Medical Marijuana Distribution System Working Document

[+RevThad]

Believe it or not, Joe, no transfers are allowed at DCCC meetings. We meet in the Public Library in Iron Mountain on a monthly basis and provide free information on obtaining a permit, where to find a doctor, where to find a care-giver if needed, etc. We also operate as a patient support group to help current patients with legal and other issues. As the secretary of the club, I can assure you, that transfers do not occur in the library at our meetings. We also advise everyone that currently any transaction outside of a registered patient and their registered caregiver is illegal as far as the MSP is concerned. An arrest may be overturned in court and the issue may be settled differently in the future....we hope so anyway.....but it still is currently illegal.

I have to boldly disagree with the statements that I have highlighted. First off, stating that is the position of the MSP is incorrect, as can be seen in the interview conducted by the Midwest Cultivator with

 

"Inspector Zarotney, of the Field Services Bureau in Lansing, which oversees the patrol and investigative arm of the MSP, is responsible for providing information on enforcement policy to state police posts."

 

They asked him directly:

"TMC: Does your interpretation of

the MMMA allow for patient-to-patient

transfers of marijuana?"

 

His answer:

"Inspector Zarotney: First of all, we are

law enforcers. We don’t interpret the law, we

read and enforce the law. It’s the courts’ job

to interpret the law. We put information out

to the field regarding changes to the law.

 

This law doesn’t need too much

interpretation regarding transfers of

marijuana between patients. If you read

from the law, the definition of medical use

is straightforward in that it clearly allows

for the acquisition, possession, delivery, and

transfer of marihuana within the confines

of the law.

 

Sixty three percent of the people passed

this law, and law enforcement must accept

the fact that the law is here to stay and we

have to work within the law’s confines."

 

Continuing to spread the (incorrect) mantra that the only transfers that are legal under the law are those between a registered patient and their registered caregiver, invalidates the rest of the law, scares people from being compassionate towards other qualifying patients, and is purely propaganda for the prohibitionists.

 

I definitely understand the desire to be cautious and conservative in any advice we give to others, yet I don't think you would recommend that they wait until they have hard cards in hand before starting their grows? If your suggestion that transfers can only occur between a registered patient and their registered caregiver, where does that registered caregiver obtain genetics, mail-order, internet? I cannot see how any rational reading of the law could intend for a patient to have to wait 8 months or so to take the medication that was recommended by their doctor, and it definitely doesn't sound compassionate to me.

 

That being said, you and everybody else are definitely entitled to run your organization(s) however you choose. I commend you on your outreach and support functions, more people need to take part in such efforts. I simply ask that we as a community stop spreading the lies of the anti-medical marijuana folks. Our law is solid, the COA rulings recently have reaffirmed the very strong protections provided under Section 4, and have codified that even those that aren't registered or qualified for protected under section 4 have Section 8 to use as a defense.

 

I ask that you help us (the community) unify and come up with a list of things we all can agree on. With the truth of the law and of the message we can keep the darkness of lies and LEO deceptions from tarnishing the image of all of us.

 

I wish you well, and look forward to any response.

[+RevThad]

 

It also appears that there may be a need for a patient advocacy group in the state.

 

Definitely.

[westmich]

Continuing to spread the (incorrect) mantra that the only transfers that are legal under the law are those between a registered patient and their registered caregiver, invalidates the rest of the law, scares people from being compassionate towards other qualifying patients, and is purely propaganda for the prohibitionists.

 

Our law is solid, the COA rulings recently have reaffirmed the very strong protections provided under Section 4, and have codified that even those that aren't registered or qualified for protected under section 4 have Section 8 to use as a defense.

 

Good Rev, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth and proving the very point that you deny. A.D. is just that - a defense. A DEFENSE YOU MAY GET TO USE AT YOUR TRIAL. As in first you get raided and arrested, then you go to trial where you may be found guilty and go to jail or prison. How can something be legal if you end up arrested, prosecuted, and jailed over it?

