|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
-
Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
-
Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
Law Michigan MMJ
- Thread starter momofthegoons
- Start date
Yes... however......
The total amount of flower a patient is allowed to have at one time in their possession is also 2.5 oz. So..... don't get too excited.
The one area they seem to have overlooked, however, is concentrates. To date there is no limit to how much you can buy or have in your possession. I'm sure that will change.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
In MD, they limited us to four oz of flower/month....a quarter pound per month!! Whoot Whoot. My tolerance has never been that high.
For concentrates, they came out with a limit of 36 g of THC/month...actually, that's a secondary limit on flower too but assuming 20% THC flower, that equals 6.5 oz/month so the other limit controls.
36 g of THC, with say 80% THC concentrate equals 45 grams of concentrate (or tincture or whatever) per month. Way more than enough for me.
For concentrates, they came out with a limit of 36 g of THC/month...actually, that's a secondary limit on flower too but assuming 20% THC flower, that equals 6.5 oz/month so the other limit controls.
36 g of THC, with say 80% THC concentrate equals 45 grams of concentrate (or tincture or whatever) per month. Way more than enough for me.
Shredder
Dogs like me
Yes... however......
The total amount of flower a patient is allowed to have at one time in their possession is also 2.5 oz. So..... don't get too excited.
The one area they seem to have overlooked, however, is concentrates. To date there is no limit to how much you can buy or have in your possession. I'm sure that will change.
Actually concentrates are considered marijuana, so your allowed mj and or concentrates to total 2.5 oz.
As a caregiver i use this rule to stay legal by reducing my total weights by making concentrates. Also I no longer supply medibles because of the troublesome rules. But I will supply all the ingredients so patients can make their own brownies or whatever.
Michigan’s Cannabis/Opioid Connection Becomes National Case Study
By admin On December 9, 2017
“Michigan lost 2,126 individuals to opioid overdoses in the last year. If we consider the research which supports an up to 25% decrease in medical cannabis states, an additional 531 individuals could have been victims if it were not for the state’s medical cannabis program.” – Americans for Safe Access
by Rick Thompson/December 9, 2017
Americans for Safe Access, a national medical marijuana patient advocacy group, on Thursday released a paper on the opioid crisis and how cannabis medicines can help break the addiction cycle in prescription pain medication abuse. The paper uses Michigan as a case study of the effectiveness of the state’s medical marijuana program in diminishing the deaths and hospitalizations reported.
According to the document, based on national statistics Michigan’s medical marijuana program resulted in 531 lives saved and 23% fewer hospitalizations in Michigan from opioid exposure. The paper is titled “Medical Cannabis as a Tool to Combat Pain and the Opioid Crisis: A Blueprint for State Policy” and was announced via a press release. The blueprint reports that states with medical marijuana programs see a 25% reduction in opioid deaths, and in Michigan that math yields a life-saving total of 531 people.
DOWNLOAD THE BLUEPRINT HERE
“Research shows that opioid deaths have decreased in states with medical cannabis laws by as much as 25% and has found a 23% reduction in hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse,” the blueprint states, citing published research from the Journal of the American Medical Association and Drug and Alcohol Dependence magazine. “Michigan lost 2,126 individuals to opioid overdoses in the last year. If we consider the research which supports an up to 25% decrease in medical cannabis states, an additional 531 individuals could have been victims if it were not for the state’s medical cannabis program.”
The blueprint’s intent is to inspire change in state medical marijuana programs which increase enrollment. Michigan already has the nation’s second largest population of registered cannabis patients, with more than a quarter-million Michiganders enrolled in the state database.
There are more than 5 million Michigan residents who are prevented from registering to use medicinal cannabis, and that’s a problem, per the blueprint. That includes more than 1.5 million people living in poverty who cannot afford the registration or the medicine; over 2.6 million people whose employers test for drugs and have no exemption for medicinal cannabis patients; 33,000 living in hospice and 45,000 living in assisted living situations which do not allow for cannabis consumption; 52,100 federal employees and 672,215 veterans who are prevented from accessing cannabis due to V.A. or federal anti-cannabis policies; over 91,000 who are homebound and cannot receive certifications or obtain medicine; and 3,342 ill individuals who are on organ transplant lists and risk losing their life-saving operations if found to have cannabis byproducts in their system.
ASA’s suggested response to the enrollment crisis contains action items for advocates and legislators, including:
The international press release contained a quote from one of Michigan’s most beloved cannabis advocates, Jamie Lowell, who said, “Medical cannabis allowed me to wean myself off of opiates, and I’m hopeful that by introducing this model legislation, we can reduce some of the barriers to medical cannabis and help even more Michigan patients.”
“It has been nearly two months since President Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. However, since this declaration, there has been no effort on the federal level to provide funds for this crisis,” said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access. “It is clear that states will have to take healthcare outcomes into their own hands.”
“I am excited to introduce this book to potential bill sponsors in my state,” said Lowell, who sits on the Board of Directors of the MILegalize 2018 organization. That group and the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol submitted last month over 360,000 signatures on petitions to put an adult use of cannabis proposal before Michigan voters in the 2018 general election.
By admin On December 9, 2017
“Michigan lost 2,126 individuals to opioid overdoses in the last year. If we consider the research which supports an up to 25% decrease in medical cannabis states, an additional 531 individuals could have been victims if it were not for the state’s medical cannabis program.” – Americans for Safe Access
by Rick Thompson/December 9, 2017
Americans for Safe Access, a national medical marijuana patient advocacy group, on Thursday released a paper on the opioid crisis and how cannabis medicines can help break the addiction cycle in prescription pain medication abuse. The paper uses Michigan as a case study of the effectiveness of the state’s medical marijuana program in diminishing the deaths and hospitalizations reported.
According to the document, based on national statistics Michigan’s medical marijuana program resulted in 531 lives saved and 23% fewer hospitalizations in Michigan from opioid exposure. The paper is titled “Medical Cannabis as a Tool to Combat Pain and the Opioid Crisis: A Blueprint for State Policy” and was announced via a press release. The blueprint reports that states with medical marijuana programs see a 25% reduction in opioid deaths, and in Michigan that math yields a life-saving total of 531 people.
