Jump to content

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Provisioning Act Hb5580 (dispensary Bill)


Recommended Posts

SFC- Key members of the Judiciary, and others, have given input and approval to this language. If it gets out of Committee, it only requires a simple majority to pass in the House. We never know anything for sure, in this process, until it actually happens and is real, but I completely disagree with the idea that this bill is DOA. There are no guarantees, for sure.

 

I hope that everyone continues to contact their Reps and ask them to vote down 4834, and to support 5580.

 

I see some issues . LIke seedlings they are not allowed to be developed enough to be sexed yet . Weight limits are less then many people require in terms of 2.5 ounces sold per patient every 10 days . This isn't recreational many of us have cancer , have very severe chronic pain , or other symtoms high doses of cannabis eases and you have to reach that therapuetic level on a individual basis . They should not hurt patients trying to enforce leakage that never is controled anyways .

 

It is not unreasonable nor unheard of to use 3 ozs of cannabis or a week for oil ( concentrates ) , medables and vaporizing when attacking cancer , detoxing off dependent meds etc . . My reading comprehension was very low tonight but I was having a difficult time trying to understand how a Farmers Market would be able to exist with this or if it could . If so the individual caregivers would be devestated by a $5000 fine and those with handicap vans would be required to do extensive modifications or what constitutes a non accessible area inside the vehicle needs to be described better . Would a cooler with a hasp and padlock be ok for instance ? Also the Feds don't need any help with language saying this Act doesn't interfere with arrest of our States citizens that is foolish language trying to appease what can't be

 

. If the Holder Memo is to be taken seriously and this is medical cannabis actdivity why not let the Federal Courts decide , you don't want to aknowledge the bill sponsors illegal activity ! . Someone did put allot of thought and time into this I am impressed . . Another thing that comes up again and again inert ingrediants in med ables need to be addressed and protected . I think it was Olin Rush of Norml that had weight charges brought against him unfairly for inert ingrediants .I haven't seen him post online much if at all lately .

 

Someday maybe we could ask the Governor to pardon or communte the sentences of those unfarily convicted and or not allowed to introduce a medical defense who were patients . Maybe if 5000 letters or more arrived at his office they would more closely consider policy towards patients . Patients need more protections especially at arrest that protect the weakest among us . Many of us would be in a desperate situation leading to unbearable suffering if we lost our normal meds ,and adaptive living routines that help us tolerate severe symptoms .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well it seems that bill has been on the back burner for some time. I find it funny that my local ordnance predates the release of this bill.

And guess what... It basically says I can not grow at home..

Dig this... basically I am kaput cause the city wants me to get a lic from them. looks like a circle jerk to me..

Why did I ever bother to " get legal? " http://amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Michigan/lincolnpark/codifiedordinancesoflincolnparkmichigan?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lincolnpark_mi

Edited by Fat Freddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, after three years of this I am amazed that many do not understand that these bills are not wish lists that we submit. They are a long slow process purposely watered down with the hope they can pass. I hope Jamie is right and the bill has a chance but I would gladly place a wager with you Jamie that it won't. The republicans are not going to go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here

lol, after three years of this I am amazed that many do not understand that these bills are not wish lists that we submit. They are a long slow process purposely watered down with the hope they can pass. I hope Jamie is right and the bill has a chance but I would gladly place a wager with you Jamie that it won't. The republicans are not going to go for it.

 

Oh Really? care to share any of those submissions over the last 3 yrs yet?

 

Didnt think so.

 

a meager 10,000.00 bet right?

Edited by Timmahh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFC- 5580 definitely has a chance in the House. I will not guaranty anything, but I am familiar with the climate and level of support of this bill. Of course, I have a particular slant and there are naysayers, some of whom are Representatives themselves. However, the bill was just introduced, and starts out with a lot of support from key people, and has a process to go through. This bill will continue to be worked on and lobbied for.

 

As the process continues, we will be better able to evaluate where it stands. As of right now, however, the bill looks good in committee and in the House. If this continues and we move past this point, the challenges get harder, but the dominoes can fall the right way. People should be contacting their Reps and using 5580 as an example of helping to functionally carry out the spirit and intent of the Act, as opposed to 4834 and other bils that would make the Act more restrictive and prohibitive.

 

It is ok to be skeptical of the potential support and viability of the bill, I am just glad to have correspondence when it is actually understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is our state legislature wasting time with something that is so obviously against federal policy? They are a box of rocks. Don't even have any pointy edges. Dumb and dumber.

 

No wonder the feds had to slap up some states. They just don't listen. What part of "No Large Commercial Grows" don't they understand. And don't give me that, "We will police ourselves and keep the counts down". That is the joke of the week. If this passes you can expect grows with thousands of plants, then the feds, then the bad press. Unhappily we roll around.

