Press Release- New Dispensary Locator Service On The Compassion Chronicles

[jamieuke]

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.

 

I do agree.

[shishka]

Just an fyi. I went to the compassion chronicle to cruise around.

 

The link to green bee doesn't work.

 

The link to the Marijuana Ranch Cafe doesn't work.

 

The link to 3rd Coast brings up Email to contact them.

[Hayduke]

Well put Mal... I agree completely. We have tried to let people who write such tripe, that caregivers are dangerous... blah blah blah, know that this is unsportsmanlike and does more harm than good even for their position. When the dispensary proponents wish to talk about how "patients" view what should be considered, we at CPU will be more than willing to talk. Zap has very good ideas, and often is able to get much good accomplished.

 

Next session begins pretty soon. Rest assured CPU will be up in the halls of the Capitol and House and Senate offices working to protect the MMMA.

 

For Vets, and those suffering from PTSD, the state will have an online portal for adding your comments about making PTSD a condition for getting mmj card beginning January 11th. There will be a public comment period on January 25th in Lansing. Anyone wishing more information can feel free to pm me here and I will give you more info. John Evans is the force behind the New Conditions panel... his unrelenting work for Vets with PTSD is noble. He needs good clear testimony about how cannabis has helped with the symptoms of PTSD.... same for Parkinsons....

 

So that is the state of where things sit presently. Hope you will help us on new conditions....

[Dr. Bob]

This has been a rather fascinating turn of events. Has the message I have been putting out changed? No. Has what CPU does and stands for changed? No. I don't speak for CPU, but I am obviously familiar with the pillars of its position and can read how it has been presented, so as an individual I can say that.

 

I think the telling part of this debate is indeed one of interpretation. I stand by mine. Cpu has been consistent in its. The folks that promote the dispensary model have their own spin to justify their position. It has been clearly presented by Rick and Jamieuke. I'm glad folks are looking at the arguments and making up their own minds rather than just listening to others say Dr. Bob and CPU members have some hidden agenda, or want clones, or hate patient and are out to gut the Act somehow.

 

We've all heard the stories, now the facts are coming out and folks can consider the truth of the accusations and the credibility of the people spreading them around.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited January 1, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

Also, someone had spoken about insomnia on the boards here(new conditions) and i had not gotten back to them about it.

 

I do apologize. Holidays, company and sickness have left me generally non responsive and incompetent. Heh.

 

Please contact me about it because i forgot who it was.

[cristinew]

What is exceptionally strange is that you want to blame non descript "dispensaries" as being the cause of legal issues, and not those who act in opposition to the MMA.

 

What about those who,instead of working to carry out the spirit of the law, work to virtually repeal it by attempting to make it too restrictive for people to functionally participate in?

 

seems like that it might be you guys. want to ban caregivers and patients growing,,,, mal posted your groups statements,,

 

(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,"

Edited January 2, 2013 by cristinew

[cristinew]

do you dispensary people ignore the plain language

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

 

primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

[Celliach]

Now let's make Restorium eat his words. Leyton did not say that dispensaries are illegal- he said patient to patient sales are illegal.

 

Here's the Leyton quote: "Patient-to-patient sales are not allowed."

 

Here's the Restorium quote: "...when he said that dispensaries are illegal" Here's another restorium quote: "The prosecutor makes sure everyone knows that he thinks dispensaries are illegal"

 

Every dispensary in Michigan operating since the McQueen COA ruling uses a model that is NOT a patient to patient transfer model. Your hatred of dispensaries has made you say the very same words the Attorney General says- that all dispensaries are illegal because of P to P transfer. It just isn't true! That is the same leap of logic that Schuette used in the Clearing the Air seminars. We all remember them, don't we? You have mislead the readers, Restorium, and you sound like Bill Schuette's spokesman. Like I said, you need to quote people, not summarize their statements.

 

Oh I see! So dispensaries aren't getting renumeration for supplying MMJ? Geez! I thought they were charging money all along, apparently they are giving it away then.

[cristinew]

]Every dispensary in Michigan operating since the McQueen COA ruling uses a model that is NOT a patient to patient transfer model.

 

]And what Model do they use?

 

The law clearly states that a caregiver can only assist 5 patients with medical USE read the law quoted above ,,

Edited January 2, 2013 by cristinew

[Celliach]

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.

