The Marijuana Legalization Initiative is an initiated state statute proposed for the Michigan ballot on November 8, 2016 ballot.
The measure would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.
Adults age 21 and older would be permitted to possess and use marijuana and to cultivate 12 plants each. The initiative would also allow for hemp farming.
Text of measure
Ballot summary
An initiation of legislation to allow under state law the personal possession and use of marihuana by persons 21 years of age or older; to provide for the lawful cultivation and sale of marihuana and marihuana-infused products by persons 21 years of age or older; to permit the taxation of revenue derived from commercial marihuana facilities and to require that any such taxes be used for the purposes of education, public safety and public health; to permit the legislature to require licensing of commercial marihuana facilities by establishing a Michigan Cannabis Control Board, which board would be responsible for enforcement and administration of this act, including the promulgation of administrative rules.
The initiative campaign is being led by the Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee. The group is headed by Jeffrey Hank, who has organized local marijuana legalization initiative campaigns in Lansing and East Lansing, including one that appeared on the May 5, 2015, ballot.
Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases.
Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along with Michael Nichols of East Lansing, want the National Institute of Justice and the institute’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences to look into their claims that the State Police lab has — on advice of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan — compromised results in marijuana cases.
According to Rockind, defense attorneys have obtained emails sent between lab officials and the association that allegedly show the labs were influenced by PAAM in its reporting of the testing of suspected marijuana in criminal cases and the origin of THC, the active component that produces the “high” obtained by the user.
“This involves how test results can show whether substances are synthetic, such as in designer drugs or from plant material,” Rockind said. “If synthetic, it can result in felony offenses punishable by up to seven years in prison rather than the more common misdemeanor offense or a crime in which medical marijuana card holders can advance a medical defense.”
State Police and the prosecutors association deny the attorneys’ allegations.
MSP crime labs received more than $236,000 this year in federal funding through the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The grants are monitored by two federal agencies, Rockind said.
According to Rockind’s complaint, dated Tuesday, the emails reveal a “co-dependence between the Crime Lab and the prosecuting attorneys association that is the antithesis of an independent, objective and science focused forensic crime laboratory.”
“The problem is the interference by the prosecuting attorneys association with the reporting of scientific results,” Rockind wrote the agencies. “It reflects a culture that the Crime Lab and its analysts are not scientists reporting forensic analyses dispassionately in court through testimony. Instead, it reflects a systematic top-down management of the reporting by (PAAM) through the MSP laboratory supervisors.”
Rockind also wrote that the MSP crime labs have violated guidelines of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, which has accredited the lab.
Accredited labs nationally follow guidelines that include being impartial and objective, approaching all testing with an open mind and without bias, the complaint states.
Quoting the accrediting agency’s guidelines, Rockind wrote, labs must “conduct complete and unbiased examinations. Conclusions are based on the evidence and referenced material relevant to the evidence, not extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.”
“The involvement and participation of the prosecuting attorney in the operation and conduct of the Crime Lab violates these guidelines,” Rockind wrote.
Rockind said he has not filed a lawsuit in the matter but only seeks to have supervisory officials review the situation, identify problems, if any, and determine corrective action.
Gerry LaPorte, a director of the two federal agencies both based in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Shanon Banner, a spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said, “The allegations of this group of defense attorneys are without merit.”
Banner said in 2013, the State Police Forensic Science Division changed its policy regarding how marijuana and THC are reported “in an effort to standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.”
Banner said that with an increase of synthetic drugs being sent to labs, “it became necessary to ensure reporting standards were in place across all labs.”
Lab workers were involved in discussions and proposed changes, she said, which included using the phrase “origin unknown” for samples where the source of the THC could not be scientifically proven to originate from plant-based material.
“It does not mean the sample is synthetic THC,” Banner stressed. “It only means the lab did not determine the origin, and the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”
“The allegation that politics or influence from any outside entity played a role in this policy change is wholly untrue,” Banner said. “Further, the MSP rejects the allegation that an internal policy change to ensure standardization regarding how test results are reported rises to the level of negligence or misconduct.”
PAAM president Mike Wendling issued a response Wednesday that said, in part, “defense attorneys have alleged that the PAAM directed the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division to change their reporting procedures relating to THC in an effort to increase potential charges. These allegations are false.”
Wendling said the allegations are based on two emails in which Ken Stecker, a staff attorney, opined that “THC is a Schedule I drug, regardless of where it comes from.
