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

[Celliach]

Again Rick, you're changing the subject and still haven't answered my question with a simple yes or no.

 

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.

[Celliach]

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?

 

Sure. If the dispensary interests stop saying things that are denegrating CGs and Pts growing for themselves.

[Rick Thompson]

You can't even be consistent within your own postings, SFC. "Dispensaries are not about compassion, they are about profits." Soooooo, how does that fit with your statement "we have no problem with dispensaries"??? It took three sentences to completely contradict yourself.

 

And that, my friends, is why no one will take SFC seriously.

 

We have Zap that claims negativity was confined to only dispensary comments but that was proven false... we have SFC who can't decide if he likes dispensaries or not... What a muddied message. Good luck with that.

[CaveatLector]

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?

I don't think anyone here has said they are against dispensaries. Have they? The issue is not the existence of dispensaries it is the strategy being used by some to push for dispensaries.

[Rick Thompson]

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?

 

HELL YES! Now, finally, someone with an open mind,

[Ryan Basore]

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.

 

 

 

When have Dispensaries thrown you under the bus? I think there are caregivers that don't want any competition and are throwing the patients under the bus. We need to be able to get patients the RSO they need and that isn't happening the way it should be. Its pretty simple to me as I'm no longer a caregiver or dispensary owner..just a patient....people on here hiding behind this argument are only thinking of themselves.

[Rick Thompson]

I don't think anyone here has said they are against dispensaries. Have they? The issue is not the existence of dispensaries it is the strategy being used by some to push for dispensaries.

Caveat, read SFC;s statements. All dispensaries are in it fir profit and none of them know anything about compassion. "Period." He said it. Read the posts, man!

[Rick Thompson]

Sure. If the dispensary interests stop saying things that are denegrating CGs and Pts growing for themselves.

How about caregivers stop saying things that are denegrating dispensaries. That sword cuts both ways, my good man. Start practicing what y'all preach.

[CaveatLector]

... we have SFC who can't decide if he likes dispensaries or not... What a muddied message. Good luck with that.

Is there not a difference between "liking" dispensaries and approving of methods used by some to push dispensaries? Your logical fallacies are enormous here. Some people may not LIKE marijuana but they still saw its use as a matter of personal choice and voted for the MMA.

 

So, before you go muddling the issues how about you narrow them first? Is this about those who "like" dispensaries or is this about those who DISLIKE strategies being used to push dispensaries? It is entirely possible to dislike dispensaries yet feel like it should be a matter of personal choice whether people use them or whether they can exist. Right? Do you disagree with that statement?

[CaveatLector]

Caveat, read SFC;s statements. All dispensaries are in it fir profit and none of them know anything about compassion. "Period." He said it. Read the posts, man!

Upjohn is in it for the profit too. Do I therefore think they should be pushed out of existence? No. I may, or may not, like what Upjohn does in regard to business practices but I am not against them existing in a free market.

[Celliach]

How about caregivers stop saying things that are denegrating dispensaries. That sword cuts both ways, my good man. Start practicing what y'all preach.

 

Uh! Dispensary interests fired the first, second and third round. We've been hearing these things for four years already.

 

....and you still haven't answered my question:

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.

[SFC]

Whatever Rick. We have called for a truce many times and every time you guys broke it. I profit in my regular business, but it is not out of compassion either, nor do I pretend it is, unlike dispensaries. Rick, the quotes you jump on do not help you at all, maybe your lack of support here is not obvious to you.. You are a leach, but leaches being the parasites they are always end up needing a new host. After Jamie is done with you who will be your next host Rick?

[Northern Lab]

I don't think anyone here has said they are against dispensaries. Have they? The issue is not the existence of dispensaries it is the strategy being used by some to push for dispensaries.

 

The fact is that not all caregivers can/will provide patients with the products they want/need. Extractions are a perfect example. Not all CG's are skilled enough to make good, safe extract. There are not enough CGs capable of making these specialized items to satisfy the demand through a 1 CG to 5 PTS model and there never will be.

 

There are, however, CGs that are capable of producing much more than what their 5 patients need and of a superior nature. Should patients be denied access to these superior products simply because they're not assigned to that CG?

