Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

 

A few of the members have asked us for our opinion on the proposed House Bills currently "in the hopper". They asked us to offer our assessment of each one. Well after careful reading and rereading we now present our opinion and interpretation. Remember, be nice, its what we feel and believe is "REALLY" happening.

 

House Bill No. 4661

 

This criminalizes any growing within 500 feet of a church, school, or day care.

 

Opinion: This is absolutely no business of the legislature. Local zoning boards are the ones that should be dealing with this issue. We are not dealing with alcohol or cigarettes; or dealing with state or federal public land. A silly attempt by legislature to micromanage issues at the local levels. Local zoning boards are going to have to grapple this issue and deal with it accordingly, and stop using the excuse of moratoriums, because they don’t have enough gumption, sense and resourcefulness to make a decision on their own. Moratoriums and extensions of these moratoriums are just a nice way to say: “we don’t know what to do, and are scared to make a decision.”

 

House Bill No. 4834

 

Having and placing pictures on the patient and caregiver registry identification cards that are issued.

 

Opinion: Sounds harmless, but ask, “WHY”. The placing of pictures on the identification cards accomplishes nothing and adds an unneeded expense to the process. In the State of Michigan all persons either have a Michigan Driver’s License, a Michigan Identification Card, or a primary photo identification card. These already have a photo on it and are considered the primary source of identification. So using your primary identification card to verify that the registry ID card belongs to you isn’t unreasonable, so why have a photo?

 

We vehemently oppose any database for law enforcement. This is bad faith and it is trying to do an end run around the act where they are attempting to allow law enforcement the same data as the BHP/LARA. All that law enforcement needs to know is if the card is valid, that is it. Contact the BHP/LARA and verify if a card is active or non-active; period.

 

House Bill No. 4850

 

Opinion: Prohibiting the transfer between 2 people that are both registered and that clearly have the right of association is ridiculous, illogical, irrational, and bizarre. Prohibiting transfers between registered patients and registered caregivers is an act of re-criminalizing something that is already legal under the Act. Honestly, this bill is pointless.

 

House Bill No. 4851

 

Opinion: Its intention is to discourage, deter, and dissuade doctors from running the purported “signature mills” and “hotel clinics” to certify qualified patients. It is the State’s attempt to try and define the doctor/patient relationship in an overly obstructive manner. Politicans are attempting to define a doctor/patient relationship in the State of Michigan by placing a “checklist” on the physician. This is an egregious attempt by politicians to create a “rule book” for judges, magistrates, and prosecutors to “JUDGE” the validity of a physicians’ certification form.

 

It ignores the reality that many and most physicians will not provide a recommendation and jeopardize their medical license. If a “certification” or “hotel” doctor reviews and scrutinizes appropriate patient medical history, why should the patient be examined or treated for other conditions? Why should a patient be forced and mandated to use that doctor as a subsequent primary care doctor? The medical profession watches and polices its own, let’s keep it that way.

 

Since when does a judge, magistrate, or prosecutor get to put on their “medical” hat and determine if a physicians’ certification form is “proper” and "valid".

 

This Bill also is attempting to provide prosecution with more ammunition to now “attack” the validity of a patient’s registration card. They would be able to “question” the patient’s medical condition and try to conclude and establish if; in their minds; the medical conditions are “worthy” of the card. It is wrong for the prosecutors and judges to question medical conditions or begin to open up an issue by “questioning” the doctor who signed the certification form. Doctors should not be in the court room; period. This is an abhorrent attempt to allow “none qualified state employees” to play a supervisory role and second guess the physician. Bad and Objectionable!

 

House Bill No. 4852

 

Opinion: This is a local zoning issue; PERIOD. It’s cheap shot because local municipalities are too afraid and too worried about making their own decisions about what is in their communities’ best interest. Too timid and behaving like a “deer in headlights” they wait for “big brother” to tell them what is right and wrong so they can push the blame up the ladder. Again, local zoning issues are not a matter for the State legislature.

 

House Bill No. 4854

 

Opinion: DUH! Is it me or do I see 1st amendment violations that we now are going to outlaw a caregiver from advertising for patients?

 

We were planing on addressing the Senate Bills, but we were tired.

 

Thank you for reading our thoughts on the matter.

