What Type Of Access Do Patients Want?

[Northern Lab]

 

Everyone gets credit for their actions that actually help patients. Thanks in advance(I think). Maybe there's a little ray of sun shining out of that big dark cloud the dispensaries drug over us. Maybe you saw that you had your bull hitched to a steam roller instead of a plow. Stranger things have happened, and we would love to have your help fighting the Safety Center Dan types.

 

I lol'd hard at the Safety Center Dan stuff. As some of you know, my first name is Dan.

 

A more appropriate reference would be Safety Center Ken...

[Restorium2]

I lol'd hard at the Safety Center Dan stuff. As some of you know, my first name is Dan.

 

A more appropriate reference would be Safety Center Ken...

Really? Your name is Dan? WOAH I must be in touch with the vast knowledge of man. When did YOU find out your name was Dan? LOL

[Northern Lab]

 

Really? Your name is Dan? WOAH I must be in touch with the vast knowledge of man. When did YOU find out your name was Dan? LOL

 

1977, I think.

[Restorium2]

1977, I think.

You are a great straight man, Dan.

 

Of course my next line is;

 

Dan, I'm your father.

 

Laughter is the best medicine.

[Northern Lab]

 

You are a great straight man, Dan.

 

Of course my next line is;

 

Dan, I'm your father.

 

Laughter is the best medicine.

 

Well, that would certainly explain a lot.

[Celliach]

their is still city's that have bans still Birmingham and Lavonia

Yes, but the bans aren't enforcable.

[Restorium2]

Yes, but the bans aren't enforcable.

That dispensary bill makes the bans CRIMINALLY enforcable. They went way beyond the regular 'ticket' type 'slap on the wrist' local enforcement, and brought law enforcement into the picture. They are enabling the restriction leaning localities by putting some teeth in the local rules. You have to ask yourself why. Why do they totally enable locals to run the show? Because they have deals in place with the locals already. They are working backwards from the monopolies they already have and protecting them with criminal penalties for their competition, the patient grower.

[Celliach]

That dispensary bill makes the bans CRIMINALLY enforcable. They went way beyond the regular 'ticket' type 'slap on the wrist' local enforcement, and brought law enforcement into the picture. They are enabling the restriction leaning localities by putting some teeth in the local rules. You have to ask yourself why. Why do they totally enable locals to run the show? Because they have deals in place with the locals already. They are working backwards from the monopolies they already have and protecting them with criminal penalties for their competition, the patient grower.

 

Yes, you're right. The dispensary bill would allow local governments to ban commercial MMJ within their jurisdiction. It only takes amending one word to ban all MMJ.

[Restorium2]

Yes, you're right. The dispensary bill would allow local governments to ban commercial MMJ within their jurisdiction. It only takes amending one word to ban all MMJ.

Right. And even with the word 'commercial' left in there, we don't have a universally accepted way to define that term. They could just say that if you use over a certain amount of kilowatt hours you are a commercial grower. My transformer is maxed out. To go for any more power I would have to ask the power company for a 'commercial' transformer on the pole. You see where this could go. Anyone with something bigger than CFLs might be considered a commercial grow. They already are saying that multiple caregivers at an address are commercial.

[Celliach]

A local ordinance recently passed in Breitung Township in the UP defines anyone growing for someone else as a commercial operation.

[Restorium2]

A local ordinance recently passed in Breitung Township in the UP defines anyone growing for someone else as a commercial operation.

They are jockying for position. There's a lot going on behind the scenes. Caregivers in that township will have to take all of their goods over to the Safety Center Man with a clipboard, and pay him to say it's ok to help their patient with it. And the Safety Center Man works for the dispensary. I don't know this as a fact, but it's definitely possible that the Safety Center Man might need to come to your house and look around. And you would have to pay for the inspection.

[Celliach]

They are jockying for position. There's a lot going on behind the scenes. Caregivers in that township will have to take all of their goods over to the Safety Center Man with a clipboard, and pay him to say it's ok to help their patient with it. And the Safety Center Man works for the dispensary. I don't know this as a fact, but it's definitely possible that the Safety Center Man might need to come to your house and look around. And you would have to pay for the inspection.

 

They already made it so it was illegal for a CG to transfer MMJ in the same location that it was grown in. A CG can't have his PTs come to his anymore.

[Northern Lab]

 

 

They already made it so it was illegal for a CG to transfer MMJ in the same location that it was grown in. A CG can't have his PTs come to his anymore.

 

Yeah, they passed something like that in a township here in our county. Saying who can and cannot come to your home is flatly unconstitutional. I don't know who these townships have for lawyers, but they must not be paying them.

[beourbud]

Patients want to test on their own

 

farmers have invested in their genetics and would resist giving it up to THE LAB

 

HELL NO

 

Voters are watching...is the $$$$$ worth your seat 2014

Edited February 20, 2013 by beourbud

[GregS]

Yeah, they passed something like that in a township here in our county. Saying who can and cannot come to your home is flatly unconstitutional. I don't know who these townships have for lawyers, but they must not be paying them.

