Washington State After 2.5 Years Of Legalization

[t-pain]

its the same supreme court that defines words in the mmma that will be defining words in abrogate.

the same supreme court that looks at the difference of "a" and "the". or the placement of a comma.

 

thats why these stupid nitpick things matter. it does not matter how a layperson reads this. the supreme court has held that the criminal definition of collective possession stands in a voter initiated law for some reason.

 

"collective possession" is the dumbest thing you can imagine.

how can 4 people possess a single gun? even when one person says its his/hers.

[Restorium2]

its the same supreme court that defines words in the mmma that will be defining words in abrogate.

the same supreme court that looks at the difference of "a" and "the". or the placement of a comma.

 

thats why these stupid nitpick things matter. it does not matter how a layperson reads this. the supreme court has held that the criminal definition of collective possession stands in a voter initiated law for some reason.

 

"collective possession" is the dumbest thing you can imagine.

how can 4 people possess a single gun? even when one person says its his/hers.

and on MiL. As you are finding things wrong with abrogate you are opening your mind to the possibilities those of us who are sceptical about any new law here in Michigan with our crooked government. Any time you put them 'up to bat' they get a chance to hit one out of the park. 

If you build a house on a bad foundation nothing good will come of it. 

[t-pain]

i think lids is correct.

 

the supreme court has ruled that in a peoples' initiative (which i will say includes amendments), you cannot use surplusage or make nugatory any portion of the language.

 

so when abrogate allows purchasing marijuana, it does not say selling marijuana. "selling" would be surplusage. abrogate is asynchronous , just like the mmma, in this regard. "anyone can purchase but selling is not protected."

 

did you have this language reviewed by any lawyers or law drafters or judges?

 

because 1 and 2 rely on "use of cannabis" , the same deformities exist in both as they rely on 3, which does not include sales (or even transfer, which the supreme court said included sales in the mmma). does delivery include sales? thats up to the supreme court to decide since you didnt define it.

 

also abrogate fails to mention stalks and roots. are stalks and roots allowed ? who knows. your language fails to define cannabis.

 

i also dont see possession in the definition of "use of cannabis". shouldnt it be there? remember you cannot add words, the supreme court has said. surplusage.

 

i am not an expert in legal affairs, but i do pay attention to what the court says and rules on.

 

also i would love an affirmative defense like in section 8. "any law involving marijuana may use this defense, shall be dismissed, blah blah blah"...

[t-pain]

and on MiL. As you are finding things wrong with abrogate you are opening your mind to the possibilities those of us who are sceptical about any new law here in Michigan with our crooked government. Any time you put them 'up to bat' they get a chance to hit one out of the park. 

If you build a house on a bad foundation nothing good will come of it. 

i may not be understanding you correctly. i do of course agree with you that these things need to be drafted correctly and all of them have flaws right now.

 

you are against any and all laws being added in michigan? or should i say, you are against any of the current proposals (milegalize, abrogate) ?

[t-pain]

let me rewrite the abrogate substituting "use of cannabis" with the definition to make it clearer.

 

The Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Amendment

 

A proposal to amend the State Constitution regarding the prohibition of the growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or

preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes.

even the title of your constitutional amendment only says regarding the prohibition.

why not say "a constitutional amendment to remove all cannabis laws except this one and make cannabis 100% lawful and legal for all uses and purposes past, present and future including retroactive"?

 

 

(1) The agricultural, personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes. in any form by any person shall be a lawful activity.

says nothing about stalks, roots or sales being a lawful activity.

 

(2) All prohibitions on the growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or

preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes. in any form by any person is hereby null and void, and henceforth abrogated.

says nothing about sales, stalks or roots prohibitions being null and void and abrogated.

 

(4) No excise tax, no fines, no regulation to diminish use, shall be levied or allowed for The growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes..

so you can tax, fine and regulate sales, stalks and roots.

 

this is why i asked weeks ago for a draft to review. i'm trying to help.

just because you throw around the word "abrogate" does not mean you abrogate the laws in the ways you want.

