Throwing Caregivers Under The Bus?

[Restorium2]

Also terribly ironic to complain of gross generalizations of caregivers while engaging in gross generalizations of dispensary supporters.

No. Specific facts on court documents and tapes. No generalizations from me. I'm talking about words ON RECORD. Whether it's bashing us growing or hiding bad medicine. It's all in black and white. That's what I'm talking about. I can back up every single word of it. No generalizations at all. Words they said, out of their own mouths.

[Northern Lab]

No. Specific facts on court documents and tapes. No generalizations from me. I'm talking about words ON RECORD. Whether it's bashing us growing or hiding bad medicine. It's all in black and white. That's what I'm talking about. I can back up every single word of it. No generalizations at all. Words they said, out of their own mouths.

 

Did all dispensary owners/supporters say these things? Sounds to me like some of them have indeed said these things as you've indicated, and they deserve to be raked over the coals for it, but tarring EVERY dispensary with that bad juju is equally contemptable as tarring all CG's with the actions of a few.

[Restorium2]

Did all dispensary owners/supporters say these things? Sounds to me like some of them have indeed said these things as you've indicated, and they deserve to be raked over the coals for it, but tarring EVERY dispensary with that bad juju is equally contemptable as tarring all CG's with the actions of a few.

There are some good points there. But I remind you that I'm talking about documented words and actions, and they are throwing a wet blanket that can't be backed up, as they cast the first stone. We didn't have to go there. To stand silent is not an option once the wet blanket is tossed. If they want to draw a contrast, to point out their superiority to the small grower/ self supplier, then it should be expected that some of that goes on in the defense. They brought it up.

[Northern Lab]

I completely understand your outrage and I share it. But we shouldn't sink to the same level as those who seek to paint with a broad brush or we're no better than they. I think these 'pro-dispensary' interests would do well to better qualify their statements, as would the 'anti dispensary' folks.

 

I think we can all agree there are bad actors all around and they give the cause a bad name, but neither case is justification for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are significant numbers of both groups that don't deserve to take fire over something they had nothing to do with.

[Restorium2]

They need to stick with the law. They need to stop thinking that they will get some traction by using the idea that we are doing a terrible job, so they need to step in. Just get legal darn it. And leave us out of it. Can you do that? We already know the answer... they can't.

[Restorium2]

It seems we found our very own Steve DeAngelos, right here in Michigan, eh?

Yup. Just like we were posting about a month or two ago. Ironic. They were already here.

[Northern Lab]

They need to stick with the law. They need to stop thinking that they will get some traction by using the idea that we are doing a terrible job, so they need to step in. Just get legal darn it. And leave us out of it. Can you do that? We already know the answer... they can't.

 

I agree that those who seek to tear down someone else in order to make themselves look better should retract those statements immediately or be run out on a rail. I don't think it's that effective an argument anyway, because, as we know, it's easily disproven. I think the most effective argument for dispensaries are the wide range of choices many offer, and the convenienceof having established hours and storefronts. Patients clearly want them or they would have withered on the vine. There are also cons to relying on them as a sole source of meds. It gets expensive and you're at least two steps away from the grower, adding some anonymity to the transaction that can be exploited by bad actors, as you point out.

 

While there are tons of benefits to a PT/CG system, there are also a few drawbacks to relying solely on a caregiver or your own grow. I think we all know what they are by now and we all work hard to overcome them and some patients may never experience an interruption in supply. These drawbacks may or may not be successfully addressed by the existence of dispensaries and farmer's markets depending on how well each fulfills their respective roles and how patient centric they are. There is potential for great synergistic benefits with a shotgun PT/CG/DISP/FM approach once we realize we should all be on the same side.

 

If I were forced to choose between dispensaries or a PT/CG based system, however, I'd go with the PT/CG system every time. A dispensary only model will effectively kill the program for a lot of us and make it impossible to legally medicate with cannabis.

[Restorium2]

Quote;

I think the most effective argument for dispensaries are the wide range of choices many offer, and the convenienceof having established hours and storefronts. Patients clearly want them or they would have withered on the vine.

