Boo hiss: the DFP apparently has no clue what the true impact of this proposal will be. I am FOR allowing medical use of marijuana. I am deeply AGAINST use of marijuana anywhere a person sees fit. Say you have an ex with a wife that is quite ill, and has become registered for med marijuana use. My kid go for their week, weekend, or whatever. She smokes in the house. I have no right to bring it against him in court? Huh? What's wrong with that picture? I could go on and on and on....find another way folks. Make this a better bill and come back to us later.

Opinion from a local attorney:

First, I have a prejudice against any laws/constitutional amendments that
> are presented in a general ballot. In my personal opinion, the last good
> one was Proposal A - the property tax increase limitation amendment. If
> it is a constitutional amendment, it would take a constitutional amendment
> to make a change if it turns out that the first amendment did not work as
> expected/presented (e.g. the recent use of the constitutional amendment to
> define marriage as between a man and a woman to interfere with private
> rights to contract for health care benefits - going well beyond the
> presentation, and interfering with private contractual terms). Another
> case in point is the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal that did not
> make it onto the ballot.
>
> This is a little easier, because it is not a constitutional amendment, but
> a legislative act. What the legislature is doing here is abdicating.
> They are elected to make the policy decisions on what laws should be in
> effect in the state. They are effectively saying, "we think this is a
> good thing, but we don't want to take the heat for passing it."
>
> As to the act - of course there will be litigation arising from it if it
> is passed. With the current makeup of the MI Supreme Court being very
> textualist in nature, and interpreting acts exactly as written, there are
> potential problems with this act. For example, the act permits a
> qualifying person to smoke marihuana, provided the person is not "on any
> form of public transportation; or in any public place." Sec. 7(b)(3)(A)
> and (B).
>
> Is a private home a private place regardless of who is present? This is
> not specified, and would be left to the Courts.
> If the home is determined a private place regardless of who is present,
> but children are present when marihuana is smoked, the act does not
> prevent prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It
> does establish a higher burden on a spouse or the government for proof.
> Sec. 4(c) says, "A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a
> minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior
> is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be
> clearly articulated and substantiated." Now it has to be "an unreasonable
> danger" as opposed to "the best interests of the child" standard currently
> in place.
>
> While this is not a constitutional amendment, will the legislature be
> willing to modify it if the Courts interpret it in a way that most would
> deem unacceptable? Probably not, because they were afraid to pass it as a
> strictly legislative act in the first place. Then we are stuck with it,
> as written. The better way to deal with the issue would be for the
> legislature to get off their collective butts and either pass a law, that
> can later be easily amended, if necessary, or reject it. Instead, they
> are passing the buck.