The Michigan Medical Marihuana Provisioning Act Hb5580 (dispensary Bill)

[Restorium2]

So we have agreement on getting rid of cultivation and not giving municipalities control. I'm good then. Too bad we had to get there AFTER this screwed up wording was submitted. Next time bring it here first and KEEP IT SIMPLE.

[+Malamute]

The worst practices and guidelines will be most likely adopted and then spread throughout the state.

 

Refer to what is happening with local ordinances concerning the current medical marijuana law, then multiply by 1000.

 

Remember who will be writing these ordinances and such: Michigan Municipal league and Michigan Townships Association plus Prosecutors Association and Sheriffs association and MSP and recommendations from Bill Schuette etc.

 

Do you really want to leave it in the hands of those people?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

Well, it is easy to write it that way, impossible to pass.

 

:-)

[restlesslegs]

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.

I think this is good.

[+Malamute]

Actually, it isnt in their hands now concerning dispensaries because dispensaries arent in the current law.

 

And, anything that ties their hands will never pass, soooo we are simply speaking hypothetically which is generally useless at this point.

 

My questions center around, how will you actually get this passed? What are you willing to lose and give up to get this passed?

 

It will not pass as is, they will likely not make it any better, so what is willing to be lost to get this passed?

[restlesslegs]

So we have agreement on getting rid of cultivation and not giving municipalities control. I'm good then.

 

So if it is written allowing them to say yes or not but not change what is written you will be OK with it? To take out the part where the dispensaries can grow is a big issue so that is a given in my eyes. Anything else?

[restlesslegs]

OH ROFL I think I am talking to myself aren't I?

[Restorium2]

So if it is written allowing them to say yes or not but not change what is written you will be OK with it? To take out the part where the dispensaries can grow is a big issue so that is a given in my eyes. Anything else?

They can already zone them. They already have enough control. They shouldn't be mentioned at all. Just like cultivation.

[+Malamute]

Please don't think I am questioning your strategery, but I am not quite sure you know enough about the current status of this bill to say those things for sure.

 

I can respect your thought on it, but i would call you foolish to not think this bill will get worse if it wants to pass. :-)

 

I have heard the bill is dead unless it changes dramaticly.

 

*shrug*

 

We shall see.

[Restorium2]

What are you willing to lose and give up to get this passed?

 

That just makes me mad. Sold out by dispensary language. Who would have thunk it?

[+Malamute]

Noone has been sold out yet.

[jamieuke]

 

 

Please don't think I am questioning your strategery, but I am not quite sure you know enough about the current status of this bill to say those things for sure.

 

It would be naive to not consider the current climate in the legislature and the fact that they will be considering their first truly patient friendly bill. However, as Zap alludes, this bill is not being put in front of the Juduciary or or other important individuals and organizations for the first time. It has already been accepted conceptually by many primary players and requests for changes that have been made.

 

Callton is willing to hear ideas and make some changes as Zap has also pointed out, but he will work to keep the bill primarily intact. If the bill is headed away from the principles that helped to gain its acceptance, or gets bastardized out of its intentions, it will, likely, get withdrawn by the sponsor. There is also little room for conceptual changes before the bill would lose the support it has.

 

Things such as removing the cultivation language is possible. I thought Callton really wanted there because he ended up including it even after I and others worked to have the issue separated. As it turns out, he is open to working with that and perhaps some other changes, but the essence of the bill will not fundamentally change.

 

The fact that it is a local option bill will not change. That is the basis for a lot of the support, particularly, the bi-partisan support. A lot of the issues discussed here are actually details that the municipality will make decisions on. A given municipality could choose to not even have distribution or testing commercially zoned areas. The idea that a municipality would choose to embrace dispensaries, then go on to make the conditions too restrictive and prohibitive to function, makes absolutely no sense.

 

Even if a municipality actually did that or refused commercial activity at all, 5580 would allow the citizens of the community that wants the activity, a way to resolve it.

 

There is work to do and some minor changes coming, some good, some bad, but as long as it continued to not change the MMMA, does not infringe on the caregiver system, and remains a local option, the rest can be dealt with, in my opinion.

 

 

[+Malamute]

double post

Edited May 10, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

Can i ask what republicans actually support this bill in the Judiciary?

[Restorium2]

Who submitted this language? Fess up.

[+Malamute]

 

There is work to do and some minor changes coming, some good, some bad, but as long as it continued to not change the MMMA, does not infringe on the caregiver system, and remains a local option, the rest can be dealt with, in my opinion.

 

Thank you, my exact question... what "bad" is willing to be accepted?

