Is This A Fair Statement?

[peanutbutter]

There are no medical marijuana groups that support changes to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

 

There are some groups that have supported changes to bills for the sake of softening the impact of proposed legislation. Yet they generally do not support any change to our existing law.

 

A few individuals support proposed bills. Some claim to represent the entire cannabis community. These individuals do not represent the views of the medical marijuana groups in Michigan. They represent themselves.

 

Every group agrees, we wish our law left alone.

Edited December 7, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

Then let me ask it this way.

 

Are there any GROUPS that support changes to the MMMA?

[peanutbutter]

On your last question, the answer is a resounding YES! There are several groups that testified during House Judiciary Committee meetings.

 

That they supported changes to bills or the MMMA?

[+Malamute]

Definitely true.

 

Many groups testified agreeing to some of the language. I know of many.

 

Go watch the videos again.

[+Malamute]

I think almost every single group agreed with the idea to the amending it to 2 year registrations.

 

I assume noone felt it was a good enough reason to open up the law, but many said it is a okie dokie idea.

 

For example.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Malamute

[Chauncy Gardner]

Here we go into the conspiracy den. Is it possible that some anti MM groups formed a group and passed themselves off as advocates so the Republicans could claim that an advocacy group agreed to/advised them on the MM bills?

 

I know the Republicans are capable of doing stuff like this as they have used tactics like this in the past. Those a-holes will do anything to further their cause.

[+Malamute]

AMMA was atrocious.

 

NPRA was very sketchy.

[+Malamute]

Here is the AMMA submission from those hearings...

 

Don't get too mad, it is bad for all your healths... Jay Van Dike. Yeap.

 

jay van dyke babble.pdf

 

Edit: Here is an external link to the same document just in case ya can't download the file off this server there aye.

 

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/jayvandykebabble1354911379.pdf

Edited December 7, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

Oops, i guess everyone gets to see how i originally labelled the pdf.

 

hahaha!

[peanutbutter]

I believe there are no groups that would try to get ANY of the proposed laws introduced.

 

Would that be a better way to paint the picture?

[+Malamute]

There were groups that needed these laws to pass to get their legislation considered...

 

[+Malamute]

In otherwords pb, there are a ton of scummyish groups out their with their own personal agendas that they are willing to fight for regardless of any unintended consequences or unforeseen damages that may occur because of what they want to get for themselves.

 

MANY groups like this.

 

As CPU, we try to inform people when this is happening. If any group is doing things that may intrude upon the rights of patients, caregivers or physicians ... we try to make it known.

 

*shrug*

 

It's what we can do.

 

Don't let questionably agenda driven groups convince you that what you already have needs to be changed. Make them stand on their own laurels and create their own law to do what they wish. Leave us and this law alone and don't do things that will put us or this law in possible danger and subject to future repercussions and loss of rights,.... such as home growing because it is "unsafe" and only "crude" cannabis.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Malamute

[peanutbutter]

Which group wishes any of these bills passed as they are?

[+Malamute]

I can't say because the last amendment was just 2 days ago so i havent spoken to anyone specifically about that.

 

I would guess by the old Unity Letter, we got an idea of who opposed some of the main basic things in the bills. ;-)

[peanutbutter]

Does CPU support any of these bills?

[+Malamute]

Does CPU support any of these bills?

 

 

Of course not.

 

Never have, never will.

 

We support NO changes to the Act.

 

Core Principles

 

l. CPU believes the law as passed by the voters is satisfactory and we do not support any effort to amend or change it in any way: We oppose any attempt to reopen the MMMA.

 

2. CPU believes the Medical Cannabis community needs to be able to defend itself from opponents that could be elected to higher office. Such individuals could make life very difficult for patients, caregivers, physicians and legitimate businesspersons who are providing services to the community

 

3. On an immediate day-to-day level, CPU is the eyes and ears of the community; maintaining constant vigilance for any threats that emerge from state legislators, interest groups or regulatory authorities that could be hostile to the MMMA.

