Jump to content

Statement From Cpu


Recommended Posts

I was asked to deliver this message. I'm not a member of CPU.

 

 

"CPU will release a statement about who we are, what we do, and that we are nothing which Joe Cain has said we are. We are saddened by the unfortunate calumniations published about CPU, and we are heartened at what appears to be a dawning for the axiom of truth."

 

Malamute

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 381
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I certainly hope everyone can work together, we need to badly, there's too much crap going on

 

 

I am not a CPU member but I will say they are not the horrible people Joe made them out to be. I dont always agree with them on everything, but hey when do we all agree on anything? Overall I think they have done a really good job working in Lansing and they have some really great attorneys in their membership. I know the bills at hand are really frightening but I also want to point out that compared to the 8 origional bills that were presented we have come REALLY FAR! I think we need to give everyone, including CPU a lot of credit for participating in the political proccess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to say that my opinion of CPU was done on my own research, reading their own documents, etc. And I completely do not agree with them or think they are correct in their published documents. Some of their documents go so far in the opposite direction of where most people on this board say they want to go, they seem to have their own agenda, and tout themselves as being THE voice of the patients. They aren't.

 

now, having said that, I would rather have someone talking to Lansing than no one, but I don't agree with the direction they are trying to take this movement. I see it as ignorant, backward thinking and way too conservative, and they concede issues that I wouldn't concede. Why give up rights when you don't have to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opposite of most here want to go? Lets talk about that for a moment. Where we all would like to go and where we are going are two different things my friend. When Leyton lost the AG race we went on the defensive, it was the only move. Maybe you believe that everything we imagine this law to be is factual, the cases that have went down have shown us otherwise. So then we did the math for the house and senate to see how close they were to 75%. As all of you are aware they already had the senate, the senate is dominated by senators we would mostly characterize as hostile. In the house the republicans did not have the 75% but they did not need much democrat help to get there. So we put all of our eggs in the house basket. While everyone here was busy bitching about Greg Francisco we hooked up with Mary and started going to every single member of the house to see where they stood.

 

Many in the house at that time were fairly ignorant to our law, on several levels. We were there to help educate them, and it did help all of us, republican and Democrat alike. Now, we did not go in there and feed them a ration of bunny muffin, we didn't make up interpretations of the law that we would like them to be. We read it as it was, we talked about the good things MJ is doing for people, we talked about how stupid all of this hyperbole the opposition was spouting was. We asked the hard questions of them. When you pick apart what Bill Schuette is saying without acting like a raging lunatic it is not hard to discredit him. He is very powerful tho in the republican party and his influence on these bills is real. Stecker and Sauter were nothing but Schuette proxy's. You may be surprised to learn that even MSP was more willing to bend than them two.

 

So anyway Cedar, how many times has CPU reached out publicly to anyone and claimed that we are the voice of "the" patients, let alone the sole voice? Show me. Mary conducted one interview that I remember and she was fantastic. Nobody in CPU has ever wanted the spotlight, we have been able to stay engaged by not being media whores. The quickest way to get the door slammed is to run right out the door and yell bloody murder like some do.

 

Cedar why don't you point out some specifics of the re-writes we did that you have a problem with, keeping in mind their juxtaposition against the original house bills?

 

"Why give up rights when you don't have to?" What rock are you living under? What rights do we have? You see while many of you were flaming us, the same lawyers that many were quoting or going to for advice or representation were also members of guess what? We have been amazingly fortunate to have somehow convinced most of the best cannabis attorneys in the state to help us, out of their own darn pockets! Nobody was angling for a dispensary, or a farmers market or even trying to advertise for clients. We simply knew our law was in great peril and did what we could to protect it. With our minds...

 

This is not the official statement ya'll, just one members personal take. You are free to believe whatever you like.

 

Mal is working on the official statement, it is coming, but you all should know by now he shoots for darn near perfection in his words, whereas I shoot from the hip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a CPU member but I will say they are not the horrible people Joe made them out to be. I dont always agree with them on everything, but hey when do we all agree on anything? Overall I think they have done a really good job working in Lansing and they have some really great attorneys in their membership. I know the bills at hand are really frightening but I also want to point out that compared to the 8 origional bills that were presented we have come REALLY FAR! I think we need to give everyone, including CPU a lot of credit for participating in the political proccess.

