Posted on 11/04/2004 1:59:04 PM PST by Wolfie
Medical Marijuana Vote Called Invalid
Oates says police won't change enforcement practices.
A day after its approval by three-fourths of Ann Arbor voters, the medical marijuana initiative is getting the cold shoulder.
Ann Arbor Police Chief Dan Oates said in a written statement he has directed his officers to continue enforcement of all marijuana sale and possession offenses as they did before the vote.
Oates' decision came after City Attorney Stephen Postema said Wednesday that Ann Arbor's new medical marijuana initiative is invalid.
Although the initiative was legally and appropriately placed on the ballot after a petition drive, Postema said 27-year-old case law dictates that city officials can refer complaints for prosecution under state law even though it would be contrary to the city's new charter language.
In a 1977 decision involving a case in Ypsilanti, the state appeals court ruled that city officials weren't prohibited from referring marijuana cases for prosecution under state law, despite a city ordinance that said they couldn't refer such cases to the Washtenaw County prosecutor.
Based on that case, Postema said, his office and police can't be bound by charter amendment prohibitions that conflict with state and federal law. Those laws, he said, will continue to govern marijuana arrests in Ann Arbor.
Medical marijuana proponents said Wednesday that the city's position means the matter is likely to wind up in court.
Scio Township Trustee Chuck Ream, who led the petition drive, acknowledged that Michigan has case law regarding such charter amendments.
"But the citizens of Ann Arbor have spoken just as clearly," he said. "And people who would like to be employed by the city should either listen to the voice of the people when they vote or they should seek employment ... in another community. If the people of Ann Arbor didn't speak clearly yesterday, then I don't know what it takes."
Ream criticized Postema for countering voters' wishes, and said that a lengthy court case over the matter was likely to cost taxpayers a lot of money.
Voters approved the initiative by a 74 percent margin Tuesday, or 39,806 to 13,763. Proposal C sought to protect medical marijuana users from arrest and prosecution by local officials, whom proponents say make 99 percent of such arrests. The measure amends the city charter to decriminalize marijuana when recommended by a health care provider.
Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje said the City Council is not taking a position on the validity of the initiative yet, and that it is a matter of law that needs clarification.
"Well, I voted for it," he said Wednesday. "And I don't think there's many of us who would deny something to someone who's in pain.
"But there are a lot of complications with it, and it's going to take us a while to sort it out," he said, adding that the City Council would meet to discuss where it stands legally. "It's premature to say we have it all figured out."
City Council members voted 7-4 in July to place the matter on the ballot. Wendy Woods, D-5th Ward; Mike Reid, R-2nd Ward; Leigh Greden, D-3rd Ward; and Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, voted against placing it on the ballot. But it was largely a procedural vote, required as a final step to put it before voters after signatures were collected and the language was approved by the city clerk.
Officials with the state Attorney General's office could not be reached for comment Wednesday. In September, the office sent a letter to Ann Arbor officials warning them the new amendment would be in conflict with state law.
Marijuana remains illegal under state and federal law, regardless of whether it is used, possessed or sold within the city limits.
State and federal law enforcement officers would not be prevented from arresting, charging and prosecuting someone who claims to use pot for medicinal purposes, regardless of the city's interpretation of the law.
IOW, you're cranked becuase your red herrings aren't getting any takers.
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Let's not fool ourselves here, the fact is- this "war on drugs" is a complete farce. If weed was legal or at least just a minor fine it would eliminate the illegal drug trade which, guess what- FUNDS TERRORISM! All the weed coming in from Mexico? We wouldn't need it because first off, it is terrible and secondly, people would be able to grow here. That would cut down a lot of illegal alien smuggling operations as well which is a plus.
Why isn't the government taxing this? If the government had a clue they would cash in on all that drug money. That would cut down on a lot of crime too. Its a BIG business and no matter what the law is people will do what they want.
The fact that so many people are in prison for pot is an absurd waste of tax dollars. I am a health nut and a bodybuilder and I use pot when I can get it and its much healthier than drinking. I wouldn't advise it for people under 18 but it is relatively harmless, especially if used through a vaporizer.
Why not tax and regulate it? The "leads to harder stuff" argument is thin at best. It is easier to get meth nowadays than it is to get weed, what does that tell you? Meth is the spawn of the devil if you ask me yet police spend just as much time and effort busting pot dealers as they do meth dealers. Senseless.
That's an excellent point. I'm not saying we should spend all of our leisure time getting wasted. Sluggards aren't any use to anyone today either. Although I must admit that I'm guilty of it from time to time... until guilt, and/or my wife gets me moving again.
It was a big (and almost always ignored) reason the first prohibition (the legal one) was repealed.
It's just hype to think it's any of your business what people value. Talk about hollow.
Really? I've never used it, but I'm a diabetic. Maybe I should be gettin high instead of swallowing pills! LOL
Always a good idea to add more of the same to the cause of the problem in the first place. Just what we need, more government interferrence.
Government caused most of the problem, they aren't the answer to it. Leave people the hell alone.
