Press Release- New Dispensary Locator Service On The Compassion Chronicles

[Restorium2]

Exactly who is pretending that they know what goes on in dispensaries?!

Who is pretending, or not, that they have no common sense on this issue?

[jamieuke]

 

This is one way dispensaries take advantage of our community because we don't narc. I have seen all kinds of rip off artists take advantage of our souls in this way. Sorry, I'll let Leyton find them if the community complains. They are complaining to me already. It's only a matter of time.

 

 

 

In other words- you will continue to spew things that are not true and that you can not substantiate.

Edited January 1, 2013 by jamieuke

[Rick Thompson]

And here I thought Restorium was going to be logical from now on. Boy, was I wrong.

 

"He is the AG. And we know they sell for a profit. So they are illegal in Michigan, period. Unless you want to pretend.... like Leyton described. You could be just using the caregiver patient system set up and using the building to do it. We know that would be stupid, a waste of time, and unprofitable to say the least. So they are breaking the law, selling marijuana outside the act."- Restorium

 

You should take a job in the Attorney General's office. You could replace Joy Yearout as his spokesman. Every place we readers think the AG is wrong, you say he is right. The AG's Opinions have proven to be wrong. Courts have overturned his "must meet Section 4 requirements before you can assert a Section 8 defense" bull baloney because he was wrong. The courts decide if a dispensary is working for profit or not, but you seem to know more than the courts and have already declared them ALL illegal. All of them. Not even a single entity in the state is operating legally. I don't think anyone on this listserv believes NOBODY is doing it properly- except you and Billy Bong.

 

Go ahead, back the Attorney General's position.

[Restorium2]

And here I thought Restorium was going to be logical from now on. Boy, was I wrong.

 

"He is the AG. And we know they sell for a profit. So they are illegal in Michigan, period. Unless you want to pretend.... like Leyton described. You could be just using the caregiver patient system set up and using the building to do it. We know that would be stupid, a waste of time, and unprofitable to say the least. So they are breaking the law, selling marijuana outside the act."- Restorium

 

You should take a job in the Attorney General's office. You could replace Joy Yearout as his spokesman. Every place we readers think the AG is wrong, you say he is right. The AG's Opinions have proven to be wrong. Courts have overturned his "must meet Section 4 requirements before you can assert a Section 8 defense" bull baloney because he was wrong. The courts decide if a dispensary is working for profit or not, but you seem to know more than the courts and have already declared them ALL illegal. All of them. Not even a single entity in the state is operating legally. I don't think anyone on this listserv believes NOBODY is doing it properly- except you and Billy Bong.

 

Go ahead, back the Attorney General's position.

You can't just agree with the AG when he says something you like. Calling him names is right at your level. We need to rise above that. You can take your listserv, faceboink and your juvenile Billy Bong comments and enjoy them on your recreational sites. This is a medical site and we have a little more at stake to be so childish.

[jamieuke]

 

Who is pretending, or not, that they have no common sense on this issue?

 

You

[Rick Thompson]

LOL You are writing fiction again Ricky, pretending you know what every dispensary in Michigan is doing. Does crap like that fly on the radio show?

 

Interesting that you can declare that every dispensary operates for a profit (there are non-profits out there, too) and that every dispensary serves more than just their five patients and that they all operate in a fashion that is illegal. You made three statements about ALL dispensaries but then try to barbecue me for saying they all operate on a non-P to P basis?

 

Look up HYPOCRITE. Please. Although it is fun for me to make you look foolish, you should stop yourself from making yourself look that way.

[Restorium2]

Interesting that you can declare that every dispensary operates for a profit (there are non-profits out there, too) and that every dispensary serves more than just their five patients and that they all operate in a fashion that is illegal. You made three statements about ALL dispensaries but then try to barbecue me for saying they all operate on a non-P to P basis?

 

Look up HYPOCRITE. Please. Although it is fun for me to make you look foolish, you should stop yourself from making yourself look that way.