DOWNLOAD THE BLUEPRINT HERE
“Research shows that opioid deaths have decreased in states with medical cannabis laws by as much as 25% and has found a 23% reduction in hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse,” the blueprint states, citing published research from the Journal of the American Medical Association and Drug and Alcohol Dependence magazine. “Michigan lost 2,126 individuals to opioid overdoses in the last year. If we consider the research which supports an up to 25% decrease in medical cannabis states, an additional 531 individuals could have been victims if it were not for the state’s medical cannabis program.”
The blueprint’s intent is to inspire change in state medical marijuana programs which increase enrollment. Michigan already has the nation’s second largest population of registered cannabis patients, with more than a quarter-million Michiganders enrolled in the state database.
There are more than 5 million Michigan residents who are prevented from registering to use medicinal cannabis, and that’s a problem, per the blueprint. That includes more than 1.5 million people living in poverty who cannot afford the registration or the medicine; over 2.6 million people whose employers test for drugs and have no exemption for medicinal cannabis patients; 33,000 living in hospice and 45,000 living in assisted living situations which do not allow for cannabis consumption; 52,100 federal employees and 672,215 veterans who are prevented from accessing cannabis due to V.A. or federal anti-cannabis policies; over 91,000 who are homebound and cannot receive certifications or obtain medicine; and 3,342 ill individuals who are on organ transplant lists and risk losing their life-saving operations if found to have cannabis byproducts in their system.
ASA’s suggested response to the enrollment crisis contains action items for advocates and legislators, including:
- Pass laws allowing medical professionals to choose conditions or expressly allow pain and opioid use disorder to lists of “qualifying conditions.”
- Pass laws to allow hospice and assisted living facilities to become caregivers and allow medical cannabis use on these premises.
- Have the Department of Health & Board of Medicine notify medical professionals about Continuing Medical Education courses for cannabis science. Department of Health includes information about medical cannabis in all opioid crisis materials.
- Pass laws that have a high number of access points (dispensaries) and create incentives for communities that are licensing them.
- Create low-income and hardship waivers for ID costs.
- Pass laws and regulations that prevent shortages of medicinal cannabis.
- Pass laws banning drug testing for THC for employment.
- Create a Medical Cannabis Research and Development Fund.
The international press release contained a quote from one of Michigan’s most beloved cannabis advocates, Jamie Lowell, who said, “Medical cannabis allowed me to wean myself off of opiates, and I’m hopeful that by introducing this model legislation, we can reduce some of the barriers to medical cannabis and help even more Michigan patients.”
“It has been nearly two months since President Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. However, since this declaration, there has been no effort on the federal level to provide funds for this crisis,” said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access. “It is clear that states will have to take healthcare outcomes into their own hands.”
“I am excited to introduce this book to potential bill sponsors in my state,” said Lowell, who sits on the Board of Directors of the MILegalize 2018 organization. That group and the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol submitted last month over 360,000 signatures on petitions to put an adult use of cannabis proposal before Michigan voters in the 2018 general election.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
@momofthegoons maybe we should break the USA into countries?
We speak the same language however the culture's are very different?
A CIVIL WAR might be next?
HISTORY might repeat it's self?
I don't believe you can keep lying to the MASSES!
I traveled a lot before to many countries and the USA.
People made fun of Californian's? (so much grief from people from other part's of the country?)
FRANCE was nicer to visit than the rest of my own country?
I think we lost our way?
Theocratic government's are too restrictive!
Last edited:
That is one of the most profound statements you've made ataxian.... I've never seen the country so divided in my life. And I've feared that exact civil war you are mentioning. I agree that we may have lost out way. But being the eternal optimist I hope that I am wrong and hope for people to come to their senses.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
I am getting a book called: FANTASY LAND by KURT ANDERSON on this topic.That is one of the most profound statements you've made ataxian.... I've never seen the country so divided in my life. And I've feared that exact civil war you are mentioning. I agree that we may have lost out way. But being the eternal optimist I hope that I am wrong and hope for people to come to their senses.
My take on thing's is different than most AMERICAN'S from different state's?
After a trip somewhere in the USA I though to myself, "HOW LUCKY to live here"!
I'am very positive HOMO SAIPEAN as well!
Let's hope we find your way?
MAKE AMERICA REALISTIC AGAIN!
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
@ataxian @momofthegoons
MAKE AMERICA a FEDERALISM AGAIN!
We are a union of free and sovereign states. This has been trampled by the Federal Government and especially by the judicial branch's outrageous expansion of the commerce clause which has been stretched beyond the point where it can be denied that it anything other than a power grab.
Free and sovereign states reflect the variations in culture across America. It is NOT necessary, IMO, for the USA to be culturally or politically homogeneous. People in Indiana do NOT have to adopt all of the principles and cultural mores held dear by people living in San Fransisco. That's why we have state and local elections and that's why rolling back Federal intrusion into state and local affairs (like what f'ing bathroom a kid uses) is a conservative tenet I support.
Cheers
MAKE AMERICA a FEDERALISM AGAIN!
We are a union of free and sovereign states. This has been trampled by the Federal Government and especially by the judicial branch's outrageous expansion of the commerce clause which has been stretched beyond the point where it can be denied that it anything other than a power grab.
Free and sovereign states reflect the variations in culture across America. It is NOT necessary, IMO, for the USA to be culturally or politically homogeneous. People in Indiana do NOT have to adopt all of the principles and cultural mores held dear by people living in San Fransisco. That's why we have state and local elections and that's why rolling back Federal intrusion into state and local affairs (like what f'ing bathroom a kid uses) is a conservative tenet I support.
Cheers
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
@Baron23 maybe 420 was over celebrated today?
I know you fought for the USA and I thank you!
I wanted to go to NAM however I was too young and the draft was over when I graduated in 76 from HS.
