M.a.c.c. And Cannabis Patients United More Active Than Mmma?

[northerngal]

Hi and thanks for the question. We do keep books and we do have the ability to segregate funds. I made the decision not to pressure our members for donations a year ago. I know our membership consist of mostly the disabled and poor. We have been lucky in having Michael to take up the slack. It's time however to build a war chest.

 

We can and will set up a special fund if the membership wants us to. We will place whatever audits and controls you folks want. Please remember however that we do have operating expenses and we need help in that area also. Thanks, Joe

 

Thank you for your response!

 

I totally understand the disabled and poor aspect and not pressuring for funds!! I for one, know that being disabled does not automatically constitute being poor I also know that some people that may have been "down on their luck" at certain times, may not always be in that position, even the disabled. But that is either here nor there. The pressuring of anyone for funds is not something I agree with either, thats not effective for any fundraising effort.

 

If I remember correctly, the MMMA has a 501©3 non-profit designation? (is that correct?) SO there would be a form 990 filled out that is available to the public? Donations made would then be tax deductibe and a reciept provided?

Edited January 30, 2011 by northerngal

[+Silverblue]

What I wanna know is if there's a planning committee in place. What happened to the committee that was gonna run things when BB was gonna step down, there were about 4 people in it. When he decided to stay on, I hoped they'd be in place as back-up help. BB can only do so much, Michael can only do so much. We have to do our part. They've done so much for us, will we be there for them when they need us? I hope so. I know some of you will be, from what I've been reading. I'm doing my best. I know how to manage my money so I can do a few extra things. There could be a fundraising committee, whoever has the time, we can do it all as volunteers, I know it'd be great to have a PR person, maybe someone who used to do that who can help train someone who'd be a volunteer. This can all happen if we put our creative minds together and work as a team, as quickly as possible. How important is this to everyone? To some, MM is their lifeline. That should make it a high priority, no pun intended.. (I'm being the motivational speaker here I guess). All these positions can be filled, if someone can help guide whoever wants to do it. Everyone here has a skill and many aren't able to work, so they have more time to donate. I tried to work, loved it, I felt productive and useful. Through the years, I developed many good skills I can offer, as well as my intuitive talents. We need to brainstorm our ideas somehow. Even though we're scattered all over the state, we have this wonderful technology to bring us together. Look at all the wonderful things cannabis has done- it's brought us all together! I have the time, with some guidance, I could do a lot for this cause. OK so what are our immediate goals? First priority, what? Sending letters? Next: May event? OK Planning/coordinating committee.. Next? fundraising committee? Who are we already working with, what will they provide, no need to reveal all, this is just food for thought. I wanted to major in business but I can't do the math. I had other dreams that could've helped me achieve some financial freedom, then I could've fulfilled my other dreams in a real big way, but that didn't happen. I can still help people, I've been doing it all along, despite being poor and having little training. I've seen some amazing results by just using what I learned from a few teachers, some books, and lots of experiences; ideas I adapted, built on, and share with others. It seems to me right now the letter writing project is our most urgent objective.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[+kurt klaas]

The current subject being discussed is obviously affected by many different factors on the ground that are crucial in the debate over the effectiveness of the MMMA’s interactions with competing advocacy groups and state officials regarding mmj law and related problems.

 

However, my observation about the debate in these posts addresses only one factor, a factor that has to do with the “principles” which the MMMA has committed itself to upholding. Blueberrry states, “The MMMA's position has been and continues to be, no changes to existing law.” As I understand it, one of the primary reasons this position was adopted was fear that opening up the law for reform could create an opportunity for the legislature to radically change the patient/caregiver system against the interests of patients and caregivers as currently written into the law, or something similar to this. Blueberry further writes, “Should the MMMA have entered the talks in Lansing? No and history has proven that decision correct. You don't negotiate legislative solutions with Law Enforcement. What came of the talks? The information gathered is now being used against us. We're going to be hammered when the talks begin. Law enforcement was told that our law was flawed . . ..” So I take it that the correct conclusion is that the MMMA’s position is that the existing law does not need to be changed or reformed because it isn’t flawed in any way.

