it's not legal and you really shouldn't have lied in the title of the proposal. People really hate to be lied to.

Outside of the repubs in Lansing and the disp lobby every other human in this state resembles this sentiment. Exactly

Also it is obvious they are oblivious to our resolve . We been fighting 70 years prohibition , what's 4 more?

Edited by beourbud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beginning in the 1920s and lasting for seventy years, state and federal law treated marijuana as a dangerous drug and as contraband, forbidding its cultivation, distribution, possession, and use.

 

Over the last two decades, however, numerous states have enacted laws permitting marijuana to be used for medical treatment. Some also permit its recreational use. Those laws have raised a

 

host of novel legal and public policy issues. Most of the discussion, and almost all of the litigation, has involved the respective roles of the states and federal government and how each one may

 

and should deal with this very controversial subject. One issue that has received little attention in the legal community is the risk that medical and recreational marijuana laws will pose to

 

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2556503&utm_content=buffer87b18&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer##

highway safety. Will those laws increase, decrease, or leave untouched the rate of accidents and fatalities on our nation’s roadways? How should the criminal justice system — in particular, its

 

law enforcement officers — address the problem of “drugged driving” in general and in states with medical marijuana laws? This Article addresses those issues. Some of the possible solutions

 

do not involve changing the law. Training law enforcement officers to better spot drugged drivers, developing safe, reliable, portable, and inoffensive devices to test drivers for marijuana use on a

 

highway shoulder, identifying a particular concentration of marijuana in the blood or some other bodily fluid that can be used to establish impairment — those and other steps can be taken

 

without changing the legal framework for addressing the problems that occur when people drive under the influence of an intoxicating substance. But it also may be necessary to modify the laws

 

governing alcohol in order to reduce the crashes caused by marijuana use. People often take those drugs in combination, and a marijuana-alcohol cocktail is more debilitating that either drug

 

 

consumed alone. States therefore may need to lower their thresholds for drunken driving in order to dissuade people who use marijuana and alcohol together from getting behind the wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ People often take those drugs in combination, and a marijuana-alcohol cocktail is more debilitating that either drug consumed alone. States therefore may need to lower their thresholds for drunken driving in order to dissuade people who use marijuana and alcohol together from getting behind the wheel.


 


They will eventually figure out that most people who use marijuana often drink less alcohol than those who do not. And if they do both they just go to sleep and don't drive.


 


Seems to me they are looking for excuses/ways to bolster their police business profits. Lower thresholds for drunken driving will definitely raise them some extra cash. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol lower the drinking bac because marijuana?

 

It's prohibition and alcohol madness all over again. probably some nonsense from madd

Found the source;

 

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, heritage foundation. One of the Koch brothers favorite charities..

 

AND, it is tax deductible!  Instead of those taxes paying for important things, it is funding right wing think tanks to pass insane laws.

 

 Here is the mission of Hertitage:

 

 

 

mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

 

Yet they support the most insane restrictive policies that invade all personal freedom, expanded government for everyone except corporations and military and hide behind a supposed kitchen table.

 

YOUR tax dollars are paying for this organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't they just prove ACTUAL impairment thru testing of ones ability.  Then they need no invasive fluid gathering, etc.  People are different, stating a limit only puts some people in the clear who shouldn't be and incarcerates people who should be in the clear.

 

Sorry

 

My all means what have you forgotten Lawyers use testing to fight for you ( if you have $$ )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because some of those impairment tests arent really scientific at all. and none have been really tested for marijuana.

 

i mean, off balance problems do not equate directly to driving performance, since you are sitting. road-side tests should always be with a sitting position really.

 

 

And if someone is disable who can stand on one leg? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't they just prove ACTUAL impairment thru testing of ones ability.  Then they need no invasive fluid gathering, etc.  People are different, stating a limit only puts some people in the clear who shouldn't be and incarcerates people who should be in the clear.

That is in the MiLegalize petition. No per se  limit. Let's getter done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot happening with Michigan cannabis right now beyond just the two ballot initiatives that may go to voters next November. In addition to various groups collecting signatures on behalf of ballot initiatives, there are also bills in the State Legislature that would create regulations and a licensing board for the State’s medical marijuana industry. The aptly named HB 4209, or “Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act” was approved by the House of Representatives in October of this year and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with HB 4210 which would allow for the sale of medical marijuana in non-smokeable forms and HB 4827 which would establish a seed-to-sale tracking system.

The bill is seen as a foundation for regulating marijuana in Michigan, and it is part of broader preparations for legalizing recreational marijuana in the state. Widespread legalization may happen as soon as next fall if voters approve either the MILegalize or Michigan Cannabis Coalition ballot initiatives, one or both of which we may see on the November 2016 ballot.

MICHIGAN-300x300.jpg

Michigan Medical Marijuana. Change will be a constant.

What would HB 4209 do? This bill would license and regulate medical marijuana growers, processors, provisioning centers, transporters, and safety compliance facilities (collectively, “medical marijuana facilities”). To do this, the bill creates a “Medical Marihuana Licensing Board” and extensive rules on creating and operating the Board.

Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and local governments currently regulate Michigan medical marijuana. Under the existing Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, “caregivers” may grow up to twelve marijuana plants for up to five patients each. HB4209 would allow more businesses to get into Michigan’s legal marijuana market by setting out licensing and regulation for companies looking to grow, process, and provide medical marijuana across the State.