 

You have a very, very, liberal interpretation of the law. You can only get there by cherry picking a phrase here and there throughout the law and then string them together as if it could be found under section entitled "Section 9: Patient to patient transfers". That section does not exist. Only the liberal-est of interpretations see it. The folks who wrote the law don't see it. The folks who enforce the law don't see it. And the folks who judge the law don't see it.

 

If you really want to see patient to patient transfers made legal, than lets work together to the rules from MDCH changed or additional law passed that does such. I don't think your current strategy of giving out bad advise in the hopes of getting as many patients arrested as possible is going to work in the long run.

[+RevThad]

Good Rev, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth and proving the very point that you deny. A.D. is just that - a defense. A DEFENSE YOU MAY GET TO USE AT YOUR TRIAL. As in first you get raided and arrested, then you go to trial where you may be found guilty and go to jail or prison. How can something be legal if you end up arrested, prosecuted, and jailed over it?

 

You have a very, very, liberal interpretation of the law. You can only get there by cherry picking a phrase here and there throughout the law and then string them together as if it could be found under section entitled "Section 9: Patient to patient transfers". That section does not exist. Only the liberal-est of interpretations see it. The folks who wrote the law don't see it. The folks who enforce the law don't see it. And the folks who judge the law don't see it.

 

If you really want to see patient to patient transfers made legal, than lets work together to the rules from MDCH changed or additional law passed that does such. I don't think your current strategy of giving out bad advise in the hopes of getting as many patients arrested as possible is going to work in the long run.

No double talk involved.

 

Section 4 prevents arrest, prosecution, etc... If one does not fall within the guidelines of Section 4, they are left to rely upon the A.D. in section 8, and yes using the A.D. would occur after arrest.

 

Anyways, lets touch on your other points.... You say that those that enforce the law don't see, I provided a quote and citation for the Inspector at the MSP "which oversees the

patrol and investigative arm of the MSP, is

responsible for providing information on

enforcement policy to state police posts."

 

My "liberal" interpretation is not speculation it is actually based on reading the law and the recent COA rulings, where even they say that:

"However, as defendants argue, this position ignores that the MMMA provides two ways

in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act.

Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain

unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in §

8.

 

The plain language of the MMMA supports this view. Section 4 refers to a “qualifying

patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card” and protects a

qualifying patient from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner . . . .”7 MCL

333.26424(a). On the other hand, § 8(a) refers only to a “patient,” not a qualifying patient, and

only permits a patient to “assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any

prosecution involving marihuana . . . .” MCL 333.26428(a). Thus, adherence to § 4 provides

protection that differs from that of § 8. Because of the differing levels of protection in sections 4

and 8, the plain language of the statute establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does

not satisfy § 4.

"

 

You accuse me of cherry picking phrases, and imply that I am using them out of context; PLEASE provide any proof of your claims. Please cite from the law and or binding case law that which shows my conclusions to be wrong.

 

If your position about transfers being illegal is accurate, please explain where a visiting qualifying patient is to obtain medicine while in our state?

 

I am simply reading the law, and using the plain language it contains. I am not reading anything more into it, and am not suggesting that the MMMAct is some sort of backdoor legalization. I am pointing out the obvious. If patient to patient transfers were not to be allowed under the law, they wouldn't need any of the extra language that was included in it. Nor would they have set up the limit as they did in the law... they would have simply said that all transfers outside of a registered relationship were illegal and imposed the penalties. Instead we are left with this:

 

Section 4 (k) 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.

 

Please note that the COA has already ruled that both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers are allowed to use marihuana under the act for medical purposes...

 

I look forward to your rebuttal of my claims, as if there is something out there that contradicts these positions I would enjoy reading it, to further my education.

 

I wish you well.

[westmich]

I feel like we are having an argument where I am saying "The grass is green!" and a bunch of you guys are shouting back "No, the sky is blue!". We are making similar statements and arriving at different conclusions. Or, it's just all a big miscommunication. Let me try and explain it another way with a couple of real examples.