It's called 'Common Sense'. Just like it's common sense to know that dispensaries will be all over the map as to how they operate. Common sense tells me that none of them are just caregivers servicing the patients on their card, but they had to open a store to do it. Why? Because they would have to be total morons to do it. Anyone who believes that's what they are doing is playing stupid.

[rhinoman]

hey i know what hypocrite is= the ruleing class of america

[jamieuke]

 

It's called 'Common Sense'. Just like it's common sense to know that dispensaries will be all over the map as to how they operate. Common sense tells me that none of them are just caregivers servicing the patients on their card, but they had to open a store to do it. Why? Because they would have to be total morons to do it. Anyone who believes that's what they are doing is playing stupid.

 

You simultaneously contradict yourself while exhibiting the inability to comprehend information that does not directly comport to your personal image of how things are, or should be.

 

As Rick said, very similar to the AG.

[Restorium2]

You simultaneously contradict yourself while exhibiting the inability to comprehend information that does not directly comport to your personal image of how things are, or should be.

 

As Rick said, very similar to the AG.

Yes, I stick pretty close to what the AG advises. I have 15 pages of his suggestions. The legislature sticks fairly close to what he advises also. Who is tilting at windmills with other people's future at stake? Not me.

[Dr. Bob]

Restorium, prove your words- yet again. Dispensaries exist in Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint, and many many other communities. It is ridiculous to believe that the prosecutors in all these counties are aware of their activities and believe they are all in business operating on a five patient only business plan?

 

1. Prosecutors know they are there.

2. Prosecutors know they are servicing more than their five patients.

3. Prosecutors are not shutting them down.

4. Your argument: "The only reason any dispensary is even open is because the case hasn't been made yet that they are servicing anyone outside of the strict caregiver system" has been proven to be anti-dispensary hatespeech.

 

Here is the crux of your argument Rick and the answer to the question of dispensaries. The only response is as follows:

 

1. Dispensaries deal with sales, the COA has determined that sales are not medical use under the Act. Transfer between a caregiver and THEIR registered patients is not a sale, because the Act specifically says they are not a sale. Any other transfer for compensation is a sale, because that is the definition of sale.

2. ANY dispensaries currently in operation exist at the discretion of the local prosecutors/police.

3. There is legal, and there is tolerated. Dispensaries are tolerated in some isolated locations. They are tolerated until it becomes unappealing to the local authorities to tolerate them any more. The hammer can drop ANY time, it is up to them, not you or any of us.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

"At present, in Michigan, according to the Apellate Court, it is illegal. "

 

P to P with remuneration was deemed illegal by the COA. They did not deem P to P illegal or rule on other possible distribution scenarios. The AG determined that the "sale" in this case refers to a for profit transaction.

 

This is a common misconception. To assume that because the court defined some activity as illegal and applied it to a single episode of that activity while not addressing the same activity in other specific situations that those situations are somehow 'legal' is akin to the courts ruling the color red to be illegal in a case involving stop signs, but somehow thinking a red fire truck is ok. If red is illegal, everything red that comes before the court would be illegal too. Had they been specifically asked and decided to rule on p2p, cg2p, or any other form of sale, do you really think the answer would have been different from the COA. Do you want to personally finance the test case?

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Good points Dr. Bob. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is asking why we have to explain these most basic concepts to a couple of individuals that are supposed to be experts? We know they both know the things we are posting. It's a little sickening at times, the pretending that goes on, and the trouble that follows.

[Dr. Bob]

Good points Dr. Bob. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is asking why we have to explain these most basic concepts to a couple of individuals that are supposed to be experts? We know they both know the things we are posting. It's a little sickening at times, the pretending that goes on, and the trouble that follows.

 

For the same reason we have to keep repeating it. When it is your money on the line to promote the idea of dispensaries, your income, it is easy to encourage people to selectively ignore the obvious. Some people just like to make as much as they can before they are stopped by the authorities, hence promoting things that make them money and that they are getting away with.

 

Same with one price for a cert with records and a higher one for a cert without them. Yes there is higher risk involved in a no record cert, but for whom? The clinic? No an affidavit from the patient claiming they are sick and qualify gives them pausable deniability in court. The patient is the one taking ALL the risk for the higher price. They are the ones that go to jail.