Edited by AlternativeSolutionsPlus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone,

 

A few of the members have asked us for our opinion on the proposed House Bills currently "in the hopper". They asked us to offer our assessment of each one. Well after careful reading and rereading we now present our opinion and interpretation. Remember, be nice, its what we feel and believe is "REALLY" happening.

 

House Bill No. 4661

 

This criminalizes any growing within 500 feet of a church, school, or day care.

 

Opinion: This is absolutely no business of the legislature. Local zoning boards are the ones that should be dealing with this issue. We are not dealing with alcohol or cigarettes; or dealing with state or federal public land. A silly attempt by legislature to micromanage issues at the local levels. Local zoning boards are going to have to grapple this issue and deal with it accordingly, and stop using the excuse of moratoriums, because they don’t have enough gumption, sense and resourcefulness to make a decision on their own. Moratoriums and extensions of these moratoriums are just a nice way to say: “we don’t know what to do, and are scared to make a decision.”

 

House Bill No. 4834

 

Having and placing pictures on the patient and caregiver registry identification cards that are issued.

 

Opinion: Sounds harmless, but ask, “WHY”. The placing of pictures on the identification cards accomplishes nothing and adds an unneeded expense to the process. In the State of Michigan all persons either have a Michigan Driver’s License, a Michigan Identification Card, or a primary photo identification card. These already have a photo on it and are considered the primary source of identification. So using your primary identification card to verify that the registry ID card belongs to you isn’t unreasonable, so why have a photo?

 

We vehemently oppose any database for law enforcement. This is bad faith and it is trying to do an end run around the act where they are attempting to allow law enforcement the same data as the BHP/LARA. All that law enforcement needs to know is if the card is valid, that is it. Contact the BHP/LARA and verify if a card is active or non-active; period.

 

House Bill No. 4850

 

Opinion: Prohibiting the transfer between 2 people that are both registered and that clearly have the right of association is ridiculous, illogical, irrational, and bizarre. Prohibiting transfers between registered patients and registered caregivers is an act of re-criminalizing something that is already legal under the Act. Honestly, this bill is pointless.

 

House Bill No. 4851

 

Opinion: Its intention is to discourage, deter, and dissuade doctors from running the purported “signature mills” and “hotel clinics” to certify qualified patients. It is the State’s attempt to try and define the doctor/patient relationship in an overly obstructive manner. Politicans are attempting to define a doctor/patient relationship in the State of Michigan by placing a “checklist” on the physician. This is an egregious attempt by politicians to create a “rule book” for judges, magistrates, and prosecutors to “JUDGE” the validity of a physicians’ certification form.

 

It ignores the reality that many and most physicians will not provide a recommendation and jeopardize their medical license. If a “certification” or “hotel” doctor reviews and scrutinizes appropriate patient medical history, why should the patient be examined or treated for other conditions? Why should a patient be forced and mandated to use that doctor as a subsequent primary care doctor? The medical profession watches and polices its own, let’s keep it that way.

 

Since when does a judge, magistrate, or prosecutor get to put on their “medical” hat and determine if a physicians’ certification form is “proper” and "valid".

 

This Bill also is attempting to provide prosecution with more ammunition to now “attack” the validity of a patient’s registration card. They would be able to “question” the patient’s medical condition and try to conclude and establish if; in their minds; the medical conditions are “worthy” of the card. It is wrong for the prosecutors and judges to question medical conditions or begin to open up an issue by “questioning” the doctor who signed the certification form. Doctors should not be in the court room; period. This is an abhorrent attempt to allow “none qualified state employees” to play a supervisory role and second guess the physician. Bad and Objectionable!

 

House Bill No. 4852

 

Opinion: This is a local zoning issue; PERIOD. It’s cheap shot because local municipalities are too afraid and too worried about making their own decisions about what is in their communities’ best interest. Too timid and behaving like a “deer in headlights” they wait for “big brother” to tell them what is right and wrong so they can push the blame up the ladder. Again, local zoning issues are not a matter for the State legislature.

 

House Bill No. 4854

 

Opinion: DUH! Is it me or do I see 1st amendment violations that we now are going to outlaw a caregiver from advertising for patients?

 

We were planing on addressing the Senate Bills, but we were tired.

 

Thank you for reading our thoughts on the matter.

 

 

Im so very sorry!

 

The first two questions led me to skip the rest of the questions,,,I refuse to answer any questions that are trying to invoke negative responses!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im so very sorry!

