Jump to content

Blueberry And Medcnman Are Headed To Lansing!


Medcnman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We had a great meeting today. The Rep. was very interested in our implementation plan that doesn't involve any changes to the ACT. In addition we presented an alternate bill to dispensaries. The Bill we sponsored utilizes cooperatives governed by the membership at the local level. Maybe if we take the money out of the debate I would get to quit hearing how caregivers are the problem. Here's what a cooperative would look like.

 

 

 

(a) “Cooperative” means an entity located in Michigan that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, and/or transports marihuana and sells, supplies, and/or dispenses marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through their registered primary caregivers. “Cooperative” includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold to qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers. A Cooperative must be Non Profit. Salaries to officers and employees must be approved by the membership. Financial results must be audited on a quarterly basis. All profits are to be returned to the membership in the form of cash payments or assistance to needy patients or caregivers. In addition by vote of the membership, distributions can be made to a non profit charity.

 

The Rep. wants us to schedule a follow up. We intend to do just that. Now it's prepare for the meeting with Rep. Walsh. Thanks, bb

 

 

 

Mornin Joe.................Thanks so much, to you and medman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a great meeting today. The Rep. was very interested in our implementation plan that doesn't involve any changes to the ACT. In addition we presented an alternate bill to dispensaries. The Bill we sponsored utilizes cooperatives governed by the membership at the local level. Maybe if we take the money out of the debate I would get to quit hearing how caregivers are the problem. Here's what a cooperative would look like.

 

 

 

(a) “Cooperative” means an entity located in Michigan that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, and/or transports marihuana and sells, supplies, and/or dispenses marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through their registered primary caregivers. “Cooperative” includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold to qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers. A Cooperative must be Non Profit. Salaries to officers and employees must be approved by the membership. Financial results must be audited on a quarterly basis. All profits are to be returned to the membership in the form of cash payments or assistance to needy patients or caregivers. In addition by vote of the membership, distributions can be made to a non profit charity.

 

The Rep. wants us to schedule a follow up. We intend to do just that. Now it's prepare for the meeting with Rep. Walsh. Thanks, bb

thankyou and to those that went with you,peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uuh. Is this not the same MMMA that wants to see no changes to the law??? Does this mean to say that you wish to have:

 

(a) “Cooperative” means an entity located in Michigan that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, and/or transports marihuana and sells, supplies, and/or dispenses marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through their registered primary caregivers. “Cooperative” includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold to qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers. A Cooperative must be Non Profit. Salaries to officers and employees must be approved by the membership. Financial results must be audited on a quarterly basis. All profits are to be returned to the membership in the form of cash payments or assistance to needy patients or caregivers. In addition by vote of the membership, distributions can be made to a non profit charity.

 

...added to the law? Am I stupid, or is that making a change?

 

BB, Those read more appropriately as by-laws for a small business or non-profit, but most certainly not as legislation. Why do you suggest this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no changes to the MMM Act. that is the Position of the 3MA. Legislation has a conundrum with distribution. The model above is the 3MA version of a fair and patient minded distrobution system. THis would be separate Legislation of its own accord, and not be part of the 08 MMM Act. This would be in addition to the Pt and Caregiver model already outlined in the MMM Act, thus opening up access to all patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gregg, I would guess that the idea is much like the MACC concept of creating a entire new act that would stand in parallel with the current MMM Act. I believe you were there at the appropriations hearing in December when Robin indicated that MACC already had the new act written and vetted by legislative services.

