Jump to content

State Should Set Up Dispensary System...


Recommended Posts

4 me dispensaries r like going 2 disneyland

u do not have 2 go but if u do get your wallet out...

 

 

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

 

Just thought id mention your few experiences with despenses, yea i keep up,they say keep your friends close but keep your enemy's closer!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is anything I say selfish?

 

If a friend of yours (and if YOU happen to be disabled and some how manage to survive on meager disability benefits) happens to own ANY type of business and gives you a discount...what would motivate them to offer you the same deal?

 

Jam it!

 

 

Mizerman :growl:

 

p.s. and as for Digital Nomad - he can kiss my rosey red azz

 

 

lol p.s i always said rosey white azz!! ( i guess i been saying it wrong)

 

I just met a c.g thru a close friend, who offered me 4 of the 12 plants every crop time, and 125 a zip on top of that if I want more, and free medibles and hash and oils,,no I realy dont know this person that well, but he already has patients and he will need to give me a big up front allotment for my grow rites! Im thinking of using a c.g instead of dealing with leo any more, I have enough crap going on, dont need them finding a grow in my house legal or illegal!

 

just like the established c.g's out there offering a free oz a month to pt's, well id be willing to give them my grow rites but they have to give me 6 months up front, and in 6 months be back with the same or better and i wont change c,g's,,when I get (hire) a c.g! yea i hire a c.g, they work for the patient, not the other way around!

and I have been forced to do this due to my experience with a shady azz c.g!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'brbud' post='237652'

 

 

"the only improvement would be No law against manufacture/possession/consumption

anything else is a huge step Backwards"

 

There you go the answers are usually simple .

 

I remember I read a piece when I was young by a wise Lady ( Senetor ) that ran for President titled :" I would rather be Black then Female ".It was very difficult for me to digest at first but the more I thought about it I took this meaning from it . I felt she stated no matter how hard we try were all a little predudice and brainwashed concerning certian civil rights issues ( her article refered to Womens rights in the US and used the race topic to jar ones thinking on both issues ) , we all have phobias from societal influence in our upbringings and social interactions of us vrs those different .All groups suffer injustice that is ridiculously accepted or pushed on others without merit . Its hard but we must recognize what is right or wrong at the bottom line - not just continue with what is comfortable for our Cannabis Community going forward . There is no moral reason to demand anything else but total freedom towards our ends like any other over the counter natural Herbal remedy .

 

It is natural at first after coming on board the Michigan Medical Cannabis Program to feel almost apologetic for Cannabis use due to past treatment .To hide our identities . It will take time before many of us straighten our backs and simpley demand equal rights or even envision - true equal rights .

 

I see so many willing to compromise due to the terrible injustice that has occured in the last 70 years of Cannabis prohibition that results in Imprisonement , death , job loss ect .Penalties that have occured to people who were responsable and doing their jobs not involved in any crime other then using a plant for medicinal reasons .We fail to even mention the prohibitist ends prevented them from utilizing all their talents to benefit society . We're often so persecuted we have the rational thought to go back underground ( retreat) . Don't compromise , don't give up a thing - stand the line and push forward because morality requires no less .

 

We must put away our own insidious thoughts the Prohibitionist propoganda and injustice has pushed into the back of all our minds . We have nothing to apoligize or compromise for .

 

I am right on board with you , change no wording in the original act the only improvement would be a addendum to our act resulting in " No law against manufacture/possession/consumption/adding sales between card holders and or dispensories anything else is a huge step Backwards"

 

There I go again with my own phobias . Why should you really even need a card or the limits of the program ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what was it? You did offer to give me a ride to the hashbash, and I smoked my meds with you. If you wanted gas money, you could have asked, but now you let a petty thing get in the way. You are bitching about me offering you meds at $300, delivered to your door, when you pay $10 a gram now? - you are the fool. I don't know how I became the bad guy for that. You make it sound like I was trying to sell you street grade for $450.

 

You never went to a MOCC club meeting, so you can't speak about our compassion.

