Medical Marijuana Distribution System Working Document

[+RevThad]

Yep history does repeat itself, no explanations and condem the questioner......shredder

The funny part is all I have seen from a few folks in this thread is accusations and ignoring of questions aimed back at them... Just condemnation of the organization.

 

Step up and help the fix the problems you see, the stone throwing is growing old.

 

I have repeatedly extended a hand, and asked for open dialogue of the topic and the issues. Yet, those offers have gone unanswered, save more accusations of profiteering and censorship...

[SFC]

I cast a suspicious eye on anything involved with the MMMA, this organization (if you can call it that) has spun around so many times I don't think anyone knows what it is anymore. So take what their "leadership" says with a grain of salt, and watch your wallet. Nobody knows where the money goes... Hey that rhymes.. :-)

 

Honestly Thad that was one of the tamest things I have said. I did not say anyone had done anything, I said "I cast a suspicious eye at the MMMA". I have donated to the MMMA, I call it the way I see it. PROVE ME WRONG Joe. The ball is in your court, and has been for some time. All I see out of you is hyperbole,and schemes. Co-Op anyone? By all your gear from us anyone? Now lets change the CC's to dispensing clubs anyone? Hey, I hope it works for you, but lets call a spade, a spade , shall we?

[+RevThad]

Honestly Thad that was one of the tamest things I have said. I did not say anyone had done anything, I said "I cast a suspicious eye at the MMMA". I have donated to the MMMA, I call it the way I see it. PROVE ME WRONG Joe. The ball is in your court, and has been for some time. All I see out of you is hyperbole,and schemes. Co-Op anyone? By all your gear from us anyone? Now lets change the CC's to dispensing clubs anyone? Hey, I hope it works for you, but lets call a spade, a spade , shall we?

My comments weren't directed at you SFC.

 

However, now that you picked up the gauntlet... I personally thank you for donating to the MMMA, as it helps provide this forum and the bandwidth it uses. Again thank you for that.

 

I also call things the way I see them. Joe asked me to help open up a dialogue about what the law does allow and what sort of model would guarantee that patients never need to suffer without their medication. There have been all kinds of suggestions in this thread about those issues, some are workable, some are not. When I see folks hop into this discussion attacking the organization for opening it up or quote a piece of it as a response to a newspaper article, without the context I have to wonder what their motives are.

 

The cynic in me thinks that some folks feel threatened by such a discussion because they are afraid that it may somehow affect their personal influence over what they see as their territory. Truth and discussion has only ever hurt those that choose to lead by fear.

 

Open meetings are definitely a great thing, as they provide access to folks that never would have even thought about such things. Just like there were a few folks that entered the cafe this Saturday, that had never heard anything but the propaganda that is spouted in the news media. Networking through those meetings is also a great thing, as it lets folks know they are not alone in their suffering or in their medicinal use. Such networking can also allow for access to genetics, and possible help in acquiring much needed meds. However, in some areas of the state such things just aren't enough to take care of the patients in the area, and there needs to be something in place to insure those folks don't have to suffer.

 

Screw profits, this is about the proper intent of the law; making sure patients have safe and reliable access to medical marijuana.

 

Folks can choose to join the conversation, and add their input... Or we can all sit back and allow folks like Sheriff Bouchard and Mr. Schuette declare by fiat what the law allows. The ball is in your court...

[Shredder]

The patient is the center of this discussion.

 

If that were true, why are there more outragous price threads. I don't see some grand plan to relieve their situation. You have folks with all these overages, and they're just trying to help others, but still patients seem to think they are getting ripped off. But it's not about money?

 

It seems like your plan is really a plan to help growers get rid of product. If patients were your only concern, overages would be free, lets get real, don't hide behind patients. I doubt your situation is any different from other areas where there are patients and caregivers. The law as written seems to work well in my area. Adding a middleman to any transaction sure seems motivated by money, since it is not done for free, is it?

 

Like I said earlier, I think/hope P2P is legal but not worth having anyone going to jail over, you said we are all about patients, ugh patients with money apparently. And getting back to my original beef, why dirty the compassion club name with quaszi dispensary roles? Why not follow your own rules, or have the guts to make changes public and above board? shredder

[+RevThad]

The patient is the center of this discussion.

 

If that were true, why are there more outragous price threads. I don't see some grand plan to relieve their situation. You have folks with all these overages, and they're just trying to help others, but still patients seem to think they are getting ripped off. But it's not about money?