 

The question that comes up is can you create a distribution program without modifying the current act. This seems to be an unknown. 2 out of 3 attorneys I have met do not believe it is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His opinion on Firearm ownership for patients.

i'm a decorated combat wounded vet, i bleed for this country. Outta my cold dead hands.

they want our drivers licence too I'm told. thank god for people like you guys. give them some for me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distribution system is already here, and will not require any change. It is clearly stated that any and all patients can engage in all aspects of medical use and to provide to and acquire from each other. It is clearly stated that caregivers can provide to their patients. Some have dual status and can provide to any patient. Those with only caregiver status are permitted to provide to their five patients, but then we go back to square one. This might not be a grand and highly visible means with lotsa pomp and circumstance, but I have always considered that the law was written to provide a small cottage industry between patients, and to include caregivers when necessary, and it was my understanding that this organization shared that position.

 

Coops are not disallowed in the law. There are groups of pts and caregivers who already share resources, to include commercial space. They are not obvious because they do not have to be. You are permitted to engage in these and create the type of rules you suggest, if you can put together a consensus. In order to do that we must stand our ground and work to, as has always been agreed, refrain from any changes. This is not a peripheral suggestion, but clearly impinges on the law. The rush of legislation scheduled to come out of committee this week is a load, and simply working against it is in our best interest, without adding more to the burden. At best it is unnecessary.

 

This is just gonna burn itself out. It is nonsensical. Seems to me something that more closely resembles the Colorado model than the fittin' mitten made. Will the legislature then have to create another bureaucracy to surveille it? How has that been working out for you? You can better believe that the big heads in Lansing will use the same, worn but still very useful, methods to prevent it, in part by refusing to adequately fund it, and if they do establish or give the job to another agency, they will insist on much more restrictive regulatory and administrative language that is complicated to the point that it becomes too onerous to comply with. Then they would do just as they have done with the Department of Regulatory Affairs, viz., instructing them with a nod and a wink to ensure that the job never gets done. This is just a small sampling of the games that are played every day.

 

Legislating this is worse than awkward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distribution system is already here, and will not require any change. It is clearly stated that any and all patients can engage in all aspects of medical use and to provide to and acquire from each other. It is clearly stated that caregivers can provide to their patients. Some have dual status and can provide to any patient. Those with only caregiver status are permitted to provide to their five patients, but then we go back to square one. This might not be a grand and highly visible means with lotsa pomp and circumstance, but I have always considered that the law was written to provide a small cottage industry between patients, and to include caregivers when necessary, and it was my understanding that this organization shared that position.

 

Coops are not disallowed in the law. There are groups of pts and caregivers who already share resources, to include commercial space. They are not obvious because they do not have to be. You are permitted to engage in these and create the type of rules you suggest, if you can put together a consensus. In order to do that we must stand our ground and work to, as has always been agreed, refrain from any changes. This is not a peripheral suggestion, but clearly impinges on the law. The rush of legislation scheduled to come out of committee this week is a load, and simply working against it is in our best interest, without adding more to the burden. At best it is unnecessary.

 

This is just gonna burn itself out. It is nonsensical. Seems to me something that more closely resembles the Colorado model than the fittin' mitten made. Will the legislature then have to create another bureaucracy to surveille it? How has that been working out for you? You can better believe that the big heads in Lansing will use the same, worn but still very useful, methods to prevent it, in part by refusing to adequately fund it, and if they do establish or give the job to another agency, they will insist on much more restrictive regulatory and administrative language that is complicated to the point that it becomes too onerous to comply with. Then they would do just as they have done with the Department of Regulatory Affairs, viz., instructing them with a nod and a wink to ensure that the job never gets done. This is just a small sampling of the games that are played every day.

 

Legislating this is worse than awkward.

 

Since the court of appeals has declared patient to patient transfers are not legal, it seems like something of this nature might benefit the patients. I also thought that patient to patient was covered by the wording of the act, but unless the supreme court overturns the coa, patients can't tranfer legaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not put a lot of stock in the reps recall of facts. If you listen to the first interview of Cavanaugh on PlantGreen Trees (not sure of the date) you will hear him stating that CPU held the rally at the Capitol in September.

 

 

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgree ... l-cavanagh

 

Reference to CPU holding the rally at about 66:30

 

Link added in edit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...