 

Here’s my observation about this. Isn’t it possible that this position is in fact ultimately self-defeating in terms of protecting the interests of the mmj community? Some of the criticism that posters make seems to suggest that this principle might in fact be the very thing that is keeping the MMMA from having any significant influence on shaping the debate that is taking place in Lansing. One post states, “working WITH the legislators has given cpu and macc an edge over the mmma. The mmma seems to be falling to the wayside in this whole thing. The participants fragment and do not work together . Mary L was told by the State Police agents and Representative Meadows that the mmma was basically black listed because they felt the last couple of encounters had been very unprofessional and that there was no reasoning with the mmma.” The underlining is mine, and that’s what I want to highlight. The criticism seems to be that MMMA’s leaders are intransigent—and that this explains why the MMMA’s actions are ineffectual and its input ignored in the conversation among advocacy groups and certain state officials.

 

Now if I look at the principle by which the MMMA seems to operate—nothing is negotiable regarding the current law because there’s nothing wrong with the law as it is—it makes sense to me why the MMMA is ignored. Why would legislators want to hold discussions with a group that does not want to discuss anything or change anything in the current law because its sees no problems with it whatsoever?

 

I agree that—from the point of view of the mmj community—there’s really not many serious problems with the law. At least, you could make a good case that the interests of the mmj community are clearly addressed and protected in the current law and in that sense there’s not a lot wrong with it. However, it is very shortsighted not to recognize that—from the point of view of law enforcement and local governments—the law is very messed up and not working for them.

 

Someone might want to argue that law enforcement and local governments have bad motives in their desire to see the law reformed. Perhaps bad motives do play some role. However, anyone who has looked objectively into the serious problems that the mmj law creates for law enforcement and local governments cannot embrace the idea that the law is flawless and needs no reforming at all.

 

To me, it is unmistakable that pressure is building on the state legislature to reform the current mmj law, pressure that is coming primarily from law enforcement and local governments that are howling about it’s flaws as it regards their legitimate interests. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the state opens up the law for changes. It is going to happen. The MMMA will not be able to stop it.

 

I take it for granted that law enforcement and local governments do have legitimate interests to protect and advance and therefore I do not need to explain or justify what the problems are with the law as they see it. Anybody who has paid any attention will know what the legitimate, real problems are for law enforcement and local governments. But notice this: the MMMA’s principle that the law should never be opened for reform essentially dismisses the point of view and interests of law enforcement and local governments as irrelevant.

 

The charge against the MMMA seems to be that regarding its political effectiveness, it has none or very little. That charge seems to make perfect sense to me, in light of its position on the current law. It is oft repeated that politics is the art of compromise. Therefore, groups that are unwilling to compromise on anything exclude themselves from the political process. It’s not rocket science. The MMMA’s official position seems to be that it is unwilling to compromise on anything in the current law. No wonder then that law enforcement and certain state officials seem to dismiss the MMMA.

 

What someone from the MMMA needs to do is explain to people like me how, on the level of principle, the MMMA is really not shooting itself in the foot. That’s certainly how it looks to me. Can someone explain how this is not so, if in fact it isn’t?

 

On the level of principle, which is not the only factor involved in the debate in these posts, the primary reason the MMMA appears to have weak influence on state level discussions is pretty obvious to me. Or do I frame this particular problem all wrong?

 

Kurt,

 

Director, the Holland Compassionate Care Community.

[bobandtorey]

In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the state opens up the law for changes. It is going to happen. The MMMA will not be able to stop it.

i too have been saying the sane thing for some time now

[rockinlespaul]

The current subject being discussed is obviously affected by many different factors on the ground that are crucial in the debate over the effectiveness of the MMMA’s interactions with competing advocacy groups and state officials regarding mmj law and related problems.

 

However, my observation about the debate in these posts addresses only one factor, a factor that has to do with the “principles” which the MMMA has committed itself to upholding. Blueberrry states, “The MMMA's position has been and continues to be, no changes to existing law.” As I understand it, one of the primary reasons this position was adopted was fear that opening up the law for reform could create an opportunity for the legislature to radically change the patient/caregiver system against the interests of patients and caregivers as currently written into the law, or something similar to this. Blueberry further writes, “Should the MMMA have entered the talks in Lansing? No and history has proven that decision correct. You don't negotiate legislative solutions with Law Enforcement. What came of the talks? The information gathered is now being used against us. We're going to be hammered when the talks begin. Law enforcement was told that our law was flawed . . ..” So I take it that the correct conclusion is that the MMMA’s position is that the existing law does not need to be changed or reformed because it isn’t flawed in any way.

