Needed: Original Dch Rules

[westmich]

Where can I find the original DCH rules that were proposed complete with inspections and sending the overages to your local state police post (remember that)?

[+RevThad]

Where can I find the original DCH rules that were proposed complete with inspections and sending the overages to your local state police post (remember that)?

I will try to dig up a copy of those proposed rules... I will probably find them where they were filed in the circular filing cabinet meant for the shredder.

 

I will post them here if I come across them.

[westmich]

I will try to dig up a copy of those proposed rules... I will probably find them where they were filed in the circular filing cabinet meant for the shredder.

 

I will post them here if I come across them.

 

Thanks - appreciated.

[westmich]

While this isn't the original rules per se, it covers what I was looking for and makes for a very interesting read. I believe it is from December of 2008.

 

You voters in Michigan should be fighting this crap and having a say about this.

 

 

 

Provisions of Michigan Department of Community Health

 

Draft Medical Marijuana Rules Needing Revision

 

1) Redefining Private Property as "Public"

 

Proposal 1 appropriately does not allow medical marijuana use "in any public place." The draft

 

rules, however, attempt to redefine "any public place" to include any place "visible to the public."

 

This would include being inside one's home by a window or on one's porch. These locations are

 

not "public places" and should not be considered so. This draft rule is both unreasonable and

 

contrary to the language of the law.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "'Public place' means a place open or visible to the public." [Rule

 

1 (17).]

 

2) The Opening Language of Draft Rule 3(1) Should Be Modified

 

The opening language of Rule 3(1) should be modified so it does not indicate that people with

 

debilitating conditions are required to apply for a registry ID cards, since some seriously ill

 

people will not use medical marijuana. In addition, the draft rule should not say that the patient

 

must meet the requirements of the administrative rules. The department does not have the

 

authority to impose additional requirements on patients.

 

Recommended revision, from: "A qualifying patient shall apply for a registry identification card

 

and, in addition to meeting the requirements of the act and the administrative rules promulgated

 

under the act, shall comply with all of the following: …"

 

To: "A qualifying patient may apply for a registry identification card by submitting the following:

 

…" [Rule 3(1).]

 

3) Strike Requirement That Physicians Practice Independently of One Another

 

The draft rules would require that a minor's two physicians who sign their certification practice

 

independently of one another. The law includes no such restriction, which would drive up costs

 

and time for minor patients' parents. Proposal 1 is already stricter than many of the state medical

 

marijuana laws by requiring minors to receive certifications from two physicians. All of the

 

medical marijuana states that track the number of minor patients had had zero or one according to

 

a 2006 survey of the state programs with registries. There is no need for this onerous restriction

 

on seriously or terminally ill minors, and it is counter to the language of Proposal 1.

 

In addition, Proposal 1 does not require that two physicians provide a certification for adults for

 

who granted someone else a durable power of attorney, so the draft rule should not add that

 

restriction.

 

Recommended revision, from: "… If the patient is a minor or has a representative as defined in R

 

333.101(19) of these rules, written certifications from 2 physicians, who practice independently

 

of each other, are required."

 

To: "… If the patient is a minor, written certifications from 2 physicians are required." [Rule 3

 

(1)©.]

 

4) Patients Should Not Have to Submit the Names of Patients Their Caregivers Serve

 

The draft rules would require patients who are applying for ID cards to specify what other

 

patients their caregiver serves. This would require the caregiver to disclose that information to the

 

patient. Proposal 1 does not require this information to be submitted, and this requirement would

 

require a caregiver violate the privacy of his or her other patients. The department can check its

 

own database to see how many patients the caregiver serves. There is no need for this invasive

 

rule.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "The names of any other individuals for whom the patient's

 

primary caregiver also serves as a primary caregiver." [Rule 3 (1)(v).]

 

5) Requiring the Caregiver to Submit Criminal History Information

 

Draft Rule 3 (1)(a)(vii) includes a vague requirement that caregivers submit criminal history

 

information via the patient applicant, in addition to authorizing a background check. Only felony

 

drug convictions disqualify caregivers, so the vague phrase should either be stricken or be

 

modified to be clear that they only have to submit information if they have a felony drug

 

conviction.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "Information related to the criminal history of the qualifying

 

patient's primary caregiver." [Draft Rule 3 (1)(a)(vii).]