[Restorium2]

i may not be understanding you correctly. i do of course agree with you that these things need to be drafted correctly and all of them have flaws right now.

 

you are against any and all laws being added in michigan? or should i say, you are against any of the current proposals (milegalize, abrogate) ?

To think that if it's drafted correctly it is going to save it from our crooked government molesting it into what they want .........

 

Let me rephrase; Do you think that any new law is safe from legislative amendments and bad interpretations from the courts?

 

We know their intent and they think their job is to place the template of that intent over any wording. If you have not noticed they are all working together. There's not much separation of powers in Michigan. I would post that bad government report card again but you have said that's bugging you so I will just mention it. 

[t-pain]

The constitutional challenge will likely be based on this section (maybe others; this one just jumps out at me):

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tl2qqrvjqw3hp5r10m4bqkdq))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-IV-25

the supreme court held that the mmma has not been challenged on this, correct?

i'm surprised they havent tried challenging it.

[t-pain]

i agree with you resto. but where we disagree is that i'm willing to try , crooked govt and all. thanks for clearing it up for me.

[Restorium2]

i agree with you resto. but where we disagree is that i'm willing to try , crooked govt and all. thanks for clearing it up for me.

Do you use your time and resources to keep laying blocks on a bad foundation or do you repair the foundation?

 

You are inferring the guy who would fix the foundation is the lazy, do nothing, one. I beg to differ on that. 

[t-pain]

I respect your opinion and position. I infer nothing.

[Norby]

Do you use your time and resources to keep laying blocks on a bad foundation or do you repair the foundation?

 

You are inferring the guy who would fix the foundation is the lazy, do nothing, one. I beg to differ on that. 

How do you do that?  The politicians are the foundation in this case.  They alter, interpret and do not use logic.  I see that as the base of the problem.

[Greg Rx]

boy these legal lies guys are showing their true colors.

 

if you cant get the sigs maybe you should reconsider.

 

"America always does the right thing, after it has exhausted all options"  Winston Churchill

 

We the People are going to getter done    Abrogate

Problem getting signatures? What are you smokin?

Getter done? Maybe in 2020

Edited December 19, 2015 by Greg Rx

[Greg Rx]

 

 

to whom it may concern

Expressing the sentiments of myself and my neighbors,  if you dont like the way it reads to bad.

Just makes you sound ignorant.

[Wild Bill]

How do you do that?  The politicians are the foundation in this case.  They alter, interpret and do not use logic.  I see that as the base of the problem.

 

The politicians are not the foundation, they are the vermin undermining the foundation.

 

A firm foundation would be a law written in such a manner that it would be clear to anyone, even our ignorant and malicious legislators and judges, what the law says and what it clearly means. (Small words and colorful pictures might help)

[Norby]

The politicians are not the foundation, they are the vermin undermining the foundation.

 

A firm foundation would be a law written in such a manner that it would be clear to anyone, even our ignorant and malicious legislators and judges, what the law says and what it clearly means. (Small words and colorful pictures might help)

Thanks, that's what I was trying to get across.  Much better wording.

They tried that and look what happened.  No language will be perfect.  They will look over every a and the and then interpret it how they want because they just can't understand that people want people who use MJ to be left alone.  It's a fundamental flaw in logic and a want to keep their  jobs.  You cant write language to make them understand that, it has to be shown in full force in the courts. 

[Restorium2]

How do you do that?  The politicians are the foundation in this case.  They alter, interpret and do not use logic.  I see that as the base of the problem.

You have to vote them out. Replace them. Then you get cannabis and a whole lot more for a long time to come. With a good foundation the sky is the limit. 

[beourbud]

Just makes you sound ignorant.

Thank You

 

Still WINNING

 

Norby. We have been there done that

 

Voting ALL republicans OUT. Is the Solution

Edited December 21, 2015 by beourbud

[beourbud]

Problem getting signatures? What are you smokin?

Getter done? Maybe in 2020

However long it takes.

[outsideinthecold]

Want to be like Resto and B'bud? They specialize in advice for low-information voters that can't count, but what does that matter?