 

Here’s my observation about this. Isn’t it possible that this position is in fact ultimately self-defeating in terms of protecting the interests of the mmj community? Some of the criticism that posters make seems to suggest that this principle might in fact be the very thing that is keeping the MMMA from having any significant influence on shaping the debate that is taking place in Lansing. One post states, “working WITH the legislators has given cpu and macc an edge over the mmma. The mmma seems to be falling to the wayside in this whole thing. The participants fragment and do not work together . Mary L was told by the State Police agents and Representative Meadows that the mmma was basically black listed because they felt the last couple of encounters had been very unprofessional and that there was no reasoning with the mmma.” The underlining is mine, and that’s what I want to highlight. The criticism seems to be that MMMA’s leaders are intransigent—and that this explains why the MMMA’s actions are ineffectual and its input ignored in the conversation among advocacy groups and certain state officials.

 

Now if I look at the principle by which the MMMA seems to operate—nothing is negotiable regarding the current law because there’s nothing wrong with the law as it is—it makes sense to me why the MMMA is ignored. Why would legislators want to hold discussions with a group that does not want to discuss anything or change anything in the current law because its sees no problems with it whatsoever?

 

I agree that—from the point of view of the mmj community—there’s really not many serious problems with the law. At least, you could make a good case that the interests of the mmj community are clearly addressed and protected in the current law and in that sense there’s not a lot wrong with it. However, it is very shortsighted not to recognize that—from the point of view of law enforcement and local governments—the law is very messed up and not working for them.

 

Someone might want to argue that law enforcement and local governments have bad motives in their desire to see the law reformed. Perhaps bad motives do play some role. However, anyone who has looked objectively into the serious problems that the mmj law creates for law enforcement and local governments cannot embrace the idea that the law is flawless and needs no reforming at all.

 

To me, it is unmistakable that pressure is building on the state legislature to reform the current mmj law, pressure that is coming primarily from law enforcement and local governments that are howling about it’s flaws as it regards their legitimate interests. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the state opens up the law for changes. It is going to happen. The MMMA will not be able to stop it.

 

I take it for granted that law enforcement and local governments do have legitimate interests to protect and advance and therefore I do not need to explain or justify what the problems are with the law as they see it. Anybody who has paid any attention will know what the legitimate, real problems are for law enforcement and local governments. But notice this: the MMMA’s principle that the law should never be opened for reform essentially dismisses the point of view and interests of law enforcement and local governments as irrelevant.

 

The charge against the MMMA seems to be that regarding its political effectiveness, it has none or very little. That charge seems to make perfect sense to me, in light of its position on the current law. It is oft repeated that politics is the art of compromise. Therefore, groups that are unwilling to compromise on anything exclude themselves from the political process. It’s not rocket science. The MMMA’s official position seems to be that it is unwilling to compromise on anything in the current law. No wonder then that law enforcement and certain state officials seem to dismiss the MMMA.

 

What someone from the MMMA needs to do is explain to people like me how, on the level of principle, the MMMA is really not shooting itself in the foot. That’s certainly how it looks to me. Can someone explain how this is not so, if in fact it isn’t?

 

On the level of principle, which is not the only factor involved in the debate in these posts, the primary reason the MMMA appears to have weak influence on state level discussions is pretty obvious to me. Or do I frame this particular problem all wrong?

 

Kurt,

 

Director, the Holland Compassionate Care Community.

 

Pretty obvious to me too.

[Medcare]

The current subject being discussed is obviously affected by many different factors on the ground that are crucial in the debate over the effectiveness of the MMMA’s interactions with competing advocacy groups and state officials regarding mmj law and related problems.