 

6) Specify That Copies of Identification Can Be Submitted

 

Draft Rule 3 (1)(b) is written as though patients and caregivers have to send the department their

 

original drivers licenses or other photo identification. Patients and caregivers will need their

 

identification. This should specify that photocopies may be submitted. In addition, minors may

 

not yet have any photo identification, so it should be clear that they would not need to provide

 

identification.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Submit photographic identification of both the qualifying patient

 

and the patient's primary caregiver, if applicable. The following shall be considered acceptable

 

forms of identification: …"

 

To: "Submit photographic identification of both the qualifying patient and the patient's primary

 

caregiver, if applicable, except that if the qualifying patient is a minor who does not have

 

photographic identification, no photographic identification is required. Photocopies of the

 

following shall be considered acceptable forms of identification: …" [Rule 3 (1)(b).]

 

7) Inventory Reports

 

The draft rules would require patients and caregivers to create and submit inventory reports about

 

their marijuana cultivation each year. The draft rule says that the patient would not be issued a

 

renewed card if they did not submit reports. The department does not have the authority to require

 

these records, nor should it. The law clearly enumerates the only reasons that a patient may be

 

denied a card, and failing to submit an inventory report is not one of them, because the law 63%

 

of voters approved does not require inventory reports. These reports would be self-incriminating

 

statements, documenting a violation of federal law. Proposal 1 already protects against diversion,

 

penalizing diversion with increased penalties and the revocation of one's medical marijuana card.

 

All references to inventory reports need to be stricken.

 

Recommended revisions: Strike all of the following:

 

"The applicant or primary caregiver authorized to grow plants for the renewal applicant shall

 

submit an inventory log regarding the plants grown during the previous year." [Rule 7 (4).]

 

"A registered primary caregiver shall make and maintain a complete and accurate inventory of all

 

usable marihuana produced and plants in the primary caregiver's possession that is authorized for

 

a registered qualifying patient's medical use. The registered primary caregiver shall make and

 

maintain a separate inventory for each qualifying patient that the primary caregiver assists with

 

the medical use of marihuana." [Rule 15 (3).]

 

"An inventory of the plants shall be maintained for the full registration year and the inventory

 

form shall be submitted with the renewal documentation." [Rule 29 (3.)]

 

"The plant inventory shall be returned with the patient registration and shall indicate the manner

 

in which the plants were destroyed or transferred to another qualifying patient." [Rule 29 (4).]

 

Also, needed changes to Rule 15 (7) are discussed below. The problematic inventory requirement

 

is also included in it.

 

8) Face-to-Face Meetings Are Unreasonable

 

The draft rules say that, if proof of identity is uncertain, the department may require a face-to-face

 

meeting. It can take more than nine hours to drive from the furthest point in Michigan to Lansing.

 

It would be unreasonable to require a very ill patient to travel several hours. Some people with

 

debilitating illnesses cannot tolerate any long trips. In addition, the draft rule does not create a

 

clear standard for when the department might require this burdensome trip. It is already clear

 

from Rule 3 (1)(b) that the ID card will only be issued with a valid form of identification.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "If proof of identity is uncertain, the department may require a

 

face-to-face meeting with an applicant and may require the production of additional identification

 

materials." [Rule 9 (a).]

 

9) The Department Needn't Contact Federal Programs

 

The draft rules helpfully provided for a discounted rate of $25 for beneficiaries of Medicaid or

 

Social Security Income. But because marijuana is not yet legal under federal law, patients have

 

legitimate privacy concerns about the department contacting a federal agency to verify their

 

eligibility. Some may reasonably fear their benefits could be cut off as a result. The MDCH

 

should instead rely on information submitted by the patient to confirm eligibility, as Rhode

 

Island's administrators do. If the department had a reasonable basis to doubt the documents, it

 

could ask the patient whether the patient preferred to pay a higher fee or for the department to

 

verify that he or she is a beneficiary.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "Contacting the department of human services or the social

 

security administration to verify a qualifying patient's eligibility for the Medicaid health plan or

 

Social Security Income benefits." [Rule 9 (f).]

 

10) Certification Language Should Track the Statute

 

The draft rule that discusses what the applicant patient must submit does not track the statutory

 

language and suggests the department may require something other than what the law requires,

 

which is a physician's written certification.

 

Recommended revision, from: "The applicant did not provide the information required under R

 

333.103 and R 333.105 to establish the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition and to

 

document the qualifying patient's consultation with 1 or more physicians regarding the

 

therapeutic or palliative benefits from the medical use of marihuana."