 

The first two questions led me to skip the rest of the questions,,,I refuse to answer any questions that are trying to invoke negative responses!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

 

k I will reply to my own here!

 

lets say im in chronic pain,,and a friend of mine also has chronic pain,,I get methadone for my pain,,,he gets morphine patches for his,,,we are visiting each other,,,so I try his meds to see how they work for me,,and he trys some of my meds to see if they work for him!

 

Is that the way medicine is treated in todays society?

 

I know there is a big diff between mm and prescriptions,,and no i see no prob with pts sharing or trying other pt's meds,,,but do we need to broad cast it,,,that is what keeps the people against us against us!

 

Does this make sense to anyone besides me?

 

I been using weed all of my life,,so im not against it by no means,,,but it is a medicine in mi now!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

No broadcasting, just explaining that the House Bill 4850 being proposed in the legislature is attempting to make it "Illegal". This particular House Bill wants to criminalize patient to patient transfers...see the attached file for an explanation and read what they are trying to do.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(etva5nbeevag41jmjnep1be3))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-HB-4850

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation

14 for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient

15 in the medical use of marihuana. TO WHOM HE OR SHE IS CONNECTED

16 THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S REGISTRATION PROCESS. Any such

17 compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled

18 substances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(l) A HOLDER OF A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS INELIGIBLE TO

17 ASSERT A DEFENSE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN A

18 PROSECUTION UNDER THIS OR ANY OTHER LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

19 PERMANENTLY REVOKE THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IF THE

20 INDIVIDUAL DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

21 (1) TRANSFERS MARIHUANA, IF THE TRANSFEROR IS NOT THE PRIMARY

22 CAREGIVER FOR THE TRANSFEREE AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR

23 THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

24 (2) ACQUIRES MARIHUANA FROM A TRANSFEROR WHO IS NOT THE

25 INDIVIDUAL'S PRIMARY CAREGIVER AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR

26 THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No broadcasting, just explaining that the House Bill 4850 being proposed in the legislature is attempting to make it "Illegal". This particular House Bill wants to criminalize patient to patient transfers...see the attached file for an explanation and read what they are trying to do.

 

http://www.legislatu...vag41jmjnep1be3))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-HB-4850

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation

14 for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient

15 in the medical use of marihuana. TO WHOM HE OR SHE IS CONNECTED

16 THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S REGISTRATION PROCESS. Any such

17 compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled

18 substances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(l) A HOLDER OF A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS INELIGIBLE TO

17 ASSERT A DEFENSE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN A

18 PROSECUTION UNDER THIS OR ANY OTHER LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

19 PERMANENTLY REVOKE THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IF THE

20 INDIVIDUAL DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

21 (1) TRANSFERS MARIHUANA, IF THE TRANSFEROR IS NOT THE PRIMARY

22 CAREGIVER FOR THE TRANSFEREE AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR

23 THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

24 (2) ACQUIRES MARIHUANA FROM A TRANSFEROR WHO IS NOT THE

25 INDIVIDUAL'S PRIMARY CAREGIVER AS DESIGNATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR

26 THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.

 

 

you can thank all the dispenses and money grubbing people who have used this law to profit ilegaly! If not for dispensarrys we would not be having this problem,,,I dont see anything wrong with the pt/c.g as it is,,,I see no where in the law where it says I can openly share my mm with another pt,,(im a pt with a c.g) I do see in the law where i can grow it myself or assign a c.g to grow and get me my medication,,no where does it say my neighbor who is a pt can supply me with what i need!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

edit= and that is the biggest problem,,,if it isnt in the law. some think its legal and some think it is ilegal,,

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

k I will reply to my own here!lets say im in chronic pain,,and a friend of mine also has chronic pain,,I get methadone for my pain,,,he gets morphine patches for his,,,we are visiting each other,,,so I try his meds to see how they work for me,,and he trys some of my meds to see if they work for him!Is that the way medicine is treated in todays society?I know there is a big diff between mm and prescriptions,,and no i see no prob with pts sharing or trying other pt's meds,,,but do we need to broad cast it,,,that is what keeps the people against us against us!Does this make sense to anyone besides me?I been using weed all of my life,,so im not against it by no means,,,but it is a medicine in mi now!PeaceFTWJim

 

That argument doesn't even come close to relating to this situation. Using your example each person has a pain medication that is easily attainable from a pharmacy and if one method doesn't perform well then the Dr. can easily switch the meds. When it comes to Medical Marijuana, there is no official place or source to get it. If one strain doesn't relieve pain to a desired level we simply don't have an official channel to go through to try another.