Hawaii seem more CIVILIZED before college. (plus my family was there)
I'm only saying let's get back to basic's!
Thomas PAINE was a great writer after the U.S. CONSTITUTION he helped NEAPOLITAN write FRANCE'S new government after the fall of VERSAILLES!
I lived down the street from the CHATEAU for 5 year's.
I love your passion!
Last edited:
Shredder
Dogs like me
I think we settled all that in the civil war. The current generation seems to have forgotten who won, who lost, and the reasons for a civil war. Do we really want to do this again?
When hear "old timey values", "let boys be boys" and the like, I see discrimination and pain. YMMV
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Thank's for the clarification!
It seem's like we are not all on the same page?
Is LOGIC not accepted?
Baron23
Well-Known Member
I truly have no idea how you saw a transition to discrimination and racism in a discussion of Federalism which is indeed the organizational structure of our country.
Cheers and best to you.
Shredder
Dogs like me
I think we need federal over site, so no one thinks it's ok to discriminate. No matter if that's what the locals want. The south felt they didn't need federal intrusion to stop slavery as well. It didnt turn out well for the south, did it? And we don't need to make discrimination to be ok anywhere nowadays either.
Discrimination stinks, even if it's wrapped in a flag called states rights and prayed over. It's still wrong.
Well... at least the dispensary is being allowed to stay open... 
Portage allows medical marijuana dispensary, will pursue ordinance
Updated 8:16 AM; Posted 8:13 AM
By Tom Haroldson
PORTAGE, MI - Portage's only medical marijuana dispensary will be allowed to stay in business and the city intends to pursue an ordinance on local control of medical marijuana facilities.
Both actions came at a special meeting of the Portage City Council Tuesday night when the council voted 5-2 on an emergency ordinance to allow the Lake Effect medical marijuana provision center to remain open for six months while it pursues a state license.
The council also voted 6-1 for a resolution stating its intent to examine an ordinance that would regulate medical marijuana facilities such as growing operations or dispensaries. The first look at a potential local ordinance will be at a committee of the whole meeting 5:30 p.m. Dec. 19.
The emergency ordinance comes about because the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs recently issued a bulletin that said in places where patients have developed relationships with caregiver facilities, municipalities can allow medical marijuana dispensaries to remain open past Dec. 15.
But, the department said, the local government must adopt an ordinance allowing it before then. Lake Effect, which has been allowed to operate in the city for more than two years, needed council action before Friday, prompting the special meeting on the emergency ordinance.
Council supporters said they favored keeping Lake Effect in business because it provides an important medicine to patients battling a variety of illnesses or diseases.
"We need to care about our citizens and the medical needs of our citizens," said Mayor Pro-tem Jim Pearson, adding that with 29 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, and hearing from patients and experts, he believes medical marijuana is effective and an alternative to opioids.
City Manager Larry Shaffer said that "without this temporary ordinance in place those facilities would have to close, thereby causing great harm to those who rely on medical marijuana as a medicine."
Councilman Terry Urban, who was joined in opposing the emergency ordinance by Councilwoman Claudette Reid - attending via teleconference -- said he based his objections not on the importance of medical marijuana but that Lake Effect is an illegal operation violating city and state laws.
"I have no sympathy for a business that chooses to open knowing it is illegal," Urban said. "I do not support people who flout the law and the city of Portage and do not respect our city government or our state government."
Urban also pointed out that three council candidates in the recent election, including Mayor Patricia Randall, received campaign donations from a person affiliated with a medical marijuana facility.
An angry Randall said she would not allow Urban to question the integrity of council members nor attack them.
Portage allows medical marijuana dispensary, will pursue ordinance
Updated 8:16 AM; Posted 8:13 AM
By Tom Haroldson
PORTAGE, MI - Portage's only medical marijuana dispensary will be allowed to stay in business and the city intends to pursue an ordinance on local control of medical marijuana facilities.
Both actions came at a special meeting of the Portage City Council Tuesday night when the council voted 5-2 on an emergency ordinance to allow the Lake Effect medical marijuana provision center to remain open for six months while it pursues a state license.
The council also voted 6-1 for a resolution stating its intent to examine an ordinance that would regulate medical marijuana facilities such as growing operations or dispensaries. The first look at a potential local ordinance will be at a committee of the whole meeting 5:30 p.m. Dec. 19.
The emergency ordinance comes about because the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs recently issued a bulletin that said in places where patients have developed relationships with caregiver facilities, municipalities can allow medical marijuana dispensaries to remain open past Dec. 15.
But, the department said, the local government must adopt an ordinance allowing it before then. Lake Effect, which has been allowed to operate in the city for more than two years, needed council action before Friday, prompting the special meeting on the emergency ordinance.
Council supporters said they favored keeping Lake Effect in business because it provides an important medicine to patients battling a variety of illnesses or diseases.
"We need to care about our citizens and the medical needs of our citizens," said Mayor Pro-tem Jim Pearson, adding that with 29 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, and hearing from patients and experts, he believes medical marijuana is effective and an alternative to opioids.
City Manager Larry Shaffer said that "without this temporary ordinance in place those facilities would have to close, thereby causing great harm to those who rely on medical marijuana as a medicine."
Councilman Terry Urban, who was joined in opposing the emergency ordinance by Councilwoman Claudette Reid - attending via teleconference -- said he based his objections not on the importance of medical marijuana but that Lake Effect is an illegal operation violating city and state laws.
"I have no sympathy for a business that chooses to open knowing it is illegal," Urban said. "I do not support people who flout the law and the city of Portage and do not respect our city government or our state government."
Urban also pointed out that three council candidates in the recent election, including Mayor Patricia Randall, received campaign donations from a person affiliated with a medical marijuana facility.
An angry Randall said she would not allow Urban to question the integrity of council members nor attack them.
While this is an editorial article, it speaks to the nonsense spewed as an argument to legalization by most of the folk opposed; from Sessions on down. They need to get their facts straight. 