 

However, my observation about the debate in these posts addresses only one factor, a factor that has to do with the “principles” which the MMMA has committed itself to upholding. Blueberrry states, “The MMMA's position has been and continues to be, no changes to existing law.” As I understand it, one of the primary reasons this position was adopted was fear that opening up the law for reform could create an opportunity for the legislature to radically change the patient/caregiver system against the interests of patients and caregivers as currently written into the law, or something similar to this. Blueberry further writes, “Should the MMMA have entered the talks in Lansing? No and history has proven that decision correct. You don't negotiate legislative solutions with Law Enforcement. What came of the talks? The information gathered is now being used against us. We're going to be hammered when the talks begin. Law enforcement was told that our law was flawed . . ..” So I take it that the correct conclusion is that the MMMA’s position is that the existing law does not need to be changed or reformed because it isn’t flawed in any way.

 

Here’s my observation about this. Isn’t it possible that this position is in fact ultimately self-defeating in terms of protecting the interests of the mmj community? Some of the criticism that posters make seems to suggest that this principle might in fact be the very thing that is keeping the MMMA from having any significant influence on shaping the debate that is taking place in Lansing. One post states, “working WITH the legislators has given cpu and macc an edge over the mmma. The mmma seems to be falling to the wayside in this whole thing. The participants fragment and do not work together . Mary L was told by the State Police agents and Representative Meadows that the mmma was basically black listed because they felt the last couple of encounters had been very unprofessional and that there was no reasoning with the mmma.” The underlining is mine, and that’s what I want to highlight. The criticism seems to be that MMMA’s leaders are intransigent—and that this explains why the MMMA’s actions are ineffectual and its input ignored in the conversation among advocacy groups and certain state officials.

 

Now if I look at the principle by which the MMMA seems to operate—nothing is negotiable regarding the current law because there’s nothing wrong with the law as it is—it makes sense to me why the MMMA is ignored. Why would legislators want to hold discussions with a group that does not want to discuss anything or change anything in the current law because its sees no problems with it whatsoever?

 

I agree that—from the point of view of the mmj community—there’s really not many serious problems with the law. At least, you could make a good case that the interests of the mmj community are clearly addressed and protected in the current law and in that sense there’s not a lot wrong with it. However, it is very shortsighted not to recognize that—from the point of view of law enforcement and local governments—the law is very messed up and not working for them.

 

Someone might want to argue that law enforcement and local governments have bad motives in their desire to see the law reformed. Perhaps bad motives do play some role. However, anyone who has looked objectively into the serious problems that the mmj law creates for law enforcement and local governments cannot embrace the idea that the law is flawless and needs no reforming at all.

 

To me, it is unmistakable that pressure is building on the state legislature to reform the current mmj law, pressure that is coming primarily from law enforcement and local governments that are howling about it’s flaws as it regards their legitimate interests. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the state opens up the law for changes. It is going to happen. The MMMA will not be able to stop it.

 

I take it for granted that law enforcement and local governments do have legitimate interests to protect and advance and therefore I do not need to explain or justify what the problems are with the law as they see it. Anybody who has paid any attention will know what the legitimate, real problems are for law enforcement and local governments. But notice this: the MMMA’s principle that the law should never be opened for reform essentially dismisses the point of view and interests of law enforcement and local governments as irrelevant.

 

The charge against the MMMA seems to be that regarding its political effectiveness, it has none or very little. That charge seems to make perfect sense to me, in light of its position on the current law. It is oft repeated that politics is the art of compromise. Therefore, groups that are unwilling to compromise on anything exclude themselves from the political process. It’s not rocket science. The MMMA’s official position seems to be that it is unwilling to compromise on anything in the current law. No wonder then that law enforcement and certain state officials seem to dismiss the MMMA.

 

What someone from the MMMA needs to do is explain to people like me how, on the level of principle, the MMMA is really not shooting itself in the foot. That’s certainly how it looks to me. Can someone explain how this is not so, if in fact it isn’t?

 

On the level of principle, which is not the only factor involved in the debate in these posts, the primary reason the MMMA appears to have weak influence on state level discussions is pretty obvious to me. Or do I frame this particular problem all wrong?

 

Kurt,

 

Director, the Holland Compassionate Care Community.

