What Type Of Access Do Patients Want?

[SFC]

Oh, I have a guess. I think we have done battle in other places...

[Restorium2]

Rest what is this strong evidence? If a caregiver is only transferring to the 5 patients that they are allowed to then I do not see anyway of coming to the conclusion that they will be viewed as a PC. A PC is a commercial entity.

The strong evidence is that it has been reported here that it is already happening in some areas. Townships are already passing ordinances that say that if you are growing for someone else you are commercial. It's the first shoe falling, waiting for this bill, the second shoe.

[roadworkahead]

Purple

 

I see an article about a company that seeks to fill a potential need. They offer data tracking services and would like to have its product used in Michigan. This bill does not require electronic data tracking, at this time. If a PC were open and had a lot of customers then something like this may be useful to them. I guess im not really seeing the problem with that article. A company wants to make money. So. I dont think they will alter the bill to require the use of Media swipe software. I guess that is a possibility though.

 

EDIT: The other article didn't really seem that bad to me either.

 

Its how buisness works. A need is found and someone fills it. Then they are paid for their services. I don't see the problem. Unless the problem is just that someone, somewhere, might make money.

A need is found and someone fills it. That's what the act is!!!! Patients need medicine & Caregivers are paid for their services to provide that need. I don't see the problem You just want more than the act that voters voted on. And because of that want, many patients will suffer with chemical laden meds from large grows or not being able to afford the high cost of middlemen.

Dispensaries created the problem for patients. They stated they were operating within the act. Many patients believed this and were actually supporting much illegal activity. Meds from out of state for instance. and leaving them without caregivers.. Horrible.

[OG Fire Beaster]

SFC

 

I promise you we have never battled, met, or had any contact outside of my posting as OG Fire Beaster.

[OG Fire Beaster]

A need is found and someone fills it. That's what the act is!!!! Patients need medicine & Caregivers are paid for their services to provide that need. I don't see the problem You just want more than the act that voters voted on. And because of that want, many patients will suffer with chemical laden meds from large grows or not being able to afford the high cost of middlemen.

Dispensaries created the problem for patients. They stated they were operating within the act. Many patients believed this and were actually supporting much illegal activity. Meds from out of state for instance. and leaving them without caregivers.. Horrible.

 

You are correct. I thought the act allowed dispensaries. Every person I know in the physical world that voted for the act assumed dispensaries would be allowed. The courts have said they are not allowed. So yes, I want legislation that will allow them. How will your patients be impacted by what type of meds a PC has? If they are happy with what you provide them then why would they even go to a PC? Unless they are not happy with what you provide for them. How are meds from out of state illegal for a patient to acquire? If a patient exercises their free will to go to a PC that is their choice, not yours. Stop trying to control other peoples choices. If you don't like PCs then do not patron them. If no one goes to them then they will cease to exist.

[Restorium2]

You are correct. I thought the act allowed dispensaries. Every person I know in the physical world that voted for the act assumed dispensaries would be allowed. The courts have said they are not allowed. So yes, I want legislation that will allow them. How will your patients be impacted by what type of meds a PC has? If they are happy with what you provide them then why would they even go to a PC? Unless they are not happy with what you provide for them. How are meds from out of state illegal for a patient to acquire? If a patient exercises their free will to go to a PC that is their choice, not yours. Stop trying to control other peoples choices. If you don't like PCs then do not patron them. If no one goes to them then they will cease to exist.

That's ridiculous because we campaigned for the law by saying THERE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ANY DISPENSARIES with this law. You must have been living under a rock to think they were legal right from the start. We talked about it on this web site at length and no one assumed they were legal. You have a warped view of what the general consenus was early on. Dispensaries got 'slipped in the back door' on us as we went forward.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Restorium2

[roadworkahead]

So you are saying that when a Pt chooses a CG to grow for them that they are not assigning their grow rights to the Cg?

 

In the same example of a dispensary throwing records in the trash a Cg could throw copies of documents in the trash. Or lose their card with the patients name and address on the back.

If a patient allows a Cg to grow their plants (they are not the Cgs plants they are the patients plants) and the Cg does something illegal, that might not somehow expose the patient in any way?

Again if you choose not to grow, you hire a caregiver to grow for you. your not assigning anything but the caregiver to grow and supply you with the best meds. Please stop telling patients they are assigning their grow rights away to a caregiver.

[purple pimpernel]

A PC is a commercial entity.

 

your pushing 'commercialization' of mmj......

 

you know I really enjoy OG kush as one of my favorite medicines....especially the 'fire' cut...and SFV-OG...

 

 

but your moniker is wearing on me....

 

you are the commercial interest PR man.....? and damage control...

 

I haven't been against dispensaries in the past but after seeing all this I am changing my mind...

 

the law allready granted safe access....now the commercial interest folks have fkd it up so we can only have it thru them...?

 

if the law would have been defended and implemented /enforced the way it was written ....pts would be fine

 

the problem is it has been reworked now for the benefit of commercial interests..

 

I still see the MSC ruling as a setup for ths....you guys have some powerful friend$ you pay to blo--

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[OG Fire Beaster]

Again if you choose not to grow, you hire a caregiver to grow for you. your not assigning anything but the caregiver to grow and supply you with the best meds. Please stop telling patients they are assigning their grow rights away to a caregiver.

 

Are you serious? When you designate a caregiver you choose who is allowed to possess the plants. If you choose to keep your plants to grow you have the grow rights. If you choose to let the CG have the plants they have the grow right. Are you saying if you allow the CG to be in possession of your plants then you are also allowed to have your plants?

