Thought this might be a better place for this topic.
Anyway, beginning January 14th, 2000, volunteers will begin collecting signatures to get a “Personal Responsibility Amendment” put on the November 2000 ballot. If it passes, it will be added to our state constitution.
It allows for marijuana users to grow a personal amount of marijuana, “not to exceed three mature plants, seedlings and three ounces of dried marijuana.” It would also allow for medical use of pot for anyone under 21 who has a “debilitating medical condition,” and is in consultation with a doctor. Minors would have to have consent from a custodial parent or guardian.
Even if this were to pass, it’s still going to be a violation of federal law, and you could still get popped by the feds, if they were so inclined. And this amendment would also ban the use & possession of pot while operating a motor vehicle or machine, while a person is on parole, probation or incarceration, or for any “commercial activity.”
So growing & smoking a couple of plants in the privacy of your own home would be okay, but selling it would still be illegal.
I’ve had a fencepost up my butt for a long time regarding pot. I don’t smoke it, (I have, just don’t do it any more), and I know that people who do smoke are not the crazed maniacs that Reefer Madness tried so hard to make us think they were. But it is against the law, and I’m just not real comfortable with breaking the law. I’m comfortable with this amendment idea, though. Michigan is a pretty conservative state, so while they may get enough signatures to put it on the ballot, I doubt it will pass.
I’ve always thought that when the teenagers of the 60’s reach their 60’s and are holding a majority of political offices and the population of those born before the fifties are dead and gone, we will finally see legalization of marijuana.
If the proposers of this amendment think that pot should be legal, why aren’t proposing that it simply be legal, instead of this strange status of “legal, but only if you grow your own, and less than 3 oz”? If they think it should be legal for medicinal use, then propose prescription status for it. If legal for any use, then let people buy it. Seems like they are aiming for legalization while trying to upset as few people as possible.
I also wonder why this is being proposed as a state constitutional amendment, instead of just a law. Is it part of a broader amendment?
Near as I can tell, no, it’s not part of a broader amendment. The article I read was an AP article, in Wednesday’s Flint Journal.
The article doesn’t say anything about why it’s a proposed amendment instead of a law, either. I am not a legal scholar, and I’m not really clear on the differences between laws and amendments. Any info that anyone could share would be helpful!
The reason the proposal isn’t to simply decriminalize marijuana is because as is it basically makes it impossible to arrest someone on marijuana charges. I mean, how are they going to prove that you didn’t grow that ounce? Unless they catch you with it in the car (which is, truthfully where probably most busts happen anyway) they won’t have a case against you.
So this meets the requirements of people who want to smoke dope without going to jail. It also will be less likely to offend people who are somewhat sympathetic but aren’t ready to take the step towards full decrim. Think baby steps!
Federal prosecution is not much of an issue, unless they decide to make examples of people. The DEA is far to understaffed to be able to raid people’s homes in the hopes of finding 3 plants and an amount of marijuana that doesn’t even amount to a felony (don’t you need like a quarter-pound for them to charge with intent to sell?).
I’d be surprised if this amendment passes, but it will be interesting to watch in any case.
Cooper, my husband said something about the quarter-pound thing yesterday when he read the article. It makes sense.
I used to live in Ann Arbor, and when I left there, possession of an ounce or less was a $25 misdemeanor, up from $5. What will happen to a city ordinance such as that if this amendment actually gets passed? Would they have to get rid of it?
Not a legal scholar either, Cristi, but I would say the difference is that the constitution contains the general principles from which laws are made. This proposed amendment is so specific, I don’t see why it would be part of a constitution instead of a law. I don’t object to it as a decriminalization of pot. I just see it as dishonest way to do it.