 

So that example isn't even remotely fair because if the one person wanted to try a different pain med he can do that through a easy and official channel (AKA go ask the Dr.).

 

 

 

you can thank all the dispenses and money grubbing people who have used this law to profit ilegaly! If not for dispensarrys we would not be having this problem,,,I dont see anything wrong with the pt/c.g as it is,,,I see no where in the law where it says I can openly share my mm with another pt,,(im a pt with a c.g) I do see in the law where i can grow it myself or assign a c.g to grow and get me my medication,,no where does it say my neighbor who is a pt can supply me with what i need!PeaceFTWJim edit= and that is the biggest problem,,,if it isnt in the law. some think its legal and some think it is ilegal,,

 

There are plenty of cases in where the CG fails at what he's supposed to do or provide and simply hopping around from CG to CG until you have a working system isn't practical. The law says you can posses it but in order to posses it you must obtain it. Take a look at all the other states, this is how it works in the majority. The only reason to oppose P2P is if your goal is making Medicine harder to obtain and or illeagly profit because if this were to pass it's positive thing for the underground market.

Edited by BlackMesa
Link to post
Share on other sites
House Bill No. 4661

 

This criminalizes any growing within 500 feet of a church, school, or day care.

 

Opinion: This is absolutely no business of the legislature. Local zoning boards are the ones that should be dealing with this issue. We are not dealing with alcohol or cigarettes; or dealing with state or federal public land. A silly attempt by legislature to micromanage issues at the local levels. Local zoning boards are going to have to grapple this issue and deal with it accordingly, and stop using the excuse of moratoriums, because they don’t have enough gumption, sense and resourcefulness to make a decision on their own. Moratoriums and extensions of these moratoriums are just a nice way to say: “we don’t know what to do, and are scared to make a decision.”

 

This Bill is extremely restrictive and could take away the right to grow for huge amounts of patients. I took a visit to Google maps and started to figure how much area this would effect in the city that I live in and quickly discovered that it could effect up the 70 percent of the area here, 500' is nearly a 2 city block perimeter. This criminalizes any growing and is discriminatory. I was surprised by just how much area this would effect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Bill is extremely restrictive and could take away the right to grow for huge amounts of patients. I took a visit to Google maps and started to figure how much area this would effect in the city that I live in and quickly discovered that it could effect up the 70 percent of the area here, 500' is nearly a 2 city block perimeter. This criminalizes any growing and is discriminatory. I was surprised by just how much area this would effect!

 

That is why it is important to write your representatives and use the form letter BB posted yesterday and mail it out before the new session begins. They need to hear the opposition and if everyone took a few moments out of their day to mail a letter to their senator and representative it would speak volumes. Politicians listen to the majority, or as they say "squeaky wheel always gets the oil".

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all clearly opposed to these bills. But prudent planning requires that in addition to an organized response to defeat their passage, we must be prepared with contingencies if any or all pass. While I certainly don't want to suggest that a negative outcome is probable, what are we going to do if one occurs to protect our rights, protect the movement/Act, and meet the muster of the new laws?

 

Example...

 

HB 4850 actually does three things beyond simply banning the transfer of medication between patients that are not registered formally as caregiver and designated patient.

 

In addition, IF a transfer does occur between two individuals that possess MMMR cards those cards will be REVOKED for both the transferring patient and the receiving patient, and once the card is revoked as a result of the transfer, both will be treated as unregistered users and subject to prosecution without the defense of the MMMA.

 

Clearly, the intent of the bill is to revoke and prosecute any patient that steps out of the strict caregiver to designated patient mold. The result is the end of farmers markets, dispensaries and anything that does not confine itself to the caregiver/designated patient system.

 

What are we to do to comply if this passes?

 

Clearly the entire framework of our action plan must be centered on the caregiver/designated patient framework. Dispensaries and other organizations should start work now on developing networks of patients organized around growers. My thoughts are as follows but subject to legal and community review.

