New Michigan Based Mmj Documentary- Blazed And Confused By Jen Whalen

[Celliach]

So Rick, will you answer my question this time? If the dispensary bills, either 5580 or the mine bill is amended to restrict CG and patient grow rights, will you, personally, spend as much time and money fighting the bills as you have supporting them up to now?

 

I've asked you and Jamie twice now and neither have given me an answer......still.

[Rick Thompson]

Sorry, Rick, but you can't spin this one. Many positive comments were made about this woman's work. The only negative comments were made regarding the untruthful anti-caregiver propaganda presented by Sabra Briere, Matt, and Jamie from 15:00 to 19:00. Four minutes of lies makes the product less palatable to me. I do not hold the filmmaker responsible for this section, as the focus and lighting were awesome.

Zap, you know not to cross swords with me. Proving that you are wrong is fun!

The only negative comments were made regarding the untruthful anti-caregiver propaganda presented by Sabra Briere, Matt, and Jamie from 15:00 to 19:00- your words.

 

yeah I liked the last msg in the film--

 

"Michigan is in the fight"....

 

----yes we are and too bad the lawyers are leading it....

 

instead of the patients and the people that voted the initiative....

 

 

were there any 'patient groups' in this film.....?

 

mayb someone could explain--

Purple Pimpernel criticizes the lawyers, criticizes the lack of patient groups involved int he film. Negativity detected unrelated to those 4 minutes of the film. Zap is wrong example 1.

 

Hayduke offers these additional digs about the patients shown- And they weave the touching tale of a couple patients into justifying the commercial operations they wish to be trumpeted. More negativity not related to the 4 minutes in question. Zap is wrong example 2.

 

Zap, you yourself take a shot at the Repeal Today video footage. "the medical vs legalization thing". So does Hayduke. That was not contained in those disputed 4 minutes. Zap is wrong example 3.

 

Your old friend Malamute takes a shot at DeAngelo's comments. "Steve De'Angelo there begging for our support as pt/cg's to legalize his commerialize operation" More negativity not aimed at the four minutes. Zap is wrong example 4.

 

I could go on but my point is made. Zap, your defense of your friends is predicated on a falsehood. WTF are you guys talking about, vending machines? How did that enter the conversation?

[CaveatLector]

Neil Rockind said the video was GREAT. Do you guys know more than Niel Rockind? I think not.

So Mr. Rockind's opinion is the last word? Does Mr. Rockind have inside knowledge that the rest of us do not?

 

Mr. Rockind can have an opinion but I guess I'd like to know why and how it is more valuable than the opinion of anyone else.

 

The producer interviewed people, right? Some here are taking umbrage with certain opinions espoused. If people don't like the video because they see it as anti-cg propaganda, so be it. They are not maligning the producer. Pretending that the producer's career hangs in the balance is your way of trying to play on people's emotions.

 

People can, and will, think for themselves. Telling them they should: 1. like the video because Mr. Rockind thinks it is "great" is pretty weak wouldn't you say? and 2. not malign the content of the video because the producer's young career hangs in the balance is similarly weak.

 

You may as well post a picture of the producer and tell everyone that she is HOT and therefore people should like the video.

Edited January 16, 2013 by CaveatLector

[Celliach]

We're not upset about the film, we're upset about what you and Jamie, and Matt Abel, etc have said in the film.

 

Nice try at redirection and obfuscation.

 

The video production was great. It's YOUR message that everyone has the problem with.

[Rick Thompson]

So Rick, will you answer my question this time? If the dispensary bills, either 5580 or the mine bill is amended to restrict CG and patient grow rights, will you, personally, spend as much time and money fighting the bills as you have supporting them up to now?

 

I've asked you and Jamie twice now and neither have given me an answer......still.

 

Actually Jamie did answer your question... just not in the way you wanted.

 

I've already stated, and I will yet again, I support caregiver's rights. I will speak against any measure that attempts to restrict it, but I will support or not support a bill based on it's entirety, not a single issue. As written I DO NOT support 5580. Said it, wrote it, speeched it, lobbied it. This is not new news.

[Rick Thompson]

Rick, this film stands on its own. It is obvious who sponsored it, and what they are trying to achieve. I do not think any of those comments were directed to the film itself, or its maker, but to the producers and the environment surrounding the film and portrayed in the film. My comment about the medical vs. legalization was not intended to be a dig but constructive criticism. I felt that again, the comment about Steve D'Angelo targeted him only, and the filmmaker simply relayed the information to us. I am certain nobody here is criticizing the filmmaker. It was nicely done. It was thought provoking and even touching in parts. I also do not hold the filmmaker responsible for the truthfulness of every statement made in the film. I do hold all of you responsible as you know better.

 

It is obvious who sponsored the film. A University of Michigan filmmaker. No financing. No collusion. No deep consiracy.

[Restorium2]

Whopper of the year award goes to ..........

 

No dispensary funded the film; no dispensary influenced the construction of the film; until it was dropped in our laps a day or two ago, I'd forgotten all about it.

[Restorium2]

So Sabra Briere is a puppet of the dispensary lobby? You are toooooooooooooooooooooooooo high to make sense any more.

Or, you are a fiction writer that would say anything. I think we have proven that in this thread alone, let alone all your previous fiction writing on file here.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Restorium2

[SFC]

I doubt if Neil has even watched it yet. But rest assured he will know of the problems we have with certain segments of it. I would definitely stay on his good side tho if you are in the dispensary business, he is about as good as it gets. As long as you have the money to pay anyway.