Opposition to Michigan Marijuana Legalization Doesn’t Have a Leg to Stand On
By Joe Klare - Dec 13, 2017
Last month, the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Michigan turned in some 365,000 signatures in an attempt to get on the November 2018 statewide ballot. If successful, the measure would legalize cannabis possession, growing and purchasing by those 21 years of age and older.
As you can imagine, there is opposition to this plan. As you can also imagine, the opposition is having a hard time articulating exactly why the system of black market sales is better than a system of legal, regulated sales.
Scott Greenlee, the president of Healthy and Productive Michigan, was recently on a Michigan radio program and was asked about why his group opposes legalization. He made quite a few weak points, while also not ruling out taking money for his group from opioid manufacturers, but I’m going to focus on two major holes in his theory.
“A lot of people have talked about the tax dollars it will generate,” Greenlee said. “As folks have found out in Colorado, the tax dollars come along with a cost and, interestingly enough, in a lot of cases, tax dollar projections and revenue projections don’t come quite in where they should be.”
While projections and actuality will always have discrepancies – that’s why they are called projections, after all – the fact is that as of this summer, Colorado had collected over $500 million in tax revenue since recreational sales began in January of 2014. This brings us to the “cost” involved in legalization. It’s something Greenlee references later in the interview and something the interviewer tries to get a better answer on.
“…there’s going to be a significant discussion with regard to how legalized recreational marijuana is managed in our state,” Greenlee said. “There will be costs that inherently come along with that, rather it’s law enforcement-type costs, rather it’s actual increased research costs, rather it’s medical costs.”
Of course, in actuality, law enforcement costs decrease under legalization as police focus on other things, and studies have shown Medicare costs are dropping in states with robust medical marijuana programs. As for “research costs,” is he saying we shouldn’t study marijuana’s effects on people?
“Well Colorado’s had a lot of issues, you know,” Greenlee continued. “They just had their fifth year of legalized recreational marijuana, and most of what they had hoped would be the case is not the case.” Like what? He goes on to reference some businesses having to deal with drug testing employees and makes oblique reference – I think – to increased cases of marijuana ingestion in Colorado emergency rooms, an issue I’ve talked aboutand Politico covered quite fairly. In any case, I fail to see how those things mean prohibition and the black market is superior to legalization, which is what Greenlee is arguing for.
Opposition to Michigan Marijuana Legalization Doesn’t Have a Leg to Stand On
By Joe Klare - Dec 13, 2017
Last month, the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Michigan turned in some 365,000 signatures in an attempt to get on the November 2018 statewide ballot. If successful, the measure would legalize cannabis possession, growing and purchasing by those 21 years of age and older.
As you can imagine, there is opposition to this plan. As you can also imagine, the opposition is having a hard time articulating exactly why the system of black market sales is better than a system of legal, regulated sales.
Scott Greenlee, the president of Healthy and Productive Michigan, was recently on a Michigan radio program and was asked about why his group opposes legalization. He made quite a few weak points, while also not ruling out taking money for his group from opioid manufacturers, but I’m going to focus on two major holes in his theory.
“A lot of people have talked about the tax dollars it will generate,” Greenlee said. “As folks have found out in Colorado, the tax dollars come along with a cost and, interestingly enough, in a lot of cases, tax dollar projections and revenue projections don’t come quite in where they should be.”
While projections and actuality will always have discrepancies – that’s why they are called projections, after all – the fact is that as of this summer, Colorado had collected over $500 million in tax revenue since recreational sales began in January of 2014. This brings us to the “cost” involved in legalization. It’s something Greenlee references later in the interview and something the interviewer tries to get a better answer on.
“…there’s going to be a significant discussion with regard to how legalized recreational marijuana is managed in our state,” Greenlee said. “There will be costs that inherently come along with that, rather it’s law enforcement-type costs, rather it’s actual increased research costs, rather it’s medical costs.”
Of course, in actuality, law enforcement costs decrease under legalization as police focus on other things, and studies have shown Medicare costs are dropping in states with robust medical marijuana programs. As for “research costs,” is he saying we shouldn’t study marijuana’s effects on people?
“Well Colorado’s had a lot of issues, you know,” Greenlee continued. “They just had their fifth year of legalized recreational marijuana, and most of what they had hoped would be the case is not the case.” Like what? He goes on to reference some businesses having to deal with drug testing employees and makes oblique reference – I think – to increased cases of marijuana ingestion in Colorado emergency rooms, an issue I’ve talked aboutand Politico covered quite fairly. In any case, I fail to see how those things mean prohibition and the black market is superior to legalization, which is what Greenlee is arguing for.
Many lack resources to fight property seizures in drug cases
Bill Laitner, Detroit Free PressPublished 6:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2017
Only a few people were in a courtroom north of Detroit last week to hear the judge tongue-lash a prosecutor for delaying the return of a bank account with $11,000 that she ruled was improperly seized by drug investigators.
“I’m outraged by the way this was handled,” Oakland County Circuit Judge Rae Lee Chabot exclaimed, wilting the prosecutor.
“This hints at more than just a mistake. This continuous action hints at obstruction,” Chabot said, citing the 22 months it took to obey a court order and unfreeze the account. Chabot even slapped a fine on the prosecutor, awarding $2,500 “in sanctions” to defense attorneys, though they’d asked for three times that much.
The judicial dressing-down at this testy hearing in Pontiac offered rare insight into how difficult it can be — how time-consuming, frustrating and costly — for those on the wrong end of a drug bust to get back their property.
In this case, it was to get back the joint bank account of a mother and son — an account containing $10,938, of which $10,000 belonged not to medical-marijuana user Donny Barnes, 42, of Orion Township, but to Barnes’ mother.
It was in November 2014 that a platoon of heavily armed police seized their joint bank account, along with Donny Barnes’ two SUVs and his children’s Christmas presents, according to legal pleadings. At the same time, they shut down Barnes’ three small businesses — a furniture resale firm, a spyware shop and a medical-marijuana magazine.
But, as Barnes is quick to point out, he was not convicted of anything. A different judge, in a criminal trial in February, dismissed the only charge against him — marijuana possession with intent to distribute — after ruling that police failed to establish probable cause for raiding Barnes' house, office and warehouse.
