cannabisnews.com: Pot Plan 





Pot Plan 
Posted by FoM on June 06, 2001 at 22:54:08 PT
By Curt Guyette
Source: Metro Times
Greg Schmid is at it again. Last year, the 41-year-old Saginaw attorney spearheaded a petition drive to put the issue of marijuana decriminalization before Michigan voters. That all-volunteer effort gathered only about half of the more than 302,000 valid signatures needed. Schmid knew from the outset that the initial attempt could well fail. But he also realized that the groundwork was being laid for a second try. The new measure, dubbed the Personal Responsibility Amendment and written by Schmid, is both far-reaching and straightforward. 
If it makes it onto the ballot and is eventually approved by voters, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution will allow Michiganders to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana (up to 3 ounces) for personal use. There is a “compassionate use” provision for medical use, possession and dispensing, and a provision granting the right to farm and manufacture nonintoxicating industrial hemp. Finally, the measure would require that all proceeds from drug, alcohol and gambling forfeitures be directed into education and rehabilitation programs. If passed, the PRA would be more far-reaching than the decriminalization laws in any other state.In a phone interview last week, Metro Times talked to Schmid about the initiative and why he has devoted so much of his time to the cause.Metro Times: At a recent drug war conference in Detroit — where the vast majority of people in attendance were opposed to current policies — one of the panelists asked audience members a series of questions to get an idea of their backgrounds. When he asked how many there were Republicans, you were one of only about three people there who raised their hands. What’s a good Republican doing pushing a measure like this?Greg Schmid: I consider political parties to be like tribes, and this is the tribe I was born into. Other Republicans and I have a lot of hard things to say to each other these days, but I’m not leaving the party of my roots. The way I see it, the party was invaded by the Pat Robertsons of the world in the 1980s, and to a certain extent that has changed the nature of the way the party is perceived. Besides, the Democrats are as bad as Republicans when it comes to this war on drugs. But I think this is a good Republican issue. I say it privatizes the prevention of drug abuse. Private industry can take care of the drug abuse problem, because employers are free to test you, and they are free to hire or fire you. It gets the government out of the picture, which is a good thing, because it is particularly crummy at this.MT: What are your feelings on drug testing?Schmid: I personally don’t like drug testing. I think it is dehumanizing. Although I did take a drug test myself when I started this issue, to show that I personally wasn’t a user. I did it so that I wouldn’t be vulnerable to personal attacks. But private industry has a right to do testing, and that is not going to change. I just hope they are sane about it. MT: What got you interested in this whole issue in the first place?Schmid: Back in 1986 my father was running for office, and he wanted to take a pro-legalization position. I investigated the issue, and was intrigued by what I found.Also, as an attorney, I was very interested in what was going on. Hell, when I went to college it was practically a required course to try it. I’ve never denied that. Then, when I got out of law school, I was full of piss and vinegar. I watched and watched as prosecutions increased. I saw how they were going after users instead of dealers, because users are so easy to bust. The effect was that people were being marginalized. Convictions were going on their records. It affects their ability to get a decent job. It affects their ability to get a student loan. And second offenses were being prosecuted as felonies. It’s not a good feeling when you are there as an attorney, standing next to someone who’s just a regular guy who’s going down for this. The whole thing just seemed so counterproductive to me. When you hit society with so hard of a hammer to make individuals act a certain way, you get to the point where the cure is worse than the disease. I came to believe that somebody had to do something about what’s happening, and I was in a position to be that person.MT: Last time out you fell about 150,000 signatures short of the number needed to make it to the ballot. What makes you think that you will be able to get the 302,000 signatures necessary this time around?Schmid: The first time we did this, all of our petitioners were novices. They were smart and dedicated, but they were also inexperienced. Now they are smart, dedicated and experienced. They’re still all volunteers, but now they are experts — not just at gathering signatures, but also at teaching other people how to be effective petitioners.The other thing that is different is the time of year. Last time, we started in January. Because you only have six months to collect the necessary number of signatures, we missed the entire festival season. From that