 

So what you are saying is that even if the SC rules against P2P sales, you and other dispensary owners will still push the law and look for other loopholes to stay in business, effectively making patients look like people that have no regard for the law and possibly endangering them with arrest? Is that correct?

[Celliach]

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.

 

How can you agree with CPU on this subject when CPU is neutral and you have a strong opinion? That statement is disingenuous.

[cristinew]

spirit and the intent of the Act //////// when i voted i did not see the word dispensary,,,,

Edited January 2, 2013 by cristinew

[Restorium2]

They will take everything anyone says and twist it around until the square peg fits in their round hole. That's what I learned from Rick Thompson in this thread. You can show something that is common logic and he will act like it's some sort of legal brief that has to analized by Zeus to know what it means(play stupid). He lives in a county where the prosecutor came right out and said dispensaries are illegal the way we all know they are run. But he has to check with Zeus first to understand what everyone else learned to interpret in grade school. They might as well say it like it is moonshiner style,

 

"It aint illegal until you are caught".

 

That is why we will always have dispensaries in Michigan. Most prosecutors, if not all, believe dispensaries are illegal, because they have enough common sense to know what is cooking there. It's a bit of work to prove it. It takes time and resources away from fighting violent crime.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Restorium2

[Dr. Bob]

So what you are saying is that even if the SC rules against P2P sales, you and other dispensary pwners will still push the law and look for other loopholes to stay in business, effectively making patients look like people that have no regard for the law and possibly endangering them with arrest? Is that correct?

 

Honestly, that is the way I read it as well. I used the term 'dancing' with the law.

 

One question that no one has addressed in any of these forums. Why, if the Rep and Dem cannot get a 75% vote to agree on what time to break for lunch, why were they able to get 75%+ to pass these bills? I think if you look at this you have an answer. Folks playing loose and easy with the Act, trying to find loopholes and playing on words to try an claim sales are not sales, p2p is not p2p, donations are not charges, etc. Granted they don't like skype, but was 4851 directed against legitimate telemedicine vs out of state check the box and get a cert?

 

Dr. Bob

[shishka]

Well I believe that if a law is allowed to be broken openly and often after a while it is nothing more than law on paper and loses credibility.

 

You know kinda like " A woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission."

 

or

 

"No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison."

 

Yes, these are technically illegal as well.

 

Lets ask David Leyton if these are illegal. He will probably say something to the effect that, yeah, it's illegal but we probably won't be looking to bring any cases against any female's sneaking around cutting their hair.

 

Hopefully no women are getting styled without your husbands permission as that's like playing Russian roulette. ;-)

[Restorium2]

Well I believe that if a law is allowed to be broken openly and often after a while it is nothing more than law on paper and loses credibility.

 

You know kinda like " A woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission."

 

or

 

"No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison."

 

Yes, these are technically illegal as well.

 

Lets ask David Leyton if these are illegal. He will probably say something to the effect that, yeah, it's illegal but we probably won't be looking to bring any cases against any female's sneaking around cutting their hair.

 

Hopefully no women are getting styled without your husbands permission as that's like playing Russian roulette. ;-)

He would say what he already said, "If the community complains then he would address it."

 

You have to ask yourself what the odds are that the community would complain. To me, that would totally depend on the 'use' versus 'nuisance' ratio. For others, all it takes is a whim or a grudge. From the recent 'real world' dispensary reports in his area, the ratio is shifting in the wrong direction to keep them open. Selling joints because patients can't afford their bag prices is not a good sign.

 

Shishka,

Do you think it's a proper comparison when you also compare these different crimes and the different punishments? In other words, is the risk involved the same? Or did you kind of make a bad comparison because the risks are not really comparable at all? What is the penalty for the hair cutting? What is the penalty for selling an illegal substance? See what I mean? Or were you just being funny with your witty remark about Russian Roulette with a wink? I'll ask the guy I know who's wife is in jail because he sold at the dispensary if it's funny.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Restorium2

[knucklehead bob]

Hey . . . Where's the Farmers Market Locator thread at ?

[bobandtorey]

I don't think the 3ma supports a farmers market it's at a level 3 risk

You have no protection

 

Just like the Law it's Limited / or Narrow/ you have none screwed/ out of luck

 

[Dr. Bob]

I think he can easily look at the forums list and see if there is something about the fm. I believe the reason for the post in this thread is he wants to show his disdain for any of this and tell us to screw off, he is going to support the farmers market regardless of legality or the impact it has on the Act. It was just flipping us the bird.