For those who claim that Michigan — and the nation — are overdue to reform forfeiture laws, Donny Barnes could be the poster child. That’s the spin his lawyers give his case, labeling Barnes the unusual defendant with the resources to fight back against laws letting police invoke “civil forfeiture,” the seizure of property up to and including cars and houses, often without anyone being convicted.
Yet, prosecutors beg to differ in Michigan’s affluent Oakland County north of Detroit. It's a place where county drug agents are widely feared for their aggressive tactics against those involved with distributing medical marijuana, and where county officials advertise auctions every few months to sell the proceeds of drug raids — from stereos and snowmobiles to speedboats and sports cars.
Expecting to win
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office is awaiting a ruling on Barnes’ criminal case from the Michigan Court of Appeals, “and we fully expect to win,” Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton said. That would mean that law enforcement would regain the leverage of having had probable cause to raid Barnes’ properties — and thus get a second bite at the apple, as legal tacticians say.
The prosecutors' goal? To show that Barnes, at the time of the raid, was a big-time marijuana dealer, one who’d tried to hide his illegal activity under the cloak of medical marijuana while, at a distance, overseeing the sale of the drug to total strangers — a violation of the state law that allows “transfers” of medicinal pot from a state-registered “caregiver” like Barnes only to that caregiver's five registered “patients.”
The caregiver-transfer system dramatically evolved just last week when, on Dec. 15, the first applications were accepted in Lansing from Michiganders seeking to set up dispensaries — the term for legal shops that sell medical marijuana, referred to in a new state law as “provisioning centers.”
But Barnes’ activities in Oakland County lacked any official approval, and so the older law applied to him as it stood on the day of the raid, Walton said.
“He was operating a dispensary, clearly,” Walton said.
Donny Barnes of Lake Orion says he's a medical-marijuana user who was the innocent victim of a 2014 police raid; investigators argue that he was a drug dealer, but his criminal case was dismissed. (Photo: Eric Seals)
No matter that dispensaries have operated for years and largely without police interference in numerous other Michigan counties, including Wayne, Washtenaw and Genesee. Oakland is long identified with narrow interpretation of the state's medical marijuana act.
And with stiff penalties for marijuana cases, Barnes’ battle seems far from over. Also far from over is the debate over just how much power police and prosecutors should have in permanently confiscating the property of people who weren't convicted of any crime — and, in some cases, were never even arrested.
Wrong place, wrong time
Although civil forfeiture has been around a long time, the practice took off in the mid-1980s when Congress passed a law that allows federal and local police agencies to keep seized assets and cash believed to be tied to criminal activity, even if the owner isn’t charged with violating a law.
It’s as if someone’s car or cash was in the proverbial wrong place at the wrong time. Hundreds of state and federal laws authorize the forfeiture of property somehow linked to everything from cockfighting and drag racing to securities fraud and, most widely known, drug offenses.
Law enforcers have a powerful financial incentive to seize property because the property becomes a significant revenue source for police budgets, above and beyond their limited public support from tax revenues.
As civil forfeiture became more widely understood, and, some say, abused, critics have stepped forward from across the political spectrum. They range from champions of civil liberties on the left to Libertarian protectors of private property on the right. Perhaps, as a result, forfeitures nationwide and in Michigan have been ebbing.
According to an overview by the U.S. Department of Justice website, through the five years ending in 2016 — the most recent data available — the number of seizures of civil property by federal authorities and their “local law-enforcement partners” dropped by 27%. The overview goes on to complain that the drop in seizures means that less cash and "salable goods" flowed into federal law-enforcement coffers, reducing the amount that the federal Assets Forfeiture Fund "can afford to spend on law enforcement operations,” and also meaning that “payments to state and local law enforcement partners have been markedly lower.”
Still, the police at the local, county and state levels can make their own seizures, then use them to bolster their budgets. Michigan police agencies reported having seized $15.2 million in cash and property in the last 11 months of 2016 — skipping January because a new reporting system kicked in on Feb. 1, according to the State Police. Although that amount is considerable, it's a big drop from the $26.5 million in cash and other assets seized statewide in 2012, according to a State Police report from June 2013.
Citing the most recent report, State Police said that in about 10% of the 5,290 cases reported — that is, in 523 cases — the person whose property was seized "was not charged with a violation for which forfeitures were authorized.” Translation?
"Many persons accused of crimes cooperated with authorities, resulting in criminal charges not being pursued," the report explained.
Yet, there’s another way to view that statistic.
“That’s the deal that law enforcement strikes with the many people who lack means to defend themselves, and so they choose giving up their property when they’re threatened with a criminal trial and possibly going to prison if they lose,” said attorney David Moffitt, one of several lawyers who has represented Donny Barnes.
It was Moffitt who last week pushed for sanctions against the Oakland County assistant prosecutor in Barnes' civil forfeiture case.
“My client is different — he has the means to hire me and other attorneys to fight the totally unjustified seizure of his property," Moffitt said. He added: "This case is showing that when people are able to do that, the unbridled power of the police and prosecutors to use drug forfeiture laws can be brought to heel.”
To get back the joint bank account of about $11,000 he had with his mother, Barnes said he "probably spent almost $100,000 in attorney fees.”
Barnes has been in court dozens of times over his two tandem cases, one, the criminal charge that was dismissed, the other, his ongoing civil-forfeiture fight. He still seeks the return of the rest of his property, but that must await the state Appeals Court's ruling on his criminal case, he said.
"This is my family's fourth holiday season dealing with this," Barnes said.
He called himself a crime victim who'd had "guns held to my head" and said "my family's been robbed" of property and money.
In recent years, lawmakers in Lansing and Washington have proposed changes to reel in forfeiture laws, although U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who famously called marijuana "only slightly less awful than heroin" — reversed an Obama administration rule meant to discourage civil forfeitures.
