The Michigan Medical Marihuana Provisioning Act Hb5580 (dispensary Bill)

[Tyin'Flies]

For ONE thing; It put dispensaries in the hands of local municipalities to run as they see fit. That is a recipe for disaster. I have been studying for decades how municipalities mess things up. I don't want them in my medical cannabis rules.

 

There was CULTIVATION language in there, and INSPECTION language in there. There was all kinds of extra stuff that helped nothing and left a lot of room for creative interpretation.

 

Yes I seen all of that, and in reading it through I didn't find it to be nearly as threatening as you have. I agree that a huge cultivation by a provisioning center would be bad, mostly for them with the Federal gov. But that should be up to the owner or whomever decides to open one right?

 

Inspection IS going to happen, it happens in alot of businesses, so why would that be an issue?

 

can you show me your study?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Tyin'Flies

[Restorium2]

Point of view;

 

Let the municipalities have the same controls as they have over a Rite Aid. Oh, you don't have to write anything then? Yup. There you go. You just lost 3/4 of the document, and most of the chances for trouble FROM municipalities.

 

They can't have more than 72 plants and pass the fed sniff test so why even mention it? There goes another wad of bad rules. You see what we have left.

[restlesslegs]

I don't like the bills and I do believe that the act was never implemented in the eyes of the law as it was written. Proof of that is all over and it is destroying life's. At this point we have seen how the bills are marked up and if how we say it or try to change it is in the heat of the moment nothing we say or do will be taken seriously. It is unfortunate that a lot of politicians do not work for us they change things that they feel suit the people needs but most of the time it only suits them. We will be doing ourselves an injustice if we do not try to change this on a level they would be willing to listen to and is more acceptable to them. If we get cocky and stick our heels in the ground we are going to lose and nothing will change. We have to work together on this and not let our emotions get in the way.

[Tyin'Flies]

Hmmm, not sure I follow your point there Rest. You're right, Rite Aid isn't a provisioning center and it will be treated differently. But as we all know, they WILL NOT give mmj the same freedoms that pharmacies have.

 

As far as the Pc's having their own grow, shouldn't the weight of worry be put on the owner and not just neglected from the bill?

 

Or is it that you are just so against a PC having it's own cultivation center that you would rather just not see it included at all in the bill?

 

hopefully you don't feel I'm trolling or being sarcastic, not at all Rest. I'm just trying to get an understanding from your point of view

Edited May 10, 2012 by Tyin'Flies

[Restorium2]

Hmmm, not sure I follow your point there Rest. You're right, Rite Aid isn't a provisioning center and it will be treated differently. But as we all know, they WILL NOT give mmj the same freedoms that pharmacies have.

 

As far as the Pc's having their own grow, shouldn't the weight of worry be put on the owner and not just neglected from the bill?

 

Or is it that you are just so against a PC having it's own cultivation center that you would rather just not see it included at all in the bill?

 

hopefully you don't feel I'm trolling or being sarcastic, not at all Rest. I'm just trying to get an understanding from your point of view

hmm?

Why does a dispensary have to be treated differently than a Rite Aid?(as far as a municipality is concerned)

 

NO. Cultivation has been a non option for dispensaries ever since we learned about the 72 plant count. Like a couple years or more now. Are you arguing the 72 plant ceiling rule?

 

Why don't you just explain who you are, a patient or what. What you want to use the dispensary for. Then see if the rules cover that for you. Let's be practical, not verbose.

[Tyin'Flies]

hmm?

Why does a dispensary have to be treated differently than a Rite Aid?(as far as a municipality is concerned)

 

NO. Cultivation has been a non option for dispensaries ever since we learned about the 72 plant count. Like a couple years or more now. Are you arguing the 72 plant ceiling rule?

 

Why don't you just explain who you are, a patient or what. What you want to use the dispensary for. Then see if the rules cover that for you. Let's be practical, not verbose.

 

It will be treated different because of the stigma that goes with the word Marihuana.

 

No, i do not argue the ceiling of plant count. But is it YOUR decision to make or the owner of the PC's.

 

As for me Rest, I'm both a patient and Caregiver.

[Restorium2]

It will be treated different because of the stigma that goes with the word Marihuana.

 

No, i do not argue the ceiling of plant count. But is it YOUR decision to make or the owner of the PC's.

 

As for me Rest, I'm both a patient and Caregiver.

You perpetuate the stigma and legitimize it with state law then?

 

The decision has been made above my pay grade about the plant growing situation. You are not going to change that with dispensary language. It would have nothing to offer but confusion, our worst enemy.

 

And in your daily duties as a caregiver, does the wording I have left cover you? Or would you like to add something to help you serve Michigan Patients better?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Restorium2

[Tyin'Flies]

You perpetuate the stigma and legitimize it with state law then?

 

The decision has been made above my pay grade about the plant growing situation. You are not going to change that with dispensary language. It would have nothing to offer but confusion, our worst enemy.

 

And in you daily duties as a caregiver, does the wording I have left cover you? Or would you like to add something to help you serve Michigan Patients better?

 

I don't perpetuate, simply stating what it is.

 

Sure it does! You left plenty in there for me and my patients. Thanks so much rest.

 

My point being Rest, as someone who's dealt with the state on inspections for compliance (not pertaining to mmj) there isn't anything in this bill that would scare me or for one minute make me think it's bad.

 

i would only say that, there isn't as much there to be scared of as you would have everyone think.

