All 4 bills pass out of the house

purklize said:

A briefcase isn't likely to help. The problem is, the way that bill is worded, it's probably going to be interpreted to mean "out of reach." As in, in the back seat or the glovebox, etc., at best. It may even be interpreted to mean that it needs to be strapped to the roof. You know how the CoA is.

Click to expand...

81(c)3- Threats or assault against employee of family independence agency
82- Felonious assault; and violation of subsection (1) in weapon free school zone; definitions.
83- Assault with intent to commit murder.
84- Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder
86- Assault with intent to maim.
87- Assault with intent to commit felony not otherwise punished
88- Assault with intent to rob and steal; unarmed.
89- Assault with intent to rob and steal; armed.
90(a)- Conduct proscribed under MCL 750.81 to 750.89 as felony; intent. (against pregnant lady)
90(b)- Conduct proscribed under MCL 750.81 to 750.89 as crime; intent (against pregnant)
91- Attempt to murder.
200 to 212(a)- Explosives; common carriers for passengers; transportation: Cause harm using
chemicals, biological, radioactive, harmful substances and devices; Acts causing false belief of
exposure; Explosives exploded by concussion or friction; Explosives; marking when intended for
shipment; Explosives; sending with intent to kill or injure persons or damage property; Device
representing or presented as explosive, incendiary device, or bomb; sending or transporting; Explosive
substances; placing with intent to destroy and causing injury to any person; Offensive or injurious
substance; placing with intent to injure, coerce, or interfere with person or property; Possession of
explosive substance or device in public place; Substance that when combined will become explosive or
combustible; possession with intent to use unlawfully; Valerium; unlawful acts; Device designed to
explode upon impact, upon application of heat, or device highly incendiary; possession with intent to
use unlawfully; High explosives; marking;
316- First degree murder
317- Second degree murder
321- Manslaughter
349- Kidnapping
349(a)- Prisoner taking person as hostage
350- Leading, taking, carrying away, decoying, or enticing away child under 14
397- Mayhem
411h(2)(b) or (3)- Stalking; Stalking age 18 or under, continued conduct
411i- Aggravated stalking
520b- Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree
520c- Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree
520d- Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree
520e- Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree
520g- Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct
529- Use or possession of dangerous weapon; aggravated assault
529a- Carjacking
530- Larceny of money or other property
543a-543z- Michigan anti-terrorism act; Terrorism, action; Hindering prosecution of terrorism;
Providing material support for terrorist acts or soliciting material support for terrorism as felonies;
Making terrorist threat or false report of terrorism; Terrorism using the Internet or telecommunications
or electronic device; Obtaining or possessing certain information about vulnerable target;

Click to expand...

The brief case would have to lock..

Click to expand...

(b) Enclosed in a case that is not readily accessible from the

interior of the vehicle, if the vehicle in which the person is traveling does not have a trunk.

Click to expand...

ozzrokk said:

Someone asked me what was so terrible in these bills. I will answer with the letter I wrote to the House and will send one with the same concerns to the Senate.

Dear Sir/Ma'am


I am a medical marijuana patient and have great concerns on the actions of this House concerning changes, amendments and "clarifications of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. I personally feel that the Act reads very clear and feel that many of you do as well. It just needs to be fully implemented and honored and many of the problems that have arisen would easily be rectified.

The patients of this great state of Michigan deserve proper protection and this is your motivation in these bills. I have seen that the committee took on these bills and brought them forward to the house who has now passed them along to the senate. These bills are written to help clarify the Act and fixed the problems that you have been told are happening by many different people. Law Enforcement, PAAM, Attorney General Bill Schuette, Various Patient and Caregiver advocates, Individual Patients and Caregivers. Many came to you with what they see as problems that have arisen since the enactment of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

Law enforcement and the prosecutors told you there are many confusions and they do not know who to arrest and prosecute. The patients and caregivers told you individually that they needed protection.This Act was not enacted by 63% of the people to help arrest and prosecute patients and caregivers is was enacted to protect sick people and allow them a better way of life.