standpoint, we were almost doomed from the beginning. This time we started in April, which means we will be able to collect signatures throughout the whole summer. That’s going to make a big difference. And we have a lot of people working on this. I’d say right now we have in excess of 3,000 petitioners out there gathering signatures.MT: How is it going so far?Schmid: Our goal is to get 2,000 signatures a day. We aren’t hitting that yet, but we’ve already collected more than 67,000 signatures. Some months suck, other months are great. But it’s not a straight-line progression. The last time there was anything like this in Michigan, an all-volunteer effort, was the Headlee tax amendment, which I worked on. In that case, 90 percent of the signatures were gathered in the last 30 days.MT: Where is the money coming from? In some other states, efforts such as this have gotten a lot of help from a few very wealthy proponents. Is that happening here?Schmid: No.This is an entirely grassroots effort. The biggest donation we received is $1,000. People send in $100 or $50 or $10. But our needs are moderate. We have a good issue that people respond to, and that’s what really counts. Look at what happened with the school voucher issue here in Michigan. Dick DeVos (whose fortune derives from Amway) spent $1.4 million just getting that measure placed on the ballot, and they still ended up losing. On the other hand, we only spent $24,000 last year, and still we got halfway toward getting on the ballot.MT: How is the public reacting?Schmid: I think the climate is changing in Michigan. People seem to be more emboldened now, even compared to last year. Before, a lot of people might hesitate before signing. Now, we very rarely find someone who’s paranoid about signing. I think that, as time goes by, more and more people are ready to see the war on drugs end, and they perceive the PRA as a way to begin moving in that direction.MT: Is the current initiative different from the previous one?Schmid: Yes. We’ve shortened and simplified the language, to make it easier to understand. Some of the nuance was lost, but it was worth the tradeoff. If you are going to say something, at the end of the day it should be in plain English. And we added the language about the right to farm and manufacture nonintoxicating hemp, because we feel that is a very important economic issue. The other thing we did was to put the forfeiture provisions right up front. Rather than be a proposition that just addresses an injustice, we thought it was important to provide a positive approach that people could vote for. By saying the gross proceeds from forfeitures will be used to embrace education and treatment, which are the most effective ways to deal with abuse, you are taking a positive approach. That way you take the burden for treatment off the taxpayer, and put it on drug dealers. Also, you take away the incentive for police to make questionable seizures by getting rid of these “collars for dollars” policies that are now in place.MT: The PRA covers a lot of issues. Did you consider starting off with something more narrow, limiting it to a single issue like medicinal use or production of hemp for industrial use?Schmid: I thought about that for about five minutes. But I knew early on that this was going to have to be an all-volunteer effort, and for that to be successful we were going to have to have a broad base of support. Being out there in the trenches, gathering signatures, is a lot of hard work. And the only way to get a lot of people involved was to open it up. If it were just to concentrate on medical marijuana, for instance, the people who are most concerned about that are either all very sick or they are taking care of someone who is very sick. So they don’t have a lot of time to volunteer. But by increasing the pool of people to whom PRA directly applies, you increase the pool of people willing to become involved. MT: Considering the difficulty being encountered just getting something like this on the ballot, do you think there is any realistic expectation the public would actually approve it in a vote?Schmid: We don’t have the money to pay for scientific polls, obviously. But when radio station WJR did a nonscientific poll asking if people would approve of legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, 83 percent of the people responding said they would be in favor of that. Also, I think that once people are in the privacy of the voting booth, what’s considered politically correct doesn’t apply. Most people cannot face their own hypocrisy when it’s right there staring them in the face. I truly think there is a silent majority out there that will vote yes if given the chance.MT: Do you think the initiative, as it is written, could hold up to legal challenges? The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that California’s voter-approved medical marijuana initiative didn’t shield a so-called “cannabis buyers club” in the city of Oakland from federal laws prohibiting the sale of pot.Schmid: Actually, I think the ruling in the Oakland case really gave us a boost. That case dealt with third-party providers selling marijuana. The federal