Mma Does Not Protect Dispensaries

[Dr. Bob]

I agree that we were done a disservice. However, I disagree with the remainder of your statement. It seems that most so called caregivers think that they are going to make a million bucks or something for just a little bit of work. (Unless you were running a dispensary or something and you were making the bucks off of the hard work of others). It does not work that way. If you work hard, you get paid. I don't find any problem providing a consistant supply to all of my patients, and also do not have any issues with overages.

 

I do agree that it would be difficult for a newbie, but not impossible. It does not take an expert grower, it takes a grower with some experience. How is someone even going to get experience if they don't even try to begin with?

 

As for overages, I can easily convert a pound of overage into two ounces of oil in a few hours.

 

I am for patients having the most possible options. I have nothing against that at all. What is so bad about caregivers having to do a good job?

 

Excellent point and good advice right now. Turn the excess in to oil to keep the weight down, especially if you were growing for overages to sell to dispensaries. The last thing we need is a rash of arrests for weight because the market disappeared. Plan the next crop, but deal with what you have now so that it doesn't go to waste.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

These are the facts The law as was written has holes you can drive a truck through. It lacks clarity in terms of what is allowed or disallowed. It has no teeth as to what happens to those who break the law as contained within the act. If there was a penalty of lets say 5k for every illegal action to be paid for by the individual who makes an illegal arrest and to their department then there would be reluctance. It needs to be rewritten. It does not cover lots of things. As I told bb once if we don;t change the law then those who oppose us will change it against our interests. Well there are 8 bills that are restrictive against this law in the wings. How many are out there that broaden in for the benefit of patients? It is not bullet proof. Hence the problems we have been seeing.

 

All us non lawyers can have an uneducated opinion but unless you improve the law based on reality, then things are likely to get worse.

 

You may be suffering from a misconception.

 

This law was written to keep people out of jail. Not put them in jail.

It's purpose is to protect people from an abusive government.

 

If you consider it again, you might notice that it is a very broad protection for the citizens of Michigan.

The amount of protection is what bothers these officials.

 

They want changes that make it easier to arrest patients.

[wingnut]

The medical marijuana industry is a hugely profitable one. Unfortunately, the wrong people are the ones profiting. Not only that, but the industry is having a negative impact on a number of industries which depend upon prohibition to feed their bottom line. Can’t let that happen! These folks have lobbyists with the money to guarantee the elite can own solid gold umbrella stands instead of those tacky gold-plated ones!

 

Okay, I can hear you now. The Wingnut has finally dropped off the deep end. Perhaps so.

 

I think the bottom line is this: Enjoy whatever freedom you can find, and when Big Brother cuts too deep, do what you can to protect yourself and your loved ones.

And, when BB throws you a bone, be grateful. It doesn’t happen often, and he can always take it back. It ain’t getting any better, folks.

[peanutbutter]

You may be suffering from a misconception.

 

This law was written to keep people out of jail. Not put them in jail.

It's purpose is to protect people from an abusive government.

 

If you consider it again, you might notice that it is a very broad protection for the citizens of Michigan.

The amount of protection is what bothers these officials.

 

They want changes that make it easier to arrest patients.

 

In fact we do need to strengthen our law.

 

There needs to be included a twenty five year penalty for any government official that breaks it.

[Hempcheff]

How about an out of state patient that is here to visit for 4-5 days that doesnt bring his medicine accross state lines? If That patient status has the force as a michigan patient, then that patient is not allowed to get medicine while in michigan from anyone, period, under the current ruling....

 

I am not sure you are safe unless the patient is associated with you via the registry. My advice is not to transfer to anyone other than your own patients. I just have a sense of disaster about farmers markets and any other form of transfer outside of caregiver/designated patient.

 

As for rescheduling, I am not sure that is a good idea. Other than removing it from the schedule completely, I believe we may have problems if it is rescheduled to 2-5. My reasoning behind this is that a schedule 2 must be prescribed by a physician, filled at a pharmacy according to the dosing instructions and amounts. You cannot transfer a schedule 2 narcotic to another person, registry related or not without a potential fight in court. Nor can you grow vicodin in your basement.

 

Rescheduling only serves one purpose, to provide evidence for the eventual rescheduling and/or removal of marijuana from the CSA on the Federal level. That is the up side of the situation.

 

Dr. Bob

[AlternativeSolutionsPlus]

How about an out of state patient that is here to visit for 4-5 days that doesnt bring his medicine accross state lines? If That patient status has the force as a michigan patient, then that patient is not allowed to get medicine while in michigan from anyone, period, under the current ruling....

