Jump to content

How They Operate?


Recommended Posts

Seems like they are looking into how to prosecute or cause each dispensary to self incriminate?

 

It doesn't sound good . I imagine Lawnet would get any answers . Strange as they just licensed 10 dispensaries . Every one of them just wants to know what rules to follow per the Cities Medical Cannabis law of 2004 . The 2008 Act clearly names a primary caregiver for plant counts alluding to a secondary relationship to fill the needs of out of state , new patients and those whom need legal emergency meds to keep a non interupted supply .

 

The whole point of the Law was to prevent patient arrests not put more people in harms way to be arrested and harmed by interuptions of medical care which has resulted in severe consequences and harm to patients . .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postema is behind it. City Council is about to tell him to back off. We need this creep out of here. Thank you Sabra Briere.

 

 

http://annarborchron...se-enforcement/

 

Marijuana Board Requests: Pause Enforcement

Resolution on March 5 agenda spurred by letters from city attorney By Chronicle Staff

 

February 29, 2012 at 7 pm

 

Appearing on the Ann Arbor city council’s March 5, 2012 meeting agenda is a resolution that would direct the city attorney, Stephen Postema, to “delay all enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code, until the Council amends or rejects amendments to the zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana.”

 

The resolution reflects an ongoing tension between the city’s medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office.

 

The part of the city code called out for continued enforcement in the resolution, Section 5:50.1(3), specifies the zones in the city where medical marijuana businesses may be located. From the code: “Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as C, M, RE, or ORL.” [.pdf of Section 5:50.1(3)]

 

The resolution stems from a meeting of the city’s medical marijuana licensing board on Feb. 28 that was convened in response to concerns by several dispensary owners, who have received letters, dated Feb. 24, from the city attorney’s office. The letters make specific inquiries into several aspects of the business model of dispensaries – in order to assess whether they are in compliance with Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. Compliance with the MMMA is a requirement for issuance of a medical marijuana license, and recipients of the letters have license applications pending with the city. Although the legal position of the city attorney appears to be that it’s possible for a dispensary to operate in compliance with the MMMA, no explication of what that model would entail has been set forth.

 

Among the questions being posed to all dispensaries in the letters is the following: “Does any person or entity deliver marijuana to [Dispensary Name]? If so, does [Dispensary Name] ever pay, donate, or in any way give money to the person or entity who delivers the marijuana or to anyone else? If so, to whom is the money paid, donated, or given and how much?” [.pdf of set of letters]

 

The city council resolution is sponsored on the agenda by Sabra Briere, who is the city council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. After its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, the board submitted a required report to the council with recommendations on the issuance of the first dispensary licenses and revisions to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance. The report recommends to the council that 10 dispensaries be issued licenses.

 

The city council enacted zoning and licensing regulations for medical marijuana businesses at its June 20, 2011 meeting.

 

The resolution on the council’s March 5 agenda requests that the council decide on recommendations for amendments to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance before June 18, 2012.

Edited by MightyMightyMezz
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...