National Patients' Rights Association Analyzing Michigan House Bill 5580

[AKenewell]

DETROIT, May 16, 2012

 

The National Patients' Rights Association (NPRA)—a Michigan-based alliance of leading medical marijuana advocates working to protect patient rights—today announced it is in the process of a thorough analysis of Michigan House Bill 5580 (creating new act for state and local regulation of marijuana dispensaries) and will provide formal recommendations and opinion in the coming weeks.

Specifically, the NPRA is studying the HB 5580 as it relates to patient access, public policy, law enforcement, municipal management, and licensing and regulatory affairs.

 

The NPRA is working to carefully analyze HB 5580 in order to:

 

Provide a broader platform for discussing, collaborating, and acting on long-term priorities that directly impact medical marijuana patients in the State of Michigan

 

Bring a wider perspective to making progressive public policy changes as it relates to medical marijuana and patient access, and to provide Michigan medical marijuana patients a response to proposed legislation that impacts safe access

 

The NPRA is backed by patients, caregivers, businesses and a range of other supporters. Collectively, the coalition is working to broaden awareness, reach legislators in a targeted manner, and help mobilize patients and caregivers who are affected by current and proposed medical marijuana laws. A key objective of the coalition is a push for definitive regulation in terms of standardization — ranging from safety and storage needs, document management requirements, privacy, and overall industry standards and procedures.

 

For more information please visit: www.nprausa.com. You can also call 1-855-444-6772 for information on how to contact your state representative.

 

http://www.prnewswir...-151718185.html

[Reaper]

Why did they not do this with the rest of the bills that aim to put patients in jail? Sounds like the another group thats all about the money!

[wingdings]

Why did they not do this with the rest of the bills that aim to put patients in jail? Sounds like the another group thats all about the money!

i agree. most patients will be too nervous to drive to a dispensary

[jamieuke]

I hope they are thinking about the Koon decision in their analysis. As well as denial of medical treatment to medical cannabis users, denial of housing, denial of employment, and all of the host of other things on patients' minds other than where to get their meds. It will be tough to make a business out of people who have to lose their civil rights to be your customer.

 

I can not speak for them, but I have spoken with them, and I believe that the same considerations, we all have, they have as well.

 

 

 

 

[GregS]

This group appears to support any and all aspects of establishing dispensaries and/or onerous government oversight. There is no more reason to regulate cannabis than there is corn and tomatoes at roadside stands. Until and unless it is reasonably and objectively shown to cause harm, there is no need.

 

The key phrase at work is ",,,

A key objective of the coalition is a push for definitive regulation in terms of standardization — ranging from safety and storage needs, document management requirements, privacy, and overall industry standards and procedures.

From

PR Newswire (share this quote)

 

Ours is a cottage industry. They would have the pt/cg provisions of the law the hell out of their way.

[jamieuke]

This group appears to support any and all aspects of establishing dispensaries and/or onerous government oversight. There is no more reason to regulate cannabis than there is corn and tomatoes at roadside stands. Until and unless it is reasonably and objectively shown to cause harm, there is no need.

 

The key phrase at work is ",,,

 

A key objective of the coalition is a push for definitive regulation in terms of standardization — ranging from safety and storage needs,

document management requirements, privacy,

and overall industry standards and procedures.

From

PR

Newswire (share this

quote)

 

Ours is a cottage industry. They would have the pt/cg provisions of the law the hell out of their

way.

 

This statement is filled with unsubstantiated assumptions that are presented as fact.

 

Again, I do not speak for them, but these kind of assertions deserve some factual basis, so that opinions are developed by way of the truth and not based on another person's false image.

 

NPRA is looking further into 5580, and does support legislation to help carry out the intent of the MMA as 5580 does, but to say that NPRA would support ANY and ALL distribution models or regulations is a serious accusation, in my opinion. Particularly, without any evidence to support it.

 

NPRA was receptive to me when I called to ask them a few questions. I assume that they would answer questions or concerns from others as well.

 

If they say that they would support ANY or ALL distribution models and governmental regulations, then there could be some merit to the accusation. However, I doubt they would say that or put out a press release that specifically calls for further discussion and research on 5580, if they were already prepared to give ANY kind of distribution language their blanket endorsement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Murph]

do not judge, ask questions. demand transparency. who are "they"

 

M

[Hayduke]

Is this Mr. Mullins group?

 

Really I do not know too much about them at all, though I see Paul Tylenda's name on their website, and Paul is a good guy, so that is one positive. I would like to know if Paul is active with them, and my suspicion would be that he is not. I would guess they do not really have a national network either, as their name suggests, because they have not been around long enough to get that type of support. Did they testify before the House Judiciary in March?

