What Are They Up To Now!

[Highlander]

Sure. Did you find one instance of a pharmaceutical grade drug that wasn't FDA approved?

 

When I said this;

 

The definition they are trying to hammer into the bill is an intrusion into the realm of the scientific and professional judgment.

 

That was part of a real legal arguement. You didn't find it in your research?

 

What you are doing here is no different that trying to weasel around the definition of caregiver using other acts. No different than using this definition of caregiver. So do you think this applied to a MMMAct caregiver? So now you can't be a CG to a qualifying patient unless said patient is unable to care for himself? Bummer.

 

http://www.legislatu...light=caregiver

 

 

MICHIGAN LIFESPAN RESPITE SERVICES RESOURCE ACT (EXCERPT)

Act 178 of 2004

 

 

333.26522 Definitions.

 

Sec. 2.

As used in this act:

(a) “Caregiver” means an individual providing ongoing care for an individual unable to care for himself or herself.

(b) “Department” means the department of community health.

© “Director” means the director of the department.

(d) “Respite care” means providing short-term relief to primary caregivers from the demands of ongoing care for an individual whose health and welfare would be jeopardized if left unattended.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Highlander

[Restorium2]

Weaseling? Really?

 

AND THAT MEETS ANY OTHER NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES AS PRESCRIBED IN RULES PROMULGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

 

^This is what the FDA does.

[Highlander]

Weaseling? Really?

 

AND THAT MEETS ANY OTHER NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES AS PRESCRIBED IN RULES PROMULGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

 

^This is what the FDA does.

 

No. "The department" refers to MDCH. Read the bill.

[Restorium2]

Read this:

http://web.ncifcrf.gov/rtp/lasp/intra/acuc/fred/guidelines/ACUC48.pdf

[Highlander]

Read this:

http://web.ncifcrf.g...ines/ACUC48.pdf

 

So you will bring outside definitions into a bill for "pharm grade" but you won't import outside definitions of "caregiver" Why not??

 

Please don't be one of those people who confuses words defined in a statute with words used in a different context.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Highlander

[Restorium2]

So you will bring outside definitions into a bill for "pharm grade" but you won't import outside definitions of "caregiver" Why not??

 

Please don't be one of those people who confuses words defined in a statute with words used in a different context.

I see it as the same context. This bill is not an island. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other things in the world going on all around it. As you can read with my link to a government web site's definition of a pharmaceutical grade drug.

 

The two sides of this argument boil down to this; You can either sell only FDA approved drugs. Or you can sell BOTH FDA approved drugs and drugs that meet the definition above, that includes most all of what the FDA does to approve a drug. For my purposes here, not weaseling, I've spent enough time on it. Thanks for your input.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Restorium2

[Highlander]

I see it as the same context. This bill is not an island. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other things in the world going on all around it. As you can read with my link to a government web site's definition of a pharmaceutical grade drug.

 

The two sides of this argument boil down to this; You can either sell only FDA approved drugs. Or you can sell BOTH FDA approved drugs and drugs that meet the definition above, that includes most all of what the FDA does to approve a drug. For my purposes here, not weaseling, I've spent enough time on it. Thanks for your input.

 

I still don't understand why you are importing language from outside the bill. Before the MMMAct passed, how many people thought "caregiver" meant "someone who provides cannabis?"

 

The definition of "pharm grade" does exist in a vacuum - the vacuum of the act it is defined in. Same as "CG" exists in the MMMAct vacuum. Whatever caregiver means outside the act is of no relevance. The meaning of "CG" exists in multiple, unrelated vacuums. The only one that matters is the MMMAct.

 

Why aren't you looking at other government definitions of CG and applying them too?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Highlander

[Fat Freddy]

Great discussion! I have but one thought on this matter. How do we stop this illegal placement on a bill that was not intended to address medical marijuana to start with?

Placement in a bill that is meant to address designer drugs is a violation of our State Constitution. Could we impeach those that supported this process?

[Restorium2]

I still don't understand why you are importing language from outside the bill. Before the MMMAct passed, how many people thought "caregiver" meant "someone who provides cannabis?"

 

The definition of "pharm grade" does exist in a vacuum - the vacuum of the act it is defined in. Same as "CG" exists in the MMMAct vacuum. Whatever caregiver means outside the act is of no relevance. The meaning of "CG" exists in multiple, unrelated vacuums. The only one that matters is the MMMAct.

 

Why aren't you looking at other government definitions of CG and applying them too?

LOL Because I'm staying on topic and it doesn't matter all that much.

[Highlander]

Pharmaceutical grade means that the FDA had to have approved it.

 

If a drug hasn't yet been approved as "safe and effective" by the FDA, no matter how promising the current scientific evidence or dire need of the patient, the patient is denied access to the medicine.

 

So this will not help a dispensary(I hope they understand that part).

 

I am also on topic. The topic is that there is a bill that would allow a new type of facility to manufacture and sell cannabis.

 

You are saying the FDA won't let it go anywhere.

 

I'm saying the FDA isn't involved, so the FDA won't stop it, can't stop it.

 

This is on topic.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Highlander

[Highlander]

I bet anybody trying to sell schedule II pharmaceutical cannabis other than a pharmacy will get a letter from the FDA about medicinal claims that have not been evaluated. They will certainly try to stop it.

 

So do you think CGs under the MMMAct will get FDA involvement if this bill passes? I didn't think of that.

[t-pain]

Great discussion! I have but one thought on this matter. How do we stop this illegal placement on a bill that was not intended to address medical marijuana to start with?

Placement in a bill that is meant to address designer drugs is a violation of our State Constitution.

 

contact the speaker of the house, or whoever is running the show over there. majority leaders, etc.

 

as for this bill, i cant wrap my head around it. the language of the bill has so much baloney in it.

it only reschedules the new 'pharmacuetical grade cannabis' . the mmmp cannabis is still schedule 1.

 

unless i read it wrong, this new bill only creates a law that says it can use the same fee structure as the mmmp law.

it does not say anything about using mmmp funds to fund this new research stuff.

 

of course, this quote says they can recieve money from anywhere...

but lara has no power to distribute mmmp money to them.

 

In addition to the fees described in section 8111, the state treasurer may receive money

or other assets from any source for deposit into the fund. The

state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund.

 

basically this bill is creating a paralell program to the mmma.

it will be the mpgmp (mich pharm grade marijuana program)

with its own cards, licenses, patients, and growers.

 

it says there will be a new department created?

but i dont see department rules or who will be the director?

i think the bill is incomplete.

 

(2) Marihuana and the substances described in subsection

(1)(d) and (e) are schedule 2 controlled substances if they are

manufactured, obtained, stored, dispensed, possessed, grown or

disposed of in compliance with article 8.

 

the bill does not define how marijuana is to be stored, disposed or grown.

also it looks like any pharm grade cannabis testing labs also are required to have a license.

[t-pain]

I bet anybody trying to sell schedule II pharmaceutical cannabis other than a pharmacy will get a letter from the FDA about medicinal claims that have not been evaluated. They will certainly try to stop it.

 

anyone, including pharmacies. who makes a medical claim which the fda has not approved.

 

its why cheerios cant say those claims about lowering cholesterol.

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm162943.htm