“At no time, in either email, did Mr. Stecker direct MSP Forensic Science personnel on how to conduct tests or how to report their findings.
“When the MSP Forensic Science Division tests a substance that shows the presence of THC, the measurement of that THC is reported,” Wendling wrote. “If plant material is not detected to be present, they cannot determine if the THC is a synthetically created resin or created out of plant material.”
Wendling stressed that the crime labs set their own protocols for reporting scientific findings and described Stecker as a “highly regarded and highly requested statewide and national presenter on the issues of traffic safety and drug use.”
THE MICHIGAN STATE POLICE Forensic Science Division finds itself embroiled in scandal as newly released emails paint a picture of a crime lab in turmoil over how to classify marijuana. Attorneys and medical marijuana advocates accuse Michigan prosecutors of pressuring the state’s crime lab to falsely classify the origins of THC found in hash oils and marijuana edibles as “origin unknown.”
Prosecutors exploited the ambiguity to charge medical marijuana users for possession of synthetic THC, despite the fact that the personal use of medical marijuana has been legal in Michigan since it was approved by voters in 2008. Under Michigan law, possession of synthetic THC constitutes a felony, whereas possession of marijuana and its derivatives by someone who is not a licensed medical marijuana user is a misdemeanor.
The emails were obtained by Michael Komorn, lead lawyer for Max Lorincz, a medical marijuana patient who lost custody of his child and now faces felony charges after the lab’s misleading classification of hash oil found in his home.
“I’d never seen a lab report reporting origin unknown,” Komorn told The Intercept. “What was produced for us was the most unbelievable set of documents I’ve ever seen.”
The emails show that as Michigan forensic scientists debated how to classify oil and wax produced from marijuana plants, they were pressured by police and prosecutors to classify the products in a way that would facilitate harsher drug convictions.
“It is highly doubtful,” a forensic scientist named Scott Penabaker wrote in May 2013, “that any of these Med. Mari. products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized. This would be completely impractical.” And in February 2014, the supervisor of Lansing, Michigan’s controlled substances unit, Bradley Choate, wrote that a misleading identification of THC “could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual.” Lab inspector John Bowen, referring to the THC in edibles and oils, agreed: “Is it likely that someone went to the trouble to manufacture THC and two other cannabinoids, mix them up, and bake them into a pan of brownies? Of course not.”
Despite the unlikelihood that Lorincz and others were somehow cooking up synthetic THC, Andy Fias, a state police lieutenant with West Michigan’s regional drug task force, reached out to the Forensic Science Division in January 2015. “We are encountering a significant amount of THC wax and oil,” he wrote. “If we were to seized [sic] the wax/oil from a card carrying patient or caregiver and it comes back as marijuana, we will not have PC [probable cause] for the arrests.”
Fias had heard that lab analysts were classifying some oil as marijuana rather than THC. He asked: “Is there a way to get this changed? Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana.”
That aggressive — and intellectually dishonest — prosecutorial mindset explains what happened to Lorincz last year.
On September 24, 2014, Lorincz called 911 from his Spring Lake, Michigan, home when his wife experienced an emergency. “The paramedics came in to assist my wife, and while they were assisting my wife the sheriff came in from the outside,” the 35-year-old father told me. It was then that the officer discovered hash oil on the kitchen counter. “The whole thing is ridiculous,” said Lorincz, who at the time possessed a Michigan medical marijuana card. “I didn’t commit any crime.”
Authorities didn’t see it that way.
The Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney’s office, led by Ronald Frantz, charged Lorincz with misdemeanor marijuana possession. Instead of pleading guilty, he fought the charge on the grounds that his medical marijuana card allowed him to legally possess the hash. Prosecutors responded in February by charging Lorincz with possession of synthetic THC, a felony.
Because the crime lab claimed to be unable to determine the origin of the THC in the hash oil, prosecutors were able to allege that Lorincz’s oil was not made from marijuana.
Jeff Frazier, a former ACLU attorney who is also working on Lorincz’s case, accuses the state’s prosecutors of circumventing the medical marijuana law passed in 2008 because of their intense opposition to marijuana.
“The lab is intentionally reporting nonexistent felonies,” said Frazier, “and the prosecutors are going after medical marijuana patients with these lab reports that are fraudulent.”
Activists believe that Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette may be behind the pressure on the crime lab. In 2008 Schuette led the opposition to the successful initiative. “He’s been opposed to medical marijuana since the get-go and has used his office to circumvent the law,” said Charmie Gholson, a drug policy reform advocate based in Michigan.