 

To: "The applicant did not provide a document signed by a physician, stating the patient's

 

debilitating medical condition and stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, the patient

 

is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or

 

alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating

 

medical condition." [Rule 13 (5)(a).]

 

11) The Language About Denying Applications Should Be Modified

 

The draft rules provide that an applicant can be denied a card if an applicant has willfully violated

 

the act or rules. However, the draft rules impose unreasonable requirements that the law does not,

 

such as the inventory requirement. The draft rule would allow the department too much discretion

 

to deny an application. Instead, an application should be denied only if the patient's card has been

 

revoked for a proven violation of the law.

 

Recommended revision, from: "An applicant has willfully violated the provisions of the act or

 

these rules."

 

To: "An applicant has had his or her previous registry identification card revoked for willfully

 

violating the provisions of the act." [Rule 13 (5)©.]

 

12) The Reference to Inspections Must Be Stricken

 

One of the draft rules seems to envision the MDCH conducting inspections. This is in direct and

 

flagrant contradiction to the law voters passed. The law specifies, "Possession of, or application

 

for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor

 

shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or

 

applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the

 

person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency." The draft rules'

 

inspection language needs to be stricken. This law makes the limited cultivation of marijuana

 

lawful under state law, and it is not a basis for treating the very ill like criminal suspects.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform

 

official duties of the department, including the production of any reports of non-identifying

 

aggregate data or statistics, investigations or inspections of enclosed, locked facilities."

 

To: "Authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the

 

department, including the production of any reports of non-identifying aggregate data or

 

statistics." [Rule 21 (a).]

 

13) Changing the Rule About Leftover Marijuana

 

The MDCH's draft rules suggest that a caregiver give any marijuana left over after one patient is

 

no longer qualified or dies to other patients he or she assists, which is reasonable. However, other

 

aspects of this draft rule are not. It would require the caregiver to provide an inventory to the

 

department, which is problematic for reasons discussed above, and, if the caregiver did not assist

 

any other patients, he or she would be required to hand over the marijuana to law enforcement.

 

Proposal 1 does not have any such provision. Sadly, state and local law enforcement in some

 

cases have collaborated with federal authorities to raid patients or caregivers. It is unreasonable to

 

require a cardholder to turn over marijuana, which is possessed in violation of federal law, to

 

police. These provisions should be stricken or modified to simply say that the caregiver or patient

 

may provide the marijuana to another registered patient, may destroy it, or may hand it over to

 

law enforcement for destruction. It should also give a set and reasonable timeframe that allows

 

for time to give the marijuana to the caregiver's other patients who may live some distance away

 

or to get back in town if the caregiver is traveling.

 

Recommended revision: Strike Rule 15 (6) and (7).

 

Replace with: "(6) If a registered qualifying patient dies or is no longer deemed a qualified

 

patient, a registered primary caregiver may transfer all marihuana produced for the former patient

 

to other patients who are currently registered to that primary caregiver, as long as the total

 

amount of marihuana per patient is within the requirements established in R 333.127 of these

 

rules.

 

(7) Except as provided in subrule (6) of this rule, if a registered qualifying patient dies or is no

 

longer deemed a qualified patient, a registered primary caregiver must, within 14 days of

 

learning that the patient has died or is no longer deemed a qualified patient either destroy all

 

marihuana produced for that patient or turn it over to law enforcement for destruction."

 

[Rule 15 (6) and (7)]"

 

14) Remove Requirement to Notify the Department of a Changed Telephone Number

 

Neither Proposal 1 nor the part of the draft rule listing what application materials a patient must

 

submit include the patient's telephone number. Since there is no requirement that they submit a

 

telephone number, it is not reasonable to require cardholders to notify the department of a

 

changed number.

 

Recommended revision: Strike "The registered qualifying patient's telephone number." [Rule 19

 

(1)©.]

 

15) Make Enclosed, Locked Facility Language Conform With the Law

 

Some of the draft rules say patients must keep their marijuana – not just plants – in an enclosed,

 

locked facility. This contradicts the plain language and intent of the law. Proposal 1 requires

 

patients to keep their marijuana plants in enclosed, locked facilities that only a patient and

 

caregiver can access. However, the law allows people other than designated caregivers to assist

 

patients with administering marijuana. This is necessary because many terminal patients and

 

severely disabled individuals need round-the-clock care, which necessitates more than one aide or

 

the assistance of more than one loved one. Many patients will be physically incapable of

 

administering marijuana on their own. Naturally, the aides would not be able to administer the

 

marijuana if it was in an enclosed, locked facility that the aides were not allowed to access. This

 

language should revert to the language in the law.