 

you want to resort to violence? sure we can do this - lets go to my dojo - I can get the gym for the 2 minutes it will take for you to 'tap out'.

 

 

-DN

any day punk - my mmmp card is not the only one I carry in my wallet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only had 600 words to work with, and I was asked to provide an argument of persuasion for dispensaries. I hear the complaints of high prices, and the economic motive of running a business, and of course the arrest and prosecution of dispensary owners and employees. The fact is that dispensaries exist all over the state. For some they are providing a service, and to others causing problems. I think we could all agree that (and I would encourage us all to have) there are several differing opinions all making valid points. Weather we as a community like it or not, these issues are being discussed, contemplated throughout the state, at all levels of government. A distribution model of some kind will likely be much of the discussion over the next 2 years, while many of these same issues are litigated in Court. First let me say that I do not endorse a change in the MMMA. The act itself is a great law. I personally do not think one thing has to be changed about the law, but instead the change must come from the minds of its opponents. This law was intended to be broadly interpreted and protect patients and caregivers and those who help patients and caregivers from arrests and no prosecution. If everyone saw it this way, there would be no issues no arrests and the community would be safe. I realize also that but for the existence of the dispensaries now, this conversation and probably many of the arrest would not be taking place. But this is not a reality

We know that the existing system does work, the question is are we as a state going to endorse an absolute status quo, for not just the MMMA, but for the issues of commercialization and distribution (see the feds are coming to Lansing). Or are we willing to, not change to the existing law but, discuss and ultimately embrace a different law, one that does not effect in any way the current protections of the MMMA, but instead one that give some guidance to how these entities should be designed. Is there a way to maintain the protected rights of patients and caregivers as they areas outlined in the MMMA, while at the same time regulating a system that is commercial in nature (does not exclude a nonprofit model). Wouldn’t it be nice if patients and caregivers could get up every day, go to work, participate in providing care and compassion to patients and not have to worry about being arrested? I believe that such a reality does exist. And while it feels like we are in the middle of the chaos, I am optimistic that one day this can be our reality.

 

Michael A. Komorn

Attorney and Counselor

Law Office of Michael A. Komorn

3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800

Southfield, MI 48075

800-656-3557 (Toll Free)

248-351-2200 (Office)

248-357-2550 (Phone)

248-351-2211 (Fax)

Email: michael@komornlaw.com

Website: www.komornlaw.com

Check out our Radio show:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees

NEW CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626

Live Every Wednesday 8-9:30 p.m.

PLANET GREENTREES

w/ Attorney Michael Komorn

 

The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

 

If you have a medical marihuana question or comment, please email them to me, or leave them on the forum for the MMMA, and I will try to answer them live on the air.

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees

PLANET GREENTREES Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

 

Well put Michael. Thanks for all of your efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article.

 

I find it funny so many people say the dispensaries are only worried about money and then follow the statement with "I would never pay...". Who cares if they are charging $1000 a gram, I love having the CHOICE to by that gram or not.

 

 

I can not afford a nice boat, but I love seeing that some people can...

 

Freedom is freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things.

 

The last compassion club operator I am aware of who required that no more than ten bucks be charged for most varieties, and no more than fifteen for top shelf stuff, was forcibly removed by the attending caregivers who are now selling for much more and to people they are not connected with through the registry. This last despite the fact that some are not patients. No names, but it is also to be considered that other illegal drugs are used and sold on premises. At the first Hash Bash after the law was enacted, I met a group who are interested in a pharmacy model of dispensation that would ostensibly be administered and regulated by the state. It was obvious enough that they were not in it for anything other than profit. That being said, it is best that transaction details be left up to the individuals involved.

 

Please do not insult our intelligence and tell us that moves to change things are not about the money.

