POT PLAN

How A Lifelong Republican Took Up The Mantle Of Weed.

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.

For more information or to download petitions, visit www.prayes.com,
or call 517-239-9000 anytime.