 

It is not really about that in this case. It is really about lying overtly, like saying that caregivers can't grow more than five strains, make tincture or medibles, things like that. The caregivers that supply them have the same issues every other caregiver has, and yes, it is a fact of life growing plants.

 

Some CGs are, in fact, incapable or unwilling to do some of those things. And there aren't enough out there that are willing to do it to meet the demand without a secondary distribution system as a compliment to their efforts.

 

The best way to fend off these arguments is to show that CGs can in fact meet the demands of patients for things like extract, candy, baked goods, tinctures, etc. and do it safely, consistently, and effectively.

 

So far, I'm not encouraged that it can happen using the 1 CG to 5 PTs model alone. There will be some sort of method of trade between cardholders that increases patient access to these things, whether it be farm markets, private clubs, dispensaries, or mail order, and they will be driven solely by patient demand.

[SFC]

Well Northern all I can say is the law is the law. Unless it changes to allow the things you want it is not perfect but it is a world better than what we used to have. Many CG's are not making a whole lot of extractions because they are more concerned with staying compliant. It takes a lot of bud to make oil. Make no mistake tho, we can and do make extractions and medibles, difference is we do it with soem degree of legality for our patients that are registered to us. Unlike dispensaries.

 

I personally think it would be a huge mistake for us to support ANY commercial interests.

[Celliach]

The fact is that not all caregivers can/will provide patients with the products they want/need. Extractions are a perfect example. Not all CG's are skilled enough to make good, safe extract. There are not enough CGs capable of making these specialized items to satisfy the demand through a 1 CG to 5 PTS model and there never will be.

 

There are, however, CGs that are capable of producing much more than what their 5 patients need and of a superior nature. Should patients be denied access to these superior products simply because they're not assigned to that CG?

 

 

 

Some CGs are, in fact, incapable or unwilling to do some of those things. And there aren't enough out there that are willing to do it to meet the demand without a secondary distribution system as a compliment to their efforts.

 

The best way to fend off these arguments is to show that CGs can in fact meet the demands of patients for things like extract, candy, baked goods, tinctures, etc. and do it safely, consistently, and effectively.

 

So far, I'm not encouraged that it can happen using the 1 CG to 5 PTs model alone. There will be some sort of method of trade between cardholders that increases patient access to these things, whether it be farm markets, private clubs, dispensaries, or mail order, and they will be driven solely by patient demand.

 

That's why we have a free market. So you can move to another CG if they are giving you better service.

[Celliach]

Honestly, I know people with a lot of oil they cannot get rid of because they don't have PTs that want it. I, myself, gave away a bunch after it sat around for few months with nobody interested in it. The only way I could get rid of it was to give it away for free. I know others in the same situation. I don't bother making it anymore. I have COPD and can't smoke it.

[Northern Lab]

Well Northern all I can say is the law is the law. Unless it changes to allow the things you want it is not perfect but it is a world better than what we used to have. Many CG's are not making a whole lot of extractions because they are more concerned with staying compliant. It takes a lot of bud to make oil. Make no mistake tho, we can and do make extractions and medibles, difference is we do it with soem degree of legality for our patients that are registered to us. Unlike dispensaries.

 

I personally think it would be a huge mistake for us to support ANY commercial interests.

 

I think the intent of the law was to allow product and the according compensation to flow freely between cardholders with the only restriction being the well known 2.5 ounces/12 plants regardless of the mechanism used to accomplish it. I never once though the intent was to restrict it to 1 CG for 5 PTs with no external input from other cardholders. It's too restrictive to be effective.

 

That's why we have a free market. So you can move to another CG if they are giving you better service.

 

But it's not a free market in any real sense. It's tightly controlled and regulated and these strict 1 to 5 interpretations severely limit a patients ability to find the right medicine.

 

Sure, you may be able to eventually find a CG that makes extract. That doesn't mean they're going to have enough for you, or even a spot for you on their patient roster, and it probably means they're dancing in a 'gray area' a bit. This is especially true in more rural areas of the state. I can't tell you how many calls I field from people looking for extracts, specifically extract intended for oral consumption, often referred to as Simpson Oil.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Northern Lab

[SFC]

I guess we will be finding out how the law is going be interpreted Northern. I would gladly take the restricted view in order to protect all of our growing rights.