 

It really doesn't matter. It doesn't effect the legality. Just stick with the law. Define the action of dispensing as legal. It simply doesn't matter if they perform a service that no one else can, or not. That's a side issue separate from legality. The case is about patient to patient transfers being legal. Not about how many people they help or rip off. How do we keep going into these issues of who they help and how? If you stick just with the law, and leave the rest out, then we don't even have to argue about who does what. The only question for the court was about patient to patient transfers being legal. Not who is better between them, and caregivers or patients wanting growing their own. We don't need that comparo scenario anywhere near the issue of patient to patient transfers.

[Northern Lab]

Quote;

I think the most effective argument for dispensaries are the wide range of choices many offer, and the convenienceof having established hours and storefronts. Patients clearly want them or they would have withered on the vine.

 

It really doesn't matter. It doesn't effect the legality. Just stick with the law. Define the action of dispensing as legal. It simply doesn't matter if they perform a service that no one else can, or not. That's a side issue separate from legality. The case is about patient to patient transfers being legal. Not about how many people they help or rip off. How do we keep going into these issues of who they help and how? If you stick just with the law, and leave the rest out, then we don't even have to argue about who does what. The only question for the court was about patient to patient transfers being legal. Not who is better between them, and caregivers or patients wanting growing their own. We don't need that comparo scenario anywhere near the issue of patient to patient transfers.

 

Fair enough. I apologize for getting into the weeds on that.

 

I agree that p2p should be defined as legal activity. I have always maintained the view that the original intent of the initiative was to allow meds to flow freely amongst cardholders based on need. How that is facilitated is mostly irrelevant, as you point out.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Northern Lab

[Fat Freddy]

I agree Northern, under the law as defined by the Sct p2p should not even be the questioned here. The law is clear in that matter.

The sad part is the greedy want the whole pie for themselves.

[michaelscott]

Ok had a chance to read in its entirety. I for one agree with everything they support. Did not see anything they said as throwing caregivers under the bus. I hope more read through it as well.

[Restorium2]

Ok had a chance to read in its entirety. I for one agree with everything they support. Did not see anything they said as throwing caregivers under the bus. I hope more read through it as well.

Then you are part of the problem. Haven't you been reading what we have been saying about cutting our throats? No comparo scenario needed? Just define your legality?

 

They didn't need to say this stuff at all:

 

 

But in practice, the private caregiver system is not always reliable....

 

 

He just wants “to be able to obtain safe-lab tested cannabis from a dispensary for [his] condition.

 

 

Patients have been ripped off by caregivers and been unable to gain access to their medicine as a result of crop failures or a caregiver just quitting.

 

 

Unlike an individual growing their own medicine or a single caregiver, a dispensary facilitating a patient-to patient transfer can help a patient find the right strain of marijuana for their particular condition

 

 

Another reason that the definition of medical use should include dispensaries is that a dispensary is capable of creating different forms of cannabis so that it can be ingested in ways other than smoking it. ( CGs can't?)

Edited August 26, 2012 by Restorium2

[michaelscott]

 

Then you are part of the problem. Haven't you been reading what we have been saying about cutting out throats?

 

They didn't need to say this stuff at all:

 

 

But in practice, the private caregiver system is not always reliable....

 

 

He just wants “to be able to obtain safe-lab tested cannabis from a dispensary for [his] condition.

 

 

Patients have been ripped off by caregivers and been unable to gain access to their medicine as a result of crop failures or a caregiver just quitting.

 

 

Unlike an individual growing their own medicine or a single caregiver, a dispensary facilitating a patient-to patient transfer can help a patient find the right strain of marijuana for their particular condition

 

 

Another reason that the definition of medical use should include dispensaries is that a dispensary is capable of creating different forms of cannabis so that it can be ingested in ways other than smoking it. ( CGs can't?)

 

I guess I am then,

 

I believe all those statements are true, like I said many aholez out there.

