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.
what is your point?Well, it could be the ill-informed opinion you've displayed that seems to represent marijuana as a) the basis for a *mircacle* no-side effects cure-all (many pro-drug sites spread this cannard) and b) marijuana smoking bears no ill effects for one's lungs.
Denissenko M, Pao A, Tang M, Pfeifer GP.SourcePreferential Formation of Benzo (a)pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53. Science Vol. 274, 18 October 1996.
(These results provide a direct etiological link between a defined chemical carcinogen and human cancer.)
An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, 1982).
This potent carcinogen suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.
But fat people don't need a "constitutional amendment guaranteeing their right"We've already got 'drug laws' and public intoxication laws already on the books; THOSE are eyed by a certain minority for repeal/removal in order to facilitate 'the inhalation or ingestion' of the intoxiocating substance of their choice; the solution to obesity is education; already we have public schools moving to change cafeteria menus to offer healthier choices and few coke/pepsi/Dr. Pepper options ...
Wipe the drool off your _jackboots. For a substance as notorious as marijuana, that's a pretty telling observation. It would be like noting that nobody had died of coffee or tea.
Nice reasoned, appealing argument there Hick RedNeck.
Stop by again when the mood strikes you.
Yoy look best in this light; expressing yourself in this way ...
Be seeing you.
The crucial question would be whether the city police force is sworn or obligated by state law to refer state (rather than city) violations to the state. Or in the case of Federal, whether they are deputized.
I'd agree that if they are not legally bound to do this, the city should fire whatever employee does not abide by their wishes.
Because you know it's true. You always, always take the side of the jackboots. And marijuana is so notorious, that the fact that no deaths "caused" by it have come to public note is itself very notable.
You always, always take the side of the jackboots. And marijuana is so notorious, that the fact that no deaths "caused" by it have come to public note is itself very notable.On behalf of jack-booted Lung Associations everywhere, I'd like to add my concern for everyone's lungs as Dr. Brian Graham of Canada, no bastion of drug-haters up there are they, with this message:
In the Health Canada news release announcing the provision of marijuana for medical purposes, Health Minister Anne McLellan admits that the effectiveness of marijuana therapy is unknown, but fails to mention that adverse health effects of marijuana smoke inhalation have already been demonstrated.SourceMarijuana smoke contains many of the same respiratory irritants and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke -- many in higher concentrations.
Will marijuana smokers be warned of both the known harmful effects and the risk of further harmful effects that continue to be found as research progresses? Will Health Canada be liable for the lung damage that will be caused by breathing marijuana smoke, whether directly or as second-hand smoke?
The Lung Association has seen all too many cases of lung disease caused by tobacco and is working hard to reduce the carnage through denormalization of tobacco use. It is ironic that although McLellan claims to have taken this step for compassionate reasons, she has begun the process of normalization of marijuana smoking, which has an incredible potential for damage to the respiratory health of Canadians.
For those who can only achieve pain relief from marijuana use, alternate pharmacological preparations of cannabis, which do not inflict lung damage, which have been duly proven to be safe and effective, and which are approved for medical use by prescription, could be used instead.
The Lung Association regards marijuana smoking as a public health hazard. Health Canada should not be supplying marijuana in a form that will be inhaled into the lungs with dirty, irritating, toxic, carcinogenic smoke. The minister of health should never condone smoking of any substance.
Dr. Brian Graham
Graham is president and CEO of the Lung Association of Saskatchewan.
This is like the doctors who advise the general public to eschew egg yolks and get rid of all their guns if they want to stay in good health. However well intended it is chicken littleish because the effect "as used" is negligible. People do NOT smoke doobies in great quantities like they do tobacco cigarettes.
Indeed. The only difference between liberals and conservatives these days is that they like to control different aspects of people's lives. Our original form of government is long gone.
I'm a conservative/libertarian. I don't like a lot of things that people do, but ultimately it is not up to me to impose my will upon them. Certainly, nobody has the right to hurt you or your property or to infridge upon your freedom (well, apparently they do today), but outside of that, people should generally be free. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.
My friends and I have been talking lately, and we have come to the agreement that the reason our country is so divided and filled with hatred toward each other is because the republican form of government (as I understand its definition) has been dilluted, and instead of having states and cities making their own laws, we have this overwhelming federal government deciding for all of us how we should live.
If each city and state could make its own laws as the people see fit, so long as they don't trample the Constitution, we would all be a lot happier. I would keep living in Texas, and some of these dillusional left-wingers here in Austin could move somewhere else where their way of life is more accepted.
It is just ridiculous that the citizens have voted on this, something that should not have been denied in the first place, and the government is over-ruling the will of the people! I thought the people were the source of law in this country?
" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
Wow. It could not be any more clear. What is going on??
People do NOT smoke doobies in great quantities like they do tobacco cigarettes.THAT'S what they all say!
BTW, when was the last time you saw a dooby the size of standard cig?
Your comparison fails for the reason, when/if mj becomes 'legal', the use of same *will* increase (currently, you wouldn't be caught dead in public w/a dooby) and as 'toleraance' in a user builds up, mj use by that user WILL increase ...
You guys *never* run this stuff out to it's logical, ultimate conclusion - do you?
"Well, it could be the ill-informed opinion you've displayed that seems to represent marijuana as a) the basis for a *mircacle* no-side effects cure-all (many pro-drug sites spread this cannard) and b) marijuana smoking bears no ill effects for one's lungs."
I NEVER said any of what you wrote above. I NEVER claimed it was a "cure-all", only that medical data has proven that the THC in marijuana has helped the suffering of cancer patients, etc. I NEVER said there was no "ill effects for one's lungs". Here's the deal, there are people suffering from cancer and other horrible diseases who ARE HELPED by marijuana. For example, who are YOU to say WHO has the right to use something to aid their medical situation! Who gave YOU the RIGHT to say that someone's loved one can't have access to something that will give them some relief! How dare you play God with someone else's rights! yea, now I'm mad....
They all say it because it's true. It doesn't take much smoke to get high.
phew! thank you Trinity_Tx! I'm feeling lonesome out here in paranoia land.
YES! (will you take over, I'm getting tired)...lol
LOL Don't feel lonesome! A huge number of other freepers are with you too that just haven't pitched in to this thread. : )
IMHO you've been 100% right. : )
"the solution to obesity is education;"
And the solution to drug ABUSE is EDUCATION. Funny how you will defend to the death inalienable rights that suit you, but not anything that doesn't jive with your own opinions. THAT is NOT what makes us FREE!
Thanks for that, my hubby just told me that too. His mom died of cancer last spring and after witnessing the horror of that, it just gets me riled up quick when someone, anyone tells me what someone can and cannot do to ease their pain.
I hear you, having been there with a few relatives myself. It's made me resentful of control freaks not just on this issue, but right to death.
Control freaks are a difficult bunch. (my 694th understatement of the year). The right to die is another topic I have strong feelings about, as you do, but I'll save them for another day. My dad could be a "_Jim", but then again, I do believe that if my mother (God forbid) was suffering from some disease, he would move heaven and earth to ease her pain. Love does remarkable things. :)
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.