[roadworkahead]

You are correct. I thought the act allowed dispensaries. Every person I know in the physical world that voted for the act assumed dispensaries would be allowed. The courts have said they are not allowed. So yes, I want legislation that will allow them. How will your patients be impacted by what type of meds a PC has? If they are happy with what you provide them then why would they even go to a PC? Unless they are not happy with what you provide for them. How are meds from out of state illegal for a patient to acquire? If a patient exercises their free will to go to a PC that is their choice, not yours. Stop trying to control other peoples choices. If you don't like PCs then do not patron them. If no one goes to them then they will cease to exist.

Where in the act did it say dispensaries were allowed.? you are just toooooo funny!

[Restorium2]

Are you serious? When you designate a caregiver you choose who is allowed to possess the plants. If you choose to keep your plants to grow you have the grow rights. If you choose to let the CG have the plants they have the grow right. Are you saying if you allow the CG to be in possession of your plants then you are also allowed to have your plants?

It's semantics. You were sounding like it was a thing of value and we have had to deal with that misconception too.

[OG Fire Beaster]

That's ridiculous because we campaigned for the law by saying THERE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ANY DISPENSARIES with this law. You must have been living under a rock to think they were legal right from the start. We talked about it on this web site at length and no one assumed they were legal. You have a warped view of what the general consenus was early on. Dispensaries got 'slipped in the back door' on us as we went forward.

 

The only consensus I am referring to is the consensus among the people that I have spoken to in the physical world. I joined this site in march of 11. I have no idea what went on here before that.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Purple

 

My name is a joke. Beaster is horrible commercial grown bud from Canada. Better than brick from Mexico but still garbage. OG Fire is making fun of the OG scene in Cali where every different grower puts some tag to mark their cut or pheno/geno.

[Restorium2]

The only consensus I am referring to is the consensus among the people that I have spoken to in the physical world. I joined this site in march of 11. I have no idea what went on here before that.

OK then. Take a history lesson and learn from all that you missed out on. We fought quite a few battles before you came on the scene. You probably don't even know about when they tried to slip regulation in on us the first time.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Where in the act did it say dispensaries were allowed.? you are just toooooo funny!

 

Obviously enough other people thought they were going to be fit into the law that about 100 of them opened up in the state and were frequented by many many patients that thought it was acceptable. I don't think I need to recap the last 3 years. The SC said no. So now I would like to see a law that says yes.

[purple pimpernel]

^^^^^^^OG Fire Beaster

Posted Today, 04:23 PM

roadworkahead, on 20 February 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Again if you choose not to grow, you hire a caregiver to grow for you. your not assigning anything but the caregiver to grow and supply you with the best meds. Please stop telling patients they are assigning their grow rights away to a caregiver.

 

Are you serious? When you designate a caregiver you choose who is allowed to possess the plants. If you choose to keep your plants to grow you have the grow rights. If you choose to let the CG have the plants they have the grow right. Are you saying if you allow the CG to be in possession of your plants then you are also allowed to have your plants?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have 3 pts that i CG for.....all of them retained their plant possess rights....and assigned me the CG ....

cuz they don't know what their doing--

 

I go to their house and do it for them....their house--that way we are both allowed access..

 

if you designate a CG...you can chk the able to posess plants box-

 

 

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[Restorium2]

Obviously enough other people thought they were going to be fit into the law that about 100 of them opened up in the state and were frequented by many many patients that thought it was acceptable. I don't think I need to recap the last 3 years. The SC said no. So now I would like to see a law that says yes.

The things that have happened in the past are far too important to not learn from them. You can't just brush them away like they are meaningless.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Rest

 

I am not trying to do that. I am trying to advance the access and distribution because I think it is inadequate. I think that doing nothing is unacceptable. I think that the current state is unacceptable.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Purple

 

I think we can both see each others point about grow rights. I would say that the more typical route is for the patient to assign the plants to their CG.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Gotta run for awhile. Be back tonight.

[roadworkahead]

Rest

 

I am not trying to do that. I am trying to advance the access and distribution because I think it is inadequate. I think that doing nothing is unacceptable. I think that the current state is unacceptable.

So the current state that MI voters voted on is unacceptable to you? WOW Too bad for you because for now, the act is what MI voters have, and voted for.

[purple pimpernel]

it is completely legal now allready to be 'compensated' for your efforts via the MSC ruling.....you can be sure they made it clear the only way for $ is thru a CG w-5pts.....

---that means its allready 'legal' to deal weed---

 

if dispensaries want to exist....I would suggest they 'build' on that....creatively

there's plenty of 'wiggle' room within that model if you want to exploit it--

 

 

like they did in California to allow collectives and co-ops....

that I could bite into--

 

protecting pts right to safe access....thru pts....not commercial interests

 

not jumping over pts/CGs heads with a 'new' state regulated distribution/commercial format--

 

chew on that

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[Northern Lab]

So the current state that MI voters voted on is unacceptable to you? WOW Too bad for you because for now, the act is what MI voters have, and voted for.

 

I don't think the voters voted for the Michigan Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

Call me crazy....

 

[OG Fire Beaster]

it is completely legal now allready to be 'compensated' for your efforts via the MSC ruling.....you can be sure they made it clear the only way for $ is thru a CG w-5pts.....

---that means its allready 'legal' to deal weed---

 

if dispensaries want to exist....I would suggest they 'build' on that....creatively

there's plenty of 'wiggle' room within that model if you want to exploit it--

 

 

like they did in California to allow collectives and co-ops....

that I could bite into--

 

protecting pts right to safe access....thru pts....not commercial interests

 

not jumping over pts/CGs heads with a 'new' state regulated distribution/commercial format--

 

chew on that

 

Creative? like a locker system? See I don't want people to have to guess. I want people to know.

[roadworkahead]

100 others "assumed" ? Rather than reading the act. your/ theirs assumption was wrong ... wishing you the best on growing your own or getting a caregiver. And potentially only getting meds by a state run state grown provision center..