[Restorium2]

Alrighty, Rick. Why does Sabra Briere think that a caregiver can't grow even five strains? Did she get that info first hand? Also, it is false, flat false. Every single caregiver I know grows more than five strains. I have heard it from only one other place.

I think Ricky might have created another one of those whiplash role reversals with that 'sooooooooooooo high' comment. He's got a knack ....

[Celliach]

Well when you start resorting to personal attacks

Actually Jamie did answer your question... just not in the way you wanted.

 

I've already stated, and I will yet again, I support caregiver's rights. I will speak against any measure that attempts to restrict it, but I will support or not support a bill based on it's entirety, not a single issue. As written I DO NOT support 5580. Said it, wrote it, speeched it, lobbied it. This is not new news.

 

Actually Jamie never answered my question, and neither have you.

 

Exactly what does this mean: but I will support or not support a bill based on it's entirety, not a single issue.

It seems to me that you are saying you won't oppose a bill just because it restricts one facet of CG and PT rights.

 

I've asked for a simple yes or no in the past, and still haven't gotten it.

[Restorium2]

Ricky Quote;

 

but I will support or not support a bill based on it's entirety, not a single issue

 

That's a huge BUT. That says that if the bill butters his bread like he wants it then we can kiss our grow rights goodbye.

[Ryan Basore]

More choices for patients its simple....if you are against that you are thinking solley of your personal margins on your basement grow.

[Rick Thompson]

We're not upset about the film, we're upset about what you and Jamie, and Matt Abel, etc have said in the film. Nice try at redirection and obfuscation. The video production was great. It's YOUR message that everyone has the problem with.

Celliach, do you even know what I look like? I didn't utter a single word in the film. Your attack on me proves you are not intent on criticizing the film, but instead are criticizing individuals.

 

At least be honest in your posts.

[Rick Thompson]

Well when you start resorting to personal attacks Actually Jamie never answered my question, and neither have you. Exactly what does this mean: but I will support or not support a bill based on it's entirety, not a single issue. It seems to me that you are saying you won't oppose a bill just because it restricts one facet of CG and PT rights. I've asked for a simple yes or no in the past, and still haven't gotten it.

 

The answer to your question is not a simple yes or no. The world is not us vs them, black vs white, yes vs no. As adults, we understand this to be true in nearly every facet of life.

[Celliach]

Celliach, do you even know what I look like? I didn't utter a single word in the film. Your attack on me proves you are not intent on criticizing the film, but instead are criticizing individuals.

 

At least be honest in your posts.

 

I'm talking about your message here on the board. I even said the film was alright.

[Celliach]

The answer to your question is not a simple yes or no. The world is not us vs them, black vs white, yes vs no. As adults, we understand this to be true in nearly every facet of life.

 

Yes it is!!!!!! You will either support CGs and PTs or you won't. Which is it?

 

There's no us vs. them. We are talking about grow rights not enemies.

[Restorium2]

Celliach, do you even know what I look like? I didn't utter a single word in the film. Your attack on me proves you are not intent on criticizing the film, but instead are criticizing individuals.

 

At least be honest in your posts.

Hey man, you are the one who said all Celliache does in regards to medical is angrily type posts. Check yourself first. You fired the first shot. And it was a below the belt shot. I think you can't remember what you wrote a half an hour ago. You should be apologizing, not attacking.

[Restorium2]

The answer to your question is not a simple yes or no. The world is not us vs them, black vs white, yes vs no. As adults, we understand this to be true in nearly every facet of life.

Just say you will not support a bill that takes away ANYONE's grow rights. But then, how could we trust it's the truth anyway?

[Celliach]

So? You guys are alright with amending the MMMA if you get dispensary rights even if it negatively impacts CGs and PTs? Yes or no.

[Ryan Basore]

Thanks Zap, I got banned by Joe two years ago.....

[SFC]

Ryan, we have all stated repeatedly that we have no problem with dispensaries as long as it doesn't infringe on our rights as caregivers and patients to grow, yet every time we turn around we have dispensary owner/proponents throwing us under the bus to further their own cause. Unnecessarily! So you all have made the enemies where there wasn't one. Preemptively we will be making it clear that our law is great as it stands and there is no safety issue with the current caregiver patient standard in our law. Dispensaries are not about compassion, they are about profits. Period.

 

That is also why you guys want our grow rights. The most obvious profit in all of this is on the growing end. By having to buy from caregivers it eats up half of your potential profit. We get it.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SFC

[Rick Thompson]

I'm talking about your message here on the board.

 

"We're not upset about the film, we're upset about what you and Jamie, and Matt Abel, etc have said in the film."

 

Nice contradiction. Or should I say, obfuscation.

[Rick Thompson]

Ryan, we have all stated repeatedly that we have no problem with dispensaries as long as it doesn't infringe on our rights as caregivers and patients to grow, yet every time we turn around we have dispensary owner/proponents throwing us under the bus to further their own cause. Unnecessarily! So you all have made the enemies where there wasn't one. Preemptively we will be making it clear that our law is great as it stands and there is no safety issue with the current caregiver patient standard in our law. Dispensaries are not about compassion, they are about profits. Period.

 

That is also why you guys want our grow rights. The most obvious profit in all of this is on the growing end. By having to buy from caregivers it eats up half of your potential profit. We get it.

 

No, you have NOT said that. You shoot at dispensaries every chance you get. Nice misstatement to avoid being responsible for your words.

[Northern Lab]

Is there any place on this forum for people who think that not every caregiver is equally skilled at all aspects of medical cannabis? Are there people here who won't see that notion as a shot against ALL caregivers?

 

Is there a place for people who would like to see dispensaries thrive and compliment a very robust caregiver and patient based system?