 

Someone needs to point these dispensary folks in the right direction. They are talking to the wrong legislature, federal FIRST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here

 

Oh Really? care to share any of those submissions over the last 3 yrs yet?

 

Didnt think so.

 

a meager 10,000.00 bet right?

 

Timmahh,

 

I am a little fuzzy on all the history, but if as I recall, the language parallels the dispensary language of the MPP and the language submitted by the MMMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly, highly doubt, that given the Federal climate, that any of the municipalities that choose to allow for caregivers to cultivate in a commercially zoned area, will allow for anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a 1000 plants. That is absurd.

 

Any individual caregiver who would participate in such a large garden, would be foolish to do so, even if the municipality allowed for it.

 

Many municipalities will focus more on distribution and testing, but those who incorporate cultivation will do so in a manner that would minimize th inviting of Federal agents, I would assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is ok to be skeptical of the potential support and viability of the bill, I am just glad to have correspondence when it is actually understood.

 

I think we understand it quite well, we do not need someone telling us that we are too ignorant to be able to comprehend what is written in that bill. You like it but the majority of us do not, just as the majority of people of Michigan voted the act in we would vote No on this bill if it was up to the public and not just handed to the politicians to vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly, highly doubt, that given the Federal climate, that any of the municipalities that choose to allow for caregivers to cultivate in a commercially zoned area, will allow for anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a 1000 plants. That is absurd.

 

Any individual caregiver who would participate in such a large garden, would be foolish to do so, even if the municipality allowed for it.

 

Many municipalities will focus more on distribution and testing, but those who incorporate cultivation will do so in a manner that would minimize th inviting of Federal agents, I would assume.

Does that matter when other states that contemplated doing this were slapped with a memo saying they are beyond their scope? Do you actually believe that laying the onus on the locals to regulate the numbers will stop the feds?

 

My OPINION is that you best take all the chance of ANY large grows right out of the picture or you will bring the heat down on us again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in 5580 requires a massive plant count garden. Of course, if one were to be permitted, the Feds would likely take action on it.

It would be stupid for a municipality to allow for several caregivers to grow several hundred or thousands of plants in one space. It would also be foolish for an individual caregiver to participate in such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in 5580 requires a massive plant count garden. Of course, if one were to be permitted, the Feds would likely take action on it.

It would be stupid for a municipality to allow for several caregivers to grow several hundred or thousands of plants in one space. It would also be foolish for an individual caregiver to participate in such a thing.

Requires? Please.

 

Come on now. We both know that if you just worded the language different, so it says that there will be no grows by the dispensary, that the feds would leave it alone, and caregivers here would be happy. Why would you submit this commercial grow by the dispensary sanction, knowing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay before I start my rant, I object to sections.

 

2 (j) "Secure cultivation facility" means a nonresidential

building or location within a nonresidential building that is

equipped with locks or other security devices to prevent

unauthorized entry.

 

7 (2): A secure cultivation facility shall not be located on

residential property. This open the door to restricting my right to cultivate on my personal property. Not acceptable!!!

 

Define: a municipal employee, leo?

 

Section 7 (10):

A provisioning center shall not dispense more than 2.5

ounces of useable marihuana in any 10-day day period to a

registered qualifying patient, directly or through his or her

primary caregiver.....

This sets a limit to how many patients a caregiver can assist. say a care giver has 5 patients that require 1 ounce a week well 2 patients would be assisted and the other 3 left to their own means?? I think the object here is to strip a caregivers rights away in favor of commercial cultivation. Next thing will be a limit on thc content?

 

Now with that said.... I was told on this very site that there was no dispensary bill !!! :cigar:

 

 

I am beginning to think Bb was right!

I will not support any bill that infringes on my rights that I voted for!

So stuff that in ur pipe and smoke it.

No, you were told CPU didn't have a dispensary bill. Which is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resto- Take the concerns you have with the cultivation language in 5580, and let your Rep, Rep Callton, and the Judiciary know that you think it should be changed to prevent whatever your concerns are.

 

Also understand that, while many of us have worked in Lansing to educate the law makers on these issues, we do not dictate what they do. Not all community members working in Lansing, worked on a distribution model, but all community representatives were consistent on the necessity to preserve the caregiver system.

 

The main point here is that, if it does pass into law after the many hoops it must go through, it will preserve the caregiver system and help to carry out the point of the MMMA, unlike 4834 and the other bills that have been passed out of committee and do pose real threats to the MMMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resto- Take the concerns you have with the cultivation language in 5580, and let your Rep, Rep Callton, and the Judiciary know that you think it should be changed to prevent whatever your concerns are.

 

Also understand that, while many of us have worked in Lansing to educate the law makers on these issues, we do not dictate what they do. Not all community members working in Lansing, worked on a distribution model, but all community representatives were consistent on the necessity to preserve the caregiver system.