 

One grower with 5 patients can grow 72 plants. Even with good crop planning, rotation, etc, this number is very capable of exceeding the needs of those 5 patients, either requiring extensive processing into more refined products such as oils/medibles/etc, destruction of excess or reduction in the number of plants grown. Storage capacity is limited to 15 oz for the grow and 12.5 oz for all 5 patients. No single harvest should exceed 30 oz of usable meds.

 

If each of the 5 patients was in turn a non-growing caregiver for 5 additional patients, instead of being able to store 2.5 oz at any time just for themselves, they would be able to store 15 oz for themselves and their 5 patients, capacity which could be transferred down from the main grower. Thus the storage capacity of the 'tree' is 15 for the grower, 75 for the 5 patient/caregivers, plus over 60 for the 25 patients under the 5 cg/pts in the second tier. Medication would be transferred from the grower to each patient in 2.5 oz increments, then be split to that patient/cg's 5 patients in 1/2 oz increments until the entire crop is absorbed.

 

The ability of the grower to combine with 4 other growers under an 'uber caregiver' would allow them to have access to backup crop in the event of a failure, as well as more specialty strains. The key to this system is to have strict caregiver to designated patient transfers, storage capacity, backup and the ability to expand production to match consumption. Poke a hole in that Bill.

 

While this is not the only approach we can take in the event we get a bad outcome with this bill, it is designed to start a thought process and a discussion. It is easy to condemn a possibility, it is hard to plan for one. We need to start and consider the possibility so we are prepared.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all clearly opposed to these bills. But prudent planning requires that in addition to an organized response to defeat their passage, we must be prepared with contingencies if any or all pass. While I certainly don't want to suggest that a negative outcome is probable, what are we going to do if one occurs to protect our rights, protect the movement/Act, and meet the muster of the new laws?

 

Example...

 

HB 4850 actually does three things beyond simply banning the transfer of medication between patients that are not registered formally as caregiver and designated patient.

 

In addition, IF a transfer does occur between two individuals that possess MMMR cards those cards will be REVOKED for both the transferring patient and the receiving patient, and once the card is revoked as a result of the transfer, both will be treated as unregistered users and subject to prosecution without the defense of the MMMA.

 

Clearly, the intent of the bill is to revoke and prosecute any patient that steps out of the strict caregiver to designated patient mold. The result is the end of farmers markets, dispensaries and anything that does not confine itself to the caregiver/designated patient system.

 

What are we to do to comply if this passes?

 

Clearly the entire framework of our action plan must be centered on the caregiver/designated patient framework. Dispensaries and other organizations should start work now on developing networks of patients organized around growers. My thoughts are as follows but subject to legal and community review.

 

One grower with 5 patients can grow 72 plants. Even with good crop planning, rotation, etc, this number is very capable of exceeding the needs of those 5 patients, either requiring extensive processing into more refined products such as oils/medibles/etc, destruction of excess or reduction in the number of plants grown. Storage capacity is limited to 15 oz for the grow and 12.5 oz for all 5 patients. No single harvest should exceed 30 oz of usable meds.

 

If each of the 5 patients was in turn a non-growing caregiver for 5 additional patients, instead of being able to store 2.5 oz at any time just for themselves, they would be able to store 15 oz for themselves and their 5 patients, capacity which could be transferred down from the main grower. Thus the storage capacity of the 'tree' is 15 for the grower, 75 for the 5 patient/caregivers, plus over 60 for the 25 patients under the 5 cg/pts in the second tier. Medication would be transferred from the grower to each patient in 2.5 oz increments, then be split to that patient/cg's 5 patients in 1/2 oz increments until the entire crop is absorbed.

 

The ability of the grower to combine with 4 other growers under an 'uber caregiver' would allow them to have access to backup crop in the event of a failure, as well as more specialty strains. The key to this system is to have strict caregiver to designated patient transfers, storage capacity, backup and the ability to expand production to match consumption. Poke a hole in that Bill.

 

While this is not the only approach we can take in the event we get a bad outcome with this bill, it is designed to start a thought process and a discussion. It is easy to condemn a possibility, it is hard to plan for one. We need to start and consider the possibility so we are prepared.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

Only in a perfect world Dr. Bob!

Its an awsome Idea, I beleive i have an old thread that is kinda like that idea c.g/pt to c.g/pt county to county state wide,,

 

as we have been seeing it is not the easiest thing in the world to keep a perpetual grow going,,something usualy always happens,,it is and would be nice to be connected to other c.g's thru such a chain.