Changing Michigan's laws
In Michigan, the pushback against civil forfeiture has been led by state Rep. Peter Lucido, a Macomb County Republican.
Forfeiture was added to state and federal law because "this was going to reduce drug trafficking, and we can clearly see that it failed," said Lucido, a former probation officer and veteran criminal defense attorney.
To reform forfeiture in Michigan, the Legislature passed two of Lucido's bills, one requiring more than a minimum of evidence to make a forfeiture case stick, another eliminating the 10% bond that property owners had been forced to post "even to make a claim to that property — they still had to fight for it in court," Lucido said.
His latest effort is a bill that says authorities must convict a defendant before that person’s property can be permanently confiscated.
"I completely agree that a criminal should not profit from crime. But by the same token, do we want police taking somebody's stuff who turns out not to be a criminal?" Lucido said Sunday.
"Most states are going back to what's called conviction before a taking," he said.
Lucido's proposal, House Bill 4158, was stuck this year in the House Judiciary Committee — so now he hopes for a vote on it in 2018, he said.
Bill Laitner, Detroit Free PressPublished 6:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2017
Only a few people were in a courtroom north of Detroit last week to hear the judge tongue-lash a prosecutor for delaying the return of a bank account with $11,000 that she ruled was improperly seized by drug investigators.
“I’m outraged by the way this was handled,” Oakland County Circuit Judge Rae Lee Chabot exclaimed, wilting the prosecutor.
“This hints at more than just a mistake. This continuous action hints at obstruction,” Chabot said, citing the 22 months it took to obey a court order and unfreeze the account. Chabot even slapped a fine on the prosecutor, awarding $2,500 “in sanctions” to defense attorneys, though they’d asked for three times that much.
The judicial dressing-down at this testy hearing in Pontiac offered rare insight into how difficult it can be — how time-consuming, frustrating and costly — for those on the wrong end of a drug bust to get back their property.
In this case, it was to get back the joint bank account of a mother and son — an account containing $10,938, of which $10,000 belonged not to medical-marijuana user Donny Barnes, 42, of Orion Township, but to Barnes’ mother.
It was in November 2014 that a platoon of heavily armed police seized their joint bank account, along with Donny Barnes’ two SUVs and his children’s Christmas presents, according to legal pleadings. At the same time, they shut down Barnes’ three small businesses — a furniture resale firm, a spyware shop and a medical-marijuana magazine.
But, as Barnes is quick to point out, he was not convicted of anything. A different judge, in a criminal trial in February, dismissed the only charge against him — marijuana possession with intent to distribute — after ruling that police failed to establish probable cause for raiding Barnes' house, office and warehouse.
For those who claim that Michigan — and the nation — are overdue to reform forfeiture laws, Donny Barnes could be the poster child. That’s the spin his lawyers give his case, labeling Barnes the unusual defendant with the resources to fight back against laws letting police invoke “civil forfeiture,” the seizure of property up to and including cars and houses, often without anyone being convicted.
Yet, prosecutors beg to differ in Michigan’s affluent Oakland County north of Detroit. It's a place where county drug agents are widely feared for their aggressive tactics against those involved with distributing medical marijuana, and where county officials advertise auctions every few months to sell the proceeds of drug raids — from stereos and snowmobiles to speedboats and sports cars.
Expecting to win
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office is awaiting a ruling on Barnes’ criminal case from the Michigan Court of Appeals, “and we fully expect to win,” Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton said. That would mean that law enforcement would regain the leverage of having had probable cause to raid Barnes’ properties — and thus get a second bite at the apple, as legal tacticians say.
The prosecutors' goal? To show that Barnes, at the time of the raid, was a big-time marijuana dealer, one who’d tried to hide his illegal activity under the cloak of medical marijuana while, at a distance, overseeing the sale of the drug to total strangers — a violation of the state law that allows “transfers” of medicinal pot from a state-registered “caregiver” like Barnes only to that caregiver's five registered “patients.”
The caregiver-transfer system dramatically evolved just last week when, on Dec. 15, the first applications were accepted in Lansing from Michiganders seeking to set up dispensaries — the term for legal shops that sell medical marijuana, referred to in a new state law as “provisioning centers.”
But Barnes’ activities in Oakland County lacked any official approval, and so the older law applied to him as it stood on the day of the raid, Walton said.
“He was operating a dispensary, clearly,” Walton said.
Donny Barnes of Lake Orion says he's a medical-marijuana user who was the innocent victim of a 2014 police raid; investigators argue that he was a drug dealer, but his criminal case was dismissed. (Photo: Eric Seals)
No matter that dispensaries have operated for years and largely without police interference in numerous other Michigan counties, including Wayne, Washtenaw and Genesee. Oakland is long identified with narrow interpretation of the state's medical marijuana act.
And with stiff penalties for marijuana cases, Barnes’ battle seems far from over. Also far from over is the debate over just how much power police and prosecutors should have in permanently confiscating the property of people who weren't convicted of any crime — and, in some cases, were never even arrested.
Wrong place, wrong time
Although civil forfeiture has been around a long time, the practice took off in the mid-1980s when Congress passed a law that allows federal and local police agencies to keep seized assets and cash believed to be tied to criminal activity, even if the owner isn’t charged with violating a law.
It’s as if someone’s car or cash was in the proverbial wrong place at the wrong time. Hundreds of state and federal laws authorize the forfeiture of property somehow linked to everything from cockfighting and drag racing to securities fraud and, most widely known, drug offenses.
Law enforcers have a powerful financial incentive to seize property because the property becomes a significant revenue source for police budgets, above and beyond their limited public support from tax revenues.
As civil forfeiture became more widely understood, and, some say, abused, critics have stepped forward from across the political spectrum. They range from champions of civil liberties on the left to Libertarian protectors of private property on the right. Perhaps, as a result, forfeitures nationwide and in Michigan have been ebbing.
