http://www.michigandaily.com/content/proposal-1-and-2
"The other ballot question, known as Proposal 10-1, appears on Michigan’s election ballot every 16 years and gives voters the option to call for a state constitutional convention. Michiganders voted down the proposal for the third consecutive time since the proposal was last updated in1963. As of 4 a.m., with 97 percent of precincts reporting, the proposal was rejected by approximately 67 percent of the vote."
Essentially, any time the constitution of a state is amended, that gives the state convention the right to add or REMOVE any part of the constitution they see fit. It means they could have had the opportunity to remove the MMJ laws that were passed by the people. I personally feel it is a very good thing this proposal was not accepted. It means our current MMJ laws are safe in MI. However, it also means we don't get to amend the law in any capacity allowing for further definition of some gray areas, such as patient to patient sharing, caregiver to caregiver sharing, what exactly is "usable product", and the biggest one, what to do about dispensaries.
Most feared opening the constitution to be amended, would not give people the chance to amend the MMJ law, but would rather put medical users in a situation in which it would be necessary to fight to even keep such laws on the books. Keeping in mind, the MMJ laws passed in MI with an overwhelming majority in 2008, it is highly unlikely for to have been removed fully.
Now the question we have to ask ourselves, is what next? How do we now get more clarification into current law, WITHOUT giving someone the power to remove it from the books completely!
dank.Frank
"The other ballot question, known as Proposal 10-1, appears on Michigan’s election ballot every 16 years and gives voters the option to call for a state constitutional convention. Michiganders voted down the proposal for the third consecutive time since the proposal was last updated in1963. As of 4 a.m., with 97 percent of precincts reporting, the proposal was rejected by approximately 67 percent of the vote."
Essentially, any time the constitution of a state is amended, that gives the state convention the right to add or REMOVE any part of the constitution they see fit. It means they could have had the opportunity to remove the MMJ laws that were passed by the people. I personally feel it is a very good thing this proposal was not accepted. It means our current MMJ laws are safe in MI. However, it also means we don't get to amend the law in any capacity allowing for further definition of some gray areas, such as patient to patient sharing, caregiver to caregiver sharing, what exactly is "usable product", and the biggest one, what to do about dispensaries.
Most feared opening the constitution to be amended, would not give people the chance to amend the MMJ law, but would rather put medical users in a situation in which it would be necessary to fight to even keep such laws on the books. Keeping in mind, the MMJ laws passed in MI with an overwhelming majority in 2008, it is highly unlikely for to have been removed fully.
Now the question we have to ask ourselves, is what next? How do we now get more clarification into current law, WITHOUT giving someone the power to remove it from the books completely!
dank.Frank