 

Good point I completely failed to recognize that issue.

[Dr. Bob]

There are so many issues that come to mind. Knowing what they are and how each ruling impacts them requires careful study and understanding of both the Act and the rulings. This is a community and a legal environment that requires more than superficial understanding of the Act and just doing the minimum you can get away with. We have understand very careful what is expected of us, how those that are opposing us will try and attack us, and how we are going to counter those attacks.

 

Case in point is the Redden decision. We all read the law- some careful with an eye toward protecting themselves and their patients, some just to see how they could skate by. Then the COA O'Connell concurring decision came out. Those of us at the forefront of the movement went beyond the minimums, rather than saying a 'concurring opinion' carried no weight, we took it as their play book and anticipated we would see it again. We changed our practices and protocols to adjust. While I was already doing a bona fide relationship, I added follow up and recommended my colleagues do it as well, even going directly to patients to let them download a follow up, fill it out and send it to their certification doctors so they had some protection. Others said it wasn't required, nor were records, and merrily signed up anyone with $200 and the ability to sign a paper saying they were sick. Some even dropped the medical review completely, not even having a doctor meet with the patient at the time of certification.

 

Right now we are seeing a backlash against those practices. While on the one hand, we can say we didn't police ourselves so they are stepping in to do it for us. On the other hand, we can say we never had a chance with Bill and Co, but now they have something to go after us with. It is little wonder they are talking about Bona Fide Dr/Pt relationships, or advertising, these were listed right in the O'Connell decision last September, we didn't take notice, and now we are seeing it again just as I predicted.

 

Careful understanding of the Act keeps us from being surprised by implications of rulings. Listening to the lessons of each court ruling and an organized strategy to address the concerns of the court takes away the momentum of those that wish to destroy the Act. This is a game of skill, and we are improving every day, but so are our opponents. To win we don't have to be just as good as they are playing this game, we need to be better. That starts with taking away their objections one by one until it comes down to they just hate weed, we are left with good practices and a useful, cheap and readily available medicine that every family in Michigan knows has helped them, a relative or a friend. That is a winning position in the court of public opinion.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

There are so many issues that come to mind. Knowing what they are and how each ruling impacts them requires careful study and understanding of both the Act and the rulings. This is a community and a legal environment that requires more than superficial understanding of the Act and just doing the minimum you can get away with. We have understand very careful what is expected of us, how those that are opposing us will try and attack us, and how we are going to counter those attacks.

 

Case in point is the Redden decision. We all read the law- some careful with an eye toward protecting themselves and their patients, some just to see how they could skate by. Then the COA O'Connell concurring decision came out. Those of us at the forefront of the movement went beyond the minimums, rather than saying a 'concurring opinion' carried no weight, we took it as their play book and anticipated we would see it again. We changed our practices and protocols to adjust. While I was already doing a bona fide relationship, I added follow up and recommended my colleagues do it as well, even going directly to patients to let them download a follow up, fill it out and send it to their certification doctors so they had some protection. Others said it wasn't required, nor were records, and merrily signed up anyone with $200 and the ability to sign a paper saying they were sick. Some even dropped the medical review completely, not even having a doctor meet with the patient at the time of certification.

 

Right now we are seeing a backlash against those practices. While on the one hand, we can say we didn't police ourselves so they are stepping in to do it for us. On the other hand, we can say we never had a chance with Bill and Co, but now they have something to go after us with. It is little wonder they are talking about Bona Fide Dr/Pt relationships, or advertising, these were listed right in the O'Connell decision last September, we didn't take notice, and now we are seeing it again just as I predicted.

 

Careful understanding of the Act keeps us from being surprised by implications of rulings. Listening to the lessons of each court ruling and an organized strategy to address the concerns of the court takes away the momentum of those that wish to destroy the Act. This is a game of skill, and we are improving every day, but so are our opponents. To win we don't have to be just as good as they are playing this game, we need to be better. That starts with taking away their objections one by one until it comes down to they just hate weed, we are left with good practices and a useful, cheap and readily available medicine that every family in Michigan knows has helped them, a relative or a friend. That is a winning position in the court of public opinion.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I am not sure you are safe unless the patient is associated with you via the registry. My advice is not to transfer to anyone other than your own patients. I just have a sense of disaster about farmers markets and any other form of transfer outside of caregiver/designated patient.

