Mi Lawmaker Wants To Allow Marijuana Dispensaries

[maxmax]

A Republican state lawmaker has proposed a measure to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries. Right now, the future of dispensaries is waiting on a ruling from the state Supreme Court.

State Representative Mike Callton says he did not support the medical marijuana law adopted by voters in 2008.

“I think what voters passed is nuts, just crazy insane," Callton says. He says the voter-approved law has too many loopholes that create questions and problems. “Obviously, 62 percent of voters, whatever, wanted some form of compassionate care for people, but I think the people who put that referendum together really did a disservice to the people of this state.

Callton wants to legalize dispensaries – and he wants to allow them to buy growers’ surplus marijuana and keep it off the black market. The bill would ban felons from running dispensaries; and would allow communities to license the facilities and decide where they could be located.

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/mi-lawmaker-wants-allow-marijuana-dispensaries

[Restorium2]

Sounds like he is just about ready to SWAP our system for this large commercial grow system. Just like before with the Kuiper's Attempted Robbery.

 

When you bash one thing, and advocate another that could possibly replace the one you are bashing, it's obvious what your motives are. Don't be fooled by his statement that he cares about our extra. I have been told quite a few times that the legislature is NOT very big on helping us with our extra. It's a red herring.

 

This is one of those times that the feds are on our side. Hey Callton, get the memo.

[bobandtorey]

Sounds like he is just about ready to SWAP our system for this large commercial grow system. Just like before with the Kuiper's Attempted Robbery.

 

When you bash one thing, and advocate another that could possibly replace the one you are bashing, it's obvious what your motives are. Don't be fooled by his statement that he cares about our extra. I have been told quite a few times that the legislature is NOT very big on helping us with our extra. It's a red herring.

 

This is one of those times that the feds are on our side. Hey Callton, get the memo.

i do remember Kuiper's Attempted i was their also

[jamieuke]

5580 is nothing even remotely close to the Kuipers bill. The Kuipers bill would be akin to the big massive grow proposed in U.P in the old copper mine. 5580 works in conjunction with the existing caregiver system and does not change the MMMA as Kuipers or the massive grow up North would.

[Restorium2]

5580 is nothing even remotely close to the Kuipers bill. The Kuipers bill would be akin to the big massive grow proposed in U.P in the old copper mine. 5580 works in conjunction with the existing caregiver system and does not change the MMMA as Kuipers or the massive grow up North would.

I'm not so sure you understand either the Kuipers or the MACC Bills. What you are saying doesn't make sense. There's nothing in the MACC Bill that would limit massive grows. You left the door wide open.

[jamieuke]

I understand it quite well, and will try to explain it again-

 

The only kind of "massive grow" that could come out of 5580, is one in which a municipality allowed several, individually licensed caregivers to grow in one place. I highly doubt that a municipality, understanding of the Federal situation, would allow such a thing. Even if it did, it would be a dubious scenario for a caregiver to want to be involved in it knowing that the cultivation facility would likely be raided by the Feds. 5580, in no way would or could give an individual or business any special ability to grow. It is all still based on the existing system.

 

The municipality can embrace or not embrace distribution, testing and cultivation. It may decide to zone for distribution and testing, but not commercial cultivation. If it does allow commercial space to be rented to individual caregivers to grow in, the municipality and the participating caregivers should be aware of the Feds ability to enforce Federal laws that are not consistent with Michigan's.

 

5580 is concerned with non-residential zoning only and is only an option for the municipality.

[Restorium2]

I understand it quite well, and will try to explain it again-

 

The only kind of "massive grow" that could come out of 5580, is one in which a municipality allowed several, individually licensed caregivers to grow in one place. I highly doubt that a municipality, understanding of the Federal situation, would allow such a thing. Even if it did, it would be a dubious scenario for a caregiver to want to be involved in it knowing that the cultivation facility would likely be raided by the Feds. 5580, in no way would or could give an individual or business any special ability to grow. It is all still based on the existing system.

 

The municipality can embrace or not embrace distribution, testing and cultivation. It may decide to zone for distribution and testing, but not commercial cultivation. If it does allow commercial space to be rented to individual caregivers to grow in, the municipality and the participating caregivers should be aware of the Feds ability to enforce Federal laws that are not consistent with Michigan's.

 

5580 is concerned with non-residential zoning only and is only an option for the municipality.

No. You don't understand what MACC wrote at all. There are NO restrictions on commercial grows in the language. None, nadda, zip. It would have been so easy to restrict them. One sentence would have done it. The only conclusion we can come to is that MACC left that out on purpose. It was a lot more difficult to add commercial grows, like they did, then to just say that were not allowed. Why wasn't selling enough? Why did you have to have commercial grows also?

[cristinew]

well if you are dumb enough to grow a huge garden that the feds tune into , well that is your dumb ars fault,

[jamieuke]

Rest- Are you actually suggesting that I do not understand MACC's contributions and position on this bill?

 

If you can't or won't understand what I am saying, so far, I doubt I will have much luck in trying to take more time to help you with it.