 

Recommended revision, from: "… The patient shall ensure that the marihuana in his or her

 

possession is kept in an enclosed, locked facility."

 

To: "… The patient shall ensure that the marihuana plants in his or her possession are kept in an

 

enclosed, locked facility." [Rule 27(1).]

 

Rule 23 (2)(g) should be stricken for other reasons. It would also wrongly require marijuana to be

 

in an enclosed, locked facility.

 

16) The Certification Language Should Track the Law

 

Proposal 1 says the department "shall issue" an identification card to patients who submit their

 

application with their contact information, a written certification, and a fee, and that an

 

application can only be denied if the information is falsified or incomplete. To qualify, a

 

physician must be a DO or MD who is licensed to prescribe drugs. Yet, the draft rules do not

 

track the law, and instead of requiring a physician only to be licensed, require he or she be "in

 

good standing with the department." Also, the draft rule says that the department may examine an

 

original patient record if the doctor does not meet the definition of a physician. But the definition

 

of a physician is a licensed MD or DO. So the patient record would presumably be irrelevant to

 

determining the licensure status. Under the draft rules, the department would also deny patients'

 

applications if the patient does not allow his or her medical records to be examined if the

 

physician "does not meet the definition" of physician. The draft rule would allow the department

 

to take things into consideration when granting or denying the application that the law does not,

 

such as complaints by health care providers about the doctor. If the physician is unfit to practice

 

medicine, the proper venue where that would be addressed is physician licensing, not reviewing

 

the validity of a written certification.

 

Recommended revisions: Strike all of the following:

 

Rule 23 (3) and (4)

 

Rule 1 (24): "in good standing with the department"

 

Rule 3 (1) ©: "in good standing with the department"

 

Rule 7 (2): "is in good standing with the department"

 

Rule 9 (d): "and is in good standing with the department"

 

17) The Language on Law Enforcement and Confidentiality Must Track the Statue

 

The draft rules' language on verifying cardholders' status to law enforcement indicates that the

 

department might be planning to violate the confidentiality requirements of the act by stating that

 

a person is a registered patient in response to an inquiry about that person, rather than only

 

verifying an ID card after law enforcement has called in the random number on the ID card to

 

verify it. The distinction is important. Allowing a police officer to ask if a person is registered

 

based on the vague standard of a "bona fide reason" would allow fishing expeditions, which the

 

act does not allow. In addition, the draft rule says the department can confirm to law enforcement

 

that a caregiver only serves five people. There is no need for the department to verify that a

 

caregiver serves no more than five patients because the department would not issue a card for the

 

caregiver to assist a sixth patient.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies

 

when they provide a specific name or address and a bona fide reason for the inquiry. Information

 

will be supplied only as necessary to verify any of the following:

 

"(i) That a person is or was a lawful possessor of a registry identification card.

 

"(ii) That a registered primary caregiver is not assisting more than 5 qualifying patients."

 

To: "(b) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies only to verify the

 

validity of a registry identification card that the law enforcement agency has been presented with,

 

as demonstrated by the reading of the card's registry identification number." [Rule 21 (b).]

 

18) A Person Can Only Authorize the Release of Information About Himself or Herself

 

The draft rules prudently specify that information about cardholders can only be released

 

pursuant to a signed release. However, as it is written, a person could authorize the release of

 

information about someone who does not want that information released. For example, a patient

 

could authorize the release of information about his or her caregiver. This needs to be modified.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Other persons upon receipt of a properly executed release of

 

information signed by a registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal

 

guardian, a qualifying patient's registered primary caregiver, or a registered qualifying patient's

 

representative. The release of information shall specify what information the department is

 

authorized to release and to whom."

 

To: "Other persons upon receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by a

 

registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, a qualifying patient's

 

registered primary caregiver, or a registered qualifying patient's representative. The release of

 

information shall specify what information the department is authorized to release and to whom.

 

No release of information may allow the disclosure of information about any person except the

 

person signing the release, except that a legal guardian may authorize the release of information

 

about a minor patient." [Rule 21 (2 ©.]

 

19) Remove Monitoring and Inspection Role

 

Proposal 1 does not create an investigatory role for the MDCH. Nor does it permit inspections.