 

I am in no way saying I want any of these laws to pass,,I would love to see the farm market model everywhere across the state,,in every county heck twp also!

 

There has to be a way for a c.g to be able to off set cost w/o gouging any one,,the farm market is perfect for this,,most I have seen average about 10 a gram,,which for high quality is realy not a bad price!

 

I beleive farm markets will be and are more acceptable to the towns they are in,,its just a one day event,,either once a month or once a week and its gone..where as a dipsensary with the leafs and glowing signs are always there,,I know there are some discreet dispenses out there,,,I realy dont see how a dispense can be legal either way,,If you have a business and you pay taxes, how can you pay fed taxes on something that is federaly ilegal?

 

as far as my comment about sharing meds,,I know we need each other now to find the strains that work for us! in the mean time It just dont seem ok to share medication in general. Im only thinking of the general public,,you know like your mom and dad,,my mom and dad,,my kids and there kids, our sisters and brothers,neices and nephews! people in general do not share the medications if it is a prescription,, now as far as mm pt's what we do in the privacy of our homes, well is our business and no one elses! we will find what we need in an mm strain or 10!

 

I wish it were legal period, We would not be having this discusion!

My son lives in california,,he is all for the mm law there,,but when it came to all out legalizing it, his comment to me was,,he did not want to be walking some where with his kids and have to walk thru a cloud of weed smoke from people using it freely! (personaly i found that comment to be totaly ridiculious!) I asked him how often do you walk thru a crowd of people who are smoking cigerettes? he said not often if ever,,I said so why do you think it will be any different with weed? My son smoked weed and did some experimenting before he joined the marines,,so this is a normal persons response to legalizing marijuana,,(my son is the just say no nancy reagen generation)

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in a perfect world Dr. Bob!

Its an awsome Idea, I beleive i have an old thread that is kinda like that idea c.g/pt to c.g/pt county to county state wide,,

 

as we have been seeing it is not the easiest thing in the world to keep a perpetual grow going,,something usualy always happens,,it is and would be nice to be connected to other c.g's thru such a chain.

 

I am in no way saying I want any of these laws to pass,,I would love to see the farm market model everywhere across the state,,in every county heck twp also!

 

There has to be a way for a c.g to be able to off set cost w/o gouging any one,,the farm market is perfect for this,,most I have seen average about 10 a gram,,which for high quality is realy not a bad price!

 

I beleive farm markets will be and are more acceptable to the towns they are in,,its just a one day event,,either once a month or once a week and its gone..where as a dipsensary with the leafs and glowing signs are always there,,I know there are some discreet dispenses out there,,,I realy dont see how a dispense can be legal either way,,If you have a business and you pay taxes, how can you pay fed taxes on something that is federaly ilegal?

 

as far as my comment about sharing meds,,I know we need each other now to find the strains that work for us! in the mean time It just dont seem ok to share medication in general. Im only thinking of the general public,,you know like your mom and dad,,my mom and dad,,my kids and there kids, our sisters and brothers,neices and nephews! people in general do not share the medications if it is a prescription,, now as far as mm pt's what we do in the privacy of our homes, well is our business and no one elses! we will find what we need in an mm strain or 10!

 

I wish it were legal period, We would not be having this discusion!

My son lives in california,,he is all for the mm law there,,but when it came to all out legalizing it, his comment to me was,,he did not want to be walking some where with his kids and have to walk thru a cloud of weed smoke from people using it freely! (personaly i found that comment to be totaly ridiculious!) I asked him how often do you walk thru a crowd of people who are smoking cigerettes? he said not often if ever,,I said so why do you think it will be any different with weed? My son smoked weed and did some experimenting before he joined the marines,,so this is a normal persons response to legalizing marijuana,,(my son is the just say no nancy reagen generation)

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

Jim, you are missing the point.

 

Farmers markets are not allowed if this bill passes, all involved would have their cards revoked. Again, it is not about wishing or rallying for their defeat, it is about what are we going to do if they pass. We need ideas for a plan of action, not only for this bill but for the rest of them as well. I've already planned for the 'doctor patient' bill, but there are other bills that need some thought to counter, let's look at all of them and come up with some workable ideas to keep ourselves legal if they pass.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

HB 4834

 

As noted above, this bill requires the submission of 2 photographs with the registry application. But actually reading the bill shows this interpretation to be rather superficial. Actually reading the bill shows the real danger it contains. Here it is...