According to an overview by the U.S. Department of Justice website, through the five years ending in 2016 — the most recent data available — the number of seizures of civil property by federal authorities and their “local law-enforcement partners” dropped by 27%. The overview goes on to complain that the drop in seizures means that less cash and "salable goods" flowed into federal law-enforcement coffers, reducing the amount that the federal Assets Forfeiture Fund "can afford to spend on law enforcement operations,” and also meaning that “payments to state and local law enforcement partners have been markedly lower.”
Still, the police at the local, county and state levels can make their own seizures, then use them to bolster their budgets. Michigan police agencies reported having seized $15.2 million in cash and property in the last 11 months of 2016 — skipping January because a new reporting system kicked in on Feb. 1, according to the State Police. Although that amount is considerable, it's a big drop from the $26.5 million in cash and other assets seized statewide in 2012, according to a State Police report from June 2013.
Citing the most recent report, State Police said that in about 10% of the 5,290 cases reported — that is, in 523 cases — the person whose property was seized "was not charged with a violation for which forfeitures were authorized.” Translation?
"Many persons accused of crimes cooperated with authorities, resulting in criminal charges not being pursued," the report explained.
Yet, there’s another way to view that statistic.
“That’s the deal that law enforcement strikes with the many people who lack means to defend themselves, and so they choose giving up their property when they’re threatened with a criminal trial and possibly going to prison if they lose,” said attorney David Moffitt, one of several lawyers who has represented Donny Barnes.
It was Moffitt who last week pushed for sanctions against the Oakland County assistant prosecutor in Barnes' civil forfeiture case.
“My client is different — he has the means to hire me and other attorneys to fight the totally unjustified seizure of his property," Moffitt said. He added: "This case is showing that when people are able to do that, the unbridled power of the police and prosecutors to use drug forfeiture laws can be brought to heel.”
To get back the joint bank account of about $11,000 he had with his mother, Barnes said he "probably spent almost $100,000 in attorney fees.”
Barnes has been in court dozens of times over his two tandem cases, one, the criminal charge that was dismissed, the other, his ongoing civil-forfeiture fight. He still seeks the return of the rest of his property, but that must await the state Appeals Court's ruling on his criminal case, he said.
"This is my family's fourth holiday season dealing with this," Barnes said.
He called himself a crime victim who'd had "guns held to my head" and said "my family's been robbed" of property and money.
In recent years, lawmakers in Lansing and Washington have proposed changes to reel in forfeiture laws, although U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who famously called marijuana "only slightly less awful than heroin" — reversed an Obama administration rule meant to discourage civil forfeitures.
Changing Michigan's laws
In Michigan, the pushback against civil forfeiture has been led by state Rep. Peter Lucido, a Macomb County Republican.
Forfeiture was added to state and federal law because "this was going to reduce drug trafficking, and we can clearly see that it failed," said Lucido, a former probation officer and veteran criminal defense attorney.
To reform forfeiture in Michigan, the Legislature passed two of Lucido's bills, one requiring more than a minimum of evidence to make a forfeiture case stick, another eliminating the 10% bond that property owners had been forced to post "even to make a claim to that property — they still had to fight for it in court," Lucido said.
His latest effort is a bill that says authorities must convict a defendant before that person’s property can be permanently confiscated.
"I completely agree that a criminal should not profit from crime. But by the same token, do we want police taking somebody's stuff who turns out not to be a criminal?" Lucido said Sunday.
"Most states are going back to what's called conviction before a taking," he said.
Lucido's proposal, House Bill 4158, was stuck this year in the House Judiciary Committee — so now he hopes for a vote on it in 2018, he said.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Thank you!Many lack resources to fight property seizures in drug cases
Bill Laitner, Detroit Free PressPublished 6:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2017
Only a few people were in a courtroom north of Detroit last week to hear the judge tongue-lash a prosecutor for delaying the return of a bank account with $11,000 that she ruled was improperly seized by drug investigators.
“I’m outraged by the way this was handled,” Oakland County Circuit Judge Rae Lee Chabot exclaimed, wilting the prosecutor.
“This hints at more than just a mistake. This continuous action hints at obstruction,” Chabot said, citing the 22 months it took to obey a court order and unfreeze the account. Chabot even slapped a fine on the prosecutor, awarding $2,500 “in sanctions” to defense attorneys, though they’d asked for three times that much.
The judicial dressing-down at this testy hearing in Pontiac offered rare insight into how difficult it can be — how time-consuming, frustrating and costly — for those on the wrong end of a drug bust to get back their property.
In this case, it was to get back the joint bank account of a mother and son — an account containing $10,938, of which $10,000 belonged not to medical-marijuana user Donny Barnes, 42, of Orion Township, but to Barnes’ mother.
It was in November 2014 that a platoon of heavily armed police seized their joint bank account, along with Donny Barnes’ two SUVs and his children’s Christmas presents, according to legal pleadings. At the same time, they shut down Barnes’ three small businesses — a furniture resale firm, a spyware shop and a medical-marijuana magazine.
But, as Barnes is quick to point out, he was not convicted of anything. A different judge, in a criminal trial in February, dismissed the only charge against him — marijuana possession with intent to distribute — after ruling that police failed to establish probable cause for raiding Barnes' house, office and warehouse.
For those who claim that Michigan — and the nation — are overdue to reform forfeiture laws, Donny Barnes could be the poster child. That’s the spin his lawyers give his case, labeling Barnes the unusual defendant with the resources to fight back against laws letting police invoke “civil forfeiture,” the seizure of property up to and including cars and houses, often without anyone being convicted.
Yet, prosecutors beg to differ in Michigan’s affluent Oakland County north of Detroit. It's a place where county drug agents are widely feared for their aggressive tactics against those involved with distributing medical marijuana, and where county officials advertise auctions every few months to sell the proceeds of drug raids — from stereos and snowmobiles to speedboats and sports cars.
Expecting to win
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office is awaiting a ruling on Barnes’ criminal case from the Michigan Court of Appeals, “and we fully expect to win,” Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton said. That would mean that law enforcement would regain the leverage of having had probable cause to raid Barnes’ properties — and thus get a second bite at the apple, as legal tacticians say.