government can have jurisdiction in that case because the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce. But the PRA doesn’t attempt to decriminalize the selling of marijuana. All it does is allow personal use, with people allowed to grow small amounts not intended for commerce. So the federal laws, relating to mere possession, wouldn’t be constitutional as applied, because there’s no intent to bring it into the stream of commerce. I’ve done about as much work as a guy can do on this, and I am sure I can win on this issue in court if it comes up. In fact, I’m looking forward to it.MT: What about the other arguments against decriminalization? For example, there’s the argument that something like this will send the wrong message to kids and end up promoting more use among young people.Schmid: I haven’t heard any argument that stands up to analysis. Like the argument you just pointed out. If you look at the Netherlands, where marijuana has been decriminalized for adult use, the rate of use among kids is about half that of their American counterparts, and they are waiting longer to use it.Pot plan Note: How a lifelong Republican took up the mantle of weed. "Democrats are as bad as Republicans when it comes to this war on drugs."For information or to download petitions, visit -- http://www.prayes.com/ -- or call 517-239-9000 anytime.Curt Guyette is Metro Times news editor. He can be reached at: cguyette metrotimes.com Source: The Metro Times (MI)Author: Curt GuyettePublished: June 5, 2001Copyright: 2001 Metro Times, Inc.Website: http://metrotimes.comContact: feedback metrotimes.comRelated Articles & Web Site:PRAyeshttp://www.prayes.com/Petition for Marijuana Legalization Recycledhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9408.shtmlMarijuana Supporters Begin Collecting Signatures http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9342.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2001 at 01:01:38 PT:
Thanks, Kevin
I appreciate your post. I normally don't post this many times in a single article unless I have entered into a debate, but I think it's important tolet everyone know how much I appreciate the support.Thanks again.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Kevin Hebert on June 08, 2001 at 13:12:33 PT:
Good for you, Dan
Like I have said before, where I work they don't test, so it's esy for me to say "don't accept a drug test." But what you did was much more difficult. Congratulations; you may have missed out on a job opportunity, but at least when you look at yourself in the mirror you can know you are seeing someone who stands up for what he believes. You really are an ispiration to us all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Dan B on June 08, 2001 at 07:05:17 PT:
Corvallis Eric
I tend to agree with you. Frankly, those sales folks were strange. Cookie-cutter sheeple, every one. It is true, however, that people generally make a good deal ofmoney in that particular line of work, but it does take up a huge chunk of one's personal time. In short, you are quite likely correct that I saved myself from getting into what I increasingly began to believe was a "scummy industry." However, they did have some products I could believe in, and one of those was a planning guide for arrangements to be made in the event of death. This guide was free, and while it is generally considered a vehicle with which to entice people to buy something, it is also a great product. So, there were positive aspects of the job.But none of them outweighed the negatives.Thanks for writing.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by CorvallisEric on June 08, 2001 at 05:06:39 PT
Hey, Dan
Congratulations, of course. But I have a slightly different perspective. I think you saved yourself from a pretty scummy industry. Also, the kind of enticements given to sales personnel "potential to make $50,000 the first year, perhaps as much as six figures by the third year" should make anyone suspicious. Professionals aren't usually offered employment immediately after interviewing. I suspect that commission salespeople often are. My apologies in advance if you know specifics that invalidate what I said.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Dan B on June 08, 2001 at 04:37:28 PT:
Wow! (Wiping a tear from my eye)
Folks, you've made may day. I hadn't been online since post #5, and when I came to Cannabis News this morning, all of thosemessages had poured in . Thank you, everyone, for your kind words. Yes, my wife is a gem. I'm a lucky, lucky man.Thanks, too, for those who signed up with NORML. Now, let me say this. Every one of you who takes the time to write in this forum, to sign up with organizations like NORML, who keeps informed, who talks with others about this issue, who writes letters to newspapers and letters to congresspersons, and who generally stands up for freedom in whatever capacity you can--all of you are heroes in my book. Every person who wrote to encourage me is a hero to me, too. You honestly brought me to tears. I am deeply grateful.Thank you.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by New Mexican on June 08, 2001 at 02:58:08 PT
You'll have a job soon!