 

Let your Rep know that 5580 concerns you because it allows "massive grows" and will hurt caregivers- if that is what you believe.

 

Crristinew- You are correct, in my opinion.

Edited May 2, 2012 by jamieuke

[stuckinabeat]

well if you are dumb enough to grow a huge garden that the feds tune into , well that is your dumb ars fault,

 

Somebody was obviously dumb enough to include it in the bills, right?

 

Rest- Are you actually suggesting that I do not understand MACC's contributions and position on this bill?

 

If you can't or won't understand what I am saying, so far, I doubt I will have much luck in trying to take more time to help you with it.

 

Let your Rep know that 5580 concerns you because it allows "massive grows" and will hurt caregivers- if that is what you believe.

 

Crristinew- You are correct, in my opinion.

 

 

You sure are good at answering questions with questions.

 

So lets try again...

 

 

WHY DID YOUI ADD COMMERCIAL GROWS TO THE BILL??????

[cristinew]

Somebody was obviously dumb enough to include it in the bills, right?

 

Yes it should be a limit to 99 or less plants in one property..

[jamieuke]

Please define "commercial grows" as you believe the bill would allow, and maybe I can answer from a different perspective.

 

Also, understand that we are not responsible for everything in the bill, but nothing in it compromises the existing caregiver system or changes the MMMA.

[jamieuke]

It is not dumb that cultivation is included in the bill. A good farmer/caregiver may need a place for a garden because their living conditions do not allow for a home grow. If the municiplity allows for cultivation in non residential zoning, the caregiver could rent some space with enough room and resources to have a garden that remains consistent with his or her licensing under the MMMA. If the garden was 100 plants or more, we know that it would be vulnerable to Federal law enforcement taking interest in it. Nothing in 5580 or the MMMA prevents the Feds from enforcing Federal law.

 

 

 

 

[stuckinabeat]

Ok how bout this, why did you leave potential for commercial grows in the bill?

[Estimated Prophet]

I guess we know who has been doing "fund raising" for Rep Callton.

[jamieuke]

Stuckinabeat- Please define "commercial grows" and how they would occur and problems they would cause, and how they would develop from 5580, and I'll be able to answer you.

 

Otherwise, I can only assume what you mean and likely just answer by regurgitating what I have already explained a few times.

 

 

 

[bobandtorey]

It is not dumb that cultivation is included in the bill. A good farmer/caregiver may need a place for a garden because their living conditions do not allow for a home grow. If the municiplity allows for cultivation in non residential zoning, the caregiver could rent some space with enough room and resources to have a garden that remains consistent with his or her licensing under the MMMA. If the garden was 100 plants or more, we know that it would be vulnerable to Federal law enforcement taking interest in it. Nothing in 5580 or the MMMA prevents the Feds from enforcing Federal law.

does this mean that we can grow plants if we have a card or the 21 days has passed with a recommendation ? am not sure if that has been cleared up yet Edited May 2, 2012 by bobandtorey

[Morhawk]

A secure cultivation facility shall allow

 

access only to the following:

 

(i) A registered primary caregiver or provisioning center agent

 

of the provisioning center that controls the secure cultivation

 

facility.

 

So what is the limit that a provisioning center agent is allowed to grow?

[jamieuke]

A provisioning center distributes, existing caregivers under the MMMA do the growing still. 5580 does not change the MMMA or infringe on the caregiver system.

[jamieuke]

Everyone should check out Planet Green Trees tomorrow night. There has been activity today on the Walsh bills and more to come tomorrow.

 

Rep Callton will be on to discuss what is happening in the House and HB5580 that he recently introduced.

 

I will be reporting in from Ann Arbor from the VGIP meeting that will be featuring another House Representative Jeff Irwin and Ann Arbor City Council member Sabre Brier.

 

I'm sure that Michael and Chad will provide excellent insight as to what is going on, as well.

 

 

 

[Morhawk]

A provisioning center distributes, existing caregivers under the MMMA do the growing still. 5580 does not change the MMMA or infringe on the caregiver system.

 

Sorry I missed the part that says that a secure cultivation center's plants had to be gardened by caregivers. My apologies, I shall reread...

[jamieuke]

Morhawk - 5580 does not change the MMMA. No new special provisions for growing exist in it. If there were, the bill would require a super-majority vote to pass instead of the simple majority that 5580 would require to pass.

 

[Shredder]

Jamie, what makes this bill better than farmers markets? If compassion is your motive why arn't dispensaries not for profits, instead of profit centers? If making your living off the sick and disabled is your motive, shame on you. That a republican would sponsor a bill that would screw patients is not surprising? How much did you donate to him to get this bill published? Shredder

[jamieuke]

I agree Shredder, if "making a living off of the sick and dying" was my "motive", that would be horrible.

[bobandtorey]

The original MMMA had potential for large scale commercial grows. It happened. How are you going to stop somebody from doing that other than plant numbers and common sense? The MMMA is the controlling law for growing marijuana in this state.

if thats true then why are in in court for growing?