 

Dr. Bob

[jamieuke]

 

 

This is a common misconception. To assume that because the court defined some activity as illegal and applied it to a single episode of that activity while not addressing the same activity in other specific situations that those situations are somehow 'legal' is akin to the courts ruling the color red to be illegal in a case involving stop signs, but somehow thinking a red fire truck is ok. If red is illegal, everything red that comes before the court would be illegal too. Had they been specifically asked and decided to rule on p2p, cg2p, or any other form of sale, do you really think the answer would have been different from the COA. Do you want to personally finance the test case?

 

Dr. Bob

 

I did not say or imply what you wrote here. I understand the ruling. I did not perpetuate any kind of a misconception.

[jamieuke]

 

 

Here is the crux of your argument Rick and the answer to the question of dispensaries. The only response is as follows:

 

1. Dispensaries deal with sales, the COA has determined that sales are not medical use under the Act. Transfer between a caregiver and THEIR registered patients is not a sale, because the Act specifically says they are not a sale. Any other transfer for compensation is a sale, because that is the definition of sale.

2. ANY dispensaries currently in operation exist at the discretion of the local prosecutors/police.

3. There is legal, and there is tolerated. Dispensaries are tolerated in some isolated locations. They are tolerated until it becomes unappealing to the local authorities to tolerate them any more. The hammer can drop ANY time, it is up to them, not you or any of us.

 

Dr. Bob

 

#2 and #3- in part, I agree with.

[Dr. Bob]

#2 and #3- in part, I agree with.

 

Of course you don't agree with #1. It would threaten what you promote and undermine your entire argument.

 

As for your other comment, I was quoting you. Clearly. My statement stands, unless you care to explain why you think your quote didn't play on the fact the COA only ruled on one specific scenario of sales but because it didn't rule on other examples of the sales those examples are somehow ok.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited January 1, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[jamieuke]

 

 

Of course you don't agree with #1. It would threaten what you promote and undermine your entire argument.

 

As for your other comment, I was quoting you. Clearly. My statement stands, unless you care to explain why you think your quote didn't play on the fact the COA only ruled on one specific scenario of sales but because it didn't rule on other examples of the sales those examples are somehow ok.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I disagree with #1 because it does not represent the various models carried out in central locations, across the board, or take into consideration the fact the COA very specifically did not rule on any other distribution scenarios, and went out of their way to say so, within the ruling itself.

 

 

[Dr. Bob]

Here is the other obvious hole in your agreement with 2 and 3. If #1 was not true, why would anyone have to tolerate it as noted in 2 and 3?

 

Do your various models involve the transfer of cannabis for compensation? Direct or Indirect compensation? Fancy little tricks like buying a mason jar for $50 and getting free cannabis, or donations, or whatever? If so, state #1 stands.

 

You are dancing.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited January 1, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

I disagree with #1 because it does not represent the various models carried out in central locations, across the board, or take into consideration the fact the COA very specifically did not rule on any other distribution scenarios, and went out of their way to say so, within the ruling itself.

 

The COA ruling states, "Because of our conclusion that medical use of marijuana does not include the sale of marijuana, we need not, and therefore do not resolve this dispute"

 

Dr. Bob's red stop sign analogy is spot on. The COA is telling us that they concluded selling marijuana is not legal. So there would be no need for them to say "cg-cg sales are illegal."

Edited January 1, 2013 by Highlander

[jamieuke]

Here is the other obvious hole in your agreement with 2 and 3. If #1 was not true, why would anyone have to tolerate it as noted in 2 and 3?

 

Do your various models involve the transfer of cannabis for compensation? Direct or Indirect compensation? Fancy little tricks like buying a mason jar for $50 and getting free cannabis, or donations, or whatever? If so, state #1 stands.

 

You are dancing.

 

Dr. Bob

 

If we agree that, until the SC weighs in, and then possibly even after, that sales between patients are illegal by a ruling from the COA, then the models that continue to operate before and after the ruling, do not involve patient to patient for profit sales.