No. More myth-spreading I suppose. Cannabinoids bind to certain receptors in the brain, stimulating appetite. In fact, research into how these receptors operate is at the forefront of weight loss drug development.
So I could have an excuse for my obesity if I was a pot head?
Just Atkins-ize your munchies. You'll probably lose weight. ;)
I do a "Kerry" on that. I do the Atkins, before I don't.
(BTW, I'm glad Dubya won, too.)
I remain sceptical of the medical value of marijuana. True, it is an herb but like some other herbs and plants it has drug properties. Not all herbs are safe to use, even the ones in your herbal books. I dabbled quite a bit in herbs in my semi-hippy days and I remember being a "true believer." There are some herbs, lobelia for example, that can be very harmful if used improperly.
I haven't read all the posts in the thread to see if anyone has stated specific proven benefits of "medical marijuana," but I guarantee you that every one of those "benefits" has been or can be disproven.
With any drug, one must look at the risk/benefit ratio and at side effects. There are always risks and there are always side effects. The great unknown lies in the long-term side effects. Since marijuana is able to alter consciousness to the degree that it does, by acting on the central nervous system, logic would dictate that there are deleterious long-term effects from prolonged use.
Responsible medical use would limit use to infrequent doses in the short term. However, how does one then control the addictive potential?
And, although the ideal would be to "keep the government out of it" there is a certain responsibility to control addictive substances.
Mental hospitals, such as the one I work in, are now housing and treating more than 50% substance abuse patients. Those substances almost always include marijuana. In fairness, those substances also include legalized painkillers and so forth. But, they started out as legitimate drugs unlike marijuana which started out as a street drug.
IMO, "the people" are not qualified to determine what should be legally declared a medicine. That is the function of the FDA. "The people," as exhibited by some of the posters in this forum, are all too willing to rely on emotional data.
I knew, as soon as I questioned this reverence for the "medical use of marijuana," I would get reaction and was not disappointed.
What I have NOT seen is a categorical list of proven scientific benefits of the use of "medical marijuana" anywhere in this thread, whereas you have posted several instances of the liabilities of marijuana use.
I haven't even seen the argument that marijuana cures cataracts. Can't the protagonists come up with anything?
With any luck, the city council is working on that right now.
Start with the chief & all the others will fall in line shortly.
"I haven't read all the posts in the thread to see if anyone has stated specific proven benefits of "medical marijuana," but I guarantee you that every one of those "benefits" has been or can be disproven."
You're more knowledgeable than myself then because I can't guarantee anything to anyone based on medical studies, or any other studies. It's all up to your own personal translation, and who you choose to believe. Studies have been done and there are many cancer patients who would disagree with your theories. There are patients who are being helped by medical marijuana. Many of them don't care what the "long term effects" will be because that just isn't the priority when you are in agony with cancer, especially terminal cancer. (I'm just using cancer as an example, I know there have been other uses for it). As for the "addictive potential", that is always something to think about when making a decision to choose one drug over another. However, the addictive potential of Oxycoton is great, yet it is still used. Valium as well. Just about every pain killer on the market can become addicting. In my opinion, the entire medical marijuana issue comes down to one thing...and in my opinion, the most important thing. FREEDOM. Freedom to chose your doctor, freedom to select treatments that you and your doctor agree will be helpful to you, and freedom to not feel like a criminal because one of the choices may have been marijuana. If you were witnessing a loved one suffer, and your loved one's doctor told you that medical marijuana would help, would you deny your loved one the right to choose? How would you feel then? Imagine this scenario...."Sorry, momma, I know you're in pain and can't find any comfort, can't eat, and the doc says that med. mar. will help, but golly gee, I just can't get past the hippy issue...the pothead issue...the dopers, so therefore, since what "I" want is more important than your personal well-being, I won't allow you to use it." How could anyone do that on a personal level, let alone deny total strangers, their rights as well? It saddens me that people just can't seem to understand that.
You wrote a long post. Most of it is nonsense.
"IMO, "the people" are not qualified to determine what should be legally declared a medicine."
That is true, without a doubt, but I think we've all seen enough personal accounts from cancer victims that pot relieves the painful side effects of chemo and radiation therapy. That may be an emotion based decision but IMO it's the correct one. Especially if doctors are prescribing it. If such a law is passed there will undoubtedly be abuse by doctors who lack integrity (Rush and Elvis come to mind) but that doesn't mean we should outlaw all the drugs involved in the abuse.
"Can't the protagonists come up with anything?"
Not really... I guess I'm a "pro"tagonist but not to the extent to declare myself a champion. Anyway, after a quick search of the web I found there are alot of pro-pot sites that list extensive histories of the use of hemp and marijuana (no links to scientific research). And there are several anti-drug abuse sites that site research of the ill effects of marijuana (also with no links to the research data). The one that I found that looks credible:
http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/MedicalMarijuana.htm
The National Institure of Health posted a report to them from an Ad-Hoc group of medical professionals. Its a lengthy report but most of it shows that marijuana is less effective than drugs already available for the treatment of several conditions.
I'm still for the use of pot though as it does seem to help some people for whom other treatments don't work. However, the AMA does appear to disagree with me and calls for more study. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.