 

1) I met a patient (actually, I've met several but that is another story) through this site last year that claimed to be in some real need. Without going into a lot of specifics, I really felt for the person and agreed to help him. I took possession of his plants, vegged them for a short time and then flowered them out. It was short term and temporary and a card would have never arrived in time. In fact, the plants would have most likely have been dead even waiting the 20 days. Instead, I had the patient sign a simple agreement that stated I was taking over his plants for him. I also got a copy of his card to go with the homemade permission slip.

 

2) I have registered patient (we both have cards) who has told me on two separate occasions, and I fully believe him, that he was pulled over and the cop asked him if he had anything to declare. On both occasions he told the officer he had a hand gun and a jar of marijuana. He produced both state-issued cards for the cop. On both occasions, the officer sent him on his way without so much as a search or any further questions.

 

In the first example, I was completely relying on AD. My hope was that if the police came while I was in possession of his plants (or my plants, whatever) they would see the paperwork and leave it be. If not, the paperwork might keep from be prosecuted. If not that, at least would go in my favor towards an affirmative defense. The same could be said if I was starting clones for some patients with just a permission slip or supplying them with meds from the overages I have instead of destroying the overages. I know this is happening throughout the community and is needed.

 

The second example is perfectly legal. If the cop had arrested my patient for having marijuana after showing the cop his card, the cop would have been in violation of the law.

 

I really don't want to argue this. I understand how the real world works. I am simply trying to put the point out there that when someone new come along and say "hey, I am a patient - is it legal for me to sell my meds to any other patient?" and the response back is "oh, that's perfectly legal" with no additional explanation given, it is irresponsible at best and libelous at worst.

[Shredder]

Continuing to spread the (incorrect) mantra that the only transfers that are legal under the law are those between a registered patient and their registered caregiver, invalidates the rest of the law, scares people from being compassionate towards other qualifying patients, and is purely propaganda for the prohibitionists.

 

For the most part I actually agree that P2P is legal. But being practical, I also know that leo may not see it my way. Add to the fact that we have final stage cancer patients we deal with. Now how would I feel if someone, say my 80+ mom went to jail, because of something I said, something I am not 100% sure of, even if I'm right, they still went to jail. When it's safe we will know it, not because we want it, or we think it should be. It's called responsibility. I feel that as a club we are responsible for the info we put out. And if the info we put out lands someone in jail, we did not do our job, no matter what the state supreme court decides two years from now.

 

This is only one reason why there is not unity, you can't force anyone to do think any certain way, you lead by example, not by talk. Saying it over an over does not make it true. It will be true when a test case clears the supreme court, hopefully not one of my contacts.......shredder

[+RevThad]

Continuing to spread the (incorrect) mantra that the only transfers that are legal under the law are those between a registered patient and their registered caregiver, invalidates the rest of the law, scares people from being compassionate towards other qualifying patients, and is purely propaganda for the prohibitionists.

 

For the most part I actually agree that P2P is legal. But being practical, I also know that leo may not see it my way. Add to the fact that we have final stage cancer patients we deal with. Now how would I feel if someone, say my 80+ mom went to jail, because of something I said, something I am not 100% sure of, even if I'm right, they still went to jail. When it's safe we will know it, not because we want it, or we think it should be. It's called responsibility. I feel that as a club we are responsible for the info we put out. And if the info we put out lands someone in jail, we did not do our job, no matter what the state supreme court decides two years from now.

 

This is only one reason why there is not unity, you can't force anyone to do think any certain way, you lead by example, not by talk. Saying it over an over does not make it true. It will be true when a test case clears the supreme court, hopefully not one of my contacts.......shredder

Your statement here is perfectly reasonable. and something I can understand. As I stated in my earlier post, being cautious and conservative about the information we give folks is a responsible position to take. We must also notice that as each ruling has come out of the COA it has fallen on our (the mmj communities) side of the fence. Hell even Mr. Cox had to grit his teeth and write an opinion to the MDCH that fell in line with our understanding of the privacy protections of the law...