Thanks Dan B, what an inspiration! I too plan on becoming a member of NORML, let's see how many more will join in your honor! You could sign up to give advice on any subject your an expert on. Like political insights, writing tips, standing up for your rights and many other gifts you undoubtly have. Go to keen.com and charge a reasonable price (like 99 cents per minute) and within weeks you'll be gainfully self-employed helping people interested in your help, knowledge, tips, experience on any subject. And most of the people will be directed to you through the internet!Just a thought...its' the least I could do for a Cannabis News Notable!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by military officer guy on June 07, 2001 at 21:21:02 PT
i only wish...
dan,i wish i and about 80million more americans would have the balls to do what you did...i have been "randomly" drug test many many times in my military career...and hated every single one, and i know i was clean...it would be my honor to take a big 'ol bong hit with you someday...when it's legal of course...we can win this war...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by SWAMPIE on June 07, 2001 at 20:33:22 PT
SUPER-DAN
My hat is off to you,good sir for doing the right thing by showing these rigid-stiffs that you are too good to work in such an atmosphere of discrimination!!!! I too was once hired for a position,and at the last minute they tried to lay the tests on me.I work in the heavy truck transmission/axle rebuilding industry,and although it is not an industry of the public sector,I do build trannies for many many local cities.There is no question of my integrity in my field!When I was asked to take a test,I told them that I would be glad to,but that I DO smoke POT,but that I never smoke it during working hours,so if they wanted to hire me,they would have to live with it!!!I have since done that with 3 other employers,and all of them made jokes about it because I was honest with them,but when it came down to getting the job done,I kicked all the non-stoners' asses because I,when I learned to build these units would get high and STUDY to learn how to do my job RIGHT,when others wouldn't even pick up a simple service manual! Most of these people now aren't even in this field now,and maybe rightfully so,anyway! My very first boss,when he saw me throw a wrench in frustration,told me to take a lunchbreak,handed me $5.00,said to go take a hit from the bowl,drink a beer,and relax for an hour!When I came back,I was able to do anf finish the job with a clearer perspective than throwing a wrench!I was only 17 at the time!!!!!!Anyway,I wish you luck,and peace in your search for a job!!!!I also keep a bumper-sticker that says:IF YOU WANT A PISS TEST FROM ME,I'LL GIVE YOU ONE!A TASTE TEST!!!  Not brave enough to put it on the bumper,though!Don't need any problems! Again,GOOD LUCK!!!    ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG!!! SWAMPIE
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on June 07, 2001 at 17:49:27 PT
Dan B
You are an admirable man, Dan B. Admirable for the stand you took in refusing to work for a company with rigid, unrealistic, and destructive policies, and admirable for having a woman of great character as a wife. You'll ultimately get a much better job, self respect and character still intact. I salute you, Sir!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by mayan on June 07, 2001 at 16:43:45 PT
Here's to Dan B!!!
  Way to go man! Your actions have inspired us already. If everyone would do the same as you, this bullsh*t war would be doomed to hell!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Kanabys on June 07, 2001 at 11:29:20 PT
A very BIG person
That's what you are Dan B. I feel privledged to know you, if just on a website. The best of luck to you and your job hunting. Peace to you!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by dddd on June 07, 2001 at 11:22:42 PT
What took me so long?