 

My concern is this:

 

They are compromising with the CPU for one reason only: because they don't think their bills would pass otherwise. So, the CPU may be making the bills better, but they are still bad, and now they actually have a shot a passing because they have become more palatable to more liberal representatives in Lansing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFC, so what do you think the chances are of one of these bills passing at this point? Is it still a long shot? Or are we about to get pummeled? Do you have a list of current bills?

 

This is all really scary, I do not want to ever lose my right to use this stuff or to grow. I have nerve damage from shingles so I have physical evidence of my condition at least, but there is no way my regular doctor would certify me, he's not big on mmj for anything. I know the bona fide doctor-patient relationship bill would screw me for that reason, along with almost everyone in the program... and I know the one that requires grows not be within 500ft of a church or whatever would screw me too as I live in a city (Ann Arbor), I couldn't live anywhere inside the city limits and be far enough from a school, church, or daycare center.

 

Thank you for any answers you can provide, these are scary times. If I lose my right to use and grow I may pack my bags and leave for the West Coast.

Edited by purklize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You SFC for the post. Nobody will ever agree on everything but to accomplish the goals at hand unity is needed and long overdue. I think it would be a great idea for cpu, mmma and the other organizations to all get together lock yourselves in a room with some good meds:) ..sit down talk things over..hash out any differences and decide the best plan forward ALL working together.

 

Peace..AK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your rights as given by a law are different than what they are in front of LEO. Come out attacking and you will get attacked back though SFC...

 

And I don't care about your re-writes, as the bills had less chance to pass before as purk pointed out, now you have bills that have a much higher chance that aren't that much better. I mean in your mission statement, it says " CPU believes the law as passed by the voters is satisfactory and we do not support any effort to amend or change it in any way: We oppose any attempt to reopen the MMMA." yet you work with legislators to change it. hipocritical, instead of fighting the change, you are trying to make the change in the way you interpret the law. Maybe you need to change your mission statement instead of lieing about what you are all about...

 

The views I was speaking of were specifically old position/vision statements that I can no longer find on your site. I don't always agree with your position. But your working with the lawmakers so your position is what they think all cannabis patients want.

 

There are also lots of papers that were on the site a year or 2 ago, that are no longer there. So for me to quote and give specifics on those wouldn't do me much good as they are completely unverifiable.

 

Most of my ideas about CPU came from 2 years ago, because I believe that how you were back then, is the same as how it is now, you just put some lipstick on it so people looking into it now wouldn't get the same idea I have.

 

Now that we have that out of the way, as I stated SFC, I would rather have someone in Lansing than no one at all. I do appreciate that someone is trying to make sure the law isn't removed completely, even if I don't agree with "their" vision. However since I don't have time or resources, I will take and appreicate what someone else can fight for.

 

I think the biggest problem I have with CPU is actually the ego, and even SFC is showing it. But the whole hiding documents, having secret meetings, etc and I still question where the motivation for the leaders comes from... but every CPU member seems to have a chip on their shoulder.

 

Thanks for all you do CPU, even if it isn't my vision of the future, you are actually out there doing something about it and if I didn't like it, it is my option to go fight it as well. Which I am not, so obviously I appreciate the work you put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Cristinew and AK, I think a summit of sorts is being worked out even now. It is time for all the groups to see where the common ground is, it really is not that hard, especially now.

 

Purklize, I am not sure what the odds are right now. Too close for comfort is my guess. But hb4851 is not the one we are tripping on. We actually got them to get rid of the crazy stuff on that one. It will not have to be your primary DR, no Psychological exam, etc. It basically mirrors the LARA language. Don't quote me 100% though, I have to look at it again. Mal will be better at fielding that, and trust me he is tuned in.

 

I have a bunch more I want to add on that but please let me give Mal a chance to lay it out first. I am sure most of this stuff will be answered better by him. Again, I am a shoot from the hip kinda guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the wording different from this now?

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-4851.pdf

 

That version would destroy our law.

 

THE PHYSICIAN HAS TREATED OR CONSULTED WITH THE PATIENT

3 WITH RESPECT TO THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION FOR A

4 REASON OTHER THAN THE PATIENT'S APPLICATION OR INTENDED APPLICATION

5 FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD AND HAS MAINTAINED RECORDS OF

6 THE PATIENT'S CONDITION IN ACCORD WITH MEDICALLY ACCEPTED

7 STANDARDS.

 

That would right there eliminate 99% of certifications.