 

I share GregS's concern about regulation, standardization, safety and storage being among their concerns, don't you Jamieuke? What is their stance on home growing or the caregiver system?

 

Many groups and individuals are on the record with their group positions. I don't recall anything from this group that would lead me to believe they are anything more than a very specific special interest group. Do they have a chapter in Colorado?

 

I get it they have a PR firm running their message in the media. Personally it would be good to know who they are and what they have said on the record before passing any judgement. But to suggest they are a-okay merely because they have a web site and a PR firm is folly.

 

Alas, more questions than answers. Count me as a bit skeptical at this point....

[jamieuke]

Hayduke- I think that you may be correct with some of your assumptions, and being "skeptical" is a legitimate stance to take in this situation, and one that I would expect.

 

I do believe that attorney Mullens works with them, but I'm not sure it is "his group" and I also believe that you are right about Paul Tylenda in that he is a good guy and attorney and that he is no longer involved or directly involved with them.

 

When I spoke with them, I inquired about the caregiver system and whether or not they would work on behalf of a model that would compromise it. The answer was "no" along with an explanation that let me know that they understand how important it is to protect the caregiver system in order to preserve of the MMA. They seemed knowledgable about what is going on and open to learning and sharing.

 

I think that fact that they are business oriented may alienate them from some, just on the surface, before knowing anything else about them. My original reasoning in my response to GregS, was to express the importance of knowing and learning about them before making any final determinations.

 

 

[GregS]

I would welcome them here to argue the merits of their position.

 

My statements speak directly to their stated position. It is theirs to establish otherwise. Until then I will continue.

[Hayduke]

Didn't Mr. Mullin testify and come off pretty poorly? Like sucked up pretty hard to the panel? I thought he or one of his colleagues testified on March 8th, pretty early in the testimony that day..... if so, I was not impressed and actually personally opposed almost all the testimony they gave. I will say I stand to be corrected on this as I am posting from memory.... and we all know the risks involved with that...lol...

 

Wasn't Mr. Mullin an attorney that was kicked off of Bob and Torey's case????

 

Are they Colorado proponents, or is my impression faulty?

[+Malamute]

They(Mullin) did testify for NPRA at the hearings.

 

There are a few things i disagree with them about(NPRA), but the group AMMA is the one that was really atrocious on their positions. NPRA supports more regulation than i am comfortable with for example.

 

Here is NPRA's video testimony from March 8th. Testimony starts at about 18:20.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGDO1mxmatQ

 

The worst part was when Mullin said he supported probable cause without a warrant.

 

Made me cringe.

[jamieuke]

I didn't think that Mullen's presentation was horrible, but I also disagree with him. The one knock I remember is that he used some of the allotted time to discuss an issue that had already been resolved by amendment.

 

He took the Redden/Clark case through the Court of Appeals, and was headed to the Supreme Court. Bob Redden decided to get other legal opinions, and ultimately worked with other attorneys to get it withdrawn from the State Supreme Court.

 

NPRA put out a press release that included the Colorado Model as an example of a working distribution system.

 

I, and probably others contacted them about it. They said that they did not require or favor the Colorado model specifically, but that it was an example of a state defining and implementing some kind of structure and regulatory system.

 

They understood how it came off and listened to how it could be misconstrued and how the

specifics of a Colorado type model was not a good fit for Michigan. They have since removed language using Colorado as an example, as far as I can tell.

 

Greg- I'm sure you are skeptical, as is Hayduke, but I was pointing out that the determinations about NPRA that you made, were without knowing enough to make them.

 

It doesn't look as though they have anyone on these forums. Im sure they will answer your questions if you contact them.

[semicaregiver]

This group is Nature's Alternative Dispensary located in Detroit on the Grosse Pointe/Detroit Border (Mack Ave). They hired one of the top Detroit based PR firms to represent them. I have not met them, but it seems that they felt that their political/pr interests did not align with MACC and as such they formed another group.

[jamieuke]

This group is Nature's Alternative Dispensary located in Detroit on the Grosse Pointe/Detroit Border (Mack Ave). They hired one of the top Detroit based PR firms to represent them. I have not met them, but it seems that they felt that their political/pr interests did not align with MACC and as such they formed another group.

 

NPRA, it seems, has national aspirations, whereas MACC is strictly Michigan, and the membership includes a wide variety of people, groups and businesses, including grow shops, whereas MACC is made up of Compassion Center operators, who represent their facilities as well as their particular club's membership. MACC also consists of a Caregiver coalition, made up of Caregivers who want to help contribute to preserving the MMMA and the caregiver system.

 

The NPRA's actual philosophies and pr interests are very similar to MACC and other mmj organizations, as far as I can tell.