 

I am still very new to all of this talk so my word shouldn't be taken very highly but this makes sense to me. Many times to work things out it does take compromise but not just on the one side. And adding to a discussion may help the cause rather then being left out of it. These areas that some call gray might be better if they were fine tuned. Not to say they should be changed or better written, just more detailed so that leo and pa's and such may have less cause to arrest and prosecute and on the other hand to have more cause for those who are truly breaking the law. Breaking the law wow, some of the arrest have been minor infractions but treated with great contempt. These are things that should be worked out so that if a patient or caregiver has made a small error or miscalculation should possibly get a written warning on the first offense and maybe a small fine for the second offense, not dragged off to jail and treated like a drug dealer or criminal. These again are discussions that need to be worked out.

[bobandtorey]

I am still very new to all of this talk so my word shouldn't be taken very highly but this makes sense to me. Many times to work things out it does take compromise but not just on the one side. And adding to a discussion may help the cause rather then being left out of it. These areas that some call gray might be better if they were fine tuned. Not to say they should be changed or better written, just more detailed so that Leo and pa's and such may have less cause to arrest and prosecute and on the other hand to have more cause for those who are truly breaking the law. Breaking the law wow, some of the arrest have been minor infractions but treated with great contempt. These are things that should be worked out so that if a patient or caregiver has made a small error or miscalculation should possibly get a written warning on the first offense and maybe a small fine for the second offense, not dragged off to jail and treated like a drug dealer or criminal. These again are discussions that need to be worked out.

 

i have said this be for and thats how i see it their should be a minor and a major just because some one has 13 plants they are still sick or 2.6 oz's

but you have to put something inn their to stop the people that do 2013

[badinuf]

What someone from the MMMA needs to do is explain to people like me how, on the level of principle, the MMMA is really not shooting itself in the foot. That’s certainly how it looks to me. Can someone explain how this is not so, if in fact it isn’t?

 

Here you go Kurt. Listen real good. The people of the State of Michigan voted this law in. Not the politions, not the local goverments, and certenly not LEO.

[Guest finallyfree09]

Kurt is rite. The mmma seems to not want to cooperate with anyone and that can be threatening to a lot of people.

 

I would rather see the mmma standing shoulder to shoulder with macc and cpu. If the mmma isn't there... Macc and cpu will get everything they want.

 

And bb... I didn't start this post because I thought the mmma was "screwing" me. I just thought it was odd that the other 2 groups are in active negotiations and mmma was not involved... Obviously cuz it wasn't invited.

 

And as far as any whining goes... Isn't that what's going on? All the complaints about macc and cpu and what they r doing is fine but the mmma refuses to deal with them. I can imagine from a politicians standpoint that the mmma looks like the ones whining. The proof of it is that the mmma isn't at rick jones office alongside macc and cpu.

 

But go ahead and sit back and watch as the other 2 groups negotiate away our law, its happening whether u like it or not. I realize u can't do everything and never said u could, but to sit back and refuse to work with them is foolhardy at best. They have already pushed the mmma aside. Why be the group that can't see the forest because of al the trees?

[Guest finallyfree09]

i meant negotiating alongside them. not with them. its obvious what their gameplan is.... if the mmma isn't in these "meetings" or whatever then it WILL be pushed to the wayside. you don't have to work with them but a strong mmma presence in the room might help to prevent macc, cpu, OR jones from going to far. its almost like when we lose someone we care about... life must go on. without the mmma there, life WILL go on. if the mmma is not there with everybody else, exactly who will fight for what the mmma wants? nobody. i guess i just see things differently. the mma should be involved in ANY AND ALL negotiations that will change the law. not just the ones that it agrees with. thats what politicians do.

[Guest finallyfree09]

We will become involved in negotiations. There are no shortcuts or instant gratifications. We will have to work to negotiate from a position of strength. No politicians is going to want to face the attention we're going to put on tyrants who try to steal the people's will. We have the high ground. 61% of voters still support us. If we abandon them, they will abandon us. if we take up their fight, their numbers will increase. The public is sick of business as usual. We will use that to our advantage. We just have to do the work. Thanks, bb

if you think it will work i am with you.