 

Yet the draft rules envision monitoring by the MDCH that is not provided for in the act. This

 

draft rule would also have the MDCH notify law enforcement of things like a failure of a patient

 

to return registry ID cards within 14 days. The law doesn't say that cardholders need to return ID

 

cards, though, and there's no reason to require this since the department can just have the database

 

note that the number is no longer associated with a valid card. The draft rule would also have the

 

department notify law enforcement of a failure to keep marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility.

 

The department would have no reason to know if marijuana is kept in an enclosed facility, and

 

only plants are even required to be kept in enclosed, locked facilities. The department is not

 

responsible for law enforcement functions, and the only aspect that should remain is notifying the

 

department of falsified applications, which the law specifies the department may do, and which is

 

information that the MDCH would have reason to encounter.

 

Suggested revision: Strike current text for Rule 23 (1-5).

 

Insert: "(1) Pursuant to the act, the department may contact a qualifying patient, primary

 

caregiver, or a qualifying patient's certifying physician to verify an application.

 

"(2) Subject to subrule (1) of this rule, the department shall, when it has reason to believe a false

 

information has been submitted during the registration or registration renewal process, conduct an

 

investigation, and, if the information was falsified, refer the matter to law enforcement." [Rule 23

 

(1-5).]

 

20) The Language About Drug Convictions Must Track the Statute

 

The draft rules conflict with Proposal 1 by disqualifying patients and caregivers for convictions

 

that do not disqualify them under the act. The draft rule would disqualify patients and caregivers

 

for any drug conviction, which would even include a federal marijuana conviction for acts

 

allowed under state law! Proposal 1 does not disqualify patients for any unrelated drug

 

conviction, and caregivers are only disqualified for drug felonies. A violation of the medical

 

marijuana law, such as selling marijuana to a non-patient, could also result in a revocation, but

 

the department does not have the authority to rewrite the law to exclude bona fide seriously ill

 

patients based on unrelated convictions.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Conviction of a misdemeanor or felony offense involving the

 

manufacture, illegal delivery, or possession of a controlled substance."

 

To: "If the cardholder is a caregiver, conviction of a felony offense involving the manufacture,

 

illegal delivery, or possession of a controlled substance." [Rule 25 (1)©.]

 

Recommended revision: Strike Rule 25 (1)(d).

 

Rule 23 (2)(e) also includes this problematic language. Additional problems with that rule are

 

discussed further down in this memo.

 

21) The Revocation Portion Needs to Be Revised

 

Rule 25 provides that a card may be revoked for violations of Proposal 1. But most of the grounds

 

for revocation don't say who will determine if the act was violated or based on what evidence.

 

The grounds for revocation should only be grounds if a court of law has determined the act was

 

violated in those ways.

 

Recommended revision, from: "Undertaking any task under the influence of marihuana, when

 

doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice."

 

To: "Loss of a civil lawsuit for undertaking any task under the influence of marihuana, when

 

doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice." [Rule 25 (1)(e).]

 

Recommended revision, from: "Smoking marihuana on public transportation or in a public

 

place."

 

To: "A criminal conviction for smoking marihuana on public transportation or in a public place."

 

[Rule 25 (1)(g).]

 

22) Caregivers and Patients Must Not Be Required to Disclose Their Grow Location

 

Proposal 1, like most medical marijuana laws, did not require patients to register a grow site, nor

 

did it provide cards for grow sites. It is not reasonable for rules to require a patient or caregiver to

 

disclose the location where they would cultivate. It is not entirely clear from the draft rules that

 

the location would have to be disclosed, but it suggests it would. In addition, some patients may

 

cultivate marijuana in different rooms of their house to stagger the harvest, which may be

 

necessary to ensure a steady supply of their medicine. Some may also try cultivating different

 

strains at different locations on their property. Having a grow card indicates cardholders could

 

only grow on one location, and it could create problems. References to a grow site and card must

 

be stricken. Instead, patients wishing to have documentation by their plants can photocopy their

 

ID card and keep it with their marijuana plants.

 

Recommended revision: Strike all references to grow locations, in Rule 29, Rule 11 (3), and Rule

 

13 (4).

 

 

On December 5, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) issued draft rules for Michigan's new medical marijuana law, Proposal 1. The draft rules go much further than the department's role under Proposal 1 and in several areas conflict with it. The MDCH has a comment period, and based on the comments will consider revising the rules. We need your help to make sure they do.