If you were going to amend or clarify the Act it should be done with the patients protection. I heard the elected Representatives say these were the most pressing issues after everything they heard over the course of many many months. They did mention other issues as pressing as well but it was simply too hard to get into so they went with this.

I fail to see how these bills for the most part do anything to help protect patients. I do not see how having a photo on a card, a card that takes 6 months to print, provides pressing protections for the patients or law enforcement for that matter. I do not believe that there are many instances where not having a photo on the card has caused problems. Most are backed up by a Drivers License or Id card.

I witnessed many citizens testify before you that getting recommendations from their primary care physician was hard in todays climate as it was. Your answer is to give doctors more reasons to not give the recommendations? Not on the basis of the patient would not benefit from the medical use of marijuana but on the basis of consequences for doing so. By having them required to do follow up visits and treatments for the use of medical marijuana gives doctors and hospitals more worries due to the current federal and state scheduling of marijuana.

Adding the wording of UNLESS NO REASONABLE FACTFINDER COULD FIND IN FAVOR OF THAT PERSON ON THE ELEMENTS LISTED IN SUBSECTION (A) to the Affirmative Defense does not protect patients. It gives judges more of the ability and reason to disallow the defense and this what is currently happening. A jury should hear the evidence......

Putting more restrictions on the transportation of a patients medicine does not protect the patients,the public or law enforcement. We do not have to put our prescription medicine in the trunk of a car in a case. We do not have to carry alcohol in this manner. This bill will not only add to unjust arrests but also creates confusions. The definition of a case I am sure carries many definitions now it will only be a matter of what definition is used. Law enforcement will use one definition, patients will use another. Judges will use yet another and usually it will be the one that does not protect the patient. The wording of the bill actually says enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk. In the trunk is not secured away? But it must also be enclosed in a case. The wording in how a patient that does not have a trunk will open a minefield of unjust arrests and prosecutions. ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE what will be considered readily accessible? There will be many different interpretations and most will not protect the patient.

The most damning thing in these bills to patients is the access issue. The more access that is given to the patients confidential information the less protections the patients will have. In many instances the meer presence of the card causes unlawful searches, seizures and arrests. What will broader access to the registry do? I fear to even think about it. The Michigan State Police even said the presence of a card would probably not change the way they approached a marijuana warrant. Police only then feel the need to inspect and make sure you are in compliance when the Act says this is clearly not to happen.

What has apparently happened here is the House has listened to all parties and determined that giving law enforcement and prosecutors more power to prosecute and seize property and freedom from sick patients and those that would care for them would be better than protecting them. Today is a day that I have to say I am not proud to live in Michigan.

I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and hope you will take them to heart and understand that we have many fears in todays climate and do not need any more. I oppose these bills and would ask you to do the same.

Click to expand...

gladstoned said:

Jumping through their hoops is one thing. Having your hands cuffed behind your back and having your ass thrown through that hoop with a fucking pillow case over my head is what I would like to avoid.

Click to expand...

gladstoned said:

Talk that shit to someone else. How many times have they locked you in a little cage feeding you shit? You aren't too fucking tough then. Lots of tough people end up taking plea bargains.

Click to expand...

ozzrokk said:

Someone asked me what was so terrible in these bills. I will answer with the letter I wrote to the House and will send one with the same concerns to the Senate.

Dear Sir/Ma'am


I am a medical marijuana patient and have great concerns on the actions of this House concerning changes, amendments and "clarifications of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. I personally feel that the Act reads very clear and feel that many of you do as well. It just needs to be fully implemented and honored and many of the problems that have arisen would easily be rectified.

The patients of this great state of Michigan deserve proper protection and this is your motivation in these bills. I have seen that the committee took on these bills and brought them forward to the house who has now passed them along to the senate. These bills are written to help clarify the Act and fixed the problems that you have been told are happening by many different people. Law Enforcement, PAAM, Attorney General Bill Schuette, Various Patient and Caregiver advocates, Individual Patients and Caregivers. Many came to you with what they see as problems that have arisen since the enactment of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

Law enforcement and the prosecutors told you there are many confusions and they do not know who to arrest and prosecute. The patients and caregivers told you individually that they needed protection.This Act was not enacted by 63% of the people to help arrest and prosecute patients and caregivers is was enacted to protect sick people and allow them a better way of life.