 

We do not have to stand, and have not yet stood, idly by while the opposition tries to work its evil. It is in our best interest to see that the law remains untouched. It is plainly written and very clear. Very profitable dispensaries, while not directly addressed, are largely unworkable given the numbers. Cases are in the works that will likely support that attitude. The closest model to date has been that which permits patients to buy and sell to each other on private premises, to include clubs or, if the term suits you, dispensaries, often for only a fee for display space. Otherwise, one on one transactions are entirely common. Then too, perhaps we should define our terms and address what amounts to a "dispensary." Does it include any venue where cannabis is bought and sold to walk ins?

 

Recent reports are that the supply line is nicely stocked at present. The means to acquire are readily enough available without opening up the law for revision. That will permit anyone with an agenda that does not square with our needs to unnecessarily screw with it. While not typically reactionary regarding issues, I consider there is too much at stake to let politicians tell us how it should be done. They could not, would not, did not work effectively to permit us our due, and it was necessary that the electorate slap them backhanded. HARD. If they persist in attempts to diminish our rights, they can expect more.

 

We have a more than adequate cottage industry that doubles as a friendly association between patients and their sources. We can, just as we do at roadside vegetable stands or in sharing our summertime vegetable gardens and fruit trees, buy, sell, or flat out give away quality product at reasonable prices. Sounds like freedom to me. There are those who would negate that altogether.

 

We respect the work that Mr. Kormon does, and hope he will continue his work in helping to protect us under prevailing considerations. Six hundred words notwithstanding, they could have better been used. If they were intended to provide a weak, but quick, argument in favor of dispensaries, he can consider his homework done. Pray, who asked for it? Maybe he does not want to provide accurate and reasonable tenets in favor of something other than what we have that would compel anyone to open a can of worms. But then, there really are none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just showed up in the news....here is an example of what kind of revisions you will get in the law if it is opened up and changes left to the state. This is in New Jersey....now read it and tell me this is what you want to deal with:

 

 

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie struck a deal Friday to partially rewrite his administration's proposed medical marijuana regulations, which had advocates and some lawmakers ready to revolt.

 

Under the new plan, medical cannabis could be grown and distributed at more places than Christie originally wanted. It also would allow terminally ill patients easier access to the drug, but an unusual potency cap would remain.

 

Christie, a Republican, predicted his approach could become a model for other states.

 

"This agreement reflects a good-faith compromise between the administration and the primary sponsor of the legislation on the best way to move forward on a responsible, medically based program that will avoid the significant fraud and criminal diversion that other states have experienced," Christie said Friday.

 

 

AP

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

But it's not clear whether his compromise with Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton, will be enough to short-circuit a legislative uprising.

 

Just before Christie took office in January, lawmakers passed a bill to make New Jersey the 14th state to legalize marijuana for patients with certain conditions. Patients say pot helps them by easing pain and suppressing nausea, among other benefits.

 

Christie said he was comfortable with the concept of medical marijuana, but he wanted stricter controls than what the law seemed to call for and what the other states have imposed.

 

The state Health and Senior Services Department's proposed regulations reflected his position.

 

While the law called for six centers to grow and distribute the pot, the initial regulations called for two to grow it and four to distribute it.

 

The regulations also did something no other state has done: cap the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychotropic chemical in marijuana that is more commonly known as THC, at 10 percent. Advocates consider that too weak and say drugs from illegal dealers can be twice as potent.

 

The regulations also called for all medical marijuana patients to show that they had exhausted conventional treatment options before getting legal access to pot. Lawmakers wanted that requirement for patients with treatable conditions like glaucoma and multiple sclerosis, but thought it was too restrictive for those with terminal illnesses.

 

In his deal with Gusciora, Christie kept the potency cap but allowed the number of treatment centers that legislators called for, and dropped the requirement that patients will terminal conditions exhaust other treatment options. Friday's deal also eliminates a regulation that advocates liked — allowing home delivery.

 

"I think it's the least the governor's office could do, to follow the law the way it's written," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari, a Democrat from Linden and a sponsor of medical marijuana regulation.