I am also now a member of NORML.I cantbelieve I didnt join up long ago.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Pontifex on June 07, 2001 at 11:15:25 PT:
Putting money where my pipe is
Dan B,Wow. Your principled stand against random drug testing is a tremendous inspiration to me and countless others. You are truly an American patriot, and you've proven your mettle by refusing to accept the tyrant's 20 pieces of silver.For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his basic human rights?I was so moved by your account that I immediately joined NORML as a Regular member. Like Imprint, I challenge all other readers of Cannabis News to do the same. Your steadfastness is a clarion call to all observers. Let's show our solidarity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by dddd on June 07, 2001 at 09:51:24 PT
Dr. Dan
You did the right thing in several ways.....Firstly,standing upfor your right to privacy.I salute you for the way you handledit............There is a very good side to all this though,,,,...Let's sayyou ended up getting the job....The funeral industry is definitly onethat will never run out of customers,,,but I think it would not besomething that would make a fun career,unless your into that sortof thing....I have no doubt you will find many positions good,or betterthan the grave industry.It seems like it might be a depressing lineof work........If I win the lotto,I'll hire you,,,,I'd put you to workwriting excellent commentaries here,under the dddd nom de plume.......that way I could avoid the heavy wear on my dot...and comma,,,,keys...I know you will score a good job,,,and soon.......tell your puppythat my dog "Little Bill",sends his regards........dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Imprint on June 07, 2001 at 09:47:25 PT
I give my support-absolutely 
You are a brave man with principles. This company you left hasn’t a clue of just what they had lost. You would have been the most fair, intelligent, understanding person they would have had. Your decision to leave will be rewarded a hundred times over. There’s a job waiting for you; a job that will reveal the best you have to offer and leaving this one put you in the position to find it. The fact that you have a wife that is this understanding and willing to stand by you is overwhelming evidence of your character. Dan B. I want to thank you for doing this. The decision to not take this job benefits us all. This kind of action really is another straw on the camel’s back. Also, I want to thank you for joining NORML.  And I want to challenge every person that visits this site to do the same. If you visit this site and haven’t joined NORML yet, please show Dan B. your support by doing so. This organization needs support from all of us. Without it we all will continue to be subjected to discrimination, fear, hatred and alienation. Good luck Dan B., with all the love and support you receive from the members of Cannabisnews you can’t loose. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Toker00 on June 07, 2001 at 09:23:29 PT
Dan The MAN!
I salute you, DanB. What you did was far greater than just turning down a job. You told the truth, and planted a seed of sanity in this man's mind. Very few people will do what you did, and by doing so, he will think about what you said, subconsciouly or consciously, every time an applicant interviews for the job. You stood for what you believe in, and that is monumental in forcing others to see the light.Peace. Realize, then Legalize.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Doug on June 07, 2001 at 08:55:41 PT
DanB, you are a hero
It is indeed possible to be heroic in everyday life, and what you did proves that you are a hero. Perhaps your actions will never be made into a Walt Disney cartoon, with plastic DanB action figures available at McDonalds with a large order of fries, but still, you are a hero.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 07, 2001 at 08:01:07 PT
Dan
I'm sorry Dan but you did the right thing. Random drug testing is a very easy way to control the people who work for a company. Drug testing is an easy way out for the company. No benefits etc. Thanks for sharing this with us.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on June 07, 2001 at 07:46:44 PT:
Thanks
Thanks for the positive remarks, lookinside and JSM. Such comments are always appreciated.By the way, there was recently a post from someone representing what appeared to be a web magazine (Narco something or other--but I know it wasn't Narco News) looking for, among other people, writers. I went to the web page and found . . . well, basically nothing pertaining to the need for writers or where writers might contact a person to see about the possibility of writing for the pub. However, if the person who posted that information would be so kind, please send me an e-mail (just click my name above) with the web address and all necessary contact information.Thanks again.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by JSM on June 07, 2001 at 04:50:40 PT
Employment testing
Good for you Dan and good luck. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by lookinside on June 07, 2001 at 04:39:02 PT:
thanks for sharing...
i have great respect for what you did, dan...best wishes onfinding the right job...i'm in heavy construction...drug testing has been a part ofthe pre employment process for at least 8 years...because ofthe hazardous nature of the work, it's not likely to goaway...on the plus side, a person is only retested if anaccident occurs...woe to he who tests dirty then tho...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on June 07, 2001 at 04:38:57 PT:
Epilogue
In a back room where every morning sales meetings are conducted at the cemetery, in full view and reach of all employees, with every indication and encouragement to use it freely, sits a double-sided coffee maker with always at least one perpetually full coffee pot. The salespeople come in wearing their bad polyester suits, grab a cup of coffee, and sit at the tables waiting for the sales meeting. Some carry with them the distinct smell of cigarettes."Where's the new guy?" somebody asks.The "new guy" sits at home and laughs at their "drug-free" workplace.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on June 07, 2001 at 04:21:18 PT:
This is tangential to this article, but . . .