If you were going to amend or clarify the Act it should be done with the patients protection. I heard the elected Representatives say these were the most pressing issues after everything they heard over the course of many many months. They did mention other issues as pressing as well but it was simply too hard to get into so they went with this.

I fail to see how these bills for the most part do anything to help protect patients. I do not see how having a photo on a card, a card that takes 6 months to print, provides pressing protections for the patients or law enforcement for that matter. I do not believe that there are many instances where not having a photo on the card has caused problems. Most are backed up by a Drivers License or Id card.

I witnessed many citizens testify before you that getting recommendations from their primary care physician was hard in todays climate as it was. Your answer is to give doctors more reasons to not give the recommendations? Not on the basis of the patient would not benefit from the medical use of marijuana but on the basis of consequences for doing so. By having them required to do follow up visits and treatments for the use of medical marijuana gives doctors and hospitals more worries due to the current federal and state scheduling of marijuana.

Adding the wording of UNLESS NO REASONABLE FACTFINDER COULD FIND IN FAVOR OF THAT PERSON ON THE ELEMENTS LISTED IN SUBSECTION (A) to the Affirmative Defense does not protect patients. It gives judges more of the ability and reason to disallow the defense and this what is currently happening. A jury should hear the evidence......

Putting more restrictions on the transportation of a patients medicine does not protect the patients,the public or law enforcement. We do not have to put our prescription medicine in the trunk of a car in a case. We do not have to carry alcohol in this manner. This bill will not only add to unjust arrests but also creates confusions. The definition of a case I am sure carries many definitions now it will only be a matter of what definition is used. Law enforcement will use one definition, patients will use another. Judges will use yet another and usually it will be the one that does not protect the patient. The wording of the bill actually says enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk. In the trunk is not secured away? But it must also be enclosed in a case. The wording in how a patient that does not have a trunk will open a minefield of unjust arrests and prosecutions. ENCLOSED IN A CASE THAT IS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE what will be considered readily accessible? There will be many different interpretations and most will not protect the patient.

The most damning thing in these bills to patients is the access issue. The more access that is given to the patients confidential information the less protections the patients will have. In many instances the meer presence of the card causes unlawful searches, seizures and arrests. What will broader access to the registry do? I fear to even think about it. The Michigan State Police even said the presence of a card would probably not change the way they approached a marijuana warrant. Police only then feel the need to inspect and make sure you are in compliance when the Act says this is clearly not to happen.

What has apparently happened here is the House has listened to all parties and determined that giving law enforcement and prosecutors more power to prosecute and seize property and freedom from sick patients and those that would care for them would be better than protecting them. Today is a day that I have to say I am not proud to live in Michigan.

I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and hope you will take them to heart and understand that we have many fears in todays climate and do not need any more. I oppose these bills and would ask you to do the same.

Click to expand...

[h=2][/h]Everyone adjusts to stress differently. It's like any traumatic event, a funeral, getting caught-up in undesirable shit, an accident, a beating or even just visiting a friend or loved one in the hospital. Fight, flight, foot-in-mouth, I don't care and I don't judge. We all move forward in life the best we know how, learning the whole way through. You can't really criticize a survivor.

Click to expand...

bob harris said:

The brief case would have to lock..

Click to expand...

HomeLessBeans said:

But Glad how can you feel that way. This is our law makers and law enforcers just Lookin out for Us. Their only intention is to make this better and safer for us. Because they know what is best. Just trust em and all will be fine. LEO will follow all the new rules an regs like the sterling examples of?????? Oh what am I Lookin for??? Examples of???? Huh just can't find a 'nice' word for em in my vocabulary!!

Click to expand...