 

"Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or

7 other COMPARABLE, COMPLETELY enclosed area equipped with SECURED

8 locks or other FUNCTIONING security devices that permit access only

9 by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

Not good either. This would make it a lot easier for them to nab us for failing to secure stuff sufficiently. That language makes it sound like we'd need to start growing in gun safes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly do not know what documents have been removed. If they have been removed I am sure it was because they were no longer relevant or valid Cedar. Mal will know.

 

We have not endorsed anything yet Cedar. That is the truth. We saw the writing on paper and knew that standing there holding our breath was not going to stop them. We also knew just as you said that by trying to neuter the bills we may end up passing something that is less than desirable. So yes we are playing with fire. But after a few of them " secret" meetings lol, we decided we needed to do all we can to a) slow down the process, and b) try to limit damage to proposal one.

 

I am going to hold back again. Otherwise I am going to get on a roll and a lot of it will be educated guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you link us to current versions of all the bills that will be voted on? Thanks...

 

I think a better approach would have been to say "This bill is unacceptable because of ____" rather than "This bill is unacceptable, change ____" because the latter implies that it's now okay, that we are happy with it. A lot of liberal legislators are probably going to vote for this $&*@#$ because of that misconception unless you make it VERY clear that you still consider these bills to be VERY bad...

Edited by purklize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is this:

 

They are compromising with the CPU for one reason only: because they don't think their bills would pass otherwise. So, the CPU may be making the bills better, but they are still bad, and now they actually have a shot a passing because they have become more palatable to more liberal representatives in Lansing.

 

I say the bills had a good chance of passing either way. I am wondering could you point out to us exactly what part of each bill is bad? I obviously disagree with the FEDs having access to the registry via lean and in my opinion thats the worst one. But just wondering what the other real bad parts are? I do know they added protections for growing outside, made it so we only need to register every two years, are forcing LARA to hold qulifying condition hearings and took the card proccess away from LARA all of which I think are positives. Not saying I want them to pass just wanting specifics on the other parts that are "bad".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you link us to current versions of all the bills that will be voted on? Thanks...

 

I think a better approach would have been to say "This bill is unacceptable because of ____" rather than "This bill is unacceptable, change ____" because the latter implies that it's now okay, that we are happy with it. A lot of liberal legislators are probably going to vote for this $&*@#$ because of that misconception unless you make it VERY clear that you still consider these bills to be VERY bad...

 

http://michigancannabispatients.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3942

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the wording different from this now?

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-4851.pdf

 

That version would destroy our law.

 

 

 

That would right there eliminate 99% of certifications.

 

 

 

Not good either. This would make it a lot easier for them to nab us for failing to secure stuff sufficiently. That language makes it sound like we'd need to start growing in gun safes.

That wording was gone as of the last negotiations as far as you can tell. Here's a link to the newer language;

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(p0vlg145jpnlllmdn1lgvk45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=2011-HB-4851

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know if the ones on the michigan.gov site are up to date, but there are numerous ones that would completely gut the act. There's one that would have all our info turned over to the Michigan State Police, and they would be informed within a day or two if our card lapses - faster than we would be notified/reminded, so they could come bust us. There's a bill that would make it a felony to grow within something like 500-1000ft of any school, church, or daycare center, which is basically anywhere except the country. There's HB4851 I just mentioned, which would make it so no one could get a recommendation, as it says it has to be your regular doctor and almost all practices/hospitals in the state forbid doctors from writing recommendations. There's one that would forbid caregivers from advertising their services, which would obviously make it impossible for people to link up. There's one that would forbid us from suing any police force for raiding or harassing us illegally, which would obviously be a bonanza for the cops. There's one that would remove glaucoma from the list of qualifying conditions.

 

They are all very bad, just varying degrees... either extremely inconvenient or scary making it dangerous to grow, or nearly a repeal (HB4851).

 

I say the bills had a good chance of passing either way.

 

I sincerely doubt, even the city attorney for Livonia said a while ago that he didn't think they had a realistic chance of passing. We are best off when they are trying to ram full repeal through the legislature. That way all the reps who support mmj will vote against it. But when the bills can have the appearance of simply inconvenient or seem to have the approval of patients, these reps that would never vote for this stuff otherwise may vote for it. Look what happened in Montana. When the bill was a full repeal it got vetoed. When the bill just gutted the protections and required absurd things like physical proof of your condition, it got passed into law.

 

They are compromising with you for a reason: they need your help getting this stuff passed. They want a full repeal, so they would never compromise with you for any other reason. They are settling for less is because they know it would never pass. 3/4 almost never happens.

Edited by purklize
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...