 

(B) STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OFFICIALS, BUT

23 ONLY AS TO INQUIRIES MADE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES

24 AND AS TO INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHOM THE

25 OFFICERS OR OFFICIAL PROVIDES EITHER A NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH OR A

26 REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

 

This section has to do with releasing registry information. Currently as those of us following these matters know, the police have 24 hour a day verification of card status when they put the registration number into the LIENS system in their squad cars. There isn't anything wrong with this. The changes this bill suggest is to remove the requirement that the police have your registry number (ie you have presented your card in response to being found in possession of MMJ). The police currently cannot get your information without that registry number.

 

This bill will allow them to do 'name inquiries'. No longer will they have to have probable cause to check your card status (as they must have now). They can simply go to their desk tops and check if 'Joe Plumber' has a card. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps Joe has a child support warrant, or parking tickets and they are looking for an added bonus in the form of forfeiture to 'teach him a lesson' and get some cash for the policeman's ball. Maybe the might luck out and find an extra plant. Given the choice of two individuals, one with a card and another without, who do you think they will go after to get the biggest bang for their buck so to say?

 

The problem with these bills is that they generally have something that is obvious to a superficial read, something they can perhaps 'give up' to compromise- in this case a provision to submit a photo (digital camera at the certification center, you are paying for the cert, just toss in the two photos for free). But the real danger is generally more subtle and hidden unless you actually read the bill and notice the BOLD print. There is a reason it is BOLD, that is the change, and you need to look at it to see what they are trying to do. To render a useful opinion, you have to read the whole bill to the bottom...lol

 

A photo is no big deal (unless they offered to 'link it' to the DL database for 'patient ease'. We don't want those data banks linked as a modifier of some sort could be added to the DL file showing a MMJ link had been made, then the police could be alerted the patient has a card just by running their driver's license}. Politicians are very subtle, you have to put a little intuition and reasoning into finding the true meaning of the proposed changed, not just look at the first line and claim it is about adding a photo- which is pretty benign.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture issue is a red herring. Anyone who thinks this through logically knows that you can submit your MM card with your state photo id, or drivers license, and you have exactly what they are asking for ALREADY. What is even MORE ridiculous is that they can take your card, that doesn't have a picture, enter the name and birth date ON THE CARD into LEIN and get ALL your info ALREADY, INCLUDING YOUR PICTURE. I call RED HERRING!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture issue is a red herring. Anyone who thinks this through logically knows that you can submit your MM card with your state photo id, or drivers license, and you have exactly what they are asking for ALREADY. What is even MORE ridiculous is that they can take your card, that doesn't have a picture, enter the name and birth date ON THE CARD into LEIN and get ALL your info ALREADY, INCLUDING YOUR PICTURE. I call RED HERRING!

 

Clearly you actually read the bill and noticed the same thing. You are exactly right, the photo is a red herring to try and trick the uninformed. Apparently it is working because I've not seen anyone notice the name/dob inquiry yet. Like I said, you actually have to read the bill to see it and do a little higher level thinking.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, you are missing the point.

 

Farmers markets are not allowed if this bill passes, all involved would have their cards revoked. Again, it is not about wishing or rallying for their defeat, it is about what are we going to do if they pass. We need ideas for a plan of action, not only for this bill but for the rest of them as well. I've already planned for the 'doctor patient' bill, but there are other bills that need some thought to counter, let's look at all of them and come up with some workable ideas to keep ourselves legal if they pass.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

im not missing the point doc! I do realize if these bills pass the farm market will become illegal,,i dont want any of em to pass! I want the law to be left as is! but we know that prob wont happen so all I can do is hope for the best and do what i can to remain in the law!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

im not for any of these amendments or changes! im totaly for mmj for everyone of legal voting age!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you actually read the bill and noticed the same thing. You are exactly right, the photo is a red herring to try and trick the uninformed. Apparently it is working because I've not seen anyone notice the name/dob inquiry yet. Like I said, you actually have to read the bill to see it and do a little higher level thinking.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Good catch Dr. Bob! As you have stated, This is the first I've heard of the underlying goal of this bill. I'm glad you took the time to expose this for what it really is. I'm also amazed at how things like this hide in plain sight and are not easily picked up on. I am in complete agreement about discussing back up measures in case any of these pass because it is always a smart move to think 2 moves ahead and have a course of action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we went on vacation, I gave my children a puzzle, one that featured Cinderella's Castle. My 8 year old solved the puzzle, he put the pieces together, my 12 year old solved the mystery, she deduced I chose that particular puzzle to tell them we were going to Disneyland as part of our vacation.