Gregoire Michaud, director of Michigan’s Forensic Science Division, wrote in a July 2013 email that “In my meeting with PAAM [Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan] it was decided that any questions regarding law interpretation (e.g., recent controlled substance cases) will be directed thru the applicable Technical Director who will then reach out to Mr. Ken Stecker.”
Kenneth Stecker, an official with PAAM, stridently opposes medical marijuana usage and in a 2012 speech said, “I literally every night look at websites, blogs, everything for two to three hours dealing with the medical marijuana issue.” At the time, Stecker said that he had given “over 150, 200 presentations” on the “hornet’s nest” of medical marijuana.
A December 2013 email quotes Stecker as saying, “THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from.” He neglected to mention that penalties for possession very much depend on where it comes from.
John Collins, a former director of the Forensic Science Division, told Fox 17 television, which first reported Lorincz’s case earlier this year, that prosecutors were playing politics with science. “In my experience, it was just a nonstop political game that really got frustrating, and it wore down the morale of our staff, and it quite honestly, it wore me down.”
“It was really a big deal for me to let people understand that our laboratories were not in the prosecution business, they’re not in the conviction business, they’re in the science business,” Collins told Fox 17. “And if we don’t position ourselves as being in the science business, then we really start to go down a path that’s going to lead us to a lot of trouble.”
The Michigan State Police provided the following statement:
The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan State Police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.
Bill Schuette and Ronald Frantz did not respond to requests for comment. Kenneth Stecker declined to comment.
Meanwhile, Max Lorincz’s life remains in limbo, and his 6-year-old son is in foster care. Currently, he gets a few hours per week of visitation, but father and son have been apart for over a year now.
“It’s been the worst year of me and my wife’s life,” Lorincz said. “You’re talking about taking away an entire year of bonding with our son. It’s something we can never get back.”
This isn’t the first time conviction-hungry Michigan prosecutors have destroyed the lives of medical marijuana users.
In 2014, prosecutors charged Kent County sheriff’s sergeant Timothy Bernhardt with running a drug house because he received and distributed marijuana butter. Bernhardt was a licensed medical marijuana patient but not a licensed caregiver and thus was not permitted to distribute the drug to other users.
In a lab report from Bernhardt’s case, the crime lab classified Bernhardt’s marijuana butter as THC and investigators claimed to be unable to identify its origin. Armed with that report, prosecutors in Kent County went after Bernhardt with full force. Bernhardt eventually pleaded guilty to the drug house charge and was forced to resign after 22 years with the department, even though the butter was being used for medical purposes. He faced up to two years in prison, but a month before the sentencing hearing he killed himself.
“They killed him,” said Gholson. “They have blood on their hands.”
Just days before Bernhardt’s suicide, a Kent County prosecutor named Tim McMorrow told a state court that Michigan voters, despite their overwhelming approval of medical marijuana, do not have the final say. “The voters do not have a right to adopt anything they want,” McMorrrow said. “Something doesn’t become valid because the voters voted for it.”
Article By – Juan Thompson – Nov. 14 2015, 8:43 a.m.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept
The Intercept is an online publication launched in February 2014 by First Look Media, the news organization created and funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.[2]
Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill are the editors. The magazine serves as a platform to report on the documents released by Edward Snowden in the short term, and to “produce fearless, adversarial journalism across a wide range of issues” in the long term
“A primary function of The Intercept is to insist upon and defend our press freedoms from those who wish to infringe them. We are determined to move forward with what we believe is essential reporting in the public interest and with a commitment to the ideal that a truly free and independent press is a vital component of any healthy democratic society. […] Our focus in this very initial stage will be overwhelmingly on the NSA story. We will use all forms of digital media for our reporting. We will publish original source documents on which our reporting is based. We will have reporters in Washington covering reactions to these revelations and the ongoing reform efforts. We will provide commentary from our journalists, including the return of Glenn Greenwald’s regular column. We will engage with our readers in the comment section. We will host outside experts to write op-eds and contribute news items.
Our longer-term mission is to provide aggressive and independent adversarial journalism across a wide range of issues, from secrecy, criminal and civil justice abuses and civil liberties violations to media conduct, societal inequality and all forms of financial and political corruption. The editorial independence of our journalists will be guaranteed, and they will be encouraged to pursue their journalistic passion, areas of interest, and unique voices.