 

To each his own.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, to answer your question, look at the press release that was post #1 in this thread.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[knucklehead bob]

It was just flipping us the bird.

 

To each his own.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

Incorrect . I don't recall posting pro or con on either farmers markets or dispensaries . I believe unfettered access to be of paramount concern . As such , I think there should be farmers mkts. , dispensaries and a caregiver system in place . Variety used to be the "spice of life". Neither dispensaries or markets are mentioned in the act , as has been pointed out . I'm wondering why we are not discussing the language that would amend the act in stead of waiting to see how the Supreme Court is going to read and interpret our law . I mean now that we sort of understand the "grey areas" they are looking at . Edited January 2, 2013 by knucklehead bob

[cristinew]

We said K B But they the Michigan senate will never give them a dispensary unless they ban our growing,..watch out,

[Dr. Bob]

Incorrect . I don't recall posting pro or con on either farmers markets or dispensaries . I believe unfettered access to be of paramount concern . As such , I think there should be farmers mkts. , dispensaries and a caregiver system in place . Variety used to be the "spice of life". Neither dispensaries or markets are mentioned in the act , as has been pointed out . I'm wondering why we are not discussing the language that would amend the act in stead of waiting to see how the Supreme Court is going to read and interpret our law . I mean now that we sort of understand the "grey areas" they are looking at .

 

Well if I misinterpreted your request for information about a farmers market as we were discussing the issues and problems with p2p (farmers markets) as completely ignoring our discussion, then you have my apology. I hope you can see clearly why it could well be interpreted as such though. I still do not understand why you would mention specifically that neither is mentioned in the act and then turn around and ask where you can find information about their locations. Just appears confusing.

 

Dr. Bob

[jamieuke]

This is kind of a general response. Many people made comments or had questions about my thoughts and opinions.

 

Incidentally, Knucklehead makes the obvious point and offers an injection of realism here that is missing.

 

It doesn't matter how much one really believes that he or she conclusively knows and understands the rights, protections and limitations of the Act. We all are working with what we believe are reasonable interpretations.

 

The courts may confirm or deny our individual images of what the language means and what the intent of the voters was when approving the MMMA in 2008.

 

I am open to an exchange of ideas and to have a civil discussion on all of these issues. However, this will be impossible if people continue to treat their own concept of things as if it is the reality we are all living under. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't- the same for my views and the many other perspectives that exist out there.

 

I think that my answers, although apparently not read or articulated clearly enough or possibly not comprehended by some, reflect the fact that there are different possibities for how things may go, and that we will have deal with the reality, as it comes.

 

I hope to continue engaging in meaningful exchanges on these issues. I just ask that people present opinions as opinions and not as fact. It is an exercise that has value well outside of this kind of forum.

 

 

[bobandtorey]

I think you have cleared things up on this thread

1. It's

2.is

3. Maybe

4. Hope so

5. ?

Edited January 2, 2013 by bobandtorey

[Dr. Bob]

This is kind of a general response. Many people made comments or had questions about my thoughts and opinions.

 

Incidentally, Knucklehead makes the obvious point and offers an injection of realism here that is missing.

 

It doesn't matter how much one really believes that he or she conclusively knows and understands the rights, protections and limitations of the Act. We all are working with what we believe are reasonable interpretations.

 

The courts may confirm or deny our individual images of what the language means and what the intent of the voters was when approving the MMMA in 2008.

 

I am open to an exchange of ideas and to have a civil discussion on all of these issues. However, this will be impossible if people continue to treat their own concept of things as if it is the reality we are all living under. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't- the same for my views and the many other perspectives that exist out there.

 

I think that my answers, although apparently not read or articulated clearly enough or possibly not comprehended by some, reflect the fact that there are different possibities for how things may go, and that we will have deal with the reality, as it comes.

 

I hope to continue engaging in meaningful exchanges on these issues. I just ask that people present opinions as opinions and not as fact. It is an exercise that has value well outside of this kind of forum.

 

The reality is that sales are not legal currently. To think otherwise is dancing around the law.

 

That said, I know KB from the UP and I felt my answer was not only appropriate, I directed him to your release.

 

Dr. Bob