 

The main point here is that, if it does pass into law after the many hoops it must go through, it will preserve the caregiver system and help to carry out the point of the MMMA, unlike 4834 and the other bills that have been passed out of committee and do pose real threats to the MMMA.

Maybe you missed the question;

Why did you submit language that allows for large commercial grows when you know that it is what most of us patients and caregivers, and the feds, don't want? Please answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of people speaking out on 5580 are those who have concerns based on not fully comprehending what it says, in my opinion. I highly doubt that the "majority" would be against something like this. If so, I absolutely guarantee, many people such as the CPU reps here, would be blasting it and specifically spelling out what the issues are.

 

As it stands, 5580 may get challenged on whether it redefines the Act and changes it, so it would require a super as opposed to a simple majority, and some questions as to it's expected support in Committee or on the floor by enough Republicans to get it through. There is nothing in it that works to change the MMMA or circumvent the caregiver system. We would not be supporting it if it were to undermine the caregiver system or the MMMA.

 

I will continue to try and shed light on new questions or concerns, if I can. Otherwise, I continue to recommend joining the process and having your concerns heard by the people who can address them. I also continue to urge those who find issues with 5580 to continue to digest what it actually says. Mainly, for right now, I encourage people to continue making it clear to your own Reps, to vote NO on 4834.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of people speaking out on 5580 are those who have concerns based on not fully comprehending what it says, in my opinion. I highly doubt that the "majority" would be against something like this. If so, I absolutely guarantee, many people such as the CPU reps here, would be blasting it and specifically spelling out what the issues are.

 

As it stands, 5580 may get challenged on whether it redefines the Act and changes it, so it would require a super as opposed to a simple majority, and some questions as to it's expected support in Committee or on the floor by enough Republicans to get it through. There is nothing in it that works to change the MMMA or circumvent the caregiver system. We would not be supporting it if it were to undermine the caregiver system or the MMMA.

 

I will continue to try and shed light on new questions or concerns, if I can. Otherwise, I continue to recommend joining the process and having your concerns heard by the people who can address them. I also continue to urge those who find issues with 5580 to continue to digest what it actually says. Mainly, for right now, I encourage people to continue making it clear to your own Reps, to vote NO on 4834.

I fully understand what it says. It allows for large commercial grows. That is plain in black and white. Your group submitted language that plainly sanctions large commercial grows, after we asked you not to do that. We made it perfectly clear we don't want those and you submitted language that allows those anyway. After all we have been through, with the bashing of the caregivers by dispensary advocates in the past, why would you breach our trust again like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of people speaking out on 5580 are those who have concerns based on not fully comprehending what it says, in my opinion. I highly doubt that the "majority" would be against something like this.

 

This bill as written is not a good idea. If some of the language was changed it would be a good bill, IMO. As it stands no one who reads this and comprehends it, as we all seem to you just don't seem to see that Jamie, would be for it unless the wording was changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

restlesslegs- Go through the bill, determine revisions and amendments that will help to satisfy your concerns and submit them to your Rep, to Rep Callton and to the Judiciary. You have a voice in the process, and you and Resto should use it.

 

The reality is that 5580 does not provide for anything that would infringe on the existing caregiver system. In fact, it works in conjunction with the existing caregiver system and does not change the MMMA at all- this is why it only requires a simple majority vote to pass.

 

Regardless, you have every right in the world to express your concerns, within the process, to the people who can consider your concerns and make appropriate changes,if they agree. If they make changes based on your recommendations, the new version is what we will roll with. The key will be to always preserve the caregiver system.

 

I also think that the main focus, right now, should be to thwart 4834 and the bills that are restrictive and prohibitive.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

restlesslegs- Go through the bill, determine revisions and amendments that will help to satisfy your concerns and submit them to your Rep, to Rep Callton and to the Judiciary. You have a voice in the process, and you and Resto should use it.

 

The reality is that 5580 does not provide for anything that would infringe on the existing caregiver system. In fact, it works in conjunction with the existing caregiver system and does not change the MMMA at all- this is why it only requires a simple majority vote to pass.

 

Regardless, you have every right in the world to express your concerns, within the process, to the people who can consider your concerns and make appropriate changes,if they agree. If they make changes based on your recommendations, the new version is what we will roll with. The key will be to always preserve the caregiver system.

 

I also think that the main focus, right now, should be to thwart 4834 and the bills that are restrictive and prohibitive.

To preserve the caregiver system, we specifically asked you NOT to sanction commercial grows that hurt the caregiver system, when you went for dispensary legalization. You even said in the 'MACC COMING CLEAN' thread that you were not doing that. You blew us off again. Plain and simple. Said one thing and went for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do these commercial grows hurt the caregiver system? They are only for supplying the dispensaries which are outside of the current patient/caregiver system. As a matter of fact, how does this effect patients or caregivers in any way other that giving an additional avenue for sale or purchase.

 

I don't see where this bill would take anything from anyone.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...