 

I do wonder if 1 caregiver can provide Rso, flowers, edibles, bho, tinctures, gel caps. You would probably be a better person to answer that.

 

do you believe no caregivers have left patients high and dry?

 

Did you read the part that talks about overages?

 

 

Do you believe a single caregiver offers more choices then a dispensary?

 

 

 

I am just referencing this document, I think it supports the caregiver system, just my opinion.

[Restorium2]

I guess I am then,

 

I believe all those statements are true, like I said many aholez out there.

 

I do wonder if 1 caregiver can provide Rso, flowers, edibles, bho, tinctures, gel caps. You would probably be a better person to answer that.

 

do you believe no caregivers have left patients high and dry?

 

Did you read the part that talks about overages?

 

 

Do you believe a single caregiver offers more choices then a dispensary?

 

 

 

I am just referencing this document, I think it supports the caregiver system, just my opinion.

That has nothing to do with the legality question. I can offer every single thing a dispensary does. And more. But that has nothing to do with the question.

 

I haven't ever heard a caregiver say they would put the chemical smelling weed in the medibles. I did hear a dispensary owner say it on tape. You would be much better off without the comparo. Why go there? There are more documented accountings of dispensary fraud than caregiver fraud. Many, many more. But it's not the issue, legality is.

[michaelscott]

Sorry, thought this topic was about how this document was throwing caregivers under the bus.

 

I simply did not agree. I will try not to in the future, and if I do will try my hardest not to say anything.

 

 

 

[Restorium2]

Sorry, thought this topic was about how this document was throwing caregivers under the bus.

 

I simply did not agree. I will try not to in the future, and if I do will try my hardest not to say anything.

You most certainly can agree or disagree with the op that those comments looked bad for caregivers. My point was it served no legal purpose to make the comments. So why even do it? Why the comparo? Why not leave it out? Just address the legality issue.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Restorium2

[michaelscott]

 

You most certainly can agree or disagree with the op that those comments looked good or bad for caregivers. My point was it served no purpose to do that. So why even do it? Why the comparo? Why not leave it out? Just address the legality issue.

Yeah I understand, but the argument for how p2p is legal is linked to why they should be legal.

 

Are you saying that them sending this has hurt the mm community?

[SFC]

Exactly. It served "NO LEGAL PURPOSE" to add the pro-dispensary/anti CG language into the amicus brief. They are a desperate bunch, they prove it to us every chance they get. F'them! The supremes said after the last ruling that the law should be read as the lay person would read it. Dispensaries are not mentioned in the law. A patient connected to a Cg thru the registry is. Anyone want to bet what they are going to rule? Don't get me wrong, I would love if they rule Pt to Pt for compensation legal, I just do not believe they are going to. HB 5580 is DOA as well. I wouldn't want to be in the dispensary business right now

 

Edit: And no Michael, it didn't hurt the "community" but it darn sure hurt the dispensary bunch. I promise.

Edited August 26, 2012 by SFC

[michaelscott]

Rest, no idea who jamie is. Heard the name being talked about but dont really know anyone. I read the mcp, roi, 3mg, and so on. I am not a stakeholder, I am an accountant by profession with no business in the mm realm.

 

why would you go to another board and accuse me of something instead of asking me?

 

I am sure you were just having a little fun with your friends. Anyways I got a laugh.

 

 

[Frank R]

I agree GrowGoddess, if patients are getting bad meds or just plain have a bad caregiver, then get a different one!

I have had my patints tell me my stuff is top notch.

 

The Market will self-regulate.

There is no need for burdensome Big Government over-regulation in Michigan Medical Marijuana.

The market will take care of itself, bad actors will simply be brushed aside by competent caregivers.

[Fat Freddy]

Let me take a moment to point out something.

Ever since I joined this site I have seen a lot of finger pointing.

Personally I try not to engage in such behavior. I find it distastefull, and harmful to our movement as a whole.

My personal observation is this behavior is what the snakes in the state capital want.

As long as we are fighting among our selves we can not garner enough opposition to the changes we are face with.

So go ahead play the game our snake rep's want you to, and in the end we all loose.