 

Scutari said he would need time to decide whether to move ahead with a vote scheduled for Dec. 13 that would invalidate the proposed regulations. Last month, the Assembly passed a similar resolution.

 

Gusciora said it's better for lawmakers to halt that effort, though.

 

"We can go to the Senate and declare the regulations null and void, but that would probably end the program," he said, because it could take years to hammer out new regulations. "Let's just get the program started. Down the road with studies and further advocacy, the department can always revise the regulations."

 

The activists who spent years pushing to allow medical marijuana aren't sure how they will respond to Friday's compromise, which caught them by surprise.

 

Roseanne Scotti, the New Jersey director of Drug Policy Alliance, said that on balance the compromise might mean less access for patients who could be helped by pot.

 

Chris Goldstein, spokesman for the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey, said the potency cap could undermine the program entirely, because the law also caps the amount of marijuana patients could have per month.

 

"Doctors need to know that medical marijuana is going to be effective for their patients," he said. "Are they going to be recommending marijuana and essentially saying, 'You're going to have to find it on the underground market?'"

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/christie_makes_deal_on_medical_marijuana_BfNLJcDmHHuk9d2pgHxauK#ixzz175ULG0y9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly moves to change things from the legislative side are about the money; I don't think anyone would dispute that. But moves to clarify protections for distribution do not seem to me to be even mostly motivated by monetary or economic concerns. We have a very real and growing problem serving patients in this state consistently with medicine of appropriate quality, proper strain, and proper ingestion format while there are large swaths of "medical" growers feeding their product out the back door to the black market or other states. That is a system of perverse incentives.

 

While there are strong movements that are making lots of headway helping these people through private and other public, non-dispensary ways, even these segments of our movement have had to add more and more dispensary-like behaviors to ensure the ultimate needs of patients are met, which will subject them to increasing pressures from law enforcement unless we can do something to specially protect those that are making their overages openly available to patients. It has become increasingly obvious that the law as written is not enough to protect this behavior in some communities.

 

Protecting distribution explicitly is an obvious next step. While private patient-to-patient transfers are working for some subset of Michigan patients, the dispensary is a very attractive model to many patients, especially those just starting or who are having trouble forming that "friendly association" with their source. Since it has taken hold in the state in a (mostly) positive way, we should attempt to clarify the regulations under which they operate, since as many have stated in other threads our law fails to regulate them (or even mention them).

 

In my opinion this path is preferable to more raids, and if done as a regulatory add-on rather than as an amendment to our law, as proposed by Michael earlier, is little risk to the core rights we have established for ourselves.

Two thumbs up! :thumbsu::thumbsu:

 

Hope you are feeling better. The cold/flu-like symptoms that I had lasted with me well over two weeks.

 

Mizerman

 

p.s. chicken soup - good for the soul ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly moves to change things from the legislative side are about the money; I don't think anyone would dispute that.

But moves to clarify protections for distribution do not seem to me to be even mostly motivated by monetary or economic concerns. We have a very real and growing problem serving patients in this state consistently with medicine of appropriate quality, proper strain, and proper ingestion format while there are large swaths of "medical" growers feeding their product out the back door to the black market or other states. That is a system of perverse incentives.

 

What a change in rhetoric (about face) since the election.

What happened to the Law is Clear

The only real and growing problem is for dispensaries. They know it We know it , the new ag knows it.

 

I dont want the gov to tell me where to buy, what strain i need or how to consume it....properly

there are large swaths of "medical" growers feeding their product out the back door to the black market or other states.
...references please. Seems like a damaging statement to our cause..no?

 

No change in the law will stop or even deter anyone who participates in the black market. There are laws now that are ignored..do you thimk a couple more laws will change that? Get Real

 

The Law is clear....the people want to be able to grow their own meds or have a compassionate caregiver...THAT IS EVIDENT on this and every other MMJ site in the state. There is NO shortage of CG. it will take some time for the people to come up to speed.....lets give them some time before we pull the rug out from under them.

 

The dispensary system is the perverse system...it is contrary to the law as written and the will of the people.