Why do we see those threads? First of all, because anybody is allowed to start a thread on anything they like around here, and obviously those will be about an issue that matters to that person. Secondly, the old adage is very true, the squeaky wheels get the grease, and so those topics seem to have caught your attention (you forgot to mention at least 2 topics that were on the front pages just a bit ago offering FREE meds to patients in need). Who knows, perhaps the person that started those threads, attended one of your meetings, met up with somebody and got ripped off...

 

 

It seems like your plan is really a plan to help growers get rid of product. If patients were your only concern, overages would be free, lets get real, don't hide behind patients. I doubt your situation is any different from other areas where there are patients and caregivers. The law as written seems to work well in my area. Adding a middleman to any transaction sure seems motivated by money, since it is not done for free, is it?

You are setting up a logical fallacy with your statements here. Bait and switch may work for you as you discuss things with others, just realize that some see through such distractions. Didn't you try "hiding behind patients" in one of your earlier posts? Also I am almost positive that you do not give away every bit of marijuana that you grow for free, so why throw stones from your glass house. I haven't seen Joe, recommend a middleman for anything in this thread, perhaps I missed it?

 

Like I said earlier, I think/hope P2P is legal but not worth having anyone going to jail over, you said we are all about patients, ugh patients with money apparently. And getting back to my original beef, why dirty the compassion club name with quaszi dispensary roles? Why not follow your own rules, or have the guts to make changes public and above board? shredder

Again, you throw out an accusation that this discussion is about profits and money, yet you are the one that keeps bringing the topic of profits and money up. You seem to want folks to respect some subjective semantic ownership you feel over the words "compassion club" and your meaning of the term. You want to control what other organizations around the state do if they choose that moniker, without an understanding of what is going on in places Downriver or Mid-Michigan...

 

You said earlier in this thread that the one reason there will be no unity is because "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."; and you continue to try to force folks to think your certain way about compassion clubs...

 

This thread is open for discussion so that we can see what is working, how it is working, and so that all in our community can have a say in how things go forward. I suppose Joe and the other members of the board could just declare a change of policy on these issues. However, they showed real guts by opening it up to the community and public to discuss...

 

Enjoy your evening, and I do hope you will try to discuss the topic, as many points of view will help to fine tune the message and possible models....

[herb green]

I dont think there is a current system

 

The only way I see patients benefiting is with collective everyone can buy it AND be compensated with a percentage to the club to keep the building

 

Anyhow...people helping people ...keeps people invested and they need to keep what they do at a level they are comfortable with

 

Some people might do up a warehouse others a bedroom, basement or closet

 

Different areas of risk

 

These are independent people they make their own choices

 

And the collective decides what rules to go by...Someone most likely would independently start one of these and just do it

 

I think the Registry card or application equivalent and less than 2.5 oz is the definition of it being medical marijuana...Those are the guidelines from michigan law

 

I think its much harder to fight against people helping each other than a dispensery "x" a gram storefront 11-6pm m-sun ....You know what I mean?

 

People help each other....or some people will be a victim to no meds

[Clear and Unambiguous]

I read through most of this topic, but skimmed the last few pages. Forgive me if this was addressed earlier.

 

There needs to be a stronger focus in the area of cooperatives (organized cultivation) in this push.

 

There are many reasons. Here are two of the strongest-

 

1. Cooperatives are directly in the patient’s best interest because they greatly increase production efficiency, and thus greatly increase supply. Nothing lowers prices and raises availability for patients more strongly than a well supplied market.

 

2. Politics. Cooperatives that demonstrate the ability to operate as a good neighbor in the community also demonstrate that further regulation from the state is unnecessary. This is a darn important tool to have. If we don't come up with a system they will, and they will scare legislature into supporting what they create. Look what they did with 6 inch alligators.

 

Lastly, it would be great to ask for the support and help of some elected officials. Perhaps if they felt as though they had a little input they might support it.

 

I wonder what David Leyton thinks?

[+RevThad]

Chad I think the poster was talking about a CO-OP on the market side, not the growing side. Thanks, Bb

I too took it the way Chad did.... they spoke of Co-Ops as "greatly increase production efficiency, and thus greatly increase supply.".

 

I do think that a smaller patient organized CO-OP would be a good thing and could still stay under the Fed limits. I am talking of a 4 or 5 patient grow, where they pool resources for utilities, equipment, and space.