 

There is a difference between puzzles and mysteries. Puzzles can be 'solved' with enough information- all the pieces are there, you just have to put them together. Mysteries cannot be solved with more information, you have to look at what you have and deduce what it means.

 

Looking at a proposed bill involves features of both puzzles and mysteries. The puzzle involves reading the whole bill and seeing what is different between the bill and the current law. The question is WHAT is new. The mystery involves trying to figure out WHY they are asking for the change, what does it address and what does it hope to accomplish. Using BB analogy that all these bills are designed to restrict access and hamstring the law (which is probably correct), we have to look at the changes and figure out why they want them. We then need to see what we need to do to short circuit their efforts.

 

I've discussed the doctor patient relationship issues elsewhere. To summarize the WHAT is they are demanding proper medical practices via primary care doctors in certification, the WHY is to remove the no record/no doctor mills superficially and more deeply to put all certifications back in the hands of those that refuse to write them to reduce the overall number of certifications written (thus gutting the law).

 

To short circuit it we need to get rid of the mills and adopt good medical practices- records, actual physician interaction at the time of certification, and follow up. We further need to increase the acceptance of certifications amongst the majority of primary care doctors and encourage them to write certs themselves for their own patients. To do this we need to work to have all references to marijuana removed from the CSA (allowing the states to regulate it themselves) and to make certification an 'issue on request barring sound medical reason not to' so qualified patients can get them from their primary care doctors.

 

In the event the bill passes in it's current form (either the house or senate version) I have planned to meet the challenge they present and the only result in my practice is that the substandard mills will no longer be draining off my patients. The problem for patients is that the 55 doctors that write the majority of certifications will go down to about 10, with me being one of them, which will restrict access for the patients.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

im not missing the point doc! I do realize if these bills pass the farm market will become illegal,,i dont want any of em to pass! I want the law to be left as is! but we know that prob wont happen so all I can do is hope for the best and do what i can to remain in the law!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

im not for any of these amendments or changes! im totaly for mmj for everyone of legal voting age!

 

That may be true Jim, and no offense to you. But the question asked was not 'how bad are these bills' but 'what are we going to do if they pass?'.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good catch Dr. Bob! As you have stated, This is the first I've heard of the underlying goal of this bill. I'm glad you took the time to expose this for what it really is. I'm also amazed at how things like this hide in plain sight and are not easily picked up on. I am in complete agreement about discussing back up measures in case any of these pass because it is always a smart move to think 2 moves ahead and have a course of action.

 

Dr. Bob is correct, whenever a bill is proposed you have to make sure you read, read, and then reread and examine all the what if scenarios. Remember politicians and attorneys draft all of these. Always dig into a bill for "what does it mean" long term.

Edited by AlternativeSolutionsPlus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good catch Dr. Bob! As you have stated, This is the first I've heard of the underlying goal of this bill. I'm glad you took the time to expose this for what it really is. I'm also amazed at how things like this hide in plain sight and are not easily picked up on. I am in complete agreement about discussing back up measures in case any of these pass because it is always a smart move to think 2 moves ahead and have a course of action.

 

That is the difference between doing it right and doing the minimum needed to 'skate' by. Same argument I've made about certifications in a legitimate physician run practice vs a no record/no doctor mill. Putting the effort in protects patients and short circuits the demand for the types of drastic measures these bills represent. I've said for months (going back to before Redden) that unless we tighten up our act, the state was going to proposed some 'feel good' draconian measure to remove the bad apples, and while they are at it suppress the Act to something more their suiting.

 

Dr. Bob

 

There is a difference between 'cut and pasting' the work of other people and organizations in an effort to appear 'informed' and part of the discussion, and actually paying attention to what is going on, thinking things through and having a real opinion about something beyond a superficial grunt designed to mimic a popular opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Bob is correct, whenever a bill is proposed you have to make sure you read, read, and then reread and examine all the what if scenarios. Remember politicians and attorneys draft all of these. Always dig into a bill for "what does it mean" long term.

 

Glad you see the trap you fell into, they are very tricky.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...