Yeah, they passed something like that in a township here in our county. Saying who can and cannot come to your home is flatly unconstitutional. I don't know who these townships have for lawyers, but they must not be paying them.

 

The City of Saginaw tried to not only do this, but to shut down alll medical use in 2009 and early 2010. The proposed ordinance was defeated in a popular and vocal opposion, that included media contact and nicely networked activism that brought in people from all over the state. In the end, they decided (rightly) to leave it alone, and afterward reported through the media that there were no problems coming out of that decision.

 

The lesson in that has not been lost on local government, and patients enjoy one among the most compliant police forces around.

[GregS]

Might I suggest starting a new thread with that article?

 

And might I suggest that comments to the piece be submitted?

[SFC]

Even better.

[roadworkahead]

This thread is to discuss what Pt/s would like. Do they want the only safe legitimate access for medicine to be from only their Cg? Do Patients want to be able to access medicine from alternative sources such as farmers markets, compassion clubs, dispensaries, or provision centers? Do they want to be free to decide from all of these methods?

 

I see a lot of talk about the core point of Medical Marijuana in the state of Michigan being about the Pt. This is rightly so. I also see a lot of blanket statements that purport to represent some type of general consensus among all patients. I do not believe any one person or group is able to speak for all patients or even most patients.

 

The success that many dispensaries saw is directly based upon the welcome that they received from patients. How many patients gladly drove hours to be able to go to a dispensary that was recommended to them? I would say many did.

 

There is a group of people that are determined to have their own view be dictated upon all patients. I believe this is wrong. The demand from patients for access to medicine outside of the Pt/Cg model is clearly a strong enough demand that these types of businesses opened all across the state and were frequented by many, many patients.

 

I see a myth perpetuated on this site that all patients are poor, dying, vulnerable, and only a caregiver can provide adequate medicine to them. Any other medicine is inferior and predatory in nature. I don't believe this to be true either.

 

If this act is truly about the Pt then why are so many Pt's being discounted, harassed, demeaned, insulted, and marginalized by voices that wish to control them and decide what is best for them? Should Pt's not be aloud to decide for themselves? I know many that don't want the hassle of growing for themselves or someone else growing for them. Should we forget about these Patients?

 

I believe that a patient should be able to choose whatever is most convenient for them. Just because something is convenient or preferable to you does not make it so for all.

 

Please feel free to criticize, comment on, or ignore this thread.

"should patients not be "allowed" to decide for themselves"?. Yes, patients should be allowed to choose.for themselves. Read the act, these are the options. Grow yourself or get a caregiver.

What is the hassle of someone else growing for them? Please answer

What you want is the choice to have multiple caregivers growing for you via dispensaries. so be it at a high price.

[Celliach]

Patients want to test on their own

 

farmers have invested in their genetics and would resist giving it up to THE LAB

 

HELL NO

 

Voters are watching...is the $$$$$ worth your seat 2014

 

We have term limits in Michigan. Threatening to not re-elect someone doesn't hold that much weight here.

[Celliach]

"should patients not be "allowed" to decide for themselves"?. Yes, patients should be allowed to choose.for themselves. Read the act, these are the options. Grow yourself or get a caregiver.

What is the hassle of someone else growing for them? Please answer

What you want is the choice to have multiple caregivers growing for you via dispensaries. so be it at a high price.

 

The problem with your view is that the majority of people that have been vocal about this, and that aren't connected to dispensaries, are against it.

[Restorium2]

And no one said caregivers were going to be growing for the dispensaries. It just isn't going to happen that way. They can make more money putting caregivers out of business so they will do that.

[SFC]

^^Ding, ding , ding!^^^

[Northern Lab]

Would this legislation be more palatable to you all if provisioning Centers were not allowed to grow their own, but were required to buy from caregivers and patients?

 

If so, would you favor or oppose mandatory purity testing for all meds sold through a provisioning center?

 

Please do not misinterpret these questions as statements of opinion, I am merely trying to gauge the general attitude.

[Highlander]

Would this legislation be more palatable to you all if provisioning Centers were not allowed to grow their own, but were required to buy from caregivers and patients?

 

If so, would you favor or oppose mandatory purity testing for all meds sold through a provisioning center?

 

Please do not misinterpret these questions as statements of opinion, I am merely trying to gauge the general attitude.

 

Yes - more palatable if PCs can't grow. But my concern isn't as much about CGs having competition. It is about the rise of a brand new industry that, without proper controls, will try to take over. Just like big pharma and agribusiness did. Then they patented seeds and got new laws passed that make it harder and harder for people to do for themselves. If you could cap the profit any one person or business could make, it would make more sense.

 

I would not care if PCs had mandatory testing. As long as the concern above is addressed well.

[Northern Lab]

Thank you for the response. I'm not sure we could effectively limit profit taking. That may be something best left up to the market.

 

Now, if a caregiver or caregivers own(s) a provisioning Center, should they be allowed to sell their meds at their provisioning Center?