 

As for the "market" type of CO-OP, I think those could have a place as well. As was suggested earlier, having each members grow in a separate location would decrease the risks of the whole "crop". Such an arrangement would not provide a single target for "rippers", would protect from a mite or disease outbreak, power outages, and stays off the Fed radar.

 

Have you ever looked at the Fed penalties and what triggers them? It is shocking to see that having up to 218 POUNDS of marijuana falls in the same category as having 50 plants? Or that having up to 110 POUNDS is equivalent to having 49 or less plants? The Federal laws are clearly aimed at growers, more than they are at those that would be dealing in the black market; truly a shame.

[westmich]

If you haven't figured out how to supply your patients yet then hang it up. You had plenty of time to get your act together. A couple years now for you?

12 plants per patients leaves a lot of room for mistakes. I have been supplying 5 from just 12 plants now since the beginning. Get your act together and quit making excuses why you can't do it yourself. It's not that hard if you take your time and do it right. Dispensaries just redistribute what is already grown and available. Dispensaries do not solve the problem for those who stink at growing. Find a grower that can do it right and deal in private.

 

The fact is that crop failures do happen. It will happen to you at some point. I could be at this another twenty years and still have an issue on year 21.

 

The need for dispensaries is many faceted. It covers crop failures for patients and caregivers. It covers the start up period before crops are ready and in between crops. It covers the patient who doesn't yet have a grow or a caregiver and may not want either at all. It also covers the supply side. It not only provides a place for overages it provides incentives for overages. The more that is grown, the more patients will have access, the more patients will have variety, the lower the price will be.

 

If you are supplying yourself and 5 patients from 12 total plants, my hat is off to you. My guess is that that is not entirely true. You have more than 12 at times and your patient most likely have all they can afford from you, not what they need.

[westmich]

I do not believe that 'no one' wants the job of being a caregiver. I think people with grandiose ideas have gotten in the way of these jobs. Being a caregiver is a perfect job for someone who has a income of some sort already, like disability income, and could use some more income and wants to help patients at the same time. It's a really great job for a lot of folks. We need these jobs defined better. We had a leader here say that it paid $50,000 a year. That made expectations very unrealistic. The most a caregiver can make is what 5 patients can pay. There is no way around that. Get used to that. Embrace it for what it is. We need to advertise it as a part time job paying $15 an hour. We need the second wave. We had the first wave of patients. Now we need the second wave... of hard working caregivers. I've been doing it for a couple years now so I can talk after 'The Walk'.

 

If you are working as a caregiver for five patients, and working hard it as you said, and continuing to collect a check from the state, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[westmich]

The model(s) that have already been discussed in this thread, fit squarely inside the limits of the law, without any alterations.

 

This very thread proves we cannot even come to agreement on that statement within the medical marijuana community, let alone to those outside the community. Can we please, pretty please with sugar on top, look into changing the DCH rules to clearly and unambiguously allow overage transfers between patients and/or through cc's?

[+RevThad]

Sorry guys, I guess I'm still unconscious. Large grows are a bad idea not only because of disease, but also because of watered down genetics. If the state went with large scale grows, you would soon have a genetic pool equivalent to that of the people of Alabama(I'm from there, so I can say that). It is important that the core of our law never be tampered with. A caregiver can have 5 patients and if the care giver is a patient, he can have 6 or a patient can grow for themselves. There can be no alteration of the laws or the rules that govern the law. The model(s) that have already been discussed in this thread, fit squarely inside the limits of the law, without any alterations.

No worries my friend. You are right on point. We must never surrender what is already provided for.

 

I too share your fears of the mass commercialization of medical marijuana. Once it becomes more about business than patients, every cost cutting measure that produces the biggest yields for the biggest profit margin, will be the only concern of those businesses. Quality and consumer cost be damned.

 

P.S. Doesn't Alabama produce better genetics than Mississippi and Arkansas?

[+RevThad]

This very thread proves we cannot even come to agreement on that statement within the medical marijuana community, let alone to those outside the community. Can we please, pretty please with sugar on top, look into changing the DCH rules to clearly and unambiguously allow overage transfers between patients and/or through cc's?

MDCH doesn't have any control over the limits (plants, patients, or medicine), they have no control over what is or isn't a legal transfer.

 

MDCH's sole function is to handle registrations (process and form), maintaining a database so they can confirm or deny whether a registration is valid, and adding new conditions that qualify. They don't even have the power to privatize the issuance of the id cards.

 

Hell even their F.A.Q. is outdated and full of inconsistencies with the law.

