Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RememberSchiff

Patrols 300ft, Marijuana 500ft?

Recommended Posts

Googling, and I find there have been a number nighttime break-ins. daytime robberies and disturbances, and even a shootout (2011), at legal marijuana dispensaries in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area so I can understand those concerns. The irony may be that the owner is looking for a safer location - a dead end street with the Boy Scouts as neighbors.  :dry:

 

Thanks for the insights...interesting!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some additional information. The scout office in Ann Arbor, does have a scout shop attached to it so scouts do shop there.  However because of where this scout shop is located, in an industrial park, most  youth are accompanied by and adult.  An industrial park is a better location for a medial marijuana dispensary than a scout shop. 

 

I am not sure where other scout offices/shops are located.  But to compare this one to a church or school is a stretch.  It is located in an industrial park away from homes and shopping.  It does not have a large meeting room and is not used for meetings or trainings. When you think of a church or school they are typically very involved in the neighborhood/community they serve and typically have several meetings and gatherings a month and have a lot of youth that attend those meetings.  While scouting is important and involved in the community this scout office is not where meetings or gatherings are held.  Those are typically held at churches, schools and other facilities in the community. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like this may be the BEST kind of area for something like this.  While there will be Scouts in the Scout Shop, imagine if this facility were on a downtown street.  It would probably be surrounded by retail stores, food stores, eating establishments, etc., all of which are frequented by youths.  (That assumes that there is a danger to youths from being near this thing in the first place, which I am not convinced of.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Googling, and I find there have been a number nighttime break-ins. daytime robberies and disturbances, and even a shootout (2011), at legal marijuana dispensaries in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area so I can understand those concerns. The irony may be that the owner is looking for a safer location - a dead end street with the Boy Scouts as neighbors.  :dry:

Robberies are a problem due to Federal laws preventing the dispensaries from using traditional banking or credit card services. The Feds will shut down the account and seize the assets, so they all work on a cash basis. That much cash = great target for a robbery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If that's the purpose for which the Scouts attended the meeting, that's great.  And around here, Scouts (Boy and Girl) generally attend public meetings for MB purposes in uniform.  (That's probably bending the rules, but I think it has a benefit because the presiding officer seeing Scouts in uniform will almost always give them some recognition, and if there is an opportunity the Scouts will be greeted by members of the public body seeking to curry favor with present and future voters wishing to extend the hand of fellowship to the youth of their community.)

 

If they are instead there to advocate a particular position, that's great too, and it is part of being a good citizen - but not in uniform.

 

Well based on the scout's sound bite, I think he was working on Citz in Com.

'Do the following:

a. Attend a meeting of your city, town, or county council or school board; OR attend a municipal, county, or state court session. b. Choose one of the issues discussed at the meeting where a difference of opinions was expressed, and explain to your counselor why you agree with one opinion more than you do another one.'   or Communications:

'Attend a public meeting (city council, school board, debate) approved by your counselor where several points of view are given on a single issue. Practice active listening skills and take careful notes of each point of view. Prepare an objective report that includes all points of view that were expressed, and share this with your counselor.'

 

 In our community scouts get a lot of attention (lead the pledge usually) in uniform.  I might be less jaded, I think the uniform gives the elective officials an opportunity to engage with a youth, without being the 'stranger' all the kids have been taught to fear.  

 

But yes, we all understand your point about politic-ing in uniform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the concerns seriously if a Pablo Escobar-type kingpin set up operations next to the service center.   Some out of control "Tony Montana" Scarface dude running dope and dealers 24/7.    Then something should be done.

 

But the proposed facility is in fact a legal one.   The product will be distributed to people with valid prescriptions.    I can't think of a single reason why the new facility can't proceed as planned.

 

I would disagree with your statement that this activity is legal.  I would also disagree that there is any such a thing as a valid prescription for these products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with your statement that this activity is legal.  I would also disagree that there is any such a thing as a valid prescription for these products.