 

I agre with that but like Hemp daid what about the out-of State people

and now about the

Case in point is the Redden decision i sill don't understand your feelings about us i first went to my Hip Doc then to the THC-F we both had records

 

just saying

[Dr. Bob]

I am not sure you are safe unless the patient is associated with you via the registry. My advice is not to transfer to anyone other than your own patients. I just have a sense of disaster about farmers markets and any other form of transfer outside of caregiver/designated patient.

 

I agre with that but like Hemp daid what about the out-of State people

and now about the

Case in point is the Redden decision i sill don't understand your feelings about us i first went to my Hip Doc then to the THC-F we both had records

 

just saying

 

Couple of things...

 

You are exactly correct about the caregiver-registry associated patients.

 

You misunderstand my comments about the O'Connell decision in you case. No where have I said anything other than it is merely an open copy of their playbook. That is where they tipped their hand and told us what they wanted to see. We need to understand that and learn the lesson of it and adjust our activities accordingly.

 

Let's just set the record straight with you.... I read the case carefully, including the comments about your exam. I believe Dr. E did an appropriate job reviewing your records and discussing it with you. He did not put the word 'severe' in the remarks- he just said chronic and it is chronic/severe in the Act. Stupid objection but you can bet your tail I make sure I put 'severe' any time I write chronic on a certification. I don't agree fully with the decision, but I learned from it and we all can. I have been saying that since it came out.

 

Dr. Bob

[Smiley Coyote]

You cannot be a caregiver in Michigan unless you are a patient so ALL transfer of marihuana is automatically, by definition, patient to patient transfer if it is from a caregiver at all. To say patient to patient transfer is illegal is to illegalize what the law clearly states is the only kind of transfer allowed. To go this route is to pave the way for these jokers to actually take care of their own constituents - prison contractors.

 

MMA does not endorse dispensaries but, instead, only patient to patient transfer? Dispensaries GET their meds from patients and turned them over to patients. Schuette has made it clear as has much of the state's political body that is is patient to patient transfer that is the target. Really, it is any transfer if we are going to be honest with each other.

 

Dispensaries provided a way for caregivers to reach patients and stay legal by liquidating overages and not possessing too much. It did not provide for any kind of transfer than already exists between the caregiver and patient model as set forth by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. It seems the will of the people only matters to these guys if you qualify as actual people and we all know the right has never been known to be terribly inclusive (for you right wingers who toke and grow - you are not in the majority within your demographic).

 

There IS a problem of maturity in Michigan due to the relative scarcity of marijuana to Michiganders when compared to many states and it is sorely lacking when this particular plant ends up the subject of discussion and I mean that on both sides of this issue. "Compassion" clubs popping up with names like Big Daddy's (let's not even feign legitimacy, eh?) do little to encourage our political adversaries to consider our agenda seriously.

[Restorium2]

You cannot be a caregiver in Michigan unless you are a patient so ALL transfer of marihuana is automatically, by definition, patient to patient transfer if it is from a caregiver at all. To say patient to patient transfer is illegal is to illegalize what the law clearly states is the only kind of transfer allowed. To go this route is to pave the way for these jokers to actually take care of their own constituents - prison contractors.

 

MMA does not endorse dispensaries but, instead, only patient to patient transfer? Dispensaries GET their meds from patients and turned them over to patients. Schuette has made it clear as has much of the state's political body that is is patient to patient transfer that is the target. Really, it is any transfer if we are going to be honest with each other.

 

Dispensaries provided a way for caregivers to reach patients and stay legal by liquidating overages and not possessing too much. It did not provide for any kind of transfer than already exists between the caregiver and patient model as set forth by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. It seems the will of the people only matters to these guys if you qualify as actual people and we all know the right has never been known to be terribly inclusive (for you right wingers who toke and grow - you are not in the majority within your demographic).

 

There IS a problem of maturity in Michigan due to the relative scarcity of marijuana to Michiganders when compared to many states and it is sorely lacking when this particular plant ends up the subject of discussion and I mean that on both sides of this issue. "Compassion" clubs popping up with names like Big Daddy's (let's not even feign legitimacy, eh?) do little to encourage our political adversaries to consider our agenda seriously.

You can be a caregiver in Michigan without being a patient.

 

If you want to see what the courts will attack look for the money. Anything that makes money off transfers is going to be seen as illegal by the courts. Renumeration for grow expenses will be the only money that will be allowed to change hands for transfers. That has been law enforcements plan all along. Their plan was in place before our governor signed the law.

[Morhawk]

You cannot be a caregiver in Michigan unless you are a patient

 

Dang, going to cut my plants down right now then....