[Restorium2]

It would be naive to not consider the current climate in the legislature and the fact that they will be considering their first truly patient friendly bill. However, as Zap alludes, this bill is not being put in front of the Juduciary or or other important individuals and organizations for the first time. It has already been accepted conceptually by many primary players and requests for changes that have been made.

 

Callton is willing to hear ideas and make some changes as Zap has also pointed out, but he will work to keep the bill primarily intact. If the bill is headed away from the principles that helped to gain its acceptance, or gets bastardized out of its intentions, it will, likely, get withdrawn by the sponsor. There is also little room for conceptual changes before the bill would lose the support it has.

 

Things such as removing the cultivation language is possible. I thought Callton really wanted there because he ended up including it even after I and others worked to have the issue separated. As it turns out, he is open to working with that and perhaps some other changes, but the essence of the bill will not fundamentally change.

 

The fact that it is a local option bill will not change. That is the basis for a lot of the support, particularly, the bi-partisan support. A lot of the issues discussed here are actually details that the municipality will make decisions on. A given municipality could choose to not even have distribution or testing commercially zoned areas. The idea that a municipality would choose to embrace dispensaries, then go on to make the conditions too restrictive and prohibitive to function, makes absolutely no sense.

 

Even if a municipality actually did that or refused commercial activity at all, 5580 would allow the citizens of the community that wants the activity, a way to resolve it.

 

There is work to do and some minor changes coming, some good, some bad, but as long as it continued to not change the MMMA, does not infringe on the caregiver system, and remains a local option, the rest can be dealt with, in my opinion.

The wording of this bill has a very great possibility that it WILL change how the Act works. Haven't you been reading?

[+Malamute]

The LEgislative bureau has pinned this bill as needing 51% as is.

 

The changes/amendments may alter that. Also, it could be passed with 51% while actually needing 75% and it would take a court case to overturn it, if needed.

 

All sorts of possibiltiies.

 

Too early to tell.

[jamieuke]

 

 

Thank you, my exact question... what "bad" is willing to be accepted?

 

That is a profound question. It can only really be answered by contemplating a specific scenario if and when it arises.

 

The basic litmus test, as I described, is not changing the MMMA and/or infringing on caregivers. Most of the rest of the operational details are left up to the municipality which can be directly influenced by the citizens.

 

 

[Restorium2]

That is a profound question. It can only really be answered by contemplating a specific scenario if and when it arises.

 

The basic litmus test, as I described, is not changing the MMMA and/or infringing on caregivers. Most of the rest of the operational details are left up to the municipality which can be directly influenced by the citizens.

BS Citizens haven't had much luck with changing municipalities thinking, you have not heard?

 

The whole municipality control language you submitted is a trap for anyone living in a municipality.

 

The point is we didn't want to be in a position to be begging for things that just will not be granted.

[Restorium2]

Please elaborate. I have been reading closely and haven't seen any examples. It doesn't surprise me that Jamie missed them too.

Inspections of grows labeled as dispensaries because of more than one caregiver in the home is just ONE example. Come on, just go down the municipality control path. It's ugly.

[jamieuke]

 

BS Citizens haven't had much luck with changing municipalities thinking, you have not heard?

 

The whole municipality control language you submitted is a trap for anyone living in a municipality.

 

The point is we didn't want to be in a position to be begging for things that just will not be granted.

 

5580 is a local option bill. A given municipality can choose to embrace or not embrace commercial mmj activity.

 

If 5580 were to become law, it would be much easier to work with a council or commission or board to zone for mmj activity in non residential zoning. Even some local governments that have been restrictive, will be open to reconsidering with the state law behind them.

 

If a municipality remains defiant in allowing this activity in places where the citizens want it, those people, sitting on council,can be voted out in the following election and replaced with more like minded civil leaders.

 

The citizens, in some places, could also arrange to get the issue in front of the voters.

 

If a municipality chooses to allow a provisioning center, it would have discretion over a lot of the operational details, and the center would also be recognized on a state wide level.

 

 

[jamieuke]

 

 

Right. I see what you mean. Municipalities are changing the Act now in a COMPLETELY unfettered manner. To me, this bill stops them

from changing it in a private, residential setting. I

think we need to focus on that and make it

ironclad.

 

I would like to see the bill include language that makes this clear, as well.

[+Malamute]

seems one of my posts(besides the double post) was removed.

 

*shrug*

[+Malamute]

I figured it was an accident.

 

It was the one where i said ..... " I am happy to proven wrong, but it happens so rarely, i wouldn't bet against me."......

 

:-)

 

Maybe it is there somewhere, maybe i am just missing it or something. :-)

 

Not a big deal.