Jump to content

Our Law Was Plagerized From Rhode Island's


pic book
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's true, and so easy to spot. We copied whole sections verbation without attribution. It's easiest to see in the sections setting up patient qualifications and caregivers gualifications and function. Surprisingly, our law is silent on dispensaries, that's because it stops copying the R.I. law whenever the RI code mentions disapensaries. The Michigan scribe lifts his pen and resumes copying the text when the section regarding dispensaries is finished. The weed is regulated far more strictly in RI, dispensaries are required to post armed guards, and in only one aspect of regulation did I see RI more generous. In addition to 21 mature plants, patients and caregivers are allowed to have twelve seedlings. But in all other awspects of Rhode Island's regulation, give me Michigan's. Rhode Island passed their law in 2006, Michigan in 2008, and it is evident that our lawmakers found a place to crip rather than do some original thinkinng.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction of my own post, it should say "in addition to 12 plants (not as written '21'), Rhode Island allows 12 seedlings."

 

And reacting to the comment to my post, I agree that many "gray areas" exist in our law. One that is not gray area and an uninteneded consequence of our law, is that it makes it certain that the donation (price) of medical marihuana will stay high, near the street price. Laws of economics make it plain that when you allow a virtually unlimited number of producers but limit how many customers they may sell to and legally force those customers to be dedicated to one supplier, you limit competition and actually limit supply and by limiting supply, keep prices artificially high. If the grocery store was limited to 5 customers, and those five had to register to buy from only that one store, and that store was only allowed to stock so many brats per customer, a black market in brats would quickly arise, and the price of brats would immediately rise near the black market rate.

 

Any PhD's in economics care to give a more complete analysis of the economic implications of Michigan's law? Or if one has already beeen written by a doctoral candidate, want to post it here please?

 

Also I can never refer to Michigan's law without pointing to a gaping shortcoming; it's unconcern for social justice. It makes no provision for the poor who are unable to grow their own, to acquire meds. By the omission of any other mechanism to supply the poor, it leaves it up to growers (caregivers) to perform charity and give away meds. That person on Food Stamps (SNAP) simply does not have the means to make a market rate donation, yet, the only way a grower (caregiver) can afford to give meds away is by first getting sufficient dollars from paying customers to enable acts of mercy. That may be the only benefit I see to artificially high prices. And 5 is 5! Giving away meds to those too poor to pay creates a caregiver relationship (the function is not created by the fact of receiving compensation but rather, by one's performing any of the listed functions of caregiver).

 

No good deed will go unpunished. 5 donating patients + any number of charity cases receiving meds for free exceeds the 5 patients per caregiver law.

 

So I characterie our law as GRAY WITH GAPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then there is the little detail that NO legislator had anything to do with this law. They are on the payroll of the prohibitionist industry and were too busy lying about it to care about humans.

The only real problem with our law is that it does not adequately define a plant. I find that the only people nowadays who feel that the law is grey are those whose interests are somehow bound up with the prohibitionists. Criminals AND The Police benefit EQUALLY from the warondrugs.

Our law is well written and the original post is full of more errors than I care to address further

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Michigan law comes from the Rhode Island law, which comes from the Oregon law. All of these were designed and tweeted for the most part by the legal staff of the Marijuana Policy project. The MPP has created a template that it has used before and after Michigan. Adjustments are made based on the needs and desires of each state. If you are going to claim our law, you need to understand our law. This understanding includes it history and the paths it has taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As correctly pointed out lawmakers did not write the Michigan law. It was passed by referendum and written by private individuals. Also, the idea of copying a law must be new to you. Copying a law and maybe tweaking it a bit is common practice in state and local governments. Wherever you live your local ordinances are probably mostly copied from somewhere in Utah or elsewhere. That is nothing new. Laws don't have copyrights affixed to them and are generally the product of people hired by the masses. There is nothing in law preventing them from being plaigarized. Frankly it saves time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...