hofner67

House And Senate Voted To Amend The Act Last Night

369 posts in this topic

All four bills are on the governors desk. Other than the felon language which we did succeed in modifying some the bills overall in my opinion are pretty good. The government DID here our voices and did accept most of the changes we gave them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amendments to the confidentiality section were removed in the S-5 substitute on the Senate floor. They will not be allowed to implement a LEIN interface to the registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A photograph, if the department requires 1 ONE by rule.

 

 

so will we have to have a photo card,? will or do we have to have a card and a photo it for protections?

 

On the M live it quotes

 

HB 4834 requires a driver's license or state ID card to obtain medical marijuana patient registration cards, extends the card’s expiration from one to two years, and attempts to address a backlog of card applications by calling for the state to contract with a private company to help process and issue registration cards.

It also would allow the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to verify the validity of registry cards to members of law enforcement, without disclosing more information than necessary.

 

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel

6 whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing

7 more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the

8 authenticity of the registry identification card

Edited by cristinew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of doing this in the middle of the night? Seems like a party on us. When we stood up and told them we didn't want these bills it made it clear we didn't want them. Then it leaves LEO as who the party was thrown for. These are LEO's bills and this was LEO's Christmas Party of Legislators. LEO gets their Christmas Turkey and we get nothing. Not a single thing there for patients. I wish I could find something there but I can't find a single thing, oh wait. there may be one little crumb there. One crumb left over from their feast, two year cards. WOOHOO, we get two year cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A photograph, if the department requires 1 ONE by rule.

 

 

so will we have to have a photo card,? will or do we have to have a card and a photo it for protections?

 

On the M live it quotes

 

HB 4834 requires a driver's license or state ID card to obtain medical marijuana patient registration cards, extends the card’s expiration from one to two years, and attempts to address a backlog of card applications by calling for the state to contract with a private company to help process and issue registration cards.

It also would allow the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to verify the validity of registry cards to members of law enforcement, without disclosing more information than necessary.

 

(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel

6 whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing

7 more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the

8 authenticity of the registry identification card

 

I have not seen the final bill that passed, but the last one I saw eliminated pictures on the mmj card, but forced you to carry a state id or a drivers license along with your mmj card in order to be fully compliant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HB 4856 thing is really stupid. They got two supermajorities. They could have done it legitimately, perhaps, but they chose to do it illegally. I feel we need to challenge it to protect ourselves from future similar moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from MLIve: "Starting around 4 a.m., two main bills got 29-9 and 30-8 votes in the Republican-led Senate. Shortly after, the GOP-controlled House voted 98-7 and 100-5 to send them to Gov. Rick Snyder."

 

It was not even close Resto, and I agree with your comment in general. Let this be a warning to the proponents of HB 5580.... you are in for an uphill slog....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HB 4856 thing is really stupid. They got two supermajorities. They could have done it legitimately, perhaps, but they chose to do it illegally. I feel we need to challenge it to protect ourselves from future similar moves.

I gues you mean just legalize it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i just read what got passed and got to ask did they open up p2p as i see this in the bill

20

 

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary

 

21

 

 

caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use

 

22

 

 

marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her

 

23

 

 

registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony

 

24

 

 

punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of

 

25

 

 

not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other

 

26

 

 

penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

27

 

 

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary

caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use

marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her

registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony

punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of

not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other

penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

That statement only addresses the illegality of a registered user selling marijuana to anyone who is not registered (which every sane person already knows is illegal). So, without any explicit language to the contrary, one could say that P2P is legal within the language.

 

Inferences aside, I would really like to see explicit language permitting P2P written into the law.

 

 

(edit) Is there anyone here that was part of drafting the original language? If so, wasn't P2P intended to be legal when the law was written? It would make sense that the intent was to allow two different ways of obtaining meds: 1) a patient who cannot grow may name (or contract) a caregiver to grow for them, thus allowing the caregiver (whom may or may not be a patient already) to the grow for that patient up to 12 plants and supply from that stock, or 2) a patient could obtain meds from another patient's stock, as long as the patient providing stays within his/her 12 plant, 2.5oz limit.

Edited by Juan Roberto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, without any explicit language to the contrary, one could say that P2P is legal within the language.

 

 

still a touch grey but I will run with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no iI have to provide a voter reg. when I send in my paperwork...from House Bill 4834:

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

6. Administering the Department's Rules.

 

Sec. 6. (a) The department shall issue registry identification

 

cards to qualifying patients who submit the following, in

 

accordance with the department's rules:

 

(1) A written certification;

 

(2) Application or renewal fee;

 

(3) Name, address, and date of birth of the qualifying

 

patient, except that if the applicant is homeless, no address is

 

required;

 

(4) Name, address, and telephone number of the qualifying

 

patient's physician;

 

(5) Name, address, and date of birth of the qualifying

 

patient's primary caregiver, if any; and

 

(6) Proof of Michigan residency. For the purposes of this

 

subdivision, a person shall be considered to have proved legal

 

residency in this state if any of the following apply:

 

(i) The person provides a copy of a valid, lawfully obtained

 

Michigan driver license issued under the Michigan vehicle code,

 

1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or an official state personal

 

identification card issued under 1972 PA 222, MCL 28.291 to 28.300.

 

---> (ii) The person provides a copy of a valid Michigan voter

 

registration.<--------

Edited by o0_bong_toker_0o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in these bills to help the patients. All of it was written and designed to make it more harmful and restrictive for patients. Anyone that says we should be fine with these bills can go flower themselves. Come April 1st there will be a whole new set of problems for the patients, maybe sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFC.... Just for starters how many patients will now loose their caregivers? How will a patient who does not drive ,or dare not drive for fear of being charged with dui even though they havent medicated, how will that patient now get clones from point A to point B given noone else can be in the car but the patient or their caregiver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 47 years old but a felony I got at the age of 19 will now keep my cancer patient and other patients from receiving their medicine from me as their caregiver,,,,,

 

When do these new laws go into affect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Repubs have no heart, the Dems have no balls, and neither care in the least about the Will of the People or the Welfare of the Patients.

 

Every legislator who voted to give us more grief can kiss my Royal American :butt2: and be assured that I will remember every one of them at the voting booth.

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