 

Other than an understanding of the Act that you have developed or that you find credible from someone else, there is a philosophical difference of interpretation that has not been addressed by the courts.

 

One of the reasons that a particular county or local government embraces the use of a central location to carry out the intended functionality of the Act, is because the decision makers agree that it is not illegal, or that since no issues are prevelant, they will not address the issue until or if something that conclusively defines the activity comes along.

Edited January 1, 2013 by jamieuke

[purple pimpernel]

it's nice to see you folks discussing this 'openly' on public forums--

 

that way a lot of us can start to see the real dialogue about the issues and not the ones you guys like to perpetuate behind closed doors-- the secret closed for stake holders only the ones we all 'guess' as to the truth

 

but it's interesting to at least finally see you guys trying to argue your 'points' in front of us patients...

instead of making us guess at who we really support

 

that being said I can't believe I am writing this but I must finally say it ..."I support all the statements "....(for the most part) of what was said by the CPU members in the other thread--and I never thought I would say that!

and I apologize to them for a year 1 1/2 of constant badgering about their position....as SFC said I 'was' starting to see a little light..?

well someone just flipped on the light switch in the room and now I see clearly the positions of both sides...thk u

 

 

their language to support the existing system designed to allow us to keep our rights to grow our own medicine is one I firmly stand on!

and if club owners try to marginalize that I don't think they will get the support they needd to make that happen--jmo

they might have the $$ tho-- and support in their respective areas .......but

 

to see both sides openly arguing their viewpoint is very refreshing...thank you

 

I defianately have taken a complete 360 degree turnaround on my support to CPU...Where do I send a check?

and I donated to Calton ...?

 

I am not against Jamie and the clubs.......I do believe they are a necessary step to take us to the next level

how that will be implemented is the crux of the argument for me and most folks I know

 

dispensaries in and of themselves are not bad....it's how they are run IMO

 

if the system here was operating as the one in california....where patients and caregivers allowed to keep grow rights and clubs existed parallel to caregivers patients ....? well

I would be all for it and I think Michigan is poised for a unique format all our own....pure

 

the so called 'clubs' in california all started as mostly collective co-operative cultivation projects...all of them!

I am seeing some of this kind of collective effort here in washtenaw other cities and now Detroit and I like it--

 

remember there will be producer areas and consumer areas and the urban areas are where the clubs will be most tolerated ...because of the supply and demand for medicine--their ability to produce will be stratling the law between state and federal tolerances

 

there needs to be a compromise and a wholistic effort by the groups out there standing on their own agendas for the safety and benefit of the whole community

 

if it starts to go like colorado or some of the stricter tax and control models out there I would be against it!! adamantly!

 

I even have even changed my outlook towards Dr Bob!

and I think his tax stamp idea is a very good one! and an easy solution...simple

 

you folks arguing your positions allow us to clearly see where you stand instead of guessing and allows us to really decide which one of your sides we as patients stand by....

personally I support both and hope there can be a mutually amicable situation for the whole community to benefit from

 

that is a pray and a hope for all of us--

 

I can't believe I have seen such clarity in these few threads that I now completely feel that the CPU group does indeed have my same feelings towards our rights under the law! wow...I would support $them

 

I also see the neccsity of the clubs in the green zones....absolutely!

and farmers markets are the top of my list--

 

seeing you guys here on the forums openly discussing this gives me some solid hope forthe new year that mayb things will change for the benefit of the whole community and we will see some unity around the issues that affect all of us

 

at least arguing is a good start..and thanks for the hope!

 

I sure pray this type of open dialogue keeps going throughout the new year tho so we can possibly seek consensus on everything that affects all of us in the community

 

it would be nice to we these threads stay open and civil and the players keep hashing[pun] it out--

 

peace happy and hopeful new year for all of us

Edited January 1, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[jamieuke]

Purple- I predominantly agree with CPU's philosophy. The issues often stem from having different images of how the spirit and the intent of the Act can be or should be carried out. There are also many misconceptions of how a dispensary or what many call dispensaries fit into that.