We believe the prime value of journalism is that it imposes transparency, and thus accountability, on those who wield the greatest governmental and corporate power. Our journalists will be not only permitted, but encouraged, to pursue stories without regard to whom they might alienate.”
Council to hear from public on location of marijuana dispensaries
DETROIT FREE PRESS
The Detroit City Council has set a public hearing on zoning regulations for medical marijuana shops at 1 p.m. Dec. 17, 2015.
The Detroit City Council today set a public hearing for next month on its proposal to regulate medical marijuana distribution in the city.
The council will hold the hearing at 1 p.m. Dec. 17 on zoning restrictions that will govern where pot dispensaries can and cannot locate in Detroit. It is to be the companion legislation to measures that the council approved in October requiring dispensaries to be licensed by the city and shop operators to be subject to police background checks.
Detroit has seen a proliferation of more than 150 unlicensed and unregulated dispensaries in recent years, and it’s taken a year for city officials to thoroughly research and prepare a regulatory system that will both limit the number of dispensaries and ensure that medical marijuana patients have safe access to the drug, according to Councilman James Tate, who has spearheaded the regulation effort.
Councilman Scott Benson, a vocal critic of the dispensaries who says many of them are merely fronts for recreational put use, sought to have the zoning ordinance changed to prohibit dispensaries from locating in the vast majority of commercial or retail strip malls in the city, but that motion was outvoted.
Councilwoman Raquel Castañeda-López also sought to have the ordinance prohibit clustering of dispensary operations in industrial areas of the city, saying that would hurt residents who live near industrial areas. Her motion also was outvoted.
The zoning ordinance’s restrictions mandate that dispensaries not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, drug-free zones, caregiver centers and liquor stores.
Dispensary owners and advocates of medical marijuana have argued that the city’s restrictions would leave few areas of the city where dispensaries could operate legally, reducing access for people who use marijuana for legitimate medical needs. But residents have flooded public meetings on the issue, saying their neighborhoods have been overrun by pot shops.
In November 2013, Michigan lawmakers revealed the lengths to which they’d go to maintain the state’s secret system of funding election campaign activities.
A Senate committee was meeting in the Capitol to discuss and approve a bill that would double the maximum amount that individuals could contribute to legislative, executive and judicial candidates. The senators were told that the higher limits were unnecessary because 99 percent of Michiganians never give the maximum amount.
Then something puzzling happened. In a rare move, the legislators called a recess midway through the session. A lobbyist in the audience who was friendly with the committee chairman, it was later learned, received an urgent phone call warning that Secretary of State Ruth Johnson had just announced new administrative rules requiring the disclosure of campaign donors in all circumstances.
When the committee reconvened, an amendment was hastily attached to the legislation, which would override Johnson’s decision and preserve Michigan’s “dark money” campaign practices. House and Senate approval of the bill soon followed, as did Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature.
“We don’t have full public disclosure and it’s not because good people failed to do the right thing, it’s because those bastards did the wrong thing. It was a hostile action,” said Rich Robinson, the state’s top campaign watchdog at the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “And the fruits of those actions were tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed campaign cash.”
The shadowy aspects of Michigan’s money-driven politics serve as a key reason why the state ranks last among the 50 states with a grade of F and a numerical score of 51 out of 100 from the State Integrity Investigation, a data-driven assessment of state government transparency and accountability by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity. Michigan received an F in 10 of the 13 categories of government operations that were examined.
The first State Integrity report, released in 2012, gave Michigan a similar score – 58, an F, though the state ranked 44th that time. The two scores are not directly comparable, however, due to changes made to improve and update the project and its methodology.
Stealth campaigns standard procedure
A significant factor in Michigan’s 2015 ranking is its lack of effective disclosure rules for officials in nearly all facets of state government. Conflicts of interest and potential public corruption remain buried in an honor system with no honor.
Thanks to loopholes created by the legislature, big spenders representing special interests can dramatically influence an election without leaving a trace.
Campaigns increasingly rely upon shadow groups that independently pay for so-called issue ads. Those ads praise or demonize a candidate in a manner that’s virtually indistinguishable from a traditional TV spot. But the commercials avoid the magic words — “vote for” or “vote against” — that would require disclosure of the money behind the sales pitch.