The Licensing Board would consist of five members appointed by the governor, and it would establish licensing and rule making at the state level. The bill allows municipalities to authorize or limit facilities in its jurisdiction and to collect up to $5,000 as a non-refundable annual licensing fee. The bill would also create an advisory panel to advise the board, with participants from state and local government, as well as the public.

In addition to creating the Licensing Board and the rules for authorizing or denying licenses, the bill would create revenue for the State through application fees, a tax on gross retail income of facilities, and a “regulatory assessment.” The bill would impose a 3% tax on the gross retail income of facilities  and create a “medical marihuana excise fund” to receive the majority of fees, fines, and charges collected under the Act. The bill currently earmarks 30% of this revenue for municipalities and 45% for counties, based on the number of marihuana facilities in the jurisdiction, with the remaining 25% going to the State’s general fund.

In addition to licensing fees and the 3% tax on gross retail income, the bill would create a “regulatory assessment” on facilities, to be based on the administrative costs of the regulation. Class A growers (the largest grow facilities) can only be charged up to $10,000, but there there are no limits on how much other types of facilities may be charged.

These three bills are currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who says his Committee could have a bill before the State Senate before the end of next year. We will keep you posted on the status of these various bills.

 

http://www.cannalawblog.com/michigan-medical-marijuana-regulation-changes-coming/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

December 12, 2015

 

The MILegalize Board of Directors is announcing a short-term extension of its 2015 petitioning campaign. All petitioners are encouraged to turn in all petitions by Dec. 21st, and to continue

 

petitioning beyond Dec. 21st until further notice from the campaign. MILegalize is still paying petitioners for signatures collected beyond December 21st under current payment arrangements.

 

The campaign directs petitioners to immediately contact the campaign to send in carefully completed, signed and dated petitions to the Lansing headquarters, and urges supporters not to resign

 

the petition a second time.

 

"For a variety of strategic reasons, MILegalize is extending it's campaign," said MILegalize Chair Jeffrey Hank, a Lansing attorney. To avoid any potential challenges to the petition, MILegalize

 

needs time to validate all the incoming petitions from volunteers between Dec. 21st and the New Year. "We don't want any supporter to be disenfranchised because their petition was not

 

received by us prior to submission to the State. MILegalize has until June 1, 2016 to submit our petition for the November ballot. We are aware of the problems recently experienced by the

 

prevailing wage petition, and are carefully validating every one of our signatures," said Hank.

 

Among other reasons cited for the campaign's extension: a possible policy change by the Bureau of Elections; a new law signed by Governor Snyder recently that could place MILegalize or a

 

Legislative alternative on the March 2016 rather than November 2016 ballot; and evaluation of both Legislative action and other possible ballot initiatives; and funding opportunities from national

 

groups.

 

Although opinions vary as to the potential impact on statewide campaigns, there is concern the grass-roots petition drive to place legalization of marijuana on the ballot in November 2016 could

 

end up on the March 2016 ballot, or that the Legislature could respond to an MILegalize campaign filing by enacting inferior legislation.

 

"There is too much at stake for us to rely on a logical interpretation of this law by government," said MILegalize Director Jamie Lowell. "We promised this to the people for a November election,

 

and if that means delaying our submission, that is what we will do. We have the financial resources to finish this drive and will submit to the State when we are satisfied we've not only validated

 

properly, but eliminated the various threats of political shenanigans."

 

MILegalize will continue to collect signatures through the early part of next year via volunteer and paid signature gatherers. MI Legalize currently has the financial support and grassroots

 

 infrastructure to support a successful ballot campaign. January marks the beginning of the traditional petitioning season in Michigan. This will bring an influx of professional circulators to

 

Michigan, according to MILegalize Campaign Manager Chris Silva

.

"It was always our intention to collect more signatures than were necessary," said Silva. "Circumstances outside of our control may have forced an alteration in our strategy, but it has become a

 

benefit to our campaign. While we could spend more money in the short term to collect more signatures, it's more cost effective if we don't have to." Some of the signatures collected earlier in

 

the campaign will be older than 180 days at the time of submission, which does not mean that they are invalid, it just means the campaign has to take extra steps to include them.

 

Attempting to preserve every signature and dollar for the campaign, Hank has requested the state Board of Canvassers update a 1986 policy that could more easily validate thousands of

 

already-collected, valid signatures for the campaign. "We are not the only petition campaign that would benefit from this change. This proposal would eliminate fraud and further guarantee the

 

purity of elections for the state," Hank said, "and we expect they will take a reasonable approach to the issues raised. Since adoption of the prior policy, Michigan election law and the advent of

 

computer technology have dramatically changed the petitioning landscape."

 

The Board of Canvassers meets on December 14th to discuss the policy update. While conventional wisdom was that only 180 days exist to petition, MILegalize has been strategically preparing

 

for alternative options that create huge advantage for the campaign.

 

MILegalize will issue another statement shortly after the Dec 21st turn-in with an update on campaign strategy for 2015 and into 2016. "Until then we urge all supporters to keep collecting as

 

many signatures as possible," Hank concluded.

 

Support MILegalize through volunteerism, donations or giving your signature. Please visit our website at:

 

www.milegalize.com

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...