The prosecutors' goal? To show that Barnes, at the time of the raid, was a big-time marijuana dealer, one who’d tried to hide his illegal activity under the cloak of medical marijuana while, at a distance, overseeing the sale of the drug to total strangers — a violation of the state law that allows “transfers” of medicinal pot from a state-registered “caregiver” like Barnes only to that caregiver's five registered “patients.”
The caregiver-transfer system dramatically evolved just last week when, on Dec. 15, the first applications were accepted in Lansing from Michiganders seeking to set up dispensaries — the term for legal shops that sell medical marijuana, referred to in a new state law as “provisioning centers.”
But Barnes’ activities in Oakland County lacked any official approval, and so the older law applied to him as it stood on the day of the raid, Walton said.
“He was operating a dispensary, clearly,” Walton said.
Donny Barnes of Lake Orion says he's a medical-marijuana user who was the innocent victim of a 2014 police raid; investigators argue that he was a drug dealer, but his criminal case was dismissed. (Photo: Eric Seals)
No matter that dispensaries have operated for years and largely without police interference in numerous other Michigan counties, including Wayne, Washtenaw and Genesee. Oakland is long identified with narrow interpretation of the state's medical marijuana act.
And with stiff penalties for marijuana cases, Barnes’ battle seems far from over. Also far from over is the debate over just how much power police and prosecutors should have in permanently confiscating the property of people who weren't convicted of any crime — and, in some cases, were never even arrested.
Wrong place, wrong time
Although civil forfeiture has been around a long time, the practice took off in the mid-1980s when Congress passed a law that allows federal and local police agencies to keep seized assets and cash believed to be tied to criminal activity, even if the owner isn’t charged with violating a law.
It’s as if someone’s car or cash was in the proverbial wrong place at the wrong time. Hundreds of state and federal laws authorize the forfeiture of property somehow linked to everything from cockfighting and drag racing to securities fraud and, most widely known, drug offenses.
Law enforcers have a powerful financial incentive to seize property because the property becomes a significant revenue source for police budgets, above and beyond their limited public support from tax revenues.
As civil forfeiture became more widely understood, and, some say, abused, critics have stepped forward from across the political spectrum. They range from champions of civil liberties on the left to Libertarian protectors of private property on the right. Perhaps, as a result, forfeitures nationwide and in Michigan have been ebbing.
According to an overview by the U.S. Department of Justice website, through the five years ending in 2016 — the most recent data available — the number of seizures of civil property by federal authorities and their “local law-enforcement partners” dropped by 27%. The overview goes on to complain that the drop in seizures means that less cash and "salable goods" flowed into federal law-enforcement coffers, reducing the amount that the federal Assets Forfeiture Fund "can afford to spend on law enforcement operations,” and also meaning that “payments to state and local law enforcement partners have been markedly lower.”
Still, the police at the local, county and state levels can make their own seizures, then use them to bolster their budgets. Michigan police agencies reported having seized $15.2 million in cash and property in the last 11 months of 2016 — skipping January because a new reporting system kicked in on Feb. 1, according to the State Police. Although that amount is considerable, it's a big drop from the $26.5 million in cash and other assets seized statewide in 2012, according to a State Police report from June 2013.
Citing the most recent report, State Police said that in about 10% of the 5,290 cases reported — that is, in 523 cases — the person whose property was seized "was not charged with a violation for which forfeitures were authorized.” Translation?
"Many persons accused of crimes cooperated with authorities, resulting in criminal charges not being pursued," the report explained.
Yet, there’s another way to view that statistic.
“That’s the deal that law enforcement strikes with the many people who lack means to defend themselves, and so they choose giving up their property when they’re threatened with a criminal trial and possibly going to prison if they lose,” said attorney David Moffitt, one of several lawyers who has represented Donny Barnes.
It was Moffitt who last week pushed for sanctions against the Oakland County assistant prosecutor in Barnes' civil forfeiture case.
“My client is different — he has the means to hire me and other attorneys to fight the totally unjustified seizure of his property," Moffitt said. He added: "This case is showing that when people are able to do that, the unbridled power of the police and prosecutors to use drug forfeiture laws can be brought to heel.”
To get back the joint bank account of about $11,000 he had with his mother, Barnes said he "probably spent almost $100,000 in attorney fees.”
Barnes has been in court dozens of times over his two tandem cases, one, the criminal charge that was dismissed, the other, his ongoing civil-forfeiture fight. He still seeks the return of the rest of his property, but that must await the state Appeals Court's ruling on his criminal case, he said.
"This is my family's fourth holiday season dealing with this," Barnes said.
He called himself a crime victim who'd had "guns held to my head" and said "my family's been robbed" of property and money.
In recent years, lawmakers in Lansing and Washington have proposed changes to reel in forfeiture laws, although U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who famously called marijuana "only slightly less awful than heroin" — reversed an Obama administration rule meant to discourage civil forfeitures.
Changing Michigan's laws
In Michigan, the pushback against civil forfeiture has been led by state Rep. Peter Lucido, a Macomb County Republican.
Forfeiture was added to state and federal law because "this was going to reduce drug trafficking, and we can clearly see that it failed," said Lucido, a former probation officer and veteran criminal defense attorney.
To reform forfeiture in Michigan, the Legislature passed two of Lucido's bills, one requiring more than a minimum of evidence to make a forfeiture case stick, another eliminating the 10% bond that property owners had been forced to post "even to make a claim to that property — they still had to fight for it in court," Lucido said.
His latest effort is a bill that says authorities must convict a defendant before that person’s property can be permanently confiscated.
"I completely agree that a criminal should not profit from crime. But by the same token, do we want police taking somebody's stuff who turns out not to be a criminal?" Lucido said Sunday.
"Most states are going back to what's called conviction before a taking," he said.
Lucido's proposal, House Bill 4158, was stuck this year in the House Judiciary Committee — so now he hopes for a vote on it in 2018, he said.
This story explain's that we are surrounded by one stupid group of knuckle head's!
CANNABIS is SAFE and completly HARMLESS?
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
|