 

Our former state AG once remarked "Technically it is not illegal to be an illegal in Massachusetts", meaning if the (immigration) law was not enforced by her office or the Feds well to quote another politician "What difference does it make?"

 

Medical marijuana is legal under Michigan law. In 2009, President Obama's sent a directive to federal prosecutors not to prosecute people (Controlled Substance Act)  who distribute marijuana for medical purposes. In 2013, the DOJ restated that enforcement position. So if you can find a federal prosecutor to bring this case and confirm the illegality, maybe you should be the Director of the FBI. :unsure:

 

Many interesting civics questions here for scouts.

 

My $0.02,

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many Boy Scout service centers are within 500' of a liquor store or a convenience store that sells cigarettes?  This sounds like some political game the locals are playing.  

 

In order to be fair and balanced, maybe BSA ought to institute a policy that states that uniformed Boy Scouts cannot be within 500' of an establishment that sells alcohol, cigarettes or firearms.  Of course all those things are perfectly legal operations, growing medical marijuana is as well. 

 

And seriously,... if the Boy Scout service center and the marijuana shop were right next door to each other and someone needed something to steal, what makes any one think that the robbers are going after compasses, jack knives and uniform shirts vs. marijuana? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And seriously,... if the Boy Scout service center and the marijuana shop were right next door to each other and someone needed something to steal, what makes any one think that the robbers are going after compasses, jack knives and uniform shirts vs. marijuana? 

 

Well, the argument seems to be that a place that is adjacent to a "target for crime" also becomes a target for crime.  But if you buy that argument, then by that logic there also shouldn't be a council facility within 500 feet of a bank, convenience store or jewelry store.  And these places are the targets of armed robberies, not mere breaking-and-entering at midnight looking for some plants.  I think it's a pretty good guess that these protesters just don't want this facility in their town and are using its proximity to something with the words "Boy Scouts" on the sign to acheive their goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our former state AG once remarked "Technically it is not illegal to be an illegal in Massachusetts", meaning if the (immigration) law was not enforced by her office or the Feds well to quote another politician "What difference does it make?"

 

Medical marijuana is legal under Michigan law. In 2009, President Obama's sent a directive to federal prosecutors not to prosecute people (Controlled Substance Act)  who distribute marijuana for medical purposes. In 2013, the DOJ restated that enforcement position. So if you can find a federal prosecutor to bring this case and confirm the illegality, maybe you should be the Director of the FBI. :unsure:

 

Many interesting civics questions here for scouts.

 

My $0.02,

 

The fact that an administration, for partisan political reasons, chooses to not enforce a properly enacted law, does not change the validity of the law.  These products are still illegal.

 

The directorship of the FBI, like that of the IRS, has become a partisan political office.  I wouldn't want the office.

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with your statement that this activity is legal.  I would also disagree that there is any such a thing as a valid prescription for these products.

If it were illegal, why would the township planning commission even entertain the request for a permit?   Seems that an illegal request would be denied immediately and perhaps referred to a prosecutor and/or law enforcement for further action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were illegal, why would the township planning commission even entertain the request for a permit?   Seems that an illegal request would be denied immediately and perhaps referred to a prosecutor and/or law enforcement for further action.

 

There is no "if" about it.  These products are illegal.  This is not an opinion.  It is a fact.

 

The product is illegal, and the planning commission is considering the request for a permit.  That's why there is a controversy.

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the product is legal in the State of Michigan (and in a number of other states) but illegal under federal law.  Local governments, such as this township, base their laws and zoning policies on State Law because it is the State that governs what local governments in their state can and can't do.  Federal laws do not regulate local governments.  That's why the township's zoning ordinance was re-written specifically to make medical marijuana grow and distribution operations a special use permit in a specific zoned area (in this case, it would be in an area zoned I, which, BTW, doesn't allow for churches or most schools (post secondary and trade schools excepted - and most laws barring operations within a certain feet of schools exempt those type of schools - not even with a special use permit).  They've come in to compliance with state law.  Just as a local police officer can't enforce federal laws (which is why sheriffs and police chiefs in border towns keep getting their hands slapped by the courts every time they try to enforce federal immigration laws), the local governments can't ignore state law just because it conflicts with federal law.