[Northern Lab]

I guess we will be finding out how the law is going be interpreted Northern. I would gladly take the restricted view in order to protect all of our growing rights.

 

I think that sets up a false dichotomy - individual grow rights vs dispensaries. These are not opposing interests and we should avoid making them so. In fact, the current dispensary distribution system or any other system that goes beyond the strict 1 to 5 interpretation can't operate effectively without a solid CG/PT system to work from.

[CaveatLector]

I think the intent of the law was to allow product and the according compensation to flow freely between cardholders with the only restriction being the well known 2.5 ounces/12 plants regardless of the mechanism used to accomplish it. I never once though the intent was to restrict it to 1 CG for 5 PTs with no external input from other cardholders. It's too restrictive to be effective.

 

 

 

But it's not a free market in any real sense. It's tightly controlled and regulated and these strict 1 to 5 interpretations severely limit a patients ability to find the right medicine.

 

Sure, you may be able to eventually find a CG that makes extract. That doesn't mean they're going to have enough for you, or even a spot for you on their patient roster, and it probably means they're dancing in a 'gray area' a bit. This is especially true in more rural areas of the state. I can't tell you how many calls I field from people looking for extracts, specifically extract intended for oral consumption, often referred to as Simpson Oil.

A simple solution to your problem is cg education. How about instead of pushing the dispensaries you push for a second level of caregiver? Maybe a certification process whereby the cg is trained to make oil? Maybe a cg can get an endorsement on his/her card after going through some training? Then people who want the oil can seek out a cg with an endorsement? If a cg cannot do something that a pt desires why does the answer have to be to push them aside in favor of a dispensary? Do dispensary owners have some magic that no cg has?

[+Malamute]

Yea.

 

Isn't the solution to these supposed problems to simply train and educate more caregivers then? Work within the current program by simply training a few thousand more caregivers?

 

No big deal. It's just, that isnt the solution to the commercial problem, as in, profit.

[knucklehead bob]

I wonder how a Dispensary seems to have no problem with $15 - $20 a gram , yet I am some sort of crook for not practically giving it away ?

[Northern Lab]

A simple solution to your problem is cg education. How about instead of pushing the dispensaries you push for a second level of caregiver? Maybe a certification process whereby the cg is trained to make oil? Maybe a cg can get an endorsement on his/her card after going through some training? Then people who want the oil can seek out a cg with an endorsement? If a cg cannot do something that a pt desires why does the answer have to be to push them aside in favor of a dispensary? Do dispensary owners have some magic that no cg has?

 

That's a good idea. Not sure how it could be implemented, but it definitely has merit. Of course, you know it's going to cost someone some money at some point, which will be a source of unhappiness for some, I'm sure.

 

Dispensaries do have an advantage to source that sort of thing due to the simple fact that they generally interact with a lot more people involved in the program than does your average CG. It's not magic, just simple networking. If there's one good thing dispensaries serve as, it's a networking hub for those in need to find those that have what they're looking for.

[CaveatLector]

That's a good idea. Not sure how it could be implemented, but it definitely has merit. Of course, you know it's going to cost someone some money at some point, which will be a source of unhappiness for some, I'm sure.

 

Dispensaries do have an advantage to source that sort of thing due to the simple fact that they generally interact with a lot more people involved in the program than does your average CG. It's not magic, just simple networking. If there's one good thing dispensaries serve as, it's a networking hub for those in need to find those that have what they're looking for.

Yes, the cost will be passed on down the line to the consumer ultimately. But, how is that any different with the dispensary? Do I hear $20/gram?

 

In your framework a dispensary is only as good as the cgs who supply it. You said yourself that a dispensary can only exist within the 5:1 pt:cg model. So, how about rather than a dispensary bill, maybe a farmers' market bill? Then pts have direct contact with the supplier. Then they know who to come back to if they like the quality.

 

I suppose the only reason why that could not work for those pro-disp. people is the fact that the profit margins suffer ay?

[Rick Thompson]

I think you can only perceive a profit-related comment as bad if you perceive making profit as bad.

Did you hear that, SFC? Even Zap thinks your statements are off-base. Thanks for the show of support, Zap!