 

Please take the time to write and submit a comment urging the MDCH to bring the rules in line with the law. Be sure to be respectful and polite in your letters, which are due by 5:00 p.m. on January 9.

 

Proposal 1 tasked the MDCH with issuing state registry ID cards to qualifying patients, which will protect them from arrest. It gave the MDCH authority to issue rules about processing applications, adding additional qualifying conditions, and setting fees. But these draft rules go much further and seek to rewrite new and unreasonable requirements into the voter-enacted law. Here are some of the provisions of the draft rules that conflict with Proposal 1 and need to be revised:

 

The draft rules would require patients and caregivers to submit inventory reports on their marijuana cultivation each year. The law does not require any such records, and the department does not have the authority to require them. Inventory reports would be self-incriminating since they would document violations of federal law.

 

The draft rules indicate that all marijuana must be kept in an enclosed locked facility, when the law only requires that marijuana plants be stored in an enclosed, locked facility. There is no similar restriction for potentially deadly medications like prescription morphine, oxycontin, or methamphetamine.

 

The draft rules provide for monitoring, inspections, and reporting by the department that is not provided for in the act.

 

The draft rules seek to define a "public place" where marijuana cannot be used to include anywhere "visible to the public." This could include a front porch or the inside of a patient's house, if the patient is near the window.

 

Click here for a longer list of draft rules that need revision.

The MDCH will also be holding a public hearing on January 5 at 9:00 a.m. in Lansing. Please let me know at Karen@mpp.org if you are interested and able to attend. It is particularly important that qualifying patients, doctors, and attorneys speak out at the hearing. If you are able to attend, please remember to be respectful and polite and to dress appropriately for a government hearing.

 

Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project. Please pass this message on to other supporters of Proposal 1 so we can ensure that the law is implemented faithfully.

 

Sincerely,

 

Karen O'Keefe

Director of State Campaigns

Marijuana Policy Project

[westmich]

The DCH clearly thinks it is within their power to allow transfers. Although, the original rules re-draft or input was for CG to Patient, there is no reason a revision couldn't include patient to patient transfers.

 

13) Changing the Rule About Leftover Marijuana

 

The MDCH's draft rules suggest that a caregiver give any marijuana left over after one patient is no longer qualified or dies to other patients he or she assists, which is reasonable. However, other aspects of this draft rule are not. It would require the caregiver to provide an inventory to the department, which is problematic for reasons discussed above, and, if the caregiver did not assist any other patients, he or she would be required to hand over the marijuana to law enforcement.

 

Proposal 1 does not have any such provision. Sadly, state and local law enforcement in some cases have collaborated with federal authorities to raid patients or caregivers. It is unreasonable to require a cardholder to turn over marijuana, which is possessed in violation of federal law, to police. These provisions should be stricken or modified to simply say that the caregiver or patient may provide the marijuana to another registered patient, may destroy it, or may hand it over to law enforcement for destruction. It should also give a set and reasonable timeframe that allows for time to give the marijuana to the caregiver's other patients who may live some distance away or to get back in town if the caregiver is traveling.

 

Recommended revision: Strike Rule 15 (6) and (7).

 

Replace with: "(6) If a registered qualifying patient dies or is no longer deemed a qualified patient, a registered primary caregiver may transfer all marihuana produced for the former patient to other patients who are currently registered to that primary caregiver, as long as the total amount of marihuana per patient is within the requirements established in R 333.127 of these rules.

 

(7) Except as provided in subrule (6) of this rule, if a registered qualifying patient dies or is no longer deemed a qualified patient, a registered primary caregiver must, within 14 days of learning that the patient has died or is no longer deemed a qualified patient either destroy all marihuana produced for that patient or turn it over to law enforcement for destruction." [Rule 15 (6) and (7)]"

[Highlander]

It is kinda funny now, looking back on the proposed rules....that somehow MDCH thought they would have the resources to implement this complex BS...and now...nearly two years on, they can't even comply with the law and do the bsaic and simple task of getting cards issued on time.

 

Where did they think they'd find the time to do 50,000 inspections and process 50,000 inventory reports?

[bobandtorey]

It is kinda funny now, looking back on the proposed rules....that somehow MDCH thought they would have the resources to implement this complex BS...and now...nearly two years on, they can't even comply with the law and do the bsaic and simple task of getting cards issued on time.

 

Where did they think they'd find the time to do 50,000 inspections and process 50,000 inventory reports?

 

 

i guess they look at it the same as we do today Funny how was all this going to work