[Ms Chocolate]

The brief is a nice read.

 

How can “patient-to-patient transfers of medical marijuana” be facilitated through dispensaries? If the transfer is facilitated through dispensaries it is no a patient-to-patient transfer.

The voters could have prohibited dispensaries because the question of dispensaries was not presented to them. The caregiver and grow-your-own models of access were delineated in the MMMA.

I do, and have found that the MMMA does allow for the patient-to patient transfers of marihuana for medical use.

I doubt that voters were looking at a broader interpretation of the Act to allow patients to be able to find the strain of medical marijuana that would best help their condition. Heck, most people were unaware of strains. People purchased what was available for sale.

As for patients needing cannabis without the delay of waiting for marijuana to grow and be harvested; not only is this true of everything in life, the people involved with Ann Arbor Medical Cannabis Guild would also have to wait for a plant to grow and be harvested.

I have always said that the MMMA allowed 4 forms of acquisition; grow your own, have your caregiver provide for you, receive from another patient (transfer), or get from “Little Johnnie on the corner”.

The easiest was to keep excess marihuana out the public domain is to simply grow what you need – need what you grow.

In reading §3(e) of the MMMA which speaks of patient-to patient transfers, and maintaining the intent of the MMMA as voted on; "Medical use" meant the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia between two individual people – not a person and a business enterprise.

 

It was not just caregivers being tossed under the bus, but everyone who voted in favor of the Act. I voted for sick and ailing residents of Michigan to be able to legally use cannabis to alleviate their discomforts; not for the health and well to set-up business that pimps and profits off the sick.

 

 

 

Since the caregivers and “grow-your-own” models are not working, how is the Ann Arbor Medical Cannabis Guild legally getting its stock?

[Fat Freddy]

Simple: Say I open a dispensary/ coffee shop. I do not sell the meds I just provide a safe and friendly place to exchange.

Of course I hope to sell some coffee and tea. Might even have a small membership fee. ( fee would go to building maint. )

Lets take into consideration the fact the Sct has state that the law in to be looked at from our point of view. NO place in the law provides for dispensaries. So imho this question is moot and will be addressed in accordance with the Sct's ruling.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Fat Freddy

[SFC]

Lets take into consideration the fact the Sct has state that the law in to be looked at from our point of view

 

That is a an awful generous spin on what they said. They said layperson as I recall, not MMJ activist. Big difference.

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

Simple: Say I open a dispensary/ coffee shop. I do not sell the meds I just provide a safe and friendly place to exchange.

Of course I hope to sell some coffee and tea. Might even have a small membership fee. ( fee would go to building maint. )

Lets take into consideration the fact the Sct has state that the law in to be looked at from our point of view. NO place in the law provides for dispensaries. So imho this question is moot and will be addressed in accordance with the Sct's ruling.

Right the law doesn't say anything about dispensaries. I have never even stepped into one. My friends have bought plenty of different strains from different dispensaries and in almost every case they paid like $15 a gram for bottom buds that don't compare to the stuff I grow. The only time I felt I was outgrown by dispensary meds was some lemon larry og and my buddy paid $225 for a half ounce, so it should've been the best ever, which it was not. As far as buying moldy meds I would say that is the buyers fault, take a scope and look at what you are buying. The intent of the law seems pretty clear to me, it is for the patients to be able to get the meds they need i.e. patient to patient transfer. Not for some guy with some money to set up a dispensary and get rich overnight. I really don't see how they could tell everyone to stop growing after so many people bought lights and everything. I know I have well over $1000 in my personal setup and have no intention of stopping it's use. I am just a patient and I have seen some of my friends have pretty bad caregivers but I have also seen some with good ones. I mean how can you complain about getting free meds? The bad ones I have seen are just plain greedy. If someone has given you the right to grow their 12 yes 12 plants I think you should give them six whole plants from each harvest. For patients with a bad caregiver, there is nothing holding you to them, grow your own it is fun and rewarding and you don't have to rely on anyone but you. Have a nice day.