 

Right now - the product is a mix of legal and illegal.  I know a lot has been made of the President telling Federal Prosecutors not to enforce the law, but if you've paid any attention at all to this administration and how this President thinks (and not just gotten your news from the screaming pundits on your favorite cable news channel, of any political stripe), it's not for partisan political reasons at all but is very consistent with his belief that if a law is outdated and needs to be changed, it should be changed by Congress and not the Courts.  It's very much like his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act - activists on both sides were surprised to see that his administration was opposed to trying to get the law nullified in court - instead, he wanted Congress to nullify the law.  It's pretty clear to most people that if a federal prosecutor in a state where medical marijuana is legal decides to enforce the federal law, it's going to end up in the Supreme Court where it becomes a State's Rights case and where it is likely that the federal law would be struck down in favor of the states regardless of the flavor of the make-up of the court.  That's something this President has a fundamental objection too - he'd much rather that Congress be the ones to change the law - and it's not yet being pushed because there isn't the critical mass of states that have changed their laws yet to make it untenable not to do anything - but there likely will be soon.

 

Without the publicity this has received, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell up by looking at the building (once it's built) that the building is a grow site.  There are now farms being set-up in industrial buildings and no one could tell if you just drove by one.

 

As for the technicality of it being illegal to be illegal in the US , the MA Attorney General has it exactly right.  Under federal law, it is a criminal offense to cross the border without documents, but like many laws of that sort, you have to be caught crossing the border at the time you cross the border.  So if you have crossed the border without being caught, you can't be charged later with crossing the border.  But your still in the country illegally - however, under federal law, being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense - being in the country illegally is a civil offense..  What is a criminal offense is being in this country illegally if you have already been caught once and deported. 

 

I'm just not that concerned with whether there is a Scout Council office somewhere near a grow operation - perhaps because as a Scout, I knew where the illegal pot patches were located in the farmer's fields next to the local scout camp, where it was in the local scout camp, and where it was at both summer camps I went to/worked at.  Of course, this was the 1970's - and although they may not be as well known anymore, or even forgotten, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they still didn't exist in a wild state (hint - look for big areas of ragweed - then look more closely at some of the plants that might be interspersed among them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to be fair and balanced, maybe BSA ought to institute a policy that states that uniformed Boy Scouts cannot be within 500' of an establishment that sells alcohol, cigarettes or firearms.  Of course all those things are perfectly legal operations, growing medical marijuana is as well. 

 

 

This might make it difficult for our scouts to do the shopping at a local grocery store.  I guess maybe the local CVS would work, but the price and healthfulness of the menu might suffer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that an administration, for partisan political reasons, chooses to not enforce a properly enacted law, does not change the validity of the law.  These products are still illegal.

 

The directorship of the FBI, like that of the IRS, has become a partisan political office.  I wouldn't want the office.

 

Your use of the word "partisan" puzzles me.  Presumably the current administration has decided not to prosecute medical marijuana cases either because (a) they believe it is good public policy to allow medical marijuana or (b) they believe the majority of the public would support not prosecuting those cases, or both.  I would put money on "both".  As for "political", reason (b) is definitely political and reason (a) is arguably political, so yes, it's probably political.  Policy decisions get made for political reasons all the time.  One might argue that policy decisions are political decisions by definition.  It's just our system of government.  But where "partisan" comes in, I don't know.  Are most pot growers Democrats?  I don't know.  They are very entrepeneurial.  They could be Republicans.  

 

As for the office of FBI director, the current director is not of the same party as the president, so I think that negates "partisan".  It happens that he was a high-ranking official in the George W. Bush administration and was a Republican at that time, though he has said that he recently changed his registration to unaffiliated.  As for "political", the office of FBI director has not "become" political, it has been political from the very beginning.  The first FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, was the most political one yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×