 

In all fairness, when one begins to discuss a "dispensary" it should start with that person's own definition and personal description of a dispensary, before being able to responsibly carry out the discussion.

 

Your confirmation that CPU is correct in their philosophy and that you also support helping to carry out the functionality of the Act with "dispensaries" is something I also completely agree with.

 

I think that most of the argument or disagreement comes from some making assumptions and presenting their personal opinions as fact.

 

Thanks for your input.

[SFC]

We have always been officially neutral. That doesn't mean that some of us aren't quite. There have been times when word or evidence has come around suggesting that some dispensary advocates were throwing grow rights of patients and CG's under the bus. Not all of it being in-state either. I think Jamie knows the only way the MMJ community will put their support behind dispensaries is with firm written assurances in any legislation dealing with the protection of our existing grow rights. That does not mean any legislator involved with such an undertaking would take his or our advice tho and that is a real danger. Jamie I am sure you would agree.

 

At the end of the day there is a lot of money at stake, for every party involved. The money could easily trump any of our feelings on this so we must be wary and proactive if something don't look right. I truly hope McQueen comes out soon and I hope it settles it for now one way or the other. I also hope the reps and senators have had their fill of tampering with the MMMA (wishful thinking). If this is the case the main game in town will be 5580 (dispensary bill). If we can all keep it real and work together without the knives maybe some good can come of it.

[+Malamute]

I'm sure some have noticed i have not made any comments on these threads. I been sick as a dog(heh) for several days, and didnt even have the energy to post.

 

Hopefully i feel a bit better tomorrow where i can lay out some of the basic points.

 

What i can say, is the messaging and angle that has been used by "dispensaries" or "dispensary type people" is what thoroughly bothers me more than anything else.

 

You do not need to degrade Cg's to get what you want. You do not have to amplify any shortcomings of the current system to be able to be part of that system.

 

This whole "safe access" crapola is just that,... crapola. Safe access= Caregivers/patients are not safe. That makes me crazy and i will fight that nonsense to the end.

 

Cannabis does not need to be tested to be safe. Cannabis is safe, period. Perpetuating that cannabis is unsafe is detrimental to the community as a whole.

 

Labelling caregivers as dangerous to grandma is counterproductive.

 

Trying to label Caregivers as "black market weed" peddlers is just wrong. Saying patients will have to go to the black market if your dispensary closes is just b.s. Train more cg's if that is the problem.

 

I mean, seriously, i think it is halfway decent knowledge if you want "black market weed" you go to many of the dispensaries. Hahaha. So just drop that bs line. Please.

 

And when people wonder why groups like CPU are a bit defensive about protecting cg's, patients and home growing, it is definitely not because of "personal opinion",... it is from being very aware of the environment in most medical cannabis states and the rhetoric that has been used against home growers by "dispensary" or commercialization advocates and the loss of home growing option for so many in so many states now.

 

I mean, these rae the poeple backing the dispensary push here in Michigan and i assume belong to the same groups as others speaking here. Just a few quotes i have handy and could and will elaborate further when iget a chance and feel a bit better:...

 

"(Dispensaries) will eliminate, quite frankly, a lot of the backroom dealings that happen frequently," said Matthew Newburg, a Lansing attorney whose firm is representing about 50 clients who have become entangled between decriminalized medical marijuana and narcotics laws.

 

"Supporters of regulated dispensaries say the caregiver system is ripe for misuse since they can grow up to 12 plants per patient — or 60 plants for a maximum of five patients"

 

"You're creating a circumstance that could encourage criminality," said Robert Mullen, a Farmington Hills attorney for the Detroit-based National Patients Rights Association, which advocates for tightly regulated medical marijuana dispensing. "If this is going to be medicine, why not treat it like medicine?"

 

"It's difficult for me to understand how anybody could propose that medicine should be grown by amateurs in basements,"

 

 

So, it is not that we are against dispensaries, it is that we see the writing ont he wall and DO NOT appreciate the rhetoric and nonsense attached to this commercialization push. You have the strength to stand on your own laurels and do not need to degrade others or champion that they are less than you(commercial).

 

Hopefully i feel better tomorrow.