 

We have never met, and this is probably the first interactions that we have had with each other. Yet we are able to discuss these issues rationally, and hammer out any difference we may have on them. I am asking you and your organization to help be a part of putting together some recommendations or guidelines for compassion clubs. Help codify a message that all of us can stand behind. If we are unable to come together, the prohibitionists will eventually take us out one by one.

 

If there are other issues that are preventing unity lets discuss them, in the forums, via private messages, on the phone, or in person. I am sure there are more things that we agree upon, than those that we disagree about. I suggest the biggest point we can agree upon is that patients in our state must be treated compassionately by those in our community and by those that choose to be blinded by the propaganda.

 

I am open to any suggestions, I am just one man, together we would make 2, and so on....

[+Dickinson County CC]

The battle over the name of compassion club was won nearly a year ago, when you(3MA) found out you couldn't trademark a name. Taking it now and doing this is wrong.

 

Constantly stating the AD this and the AD that... is counterproductive. That doesn't help even one patient, unless they have already been busted.

 

To say you swim in gray areas is also ignorant or foolish, or both.

 

Sure, we all know this system isn't perfect and does need something for patients to have access to, but I certainly don't think it should be for profit business at all. All of this should remain non-profit and transparent.

 

Transparency. Was Greg's mantra word if you remember. If there were two things I took away from 'my' experience at the 3MA it was that and compassion clubs in their purest form not the bastardized half-cooked, trying to be a dispensary but not really definition that you have currently invested in this document.

 

I just see this as nothing more than an attempt to change the meaning of all compassion clubs in the state, regardless of their 'grayness', and clump them into this 'dispensing' category which will force other clubs that are not engaging in said activity to again become marginalized simply because of their aberrant nature.

 

Until direction comes from 'on high' clarifying the MMMAct I will go with the answers I have been given and will continue to inform the members of our club. Dispensaries are not included in the law so the risk involved is high, but as a patient you can obtain from anywhere. Transfers to anyone other than your patients are also not covered and I have been informed they are not legal, therefore I do not engage in them. Period.

I am glad there are people willing to swim in the 'graywaters'. I will let you know where they are but I don't go there.

 

So clumping the compassion clubs together with your definition becomes nothing but a simple support group. The words compassion club don't include the words marijuana/cannabis etc also so legitimacy will be lost due to association.

 

I am done now, for good. Not one of my compassion club meetings has ever been listed on your calendar...its sad really. This great organization that threw it all away for coin.

 

 

 

"I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of peace and contentment, which in turn must be achieved through the cultivation of altruism, of love and compassion, and elimination of ignorance, selfishness, and greed."

 

- Dalai Lama

[+RevThad]

It is really a shame that you feel such a discussion is or would marginalize you or your organization. I know it is not my intent to clump Compassion Clubs in with dispensaries. Yet when it comes to discussing places where a patient can safely and reliably acquire medication the 2 logical locations would be either a CC or a dispensary. I favor the former, as I believe CCs are made up of (or should be made up of) patients and caregivers that are there to support one another, be it with information, advice, support, and/or medicine. In other words, if a patient's caregiver loses their entire crop, a patient should be able to rely on the folks in the community to get the necessary medication. It has nothing to do with profits, or making a buck, it has to do with making sure that no patient goes without.

 

This topic was meant to be an open discussion of the legally allowed distribution models to ensure patients safe and uninterrupted access to medical marijuana; not a force every organization in the state to accept one way of doing things. Such decisions belong to, and rightly so, the local organizations, as they have a much better grasp on what is needed in their local area.

 

I hate to see you part ways, as I think there is plenty of room to discuss this very important issue, without infringing on any particular groups practices.

 

Then again maybe I am just a dreamer, and we should let the state dictate to us what the intent of the law is. Let the state narrow the scope of the law and its protections; let the state decide dosages, frequency, and potency; let the state decide where and what you can grow; let the state decide that marijuana has no medical use...