The 2013 doubling of Michigan contribution limits set the maximum gift to a gubernatorial candidate at $6,800 for an individual, $68,000 for political action committees and $136,000 for state party central committees. But that’s just a starting point in this multi-layered political parlor game. Unregulated funding for those dominant issues ads derives largely from PACs, super PACs and political party groups that can accept unlimited amounts of campaign cash from across the nation.
At the same time, the office of the secretary of state, Michigan’s top election official, operates as a record-keeping agency, not an enforcement unit. It enjoys no subpoena powers and generally does not initiate investigations.
Former Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer recently concluded that Michigan’s political system is “the Wild West … with no sheriff in town.”
Dark money means justice denied
High-rollers in many states exert undue influence over legislation and executive orders. But in Michigan, campaign cash also taints the judicial system.
Supreme Court justices, are merely “politicians in black robes.”
The independent Michigan Campaign Finance Network reported that since 2000, state Supreme Court campaigns have been awash in nearly $40 million worth of television political advertisements, with the donors kept off the books. A similarly veiled process dominates campaigns for attorney general. In a state where candidates for the judiciary face virtually no professional standards or performance evaluations, critics say the judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, are merely “politicians in black robes.”
The State Bar of Michigan has engaged in attempts to fix this system by demanding full disclosure, to no avail. Jules Olsman, an attorney who serves on the State Bar board, said his clients routinely question the fairness of the state’s judicial process given the steady stream of campaign ads at election time.
“If the judge hearing my case received $10,000 from opposing counsel or their clients, I should have a right to know that,” Olsman said. “At this point, it’s more than a suspicion. It happens all the time.”
Weak or non-existent disclosure laws
The dark money that dominates Michigan politics takes on another definition in the daily workings of state courts, the legislature, the governor’s office and cabinet members. That’s because the state doesn’t require officials to disclose their financial holdings and outside income.
A judge may hear a case involving a lawsuit aimed at a corporation in which he has a financial interest, but the attorneys involved – and the jury – would have no way of knowing. Legislators can influence the outcome of bills that will directly affect businesses back home in which they serve as silent partners.
Recusals remain rare in Michigan courts, and they are even rarer in the state House and Senate. When apparent conflicts of interest arise due to a lawmaker’s occupation, it’s nearly unheard of for a fellow legislator to publicly call for an abstention.
In Michigan, the cozy relationships between well-heeled lobbyists and pliable lawmakers also remain largely in the dark. Under the weak disclosure rules, lawmakers can accept nominal gifts. But it is the duty of the lobbyist, not the lawmaker, to report these gifts.
In addition, state law requires those in the lobbying business to report their activities in such a vague format that the public cannot determine who is influencing whom. Lobbyists do not have to report which legislator or executive branch official they wined and dined unless they spent more than $59 in a month, or $375 in the calendar year, on that individual. Advocates of greater transparency say the top recipients of a lobbyist’s largesse benefit from considerably more than what’s disclosed.
Worse yet, lobbying firms also do not reveal which issues and legislation they advocated for or against.
Robert LaBrant, a veteran business lobbyist, concedes that the disclosure reports essentially “have no meaning.”
Details of scandal kept secret
Another example of the lack of transparency in Michigan government is that the Legislature long ago exempted itself and the governor’s office from the state Freedom of Information Act.
When a sex scandal involving two House members emerged in August, including an elaborate cover-up that allegedly involved misuse of tax dollars, an internal investigation concluded the couple had engaged in misconduct. A public records request by The Detroit News to obtain the investigative report was denied. Instead, the House speaker chose a private law firm to write a 7 ½-page summary of the findings for public consumption.
This lack of openness permeates all levels of state government.
The state lacks a strong “revolving door” law that prevents elected officials and key executive branch administrators from going directly out of a government post and into a job at a lobbying firm. The only restriction in the books prohibits lawmakers from lobbying immediately if they resign before the end of their terms in office.
Cronyism and favoritism are essentially accepted practices in the Legislature, the judiciary and the governor’s office, as all staffers are political appointees – at-will employees who can be hired or fired for no reason at all. Top officials at each state department also are afforded no civil service protections.
The state Ethics Board serves largely as an obscure, toothless agency that does not investigate wrongdoing and, when it does find a violation, merely recommends a punishment to the guilty employee’s department.
State Sen. Steve Bieda has introduced bills since 2003 seeking mandates for personal asset disclosures, campaign finance transparency and the reporting of all gifts. He never came close to success.
“Michigan is an embarrassing outlier on openness in government,” Bieda said. “We need to step up to the plate.”
