We won another round. Ter Beek v Wyoming

GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
Read the unanimous SC Summary and Opinion here. http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent Opinions/145816 Opinion.pdf

Local hayseeds cannot enforce moratoria or ordinances that conflict with the MMMA.

From: Karen O'Keefe ([email protected]) Sent: Thu 2/06/14 9:52 PM To: Safer Michigan Coalition ([email protected]); Michigan NORML Talk ([email protected])



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos to the ACLU and everyone else involved in this case!

>
> Thursday, February 6, 2014, 04:32 PM
>
>
> Supreme Court: Local Ordinance Cannot Bar Medical Marijuana
>
>
> A local ordinance cannot prohibit the usage of medical marijuana in Michigan by claiming cover under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
>
>
> In Ter Beek v. Wyoming, Justice Bridget McCormack said Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act itself is not barred by the federal law.
>
>
> But a local ordinance seeking to prevent the usage of medical marijuana within the community’s boundaries violates the specific statutory authority in the state act that pre-empts such local laws, Ms. McCormack said.
>
>
> Gongwer News Service will have more on this story in Thursday’s Michigan Report.
>
>
>
> Please send all correspondence to [email protected] This mailbox is not regularly monitored.
>
> Copyright, 2014, Gongwer News Service, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This message and any attachments may not be forwarded or reproduced without express permission from Gongwer News Service.
>

Sincerely,

Karen O'Keefe, Director of State Policies
Marijuana Policy Project
West Hollywood, California
Phone: 323-568-1078
Virtual fax: 202-552-0982
[email protected]
http://www.mpp.org

fwiw my wife is hospitalized and may not make it home. It's been difficult to find the time and energy to spend any real time here.
 
Balke Buds

Balke Buds

Member
NurseNancy420 said:
You both are in our thoughts and prayers sir.
Post when u can
Click to expand...
Ditto.


Also,


  • > A local ordinance cannot prohibit the usage of medicalmarijuana in Michigan by claiming cover under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
    >
    >
    > In Ter Beek v. Wyoming, Justice Bridget McCormack said Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act itself is not barred by the federal law.​


    ​


This can have National level implications. This could make it all the way to the U.S. supreme court as a challenge under the 10th Ammendment.

More to come on this, I am sure.
 
cephalopod

cephalopod

Well-Known Member
Sorry for your troubles Greg. I have always appreciated your drive to inform and unite the masses. Great news and a big victory for many who feared to particapate in our legal program.
 
FatMarty

FatMarty

Well-Known Member
Wow sorry to hear that Bro - she is in my prayer.
Thank You so much for posting this item - my township is one of those that passed such an ordinance.
Last they reported from township: not one citizen had followed our local ordinance in 2 plus years since it was enacted.
They said they were saddened by that...we were just disgusted that they would try to usurp the State law we voted for 2 to 1.
We were all supposed to register with police and get our residences on some list, etc.
Not one person out of at least several hundreds by my thinking.
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
FatMarty said:
Wow sorry to hear that Bro - she is in my prayer.
Thank You so much for posting this item - my township is one of those that passed such an ordinance.
Last they reported from township: not one citizen had followed our local ordinance in 2 plus years since it was enacted.
They said they were saddened by that...we were just disgusted that they would try to usurp the State law we voted for 2 to 1.
We were all supposed to register with police and get our residences on some list, etc.
Not one person out of at least several hundreds by my thinking.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I'm glad to hear that you are unaware of any enforcement in your immediate experience. I am aware of a case brought by the City of Flushing against a caregiver. I'm not sure how that ended, but intend to find out. He was in court litigation.
 
FatMarty

FatMarty

Well-Known Member
GregS said:
Thank you.

I'm glad to hear that you are unaware of any enforcement in your immediate experience. I am aware of a case brought by the City of Flushing against a caregiver. I'm not sure how that ended, but intend to find out. He was in court litigation.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm in Bloomfield and it was in the little paper they send you free in most of the suburbs.
It was an odd insight into their thinking - they really thought we would be public menaces.
Worse is that they knowingly went along with the bullshit tactics just to buy time: they knew what they were doing was not not Kosher.
They did it anyway because they feel they are above we the people.
This town is full of doctors, lawyers, and every stripe of professional, (and then there is me!): not one ever signed up for the mandatory ordinances.
Not one man.
There is hope yet.

I said a little prayer for your main squeeze, and will keep her in my thoughts.
TY for your work Greg.
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
Good news. She is off the ventilator. I talked with her this afternoon. I was entirely freaked that I might never have spoken with her again. Thanks for the well wishes.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Sadly I do not see this as a win. "We the People" NEVER win the game of lawfare period, we are just forced to pay for it. Just as acknowledging entrapment in the Carruthers case has no bearing on the lawfare ban on concentrates, this "win" has no bearing on the lawfare ban on patient to patient transfers. If there is no integrity, equality or fairness in this lawfare game, why do we keep playing it?

On a different note, I am sincerely sorry to hear about your wife's health Greg :( Wishing godspeed to you both.
 
ozzrokk

ozzrokk

Well-Known Member
It is another win and we will take all we can get........

Thinking and praying for you and your wife Gregs........... Did not know of the troubles but you are in our mind that is for sure.............
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
ozzrokk said:
It is another win and we will take all we can get........
Click to expand...
There is no doubt this is a win for Ter Beek brother, just as Carruthers being dropped was a win for those defendants. Although, the unreasonably expensive and repeated two steps back one step forward game of lawfare will never provide us even parity here :( We the People have been priced out of this game for quite some time now and the officials literally have a financial stake in the outcome of this topic.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I totally agree I'm an unapologetic pessimist, but I am also an intellectual realist. Simply Marijuana IS NOT a Schedule I Controlled Substance PERIOD.

Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That's pretty simple folks. Why even play these games in an adversarial court room and within a "justice" system that literally produces and then profits from them? I believe we simply need legislation that addresses this clear lack of integrity within our Justice System and hold such transgressions criminally accountable. As is, making these simple and unquestionably true statements before a jury of your peers will land you in Contempt of Court nullifying your Jury Nullification attempt. Without integrity there can be no justice and without addressing this current contempt that our judicial system has for our MJ community as they profits from it is beyond reason. It is more than just two steps back one step forward here, we've got the cart before the horse IMO
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
If only life were a simple black and white switch. The practical implementation of things is often not a straight line. Such is life. We can complain the mountain is high, that it shouldn't be there, that's it's a bitch to climb and why are people making us climb it. Despite all the protestations the mountain is still there. So get over it, as they say.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I'm not complaining brother, I'm just pointing at the big pink elephant in the room. We've clearly addressed and changed the rules/laws, but this game and players still stand strong and are even more harmful. Marijuana is still a major player bankrolling the Schedule I Controlled Substance sponsored War on Drugs and literally at record levels to boot. Think of all those police officers, lawyers, court rooms, jails and treatment facilities that would be adversely affected by simply acknowledging Marijuana is IN FACT NOT the Schedule I Controlled Substance they are simply pretending it is? The problem now seems to be simply based on integrity and that needs to be demanded by We the People. The courts are no place for that type of government regress, especially given their clearly conflicting interests.

I figure if I keep pointing at the big pink elephant (complaining) we'll eventually come up with a workable solution. I'm all about hope and change brother, but my pen and phone don't seem to be working :bigjoint:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top