[+Silverblue]

Dear Rick Jones,

 

Our medical marijuana law does not include dispensaries, it is not a business model we voted for. Compassion clubs are supposed to be strictly for support and education. The people you're negotiating with may not have the best interests of patients and caregivers in mind. We would like you to listen to our viewpoint, too, before you draft that bill. That bill as we've read it will not accomplish what you and those working with you are hoping it will.

 

Sincerely.

[mizerman]

If the patients aren't put first, by all of the organizations, then our law will disappear like the hair on my head.

 

 

Mizerman

[lkline300]

I can not speak for the MMMA or any of the other groups. I have been reading the active posts here daily for the last six months.

 

My observation would be that the MMMA is focused on providing its members with up to the minute news relevant to MM issues in Michigan and then encouraging them to take individual actions, i.e. protests, letter writing, mass attendance at critical court cases, city meetings, legislative hearings, etc.

 

 

The other groups seem to favor lobbying and litigious solutions to MM issues.

 

 

IMO We can participate more & have a say with the former method while with the latter we have to give our $$ and hope their interests are the same as ours . I have not been impressed with some of the things coming out of this other group. This move if it is happening is very adversarial to patient support groups. I hope it's not true that patients would be involved in this but I would not be shocked if it was so.

 

A patients group should be just that. I gotta say I'm a little worried when (& if) a group that says they are a patient advocate group lobbys for something that would only benefit commercial interests. Its how we got into this mess.............. & why would anyone not want us to get together as patients ? & what gives them the arrogance to think they can decide that for us ?

 

Can we get a confirmation one way or another from any macc members before things get crazy. I know your there, I see you.

[+Silverblue]

It sure does seem like when business gets involved, compassion goes out the window. If we can live with our law the way it is, we should make sure it stays strong. It seems we'd be fighting someone even if this disp. thing hadn't happened but what the lawmakers aren't seeing is that model was never intended to be part of it. What a dirty deal they're trying to pull. My stomach is getting upset thinking about it. There's a document here clearly defining compassion clubs, I hope someone will review it and see what its original intent is. As I recall, it discourages any meds on site. The ones that have allowed transactions are stretching the boundaries and that's why disp.s and CC's are being put in the same category by many people. The disp sees the cc as competition, so they villianize the cc. Sound familiar? It's easy to create an enemy, just make someone or something look bad and make it believable. This tactic is as old as human history. I've been the victim of it countless times. it's appalling how easily people turn on eachother and forget their original purpose should be helping patients. It's about PATIENTS. Remember? A true Compassion club is about COMPASSION, meaning, they're helping PATIENTS. Simple as that. Our law was NEVER intended to make people rich. Politicians are playing with our health again. Don't be surprised if they stab the disp.s in the back, too. I don't wanna be the one to say I told ya so.

 

Sb

[Guest finallyfree09]

I do not mean to call out your post. It just happens to capture the sentiment that I am trying to address. Why is it that many assume that we need to be in Lansing negotiating anything at all? We passed the law without them and will continue to implement it without them.

 

I have personally avoided participation in these splinter groups because I feel that to protect patients and caregivers we need to unite behind the law passed by the people. While I believe many of the people involved with these groups have had the best interests of patients and caregivers at heart I disagree with a legislative solution to clarifying the law. I have always felt that we would be easily monetarily outpaced in Lansing by those that wish more control over medical cannabis. I still think this will get away from us if we allow it to be opened under current conditions.

 

While Sen. Jones indeed occupies an influential position, he does not seem to currently possess the connections or support to get this done. Allying ourselves with him or legitimizing his efforts in any way weakens us as a whole while strengthening him. This is my main problem with what these groups have done. In attempting to be sure that we are "at the table" they have given political power to a person whose first overture to our community was an attempt to re-criminalize behavior that we fought to make legal. This is the behavior of the "fair man" that Tim Beck "feel comfortable working with?"

 

I for one will not give a mandate for closed-door negotiation to any group. When and if the leadership and membership of the MMMA decide that negotiation is in the best interest of patients and caregivers, I have 100% trust that any compromises necessary will be battled out on this board as always. Sometimes it hurts but we always arrive at what's best for those this law was meant to protect: patients and their caregivers.