 

Nineteen trillion in debt and rising faster than ever, just raise taxes.

 

Foreign policy triumph after triumph and all thanks to America is leading from behind.

 

By all means vote straight Democratic. After all, it works for Detroit, right? Pot stores on every street corner.

 

And best of all, Hilary supports home grows for medical patients.

Edited December 21, 2015 by outsideinthecold

[Norby]

You have to vote them out. Replace them. Then you get cannabis and a whole lot more for a long time to come. With a good foundation the sky is the limit. 

Ok, say we can't do that.  Say that the last 8 years that has been the plan and it's only got worse since then.  Hypothetical scenerio.  Say that even the dems are voting against us.  Just for the heck of it just in case this comes true and becomes the case.  What then?  Can you think of any other way to get our point across?  Say that 80-90% of all of them just want to make it harder for us to get ballot initiatives across and there really is a concerted effort between the D's and R's and one takes the strait up bad guy approach and the other just lets them walk all over us, just in case it's the truth, and no matter who you vote in they all fall in line to hand this over to a gov't and corporate money maker.

  Say that Abrogate doesn't make it.  We just gonna roll over?  You don't think it's worthwhile to organize a writing campaign, organize support at court dates, etc.?  You sure there is NOTHING else that'll work?  You know, anything that people can do the 4 years inbetween our 2 chances we get each decade(I know there's more but sick people and people who smoke don't seem to do the 2 years votes, just the 4 year ones.  Anything at all, just in case people don't believe that voting or changing the state constitution is going to work?

[Norby]

Thank You

 

Still WINNING

 

Norby. We have been there done that

 

Voting ALL republicans OUT. Is the Solution

I may be mistaken but that would just destroy us in another, unforseen to D's, way.

[Restorium2]

Ok, say we can't do that.  Say that the last 8 years that has been the plan and it's only got worse since then.  Hypothetical scenerio.  Say that even the dems are voting against us.  Just for the heck of it just in case this comes true and becomes the case.  What then?  Can you think of any other way to get our point across?  Say that 80-90% of all of them just want to make it harder for us to get ballot initiatives across and there really is a concerted effort between the D's and R's and one takes the strait up bad guy approach and the other just lets them walk all over us, just in case it's the truth, and no matter who you vote in they all fall in line to hand this over to a gov't and corporate money maker.

  Say that Abrogate doesn't make it.  We just gonna roll over?  You don't think it's worthwhile to organize a writing campaign, organize support at court dates, etc.?  You sure there is NOTHING else that'll work?  You know, anything that people can do the 4 years inbetween our 2 chances we get each decade(I know there's more but sick people and people who smoke don't seem to do the 2 years votes, just the 4 year ones.  Anything at all, just in case people don't believe that voting or changing the state constitution is going to work?

We have to do it. It's the only way in a democracy. School House Rock. If you can't do it then you are not in the majority and you don't get what you want. You have to try, every day of your life, to convince people that it's the right path. 

[Norby]

We have to do it. It's the only way in a democracy. School House Rock. If you can't do it then you are not in the majority and you don't get what you want. You have to try, every day of your life, to convince people that it's the right path. 

ok, but at a certain point you just become annoying to people and actually accomplish just the opposite, and for the record I certainly do not believe that is the only way.  If so we're fuked.

Maybe i read it wrong and Colorado isn't letting anyone driving on MJ go thru jury nullification.  Maybe we're just not smart as Colorado?  Or trying since we don't have the whole smoking populace behind us?  Maybe I'm missing something.  Seems to me that they have their shiit together since they have the whole community backing now.  Again maybe voting is the only way.  I'd certainly like to keep ope as to not loose all hope.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Norby

[t-pain]

maybe they just dont arrest people who educate others on jury nullification in colorado like they do here in michigan.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/12/judge_orders_man_arrested_for.html

[Greg Rx]

Let me just be the wet blanket for now,

 

At this point, without any changes, NEITHER MiLegalize or Abrogate will make the ballot. 

 

Mute argument until signatures are gathered,. So save it for then.

 

:-)

MiLegalize will have their signatures. Way to late to make changes