 

The closest we have currently that is unambiguous comes from the COA, in their recognizing of 2 separate classes of patients and caregivers (registered and unregistered), and 2 separate sets of protections (section 4 and section 8), we can clearly see that the registration is not the binding point for the medical use of marijuana, as defined by the law.

[westmich]

MDCH doesn't have any control over the limits (plants, patients, or medicine), they have no control over what is or isn't a legal transfer.

 

MDCH's sole function is to handle registrations (process and form), maintaining a database so they can confirm or deny whether a registration is valid, and adding new conditions that qualify. They don't even have the power to privatize the issuance of the id cards.

 

Hell even their F.A.Q. is outdated and full of inconsistencies with the law.

 

The closest we have currently that is unambiguous comes from the COA, in their recognizing of 2 separate classes of patients and caregivers (registered and unregistered), and 2 separate sets of protections (section 4 and section 8), we can clearly see that the registration is not the binding point for the medical use of marijuana, as defined by the law.

 

The DCH is in charge of the MMMP. They do have the power to set rules and guidelines so long as it is within the law. They could set clear rules and guidelines as to how overages could be handled through patient to patient, or CG, or intermediate like a compassion club transfers. While the rules and guidelines aren't laws themselves, they would certainly carry a lot more weight with law enforcement and the courts than our collective opinion (which isn't fully collective at this point).

[+RevThad]

The DCH is in charge of the MMMP. They do have the power to set rules and guidelines so long as it is within the law. They could set clear rules and guidelines as to how overages could be handled through patient to patient, or CG, or intermediate like a compassion club transfers. While the rules and guidelines aren't laws themselves, they would certainly carry a lot more weight with law enforcement and the courts than our collective opinion (which isn't fully collective at this point).

Any guidelines they set for overages would be opinion and non-binding. The only authority granted to them under the law is as follows:

 

Sec. 5. (a) Not later than 120 days after the effective date of this act, the department shall promulgate rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, that govern the manner in which the department shall consider the addition of medical conditions or treatments to the list of debilitating medical conditions set forth in section 3(a) of this act...

 

(b) Not later than 120 days after the effective date of this act, the department shall promulgate rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, that govern the manner in which it shall consider applications for and renewals of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers...

 

Also the rules under Section 6...

 

If the power to set rules on transfers, limits, or any other area protected in the law, was given to the MDCH it would turn the law into a political football and virtually make the law moot, as opponents and proponents of the law tweaked it back and forth as they gained power over the department.

 

Our law is solid, and the protections granted by it have been codified by the COA. Further, these towns and counties that want to rely on Federal law as their end-around of the peoples will, shall find out that their position has no standing, as there is no conflict between Federal and State law. That has to open some eyes, and raise some eyebrows, with a want to know how that can be. So here goes.

 

We all understand that under federal law, marijuana is still a schedule 1 controlled substance, and that there are federal penalties for possession, cultivation, and distribution. Nothing in our state law changes that. The only thing our law does is makes it legal under state law for the medical use of marijuana, and prevent state, county, and local governments from enforcing Federal Law. The feds are still welcome to do as they will in our state. In other words, just as our state courts cannot have a trial and sentence somebody for a federal crime, neither can our state LEO arrest for something that is not illegal under state law. That is simple constitutional law.

 

Also, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992), the Court noted "we have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts."

 

Just a couple things to wet your appetite. Hope you enjoy.

[Clear and Unambiguous]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the input. I understand many of the points made here.

 

I was not thinking of large scale operations, but more along the lines of 2 caregivers at 48 each or 3 at 33 each. If it is a patient coop, perhaps limit it to 8 or 9 patients.

 

I don’t want to see the wallmart thing, and coop actually makes it easier to separate genetics. Several small sealed environments can fit it a small warehouse…..but I digress.

 

Our opponents are going to attack caregiver cultivation in residential neighborhoods. I hope we can win that battle, but I think it would be smart to establish some small coops to demonstrate that the state is not needed.

 

My fear is that they could actually get ¾ of the legislature on something.

[+RevThad]

Thanks right back at you for taking part in the discussion. You raise some interesting points, and as I have said before I tend to lean towards the smaller private type things, or even a big compassion club, with monthly open meetings and weekly private ones...

 

There is no way in hell they will get 75% of the legislature to agree on changing the MMMA, it would be political suicide. Remember in a bunch of districts around the state you are looking at 70%+ approval of medical marijuana, even where I am at in Midland with all of the Dow money and politicians opposed we got it passed on the ballot with 52%.