 

MACC and CPU will never be able to get the backing of the community as a whole because their actions and motives are insufficiently public. Non-members possess neither visibility into nor influence over its actions. This means that these groups have neither the support nor the trust of MMMA members. While MACC, CPU, Beck and Jones may feel that they do not need it, if we do our jobs correctly they will fail consistently without it.

 

When it comes to "negotiating the law" the MMMA alone earns my respect for being unwilling to do so.

don't worry... i dont mind ya callin me out.

 

your right, we shouldn't have to worry about "negotiating" at all. but the fact of the matter is that it is already happening without the mmma or any individual patients being involved.

 

the current law is all that is needed for patients and caregivers. as long as none of that changes i am fine with it. but it is more than obvious that eventually this law is going to change. if someone representing the wants and needs of patients and cg's is not there then macc and cpu will get their way.... POSSIBLY.

 

we need someone there to jerk the leash every so often when one of the "big business" dispensary reps starts saying things that are contrary to the law that already exists.

[Beans]

I do not think this is a forgone conclusion.

 

Our organization and influence, directed both within the movement and without, can keep this law from changing if that is what we want. We have to want it more than we want additional rights and protections, until we gain the political clout to ensure that we are not taken advantage of in Lansing. I don't think we can afford a lobbyist to protect ourselves from the other medical marijuana lobbyists.

 

Really, we cannot expect an association of businesses operating in the gray areas of our law to protect that law in its entirety. When offered the opportunity to capitulate some "periphery" thereof in exchange for legislative security of their business model, it will be taken, and we will have to either fight to stop or remove it, or give in if it's not too bad. As long as we prepare for this inevitability and know how to react I think we will be ok.

 

But the one thing I do know after the recent Lansing State Journal Jones/Beck duet, without the necessary means to monitor and influence the private actions of these groups, they cannot be allowed to claim to represent the interests of patients and caregivers.

 

 

 

 

 

The wholething smacks with "I'll tell you all about it in a private meeting" tone

 

And you are right they do not represent our interest

[Clear and Unambiguous]

Someone please educate me.

 

My mind is open, and I am willing to listen if you have some proof of what you claim.

 

Here is my issue, Rick Jones has backed way off of his attempts to stop us from assembling. Compassion Clubs are a way to assemble.

 

So, what exactly is your issue with Rick's latest bill? Is it the right to medicate together in a social nature?

 

I am not being sarcastic here at all. I am a somewhat intelligent person, and for the life of me I can not understand what the protest to these talks are.

 

Please explain it to me. Please help me understand.

 

The feds are asking the state to sell us out, and we are focusing on fighting for the right to medicate together at a club?

 

Hit me upside the head with what I am missing, because I feel like a real jerk right now for not understanding.

[kruztydj]

I started our club for patients and a safe place for ill folks to find help. I started this club before anyone else started one and am prolly the only club that stuck to the mmma standards. No med, no sales no pot parties, period. I was pushed and push to start a dispen but refused as I felt that would hurt our cause with the media that would follow. I still feel the same way. I've not been to vocial as of late due to illness of my wife but keep reading where c/c clubs are just for starting a dispen and money. Trust me folks not all are that way.Some still hold true and still fight for that ill patient. We have over 365 members and not ONE can say I started it for money, what I started it for is in the name itself,,,, compassion club...........................

I've been here before we started this website and still stand proud to be a member and still offer my help to anyone helping the sick. United we must stand..............

[DayTripper]

You don't know how much this means to me. When I took this job, my only objective was to earn the trust of the community. I would rather die and I mean die than betray that trust. The "PATIENTS" and The "CAREGIVERS" are the system. Compassion Clubs are their support group. The MMMA is the press and the protector of these parties. I have never seen it any other way. The MMMA is the servant of the people. It is willing to endure unending turmoil, if only it can fulfill it's mission, to serve. The MMMA is fortunate to have been given the trust of the community. I am personally honored that this vision has been put into words. Today, many have rushed to my aide. I was suffering terribly today. I guess you folks could read my pain. You saved me today. I will never forget it.