 

4. CPU is officially neutral on the issue of“dispensaries.” These entities are not mentioned in the MMMA one way or another.

 

 

We have attempted to remove detrimental language in the current bills and succeeded on many items. We still and always have opposed the passage of these bills. We explain why we oppose them clearly and professionally and sometimes they agree with common sense and remove said items from the bills.

 

 

Edited to add quote.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Malamute

[peanutbutter]

A clear answer. Thank you.

[peanutbutter]

CPU doesn't

MINORML doesn't

MMMA doesn't

 

Is that accurate?

[peanutbutter]

Individuals claiming our community wishes the law changed, generally don't represent the community. Rather they represent themselves. And those persons are few.

 

Accurate?

[+Malamute]

AFAIK correct.

 

I have heard statements from MINORML(matt abel) of opposition to the bills in current form, and i suppose you need to ask Mr. Komorn for 3MA's position. I would not wish to speak for him. I hav an idea what his answer is, but i will only reference public quotes i know of. :-)

[peanutbutter]

Nearly every person that is a registered patient or caregiver fears being arrested for their medicine.

 

The bills before the legislature are viewed, within the community, as increasing that possibility. A lowering of safety.

 

Small fragments of these bills may be viewed as a benefit, but the cost for those small benefits are greatly outweighed by the greatly increased risk of arrest.

 

Again .. fair?

[+Malamute]

Individuals claiming our community wishes the law changed, generally don't represent the community. Rather they represent themselves. And those persons are few.

 

Accurate?

 

"Community" is a difficult term. What does "community" mean?

 

I mean, 1000 people arent the "community" nor are the say 2000 that showed up to protest nor is CPU the "community". We are factions of the community with varying views. We,CPU, never claim to speak "for" the community. We only speak for ourselves. We are very careful about that point. We would be beyond arrogant to think we spoke for everyone. We encourage members and factions of the community to redress their government via the right to petition, but we only speak for ourselves and our group. I am guessing many many people agree with us, but that doesnt give us the right to assume and aggregate our faction as "the community".

 

I see so many groups try to claim they do and i find it annoying as heck as i think most do.

 

So, in all honesty, the community as a whole is completely unheard from. The 120,000 people that are patients, Cg's and physicians involved in the program that have not been heard from. Just the few thousand general advocates have we ever heard from. People on these forums and active groups are the massive minority.

 

*shrug*

 

So, yes they repreent themselves; yes they are few in a relative manner to the community as a whole, and yes, many claim to speak for the community when they should not be.

 

:-)

[peanutbutter]

The MMMA gave Ken Stecker quite a thrashing, and also proposed amending the public health code to yield to the Act.

 

We've all screamed at these folks.

[peanutbutter]

"Community" is a difficult term. What does "community" mean?

 

I mean, 1000 people arent the "community" nor are the say 2000 that showed up to protest nor is CPU the "community". We are factions of the community with varying views. We,CPU, never claim to speak "for" the community. We only speak for ourselves. We are very careful about that point. We would be beyond arrogant to think we spoke for everyone. We encourage members and factions of the community to redress their government via the right to petition, but we only speak for ourselves and our group. I am guessing many many people agree with us, but that doesnt give us the right to assume and aggregate our faction as "the community".

 

I see so many groups try to claim they do and i find it annoying as heck as i think most do.

 

So, in all honesty, the community as a whole is completely unheard from. The 120,000 people that are patients, Cg's and physicians involved in the program that have not been heard from. Just the few thousand general advocates have we ever heard from. People on these forums and active groups are the massive minority.

 

*shrug*

 

So, yes they repreent themselves; yes they are few in a relative manner to the community as a whole, and yes, many claim to speak for the community when they should not be.

 

:-)

 

OK .. I see what you mean. And thank you.

 

So something like this?

 

Individuals claiming our community wishes the current bills passed, don't represent MINORML, CPU or the MMMA. Rather they represent themselves. And those persons are few.

[+washtenaut]

Yes Perry, er Mr. Mason, that would be correct.