It is the only way the gov and big business can profit on the meds( which is where the big money is) instead of just revenue from sales tax of nutes and lights..etc.

 

Show me one dept of the state o mi that works efficiently and effectively in the eyes of us citizens...

 

The gov and big business cant handle power in the peoples hands let alone $$ they always lookin to take it from us

After all they need to protect us from ourselves.

 

The only ones pushing for dispensaries are the ones who stand to profit from them.

 

The dispensaries jumped onto the scene expecting the same as CA. Now they know it aint so and are runnin scared...and they should.

 

The Law as written is Good Law for the people( and that was the mantra before the election)...

Now the mantra is we need the State to dictate What When Where and How....thru a dispensary NO THANKS

the dispensary system is only good for big business and gov.

 

it will take more than 30 pieces of silver for the citizens to swallow this BS

 

i wish the greedy dispensaries and their minions all the misfortune they deserve.

 

peace

 

btw eating chicken soup does nothing for the soul...it feeds the flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i post this E-mail here all the time when i here people talking about changing the Law i do think they are doing just that

 

Dear Robert: I understand your frustration and anger over the events in Oakland County relating to medical marijuana clinics. Problems similar to this have been occurring all across the state and in our courts as the new law is being implemented. As a result, I am currently serving on a Medical Marijuana Task Force appointed by House Speaker Andy Dillon to look at amending the act to make it more clear and to avoid any issues like those that are occurring around the state currently. We hope to have recommendations made for amending the statutes before the end of this year. Thank you again for contacting me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly moves to change things from the legislative side are about the money; I don't think anyone would dispute that. But moves to clarify protections for distribution do not seem to me to be even mostly motivated by monetary or economic concerns. We have a very real and growing problem serving patients in this state consistently with medicine of appropriate quality, proper strain, and proper ingestion format while there are large swaths of "medical" growers feeding their product out the back door to the black market or other states. That is a system of perverse incentives.

 

While there are strong movements that are making lots of headway helping these people through private and other public, non-dispensary ways, even these segments of our movement have had to add more and more dispensary-like behaviors to ensure the ultimate needs of patients are met, which will subject them to increasing pressures from law enforcement unless we can do something to specially protect those that are making their overages openly available to patients. It has become increasingly obvious that the law as written is not enough to protect this behavior in some communities.

 

Protecting distribution explicitly is an obvious next step. While private patient-to-patient transfers are working for some subset of Michigan patients, the dispensary is a very attractive model to many patients, especially those just starting or who are having trouble forming that "friendly association" with their source. Since it has taken hold in the state in a (mostly) positive way, we should attempt to clarify the regulations under which they operate, since as many have stated in other threads our law fails to regulate them (or even mention them).

 

In my opinion this path is preferable to more raids, and if done as a regulatory add-on rather than as an amendment to our law, as proposed by Michael earlier, is little risk to the core rights we have established for ourselves.

 

 

420Freedom

 

What he said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Guy

Certainly moves to change things from the legislative side are about the money; I don't think anyone would dispute that. But moves to clarify protections for distribution do not seem to me to be even mostly motivated by monetary or economic concerns. We have a very real and growing problem serving patients in this state consistently with medicine of appropriate quality, proper strain, and proper ingestion format while there are large swaths of "medical" growers feeding their product out the back door to the black market or other states. That is a system of perverse incentives.

 

While there are strong movements that are making lots of headway helping these people through private and other public, non-dispensary ways, even these segments of our movement have had to add more and more dispensary-like behaviors to ensure the ultimate needs of patients are met, which will subject them to increasing pressures from law enforcement unless we can do something to specially protect those that are making their overages openly available to patients. It has become increasingly obvious that the law as written is not enough to protect this behavior in some communities.

 

Protecting distribution explicitly is an obvious next step. While private patient-to-patient transfers are working for some subset of Michigan patients, the dispensary is a very attractive model to many patients, especially those just starting or who are having trouble forming that "friendly association" with their source. Since it has taken hold in the state in a (mostly) positive way, we should attempt to clarify the regulations under which they operate, since as many have stated in other threads our law fails to regulate them (or even mention them).

