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.
"If you haven't figure out the difference between 'doing gout meds' and a hitting a 'dooby' for escape - I can't lead you there ..."
OMG! Here I thought I was talking to someone who began this discussion with disagreeing about the medicinal uses of marijuana. And now you're just on a rant about doobys and dopers. I wasn't talking about "hitting a dooby" for escape, but if "hitting a dooby" for escape will get me out of this "ran off the road" discussion, then maybe that's a good thing. teehee
The good news is the "amendment" already exists both in the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
Michigan, Article 1, Section 23
U.S., Amendment IX
Please honor the covenants and promises of right protection guaranteed by Constitutions.
well then it's time the people elect a new police chief - or a new city council. The people cannot stand for representatives who willingly disregard the legal and democratic wishes of their constituents.
I agree. For now it's the law and it should be obeyed and enforced.
"well then it's time the people elect a new police chief - or a new city council. The people cannot stand for representatives who willingly disregard the legal and democratic wishes of their constituents."
This is what I can't figure out. As free people, we have a right to vote on any issue our public feels important enough to put on a ballot. So when they vote on it, and the majority of citizens vote to approve that particular initiative, how is it that one person can just stand there and say, "yea, so what?".
Talk about twisting logic..."Your right to indulge in the intoxicant of your choice, your right to become as numb as a stone; shall not be infringed."
WHERE is the twisting of the logos again?
I thought that I took a rather straight forward, non-circuitous route on the post. Obviously, some don't see it that way.
A 'stoned' citizenry is NOT something I want to see. The founding fathers didn't picture a bunch of potheads running loose in the country either; rather, I think they envisioned sober, responsible behavior, not behavior reminiscent of a college frat house ...
Here I thought I was talking to someone who began this discussion with disagreeing about the medicinal uses of marijuana.While the baby can be separated from the bath water, it is the baby which soils the bathwater; so, to, does the pro-drug crowd on the issue of medical marijuana.
Self-administered, self-prescripted 'medical' use.
Ouch.
I stubbed my toe.
I need a dooby to kill the pain ...
Morphine is given to patients who need it. Should it become illegal even for those patients if some gang-banger gets his hands on some?
Come on, you're just not being real at all.
Lets make Dandelions illegal......
In England the growing of hopps used to be illegal as well.
"The founding fathers didn't picture a bunch of potheads running loose in the country either; rather, I think they envisioned sober, responsible behavior, not behavior reminiscent of a college frat house ..."
I remember a show on the History Channel a couple of years ago that portrayed the founding fathers (or some of them) as drinkers and brawlers. Obviously they remained clear headed enough to lay down the law of the land but I found it refreshing to hear that they were also mortal.
We all complain about our judicial branch but I think the founders were pretty damn smart to balance the powers of government as they did. We see it here. We (the city, state, and citizens) can argue forever but it's the judges who will interpret, then decide the issue.
Pot should be legal (and used responsibly). If we're not ready to make it legal for everyone it should definately be legal as a medicine, especially if the people say so.
Morphine is given to patients who need it.No it's not.
It's prescribed, or may be prescribed, *if* it's warranted, via the professional medical opinion of a medical doctor.
It is then administered, in some fashion, to the patient; this may take different forms, depending on the actual form (Capsule, Tablet, Liquid) and condition of the patient.
What I envision vis-a-vis medical marijuana is a) self-diagnosis of a so-called 'condition', b) followed by self-prescription, and c) undisciplined self-administration ...
"What I envision vis-a-vis medical marijuana is a) self-diagnosis of a so-called 'condition', b) followed by self-prescription, and c) undisciplined self-administration ..."
If I understand you correctly then, you are saying that because of your paranoia, misplaced or not, on the subject of medicinal use of marijuana, you would deny some cancer patient his or her right to have access to something that would help alleviate their suffering? In my opinion, that is cruel and absolutely WRONG.
Chena said, "Morphine is given to patients who need it."
and YOU said, "No it's not. It's prescribed....etc." Please don't start mincing words now.....you know what I meant by "given" was the "prescribed, administered use directed by a physician.
History Channel a couple of years ago that portrayed the founding fathers (or some of them) as drinkers and brawlers.I think more of 'those guys' were interested in commerce, business, and working and were too busy 'staying alive' (getting seed plated in the winter and crops harvested in the fall) to be as 'big' in the 'drinking and fighting' department as 'the history channel' played it up to be; and I don't think they had quite the opportunity to 'zone out' as your average doper does today either (there are those that say this is part of our problem today - NOT enough for people to do to *insure* their own survival!)
No, the founders didn't want to found the likes of a modern day 'Netherlands'; anybody who 'zoned out' through the use of dope in our founders time were known as sluggerds (literally: a slothful person; an idler) and wouldn't be of much use to anybody in frontier times ...
"I would be interested in seeing actual studies of the percentage of cancer patients using medicinal marijuana who never used the drug before the onset of their cancers."
what is your point?
LOL!!
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.