 

I wish you well,

[TajMahal]

I agree. Even though the COA opinions sent quite the shockwave through our community they really described the AD in detail and it does seem to be what we thought. In a few months when bobandtorey finally finish the deed the AD will be nearly a sure thing.

 

When all medicinal use is protected by the courts, with or without card, before or after card, whomever-to-whomever transfers, police will stop using us as punching bags to avoid the embarrassment of having their cases dismissed.

 

Good posts, insight, enjoyed very much, Thank You!!..........Joel, is that you sir?

[+RevThad]

ZAH-PAH-TOS-OOH-NI-DOS. With accents on PAH and OOH. Maybe I should change it? I wasn't thinking primarily of pronouncability when I chose it, I must admit.

 

It does mean "united shoes" though, so its almost like unity is my middle name. And it rhymes.

I thought we figured out we were gonna ask Garfield to put up some sort of Ascii symbol for you

 

What language is that for united shoes? BTW, was a pleasure meeting you this weekend.

[+RevThad]

Very nicely put. I am partial to the tilde and pipes myself. Also, thank you for the clarification on the name. I say you leave it as it is, nobody would ever confuse you for anybody else, besides the size of your name fits your physical stature.

[+Dickinson County CC]

Taken from your own site this morning

 

M3A Compassion Clubs are primarily patient support groups. A place for medical marijuana

patients and others to safely meet, learn, and provide mutual support — no different than any

other condition-based patient support group in America. Compassion Clubs provide reliable

sources of information, offer emotional support, and assists with referrals. Things people do

when they are a community.

 

M3A Compassion Clubs are neither medical marijuana hook-up sessions nor are they a place

to swap seeds or clones. It wouldn’t be appropriate for patients at an HIV/AIDS support group

to break out their medications and start swapping around. It’s not appropriate at our meetings

either. We must insist that no open use or transfer of marijuana, seeds, or clones be allowed

during Compassion Club meetings. Clubs that allow this to happen risk losing MMMA

affiliation. Transfers of medical marijuana and genetic material are private matters that can not

be facilitated by the club. Conversely, what members talk about or do in private, away from

the meeting, is none of our business either.

 

Any recreational marijuana user attending M3A Compassion Clubs looking to score will be

sorely disappointed. Our meetings are open to the public and are often held in public places.

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act prohibits smoking medical marijuana in public and

smoking anything — just like tobacco products — is illegal inside public buildings anywhere in

Michigan. These are not smoke sessions, they are a place where people who have lived in

the shadows for too long can finally come together and openly support each other.

[Shredder]

M3A Compassion Clubs are neither medical marijuana hook-up sessions nor are they a place

to swap seeds or clones. It wouldn’t be appropriate for patients at an HIV/AIDS support group

to break out their medications and start swapping around. It’s not appropriate at our meetings

either. We must insist that no open use or transfer of marijuana, seeds, or clones be allowed

during Compassion Club meetings. Clubs that allow this to happen risk losing MMMA

affiliation. Transfers of medical marijuana and genetic material are private matters that can not

be facilitated by the club. Conversely, what members talk about or do in private, away from

the meeting, is none of our business either.

 

This is obviously not true now, when did it change? Was anyone notified of th e policy change?

Where is the 'new' policy? shredder

[+RevThad]

The simple answer is that there is no new policy. Yet, some folks want to run around shouting about the sky falling.

 

I am glad to see both of you continuing in the discussion.

[Shredder]

The simple answer is that there is no new policy. Yet, some folks want to run around shouting about the sky falling.

 

I am glad to see both of you continuing in the discussion.

 

So the mmma policy is being ignored? for what? money? It's there in black and white, and written clearly. Somebody has some splainin to do......shredder

[Guest Happy Guy]

Growers selling to patients in private WITHOUT a middleman.... there's your legal distribution system. Too simple? Either grow and sell to patients or point the way FREELY(without getting paid) for those who did grow. Help the suppliers find the patients, that is the only function a compassion club has when it comes to a distribution system. Do this part right and we have used the supply here most effectively for patients. The law was written for this, obviously not a friendly law for middlemen.