 

In my opinion this path is preferable to more raids, and if done as a regulatory add-on rather than as an amendment to our law, as proposed by Michael earlier, is little risk to the core rights we have established for ourselves.

Sounds ok. BUT Every time there is a move to regulate, the dispensary people bust a move to limit the small grower in some way. We see it all the time in the meetings with law makers. They act like they want things to be cool between the little grower and the dispensaries and then WHAM, out of nowhere we find out they cut our throats. Pay attention and you will see it many many times. They have shown us what they want, a monopoly. A exclusionary, moritorium applauding, monopoly. That is the nature of the beast here in Michigan. Actions speak for themselves and we have already seen plenty of 'move busting'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ok. BUT Every time there is a move to regulate, the dispensary people bust a move to limit the small grower in some way. We see it all the time in the meetings with law makers. They act like they want things to be cool between the little grower and the dispensaries and then WHAM, out of nowhere we find out they cut our throats. Pay attention and you will see it many many times. They have shown us what they want, a monopoly. A exclusionary, moritorium applauding, monopoly. That is the nature of the beast here in Michigan. Actions speak for themselves and we have already seen plenty of 'move busting'.

 

Thats 'Special Lobbying" by dispensary owners. And some of those dispensary owners trying to get in bed with politicans will probably find themselves ripped off when the politicans figure out they make more money by being the dispensary!

you are right - Do Not Open the Door for this.

 

-DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ok. BUT Every time there is a move to regulate, the dispensary people bust a move to limit the small grower in some way. We see it all the time in the meetings with law makers. They act like they want things to be cool between the little grower and the dispensaries and then WHAM, out of nowhere we find out they cut our throats. Pay attention and you will see it many many times. They have shown us what they want, a monopoly. A exclusionary, moritorium applauding, monopoly. That is the nature of the beast here in Michigan. Actions speak for themselves and we have already seen plenty of 'move busting'.

 

To pass a law to regulate dispensaries would only take a simple majority in Lansing.

 

If any part of that new law were to modify the existing MMMA it would require that 75% majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Guy

To pass a law to regulate dispensaries would only take a simple majority in Lansing.

 

If any part of that new law were to modify the existing MMMA it would require that 75% majority.

You do not understand the process. Your two sentences above point that out. What you are advising is an illegal way to effect an existing law. How do I know that? That was a move they already tried and under advice of their legal council they found it to be illegal. Anything that would modify our existing law, including any regulation, would require a 75% vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not understand the process. Your two sentences above point that out. What you are advising is an illegal way to effect an existing law. How do I know that? That was a move they already tried and under advice of their legal council they found it to be illegal. Anything that would modify our existing law, including any regulation, would require a 75% vote.

 

I don't agree with you.

 

If a law is passed that regulates auto dealerships, that law doesn't require the 75%.

 

I'm guessing that some folks tried to introduce a law that changed what patients and or caregivers were allowed to do. When they try to do that is when the 75% is required.

 

Dispensaries are not covered in our existing MMMA. A new law that ONLY establishes dispensary regulation would require a simple majority.

 

The 75% vote should stop then from changing our existing rights. It's easier for them to target the simple majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Guy

I don't agree with you.

 

If a law is passed that regulates auto dealerships, that law doesn't require the 75%.

 

I'm guessing that some folks tried to introduce a law that changed what patients and or caregivers were allowed to do. When they try to do that is when the 75% is required.

 

Dispensaries are not covered in our existing MMMA. A new law that ONLY establishes dispensary regulation would require a simple majority.

 

The 75% vote should stop then from changing our existing rights. It's easier for them to target the simple majority.

The original law about auto dealerships was not a ballot initiative.

You are talking in circles again.

Dispensaries effect medical cannabis, the law, and effect patients and caregivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...