A Letter From Mark Ouimet

[Medcnman]

Thank you for contacting our office regarding medicinal marijuana. In 2008, the people of MI voted in favor of legalizing medicinal marijuana. Now that the people have spoken, it is the legislature's job to establish a framework for everyone to work within.

 

As chair of the Local, Intergovernmental and Regional Affairs committee, I've spoken with many different townships, cities and villages from across the state, who are looking for guidance regarding the legality of medicinal marijuana. I have also received hundreds of emails just like yours and toured facilities and dispensaries, such as Om of Medicine in Ann Arbor.

 

I appreciate you contacting me, and I will take your view into consideration when the legislation is on the floor.

 

Best,

 

Mark

 

My response....

 

You should tour a "Farmers Market". They provide quality medication for patients at quite often less than half the price found in Ann Arbor Dispensaries. Farmers Markets allow for caregivers to come together to offer any extra medication they have to patients. Often for less than half of dispensaries. No one person will ever get rich with a model such as a farmers market. Dispensaries, although a needed source for access to patients, should not be the only means available. This law was written very clearly and any proposed changes will be opposed by my self and the thousands I represent. This law, as written, has never been implemented. Therefore, it should not be changed. Instead of cities such as Ann Arbor that had the foresight to implement the law and limit the amount of dispensaries that it allows, Bill Schutte led the campaign against the people that voted to make Marijuana legal for medical consumption. He himself cited that dispensaries were a nuisance and attempted to shut every single one of them down. And he used the peoples money to do it. In turn, patients turned to caregivers with overages. They have found better quality at much lower cost to them. Many patients that have visited a dispensary and a farmers market model have shunned the dispensaries on just the cost alone. I think it would be a great opportunity for the people of Michigan to collect a small salary for offering medical marijuana to patients in need. The state and local economy would improve with small home based businesses being allowed to claim income for their efforts and taxes on that income being brought in to help our ever growing debt. Thus, distrubiting the power to everyone instead of a handfull of those looking to strictly line their pockets by owning a dispensary that would essentially cut off access to those that cant affors to pay the high price associated with the cost of running a dispensary. Another issue I hear quite often is the use of the words "Church or other house of worship" in a state proposed bill. Where is the seperation of church and state here? This is discrimination based upon geographic location that many have no controll over. Any Bill that has "church or other house of worship" should immediately be rejected. Thank you for your response. But let me reiterate the fact that any changes to our current law as it is written will be met with strong opposition from the people that voted for it. Both side to this story have not been heard. You have heard from folks such as Cannabis Peoples United. They want to remove the rights from the patients and put it in their hands. This is not a group that represents patients rights. They do not represent my views or the people that I represent. The patients. All we want is what we voted for. Nothing more. Nothing less. Impliment the law as it was written and you will find the solution. Thank you, Jason.

[Wild Bill]

Outstanding! Maybe we should all invite our congressional representatives to come see a Farmers Market and offer to buy them lunch.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Now that the people have spoken, it is the legislature's job to establish a framework for everyone to work within.

 

 

Where do they get the idea that it is their job to "fix" a clearly laid out law that was approved by an overwhelming majority? They are assuming that the voters are "too stupid" to know what they voted for? Why don't they first do some non-political polling of the voters and determine whether or not the law that was voted into effect is the law that was intended?

[purklize]

He's saying he's in favor of amending the law, as if the law was not meant to be a law, but merely an opinion expressed through legal mandate.

[Wild Bill]

Why don't they first do some non-political polling of the voters and determine whether or not the law that was voted into effect is the law that was intended?

 

Because they are not interested in what the voters think and don't care what the law says anyway.

 

This law cuts into their business and they want it done away with.