[Restorium2]

I didn't say YOU perpetuate it. I said that you can make laws that do. Not good.

 

I'm glad it is still workable for you after all that has been cut. That's a great thing.

 

Since you are someone who knows about state inspections, you also know there are plenty of rules already. We don't need more.

 

Scared? No. Just a big mess that needs to be cleaned up.

 

" I would have everyone think?" You seem to want to point to my motives? Fill me in then. What does resto want?

[Tyin'Flies]

I didn't say YOU perpetuate it. I said that you can make laws that do. Not good.

 

I'm glad it is still workable for you after all that has been cut. That's a great thing.

 

Since you are someone who knows about state inspections, you also know there are plenty of rules already. We don't need more.

 

Scared? No. Just a big mess that needs to be cleaned up.

 

" I would have everyone think?" You seem to want to point to my motives? Fill me in then. What does resto want?

 

 

LOL Rest, I'm not trying to call you out on anything or any motives. BUT.... spouting out how the Bill would "bite us" because of the municipality wording is just silly to me.

[Restorium2]

LOL Rest, I'm not trying to call you out on anything or any motives. BUT.... spouting out how the Bill would "bite us" because of the municipality wording is just silly to me.

Then you simply don't understand the concept. That's fine, no need to belittle by calling my ideas silly and spouting. I see where you are coming from.

[Tyin'Flies]

guess not

[Restorium2]

No guessing about it now.

[Fat Freddy]

Tyinflies, our concern is that if a provisioning center is cultivating 72 plants, where is room for the caregiver's overages?

This issue brings to mind several questions that I will not pose at this time. But I advise extreme caution keeping in mind weights and measures.

Enough said?

[Tyin'Flies]

Tyinflies, our concern is that if a provisioning center is cultivating 72 plants, where is room for the caregiver's overages?

This issue brings to mind several questions that I will not pose at this time. But I advise extreme caution keeping in mind weights and measures.

Enough said?

 

sure!

[Restorium2]

Even worse FF. When I asked Jamie, the dispensary person, about this, he denied the dispensary even wants to grow plants. He said it was for us. He said we can grow numerous 72 plant crops in his warehouse connected with the dispensary. He said it, I didn't. Now, how long will that baby stay open?

[Restorium2]

Do I need to go back and copy off the post where he said that the cultivation would be any amount of caregivers growing in their facility? I can't believe you didn't read that. He said caregivers need an alternative place to grow when they can't do it at home and they were going to accommodate that.

[Restorium2]

All right then, we will back up a little;

 

What is your understanding as to who would be growing there?

 

And, you don't think there's any chance of abuse by municipalities with the wording?

[Restorium2]

The argument about municipality control needs to be front and center.

 

FACT:

Municipalities have tried to define dispensaries as any address with two or more caregivers at it.

 

FURTHER:

 

The wording in this bill would have municipalities inspecting all grows of two caregivers or more at the address.

 

FACT;

 

We don't want inspections of our grows and this bill has the potential to open up that can of worms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a lot more to it, but that is one very good reason to fix the municipality wording. It is extremely bothersome and will effect the Act and those using the Act.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

You have to change the title. Then it all falls neatly into place. Snip, snip, and snip.

 

Then you can add if you like.

 

What up with my title? lol That ok?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

I think it neatly exposes how different your intentions are. If you can figure out how to combine the titles rather than tossing it out, you might have something workable. Then we can figure out how to make the stuff below fit.

Following. What intentions of mine does it expose? As compared to the writer, what were their intentions? I think we are making headway.

[restlesslegs]

Wow OK I am going to get off of here and start trying to make sense of what I am hoping will work for amendments. Before I do this Rest somethings are not going to be accepted saying that I would like your input in one post of what is most important that you would like to be changed. I have a list of my own and I am going to try to put together, gathering from both sides of this "conversation" to what might work. Then maybe we can hash that over a bit and see if we can come up with a plan of how it should be written. Does that sound OK?

 

Edit if you all don't' mind can you put in one post, this is getting so confusing, what you think is acceptable and things you know will not be likely to change that must stay in. Thank you

Edited May 10, 2012 by restlesslegs

[+Malamute]

Don't allow cities and townships to alter rules or the standards for a dispensary. Only allow them to either allow or forbid a dispensary. If you let them get their goofy fingers all over it, who knows what will happen. Either Yes diapensaries or no dispensaries by the guidelines set forth in the law.

 

Anyhow, the language you are reading in this introduced bill will be nothing like it is written now if it were to ever pass. It will likely get shredded. The bad part? There is absolutely no chance they will make it "better" over the course. They will only make it "worse".

 

So, this is as good as it gets, it is all downhill from here.

[Restorium2]

I thought that was clear. I didn't remove any sales protections at all.

 

 

Municipalities already know what they can and can't regulate. They do it every day already. They would like to have more leverage. But that just leads to crooked municipalities.That wording feeds the beast.

[Restorium2]

Don't allow cities and townships to alter rules or the standards for a dispensary. Only allow them to either allow or forbid a dispensary. If you let them get their goofy fingers all over it, who knows what will happen. Either Yes diapensaries or no dispensaries by the guidelines set forth in the law.

 

Anyhow, the language you are reading in this introduced bill will be nothing like it is written now if it were to ever pass. It will likely get shredded. The bad part? There is absolutely no chance they will make it "better" over the course. They will only make it "worse".

 

So, this is as good as it gets, it is all downhill from here.

BOOM! We reached this idea independently.