[+RevThad]

So the mmma policy is being ignored? for what? money? It's there in black and white, and written clearly.......shredder

Okay, that is at least the second time I have seen you accuse folks of ignoring things for money. I am a fairly open and easy going guy, and have extended my hand a couple of times. Am I missing something here, is there an unseen reason for the hostility?

 

I am still unsure why you see any discussion of an issue that has or will be forced upon us by the prohibitionists as a bad thing. Simply put, we can figure it out as a community of patients and caregivers, or we can allow the various sheriffs, PAs, and DEA to set the standards for "what is allowable" (which I am sure none of us will be in favor of).

 

Remember this discussion is occurring in light of moves by various towns and counties around the state that are trying to BAN any medical marijuana use, even a patient's right to medicate or cultivate in their own homes... IF we do not have a grasp on all aspects of the law and the limitations of it, be assured that they (prohibitionists) will impose their positions of the law on us.

[Guest Happy Guy]

It might have been part of 'your plan' from the beginning. That does explain many things as to why the library meetings were attacked and moved to locations to be mock dispensaries. The library model is a very good model if you just help growers find qualified patients and provide information to patients and caregivers. If you have a different agenda to make a bunch of money being a middle man you will say the original model is antiquated. There is simply no reason that cannabis needs to be exchanged at a meeting of any more than the grower and the patient in private.

[+RevThad]

It might have been part of 'your plan' from the beginning. That does explain many things as to why the library meetings were attacked and moved to locations to be mock dispensaries. The library model is a very good model if you just help growers find qualified patients and provide information to patients and caregivers. If you have a different agenda to make a bunch of money being a middle man you will say the original model is antiquated. There is simply no reason that cannabis needs to be exchanged at a meeting of any more than the grower and the patient in private.

Would you agree that allowing such private exchanges at a compassion club, would be a much safer alternative than informing patients that they need to either wait for their harvest (patient or caregiver) to be ready or get it from the black market?

 

Are you also against the practice that many compassion clubs down this way seem to have adopted of donating overages to indigent patients in need? Or should those patients also be forced to fend for themselves?

 

See those are the questions that need answering. I tend to agree with you about wanting to keep the profiteers out of anything called compassionate. As I have stated numerous times there is plenty of room to discuss these issues, and there is no need for anybody to feel they are being forced into anything.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Just show people the way at the public compassion clubs for all to see. Complete transparency at a public meeting. Then the distribution can happen in private between the two parties. A grower and a patient exchanging completely in private, one on one. Law enforcement and cities have no problem at all with this model. We have shot ourselves in the foot by not sticking with the public meeting model, with everything right out in the open, and exchanges being very private between the grower and the qualified patient.

[westmich]

It might have been part of 'your plan' from the beginning. That does explain many things as to why the library meetings were attacked and moved to locations to be mock dispensaries. The library model is a very good model if you just help growers find qualified patients and provide information to patients and caregivers. If you have a different agenda to make a bunch of money being a middle man you will say the original model is antiquated. There is simply no reason that cannabis needs to be exchanged at a meeting of any more than the grower and the patient in private.

 

I have been to two clubs in the area that met at libraries and the local community college. These meetings were pretty much useless. These clubs continue to flounder. Do you think some of the caregivers that come to these meeting are any less greedy than a dispensary?

 

PATIENTS NEED A DISPENSARY OPTION!!!

 

As a caregiver, I have quite a few plants going right now (well within legal limit). But because of a heat induced crop failure, I am completely SOL at the moment and my patients have had to rely on 'old contacts'.

 

I just learned there is a dispensary in my area and I am making it my mission this afternoon to track down it down and get some meds. Is it legal for me to acquire from them - yes. Are they legal to sell it to me - no, but God bless them for doing so.

 

Let's get the DCH rules changed so Compassion Clubs can legally dispense marijuana to its members!

[Shredder]

Okay, that is at least the second time I have seen you accuse folks of ignoring things for money. I am a fairly open and easy going guy, and have extended my hand a couple of times. Am I missing something here, is there an unseen reason for the hostility?

 

If money is not the reason for the undeclared changes that occurred, then what was? It is the rather obvious 600 lb gorilla in the room, and seems like a fair question. I assume someone goes home with money that used to belong to someone else.

 

Hostility? Yes some. I lived through the expo thing where volunteers were used, money was missing, folks cross boarding, bla bla bla, the cannabis cup thing, Ian's plan to save the world by using volunteers once again to profit someone else, the twin boards thing where one stays in the shadows and one is the public side, and now we find that compassion clubs have come to mean dispensaries, contrary to your own rules, that's why.

 

And truthfully, if I had not read about this on a different board I would have never been here. Now that I poked around, I see things have not changed much..........shredder

[westmich]

Okay, that is at least the second time I have seen you accuse folks of ignoring things for money. I am a fairly open and easy going guy, and have extended my hand a couple of times. Am I missing something here, is there an unseen reason for the hostility?

 

If money is not the reason for the undeclared changes that occurred, then what was? It is the rather obvious 600 lb gorilla in the room, and seems like a fair question. I assume someone goes home with money that used to belong to someone else.

 

Hostility? Yes some. I lived through the expo thing where volunteers were used, money was missing, folks cross boarding, bla bla bla, the cannabis cup thing, Ian's plan to save the world by using volunteers once again to profit someone else, the twin boards thing where one stays in the shadows and one is the public side, and now we find that compassion clubs have come to mean dispensaries, contrary to your own rules, that's why.

 

And truthfully, if I had not read about this on a different board I would have never been here. Now that I poked around, I see things have not changed much..........shredder

 

Wouldn't the compassion clubs set their buying and selling rate through an elected board? Could the rate be set at a reasonable price. Couldn't the money raised by the club be put towards a good cause that benefits the community?

[+RevThad]

If money is not the reason for the undeclared changes that occurred, then what was? It is the rather obvious 600 lb gorilla in the room, and seems like a fair question. I assume someone goes home with money that used to belong to someone else.

The rather obvious 600 lb gorilla in the room, is the stepped up crackdown on legal patients and caregivers in various communities around the state. The ramped up PR and intimidation campaign by various "civil" servants, have forced us to look at and discuss the law and all of its functions, one of which includes making sure there is a safe and reliable model for patients to acquire their medications. Are you saying that even under your model that no money changes hands between a registered patient and their registered caregiver? I can honestly say that my patient has never paid me for their meds or for my costs related to providing those meds, can you make the same claim? That seems like a fair question.

 

Hostility? Yes some. I lived through the expo thing where volunteers were used, money was missing, folks cross boarding, bla bla bla, the cannabis cup thing, Ian's plan to save the world by using volunteers once again to profit someone else, the twin boards thing where one stays in the shadows and one is the public side, and now we find that compassion clubs have come to mean dispensaries, contrary to your own rules, that's why.

I wasn't around this organization during those things, so I cannot comment on them. I can only speak of what my observations have been since I have arrived here. Those would be people attempting to help people, with information, support, finding like minded people in their local area, patient-caregiver matchmaking, and a central communications point for all organizations to discuss these vary issues. Profit by or for the MMMA have not and from my understanding will never be a goal of the organization. I am not a member of the board or the leadership around here, I am just speaking of my observations and of conversations I have had with folks that are in those positions.

 

And truthfully, if I had not read about this on a different board I would have never been here. Now that I poked around, I see things have not changed much..........shredder

If you did not read about it here, and you have obviously made up your mind on the end all of this issue, why even bother sharpening the stick? I mean, I am glad you stopped in and have added to the discussion, I am just a bit confused about the why. Obviously, nothing the MMMA does is going to have an impact on the way your organization conducts itself. Nothing written in this thread is binding on anybody. If you want things to change, help bring it about.

 

I look forward to any insight you can add to the current dialogue, all voices need to be heard.