 

Changing this is like attempts to change Social Security... it's a no win for those that try.

[Southern Cross]

On another topic,

 

 

"Section 333.26424 (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."

 

Who is covered under this act for the use of marijuana for medical purposes? According to the COA, the ballot initiative, and the law, the answer is registered and unregistered patients and caregivers, and visiting qualifying patients.

 

 

I like this wording better than," The only people that a registered patient or registered caregiver cannot sell marijuana to are those not covered by the act."

 

I would rather talk about who the act covers for medical use than who can sell to whom. It just seems like a better way to put it.

 

Plus, I wanted to bump this back up now that we are done feeding the troll.

[+RevThad]

On another topic,

 

 

I like this wording better than," The only people that a registered patient or registered caregiver cannot sell marijuana to are those not covered by the act."

 

I would rather talk about who the act covers for medical use than who can sell to whom. It just seems like a better way to put it.

 

Plus, I wanted to bump this back up now that we are done feeding the troll.

I agree, focusing on the positive is a much better way to phrase it, I will add (edit) the front pages in the morning or soon after. My original writing was following the wording they used in the law with the "someone who is not allowed..."

 

Thanks for the bump, and the input.

[Nameless_Hero]

I am always eager to sit down and discuss our law with the government. I think it will be key that when we go to the table we be willing to discuss taxes and quality control. RevThad and I both have ideas on the tax issue. QC would involve testing for pesticides and purity/food quality MMJ. I'm sure that will be the the governments talking points. Let me know your thoughts on these two issues. Thanks,BB

 

Obviously some cities such as Ann Arbor have it right. Their officials actually visited the dispensaries and had nothing but positive things to say: no noise, didn't affect the surrounding area and just operated like a normal retail establishment. They were impressed. But I 100% agree with you about this being a coordinated effort. I personally don't believe in coincidence and there have been way to many of those in the last couple months, especially in SE Michigan. Did you guys see the Michigan Municipal League's website?

[+RevThad]

Obviously some cities such as Ann Arbor have it right. Their officials actually visited the dispensaries and had nothing but positive things to say: no noise, didn't affect the surrounding area and just operated like a normal retail establishment. They were impressed. But I 100% agree with you about this being a coordinated effort. I personally don't believe in coincidence and there have been way to many of those in the last couple months, especially in SE Michigan. Did you guys see the Michigan Municipal League's website?

I am still working my way through the convoluted thinking that went into writing their "white pages".

 

Hopefully, this document when we get er polished, will pass through as many hands as theirs... the big difference being that ours will actually be based on fact and the law.

 

[Nameless_Hero]

Bb,

My biggest concern regarding those White Papers.. Yes I understand its nothing more than one of many proposals being thought up but do you think there is any correlation with the Hemp Industry Bill being introduced to the whole prescription type system this Professor Fisher proposes? I mean the report is full of holes and clearly bias. Not to say the man is not qualified in the law, but his specialty is not medicine but rather zoning consultation for rich townships in Oakland County. He also called for "further studies" to take place to determine the validity of Medicinal marijuana. Something that the federal government will not do (

other source is the Karen O Keefe video)

 

Where do you think they would try to take this

[Nameless_Hero]

My point to the hemp bill and this would be a privatization of Marijuana here in Michigan to make it a State controlled industry for economic gains

[Nameless_Hero]

If it seems farfetched thats alright but I find that sometimes in these situations it never hurts to think of as many angles as possible. Anyone's feedback would be appreciated, Thanks.

[Nameless_Hero]

Yes that is how it should be. $25 a gram are streets prices. I understand the competitive aspect of it, but the more important angle like you mentioned is how we represent it. It's medicine, a better medicine; one thats not to be treated like some commodity similar to pharmaceutical companies products. I have smoked as a irreverent youth, but I am now a member mainly due to the fact my father has prostate cancer. He is the kind of guy who likes to go out and have a couple drinks, but alcohol is probably the worst thing he can take. This is such a better alternative, especially after his treatments start.

 

Anyways caregivers are providing a service, and like any type of service there is usually some compensation involved. Am I charging my father? No. And if I do take on other patients, there would never be a need to charge 20 a gram. But yeah I came across a couple articles regarding California and even Mi talking about how much money is in the industry and it's funny how they (leo, state etc) portray us as these greedy individuals when you know their blood is boiling over the fact they can't cash in on this. After this is all over we can improve the definition of 'hypocrite' in Merriam-Webster.