 

Thank You everyone for all of your posts today, support and the help you gave an old sick man. The MMMA will always defend the law. That is what we do. Thanks, Bb

 

Very well said by both of you; I feel positive things for all of us are on the way now.

 

One thing I would like to try and clear up is that it is my gut feeling that CPU is good now that MACC people split off from them; but that secrecy thing really nullifies any trust from the community at large.

 

The conversations I revealed were the ugly back and forth on the emails and listserv and it was clear to me that Beck was willing to sell us out at that time: in fairness to Cherry Crush he never even entertained giving up any of our rights no matter what Beck or his sidekick TheD argued for. So sure, CPU opposed the bill officially; but not before the Beck faction made it clear that we had to be willing to give them something in return for what we wanted. Well the way I've always seen it - what we want is for them to respect the law and quit harrassing us; why would we have anything to give up let alone want to give them anything? It became clear that Compassion Center was code for dispensaries and that Beck was looking to make money instead of protect patient or caregiver rights: that sentiment was cemented when the Ypsi crew was swept in as members. So what he and Macc are doing now has been a very long time in coming, and it's time for everyone who has any energy left to work together.

 

By nature I'm an donkey rectum, and don't play well with other muffin makers; so this is it for me in this mess. I did what I had to do. I hope you all can work together for the current law get back to the garden.

 

We are stardust - we are golden, and we ...

Edited January 31, 2011 by DayTripper

[semicaregiver]

OK, I have now read 4 pages of posts and assorted news links for a story that started with the question, "Why does the MACC and CPU seem to be more active than the MMMA".

 

"More Active" seems to be the reports that the MACC has been leveraging Rick Jones to help create legislation that legitimizes the existence of their membership, the dispensaries. From what I have seen here on the MMMA forum, most of us are ambivalent on the concept of dispensaries (there are issues about price, quality, pr, etc, but not their right to exist). Given this lack of interest why would the membership question the lack of MMMA's involvement.

 

What should be of concern to the MMMA is the attitude that Jones seems to have about the use of MM and driving. If you listen to his radio interview from last week (interview starts in the middle)

 

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing ... d/5423.mp3

 

he states his stand with a reference to the zero tolerance issue on THC blood levels and driving. The MACC is clearly leveraging and reinforcing Jones position on THC blood levels and driving to gain his support to legitimize their dispensary members. This seems to me to be the biggest threat to MMMA members. If you carry Jones position to its usual conclusion he would take away the right to drive for everyone with a patient card.

 

Before it starts, I did not raise this issue to start a whole discussion on THC blood levels and driving, but rather point out that this is an area where the MMMA should be focusing. The subject is one that threatens our individual rights, it is technically too sophisticated to hope that letter writing and protests will save us and it is the real focus of Jones' argument against compassion clubs/mm socials clubs, etc where mm is consumed.

[LITLJON]

Is there a loyal voice and or ear for the 3MA in Lansing?

 

Seams like most info comes from the press or he/she said individual encounters.

[+Silverblue]

Any confusion over what issues we're fighting is easily explained- we're fighting more than one. That's their tactic, hit us from all sides. We have to be alert and act quickly. I know it's hard to show them respect when writing/talking with them because they have no respect for us. We have to show them we are not the irresponsible dopeheads they perceive us to be. Keep those calls and letters coming, I'm looking for the addresses to send mine today. If you feel that 3MA represents you, please let them know that, too. I tried writing to ASA and got nothing. They don't represent me, though at one time I believed they did. This organization seems to be the only one that's stood by patients and caregivers. They've done a lot for us, we need to be there for them. I'm doing my best and I know many of you are, too.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[thanks2]

Is there a loyal voice and or ear for the 3MA in Lansing?

 

Seams like most info comes from the press or he/she said individual encounters.

Also, have we cut all ties with those that do have a voice?

[+Silverblue]

Is there a loyal voice and or ear for the 3MA in Lansing?

 

Seams like most info comes from the press or he/she said individual encounters.

VERY GOOD QUESTION! Even if we aren't allowed to know who it is, it'd be good to know we HAVE someone representing us who they will listen to.

 

Oh yeah, about outsorcing, it's ruined the whole country, IMHO.

 

Sb