I wanted to share with you something that happened to me over the past two days. I have been looking for a job, and I thought I had found one selling funeral arrangements and cemetery plots for the largest international company in the business. It was a great job--outstanding benefits (health, dental, vision, worker's comp, retirement, etc.) and the potential to make $50,000 the first year, perhaps as much as six figures by the third year. I was offered the job immediately after the interview and began training yesterday. The one thing that kept bothering me was the declaration the it was a "drug-free workplace," but I niavely assumed that meant I might be subjected to a pre-employment test (which I know I would pass) or, at worst, a test if I should happen to have some kind of accident at work or if my work suffers and drug use is suspected to be the culprit. It's not that I am that naive about employee testing; I just felt like these people were too reasonable on everything else to take a hard line approach to the matter.Well, after spending half my day on training, he brought out the employment forms (I have never seen such a huge stack of paperwork for such a job), and to my astonishment, one of the papers I was required to sign was a waiver that said my employer had the right to obtain blood, urine, saliva, hair or tissue samples for drug testing at any time, and failure to comply would mean immediate termination of employment.As soon as I saw that paper, my heart sank. Frankly, I could easily live without marijuana; I have been doing so for nearly six months now, and I have quit with relative ease in the past. That part did not bother me so much. What bothered me is that this jerk has the audacity to assume I (and every other employee) am a habitual illegal drug user with absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. Plus, he feels he has the right to not only assume that I am guilty until proven innocent, but to invade my person in order to prove to himself that I am not a drug user. This is outrageous and should be illegal in a free society.I had a two-hour break for lunch, so I took the time to visit my wife and share with her my concerns. She told me she thought all along that this job would require random testing, that she understood my concerns, and that she supported my decision if I chose not to work for them. I am so thankful to have an understanding wife.I went back and had a one-on-one discussion with the potential employer. I said that I believe I could be great at this job (he agreed) and that I could be a great benefit to the company (again, he agreed). Then, I gave him a scenario: "Suppose you went in for a job interview and your employer told you that at any time he had the right to go to your home and search the premises for illegal substances. You would be justified in being outraged at such an invasion of privacy. You are doing the same thing when you subject your employees to mandatory random drug testing."He gave me some spiel about "protecting all individuals in the workplace" from "those people," all the while looking down on me with self-righteous indignation (funny how perceptions change when a rabid drug warrior finds out you don't agree with his right to tyranny). So, I took another approach:"I read the OSHA poster you have posted out there, and at the bottom it says that use of a lie detector test is illegal for the purposes of hiring and firing people in a normal workplace environment. I realize that applies specifically to a polygraph test, but what random drug testing does is no different. It automatically assumes that the employee is lying about using drugs, and just to make sure that the employee isn't lying, he or she is subjected to a test. The employee is guilty until proven innocent."Again, he gave me a bunch of crap, saying he "disagreed with my opinion," and, at that, I figured there was no way I could get through to him, so I thanked him for his time, told him I would not be working for him, left the paperwork on the counter, and walked out with my dignity intact.Frankly, he likely lost the best employee he could have hoped to have. I lost nothing. Oh, sure, I don't have a job, and I'll have to keep looking, but I'd rather be unemployed than compromise my principles. When I got home, I called NORML and joined as a regular member. Then, I wrote a letter to send to The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, along with my vita, to see if they can use a professional writer/educator. I'm crossing my fingers that someone out there can use my talents in the fight against the drug war.I'll keep you posted.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: