Jump to content

Neil Rockind Interview, Comments On Provision Centers


Recommended Posts

I am curious if local authorities could force caregivers to register as 'provisioning centers' and follow the same regulations as the centers. Then we could find ourselves in a position where a local municipality registers provisioning centers then doesn't allow them to operate.

 

While I am all for a system to allow dispensaries and farmers markets to operate IN ADDITION TO home growing/caregivers, I am going to withhold my support until I see the final form of the bill after it goes through the committees. I must admit, hearing Neil likes it goes a LONG way toward making my impression of the bill favorable. I think there are a few tweaks that need to be made, but overall as it is now, I don't have any deal breaking issues with it.

 

A couple of things I'd like to see are tax stamps for farmers markets and keeping the product Michigan Grown.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am curious if local authorities could force caregivers to register as 'provisioning centers' and follow the same regulations as the centers. Then we could find ourselves in a position where a local municipality registers provisioning centers then doesn't allow them to operate.

 

While I am all for a system to allow dispensaries and farmers markets to operate IN ADDITION TO home growing/caregivers, I am going to withhold my support until I see the final form of the bill after it goes through the committees. I must admit, hearing Neil likes it goes a LONG way toward making my impression of the bill favorable. I think there are a few tweaks that need to be made, but overall as it is now, I don't have any deal breaking issues with it.

 

A couple of things I'd like to see are tax stamps for farmers markets and keeping the product Michigan Grown.

 

Dr. Bob

 

These are the things we need to watch for. They may not be guaranteed, and perhaps not likely. I hope Prop 1 remains protected from further tampering and continues to take care of the sick and dying, rather than the government and profiteers, between which there is little distinction. How long will they put up with competition from our system which is entirely capable to provide quality cannabis relief at low prices?

 

If we take every opportunity to render the pt/cg system as efficient and workable as we possibly can, there is some likelihood that we can cut these dispensaries, which will exist to earn government revenue and private profit, off at the knees. Most things progress from being good things to becoming a racket. In spite of this we will continue to maintain the small cottage industry that relies on populist themes.

 

The courts and legislature, and certainly many in the media, have no idea how pervasive reasonable access is for patients. I will continue to insist that section 8 practices become more prevalent, while at the same time taking nothing away from section 4 except what it must give up because of conditions on the ground. Registry does not go far enough any more, and fails to permit patients to take care of each other in an adequate enough manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is (mostly) garbage (as was HIB5580). There are good reasons why "the first draft" didn't make it out of committee.

 

First; the "blank check" it gives municipalities. State law is meant to operate "top down". If a right or privilege is enumerated by statute, municipalities cannot (legally) pass ordinances to deny said right or privilege to their citizens. This is like "deciding" that their city/town/village will no longer honor State-issued driver's licenses or identification cards. Municipalities also should not be allowed to "set their own price" for licensing of "provisoning centers" or "testing facilities" (this could easily be used to make opening such a facility "cost prohibitive").

 

Unfettered (or even semi-fettered) local access to patient and transfer information raises some interesting ethical questions (and probably breaks a few laws). The County Clerk (for instance) can't walk into your pharmacy and demand information about your prescriptions.

 

The bill also opens the MMMP registry to private corporations. Why are "we" tolerating this, exactly? What happened to protecting our privacy?

 

There's a troubling reiteration of the "1,000 foot rule" (and the huge "dead zones" it would create). You know, because "Drug-Free School Zones" really kept kids from taking drugs. At least it doesn't mention churches and day care centers this time. Whatever happened to "lawful and peaceable enjoyment" and the sanctity of private property? This "feel good" neo-segregationist crap has to stop.

 

Lastly; the bill allows "provisioning centers" to "cultivate". How has this escaped notice/comment? Pretend that it's "just for the clones and seedlings" all you want; this is a "gateway" to commercial grows.

 

I voted for the MMMA to get this medicine into the hands of needy and/or caring people; not "artificial persons" whose only real interest is profit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good post Peragro.

 

You hit on a couple of features I really don't like, but your phrasing about regulating from the top down rather than tossing it into the hands of the townships (who are NOT a wealth of knowledge on this subject) is very well said.

 

The 1000 foot rule is absurd, and even in criminal law is an 'add on' offense to illegal drug dealing. It is not a crime in itself.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well until we see the revised version of 4271 we won't know. Keep in mind Neil has an interest in this that may not be the same as the average Cg or Pt..

 

^^^^bump

 

It is far from the only problem OG.

 

It is merely one of them.

 

^^^^bump

 

How would you feel if Cg's and patients arent allowed to sell overages to a dispensary and the dispensaries are the only cultivators?

 

^^^^ ++rep-!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not effect me either way. Im a Pt and a Cg. This other legislation doesn't change that. If they pass a law that says we cant sell overages to PCs it wouldn't be any different then where we are right now. I'm not afraid of my community making Pt/Cg restrictions. Too bad that you are. Maybe you should work to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only guess that it would very widely from community to community. As the law is written anyone can open a PC as long the community has not prohibited/regulated it. In some places they will be left alone for the most part, in others they flat out wont be allowed. Ypsilanti is jacked up. It doesn't mean that they wont be helpful to other places in the state. The whole state doesn't revolve around the anti MMMA communities. Something like this could literally be a life line for places like Detroit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the situation.

 

For the first time in most peoples lives cannabis has a positive image all across the country and real advancements are happening. States are legalizing, many have medical laws. Federal laws are being talked about and looked at seriously. This has never happened before. Yet all this talk about keeping it as restricted as possible. Its my medicine and the rest of the state/country better keep their hands off. You think there is no possibility that science and billion dollar companies can perhaps advance cannabis as a medicine in any way? You want it to stay taboo and "underground"? There are a lot of stakeholders involved besides people with medical cards. When the bans from research are lifted you don't think that companies will try and profit from that? Get used to the idea. It will happen in all of our lifetimes. Pretending that the plant should not be allowed to be used by the rest of the population is the true selfish stance., This is the beginning of a change in our countries view towards cannabis, if this law doesn't pass it will be another one, that is inevitable. This anti stance is just contributing towards the continued failed policies of the past.

 

I know, I know, Ypsilanti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malamute, on 02 March 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

 

How would you feel if Cg's and patients arent allowed to sell overages to a dispensary and the dispensaries are the only cultivators?

It would not impact me one way or the other.

 

Posted Today, 12:08 AM

It would not effect me either way. Im a Pt and a Cg. This other legislation doesn't change that. If they pass a law that says we cant sell overages to PCs it wouldn't be any different then where we are right now. I'm not afraid of my community making Pt/Cg restrictions. Too bad that you are. Maybe you should work to change that.

 

There you go being blatantly misleading with your posts again. You are not fooling anyone. Now answer the question..

Edited by SFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the situation. For the first time in most peoples lives cannabis has a positive image all across the country and real advancements are happening. States are legalizing, many have medical laws. Federal laws are being talked about and looked at seriously. This has never happened before. Yet all this talk about keeping it as restricted as possible. Its my medicine and the rest of the state/country better keep their hands off. You think there is no possibility that science and billion dollar companies can perhaps advance cannabis as a medicine in any way? You want it to stay taboo and "underground"? There are a lot of stakeholders involved besides people with medical cards. When the bans from research are lifted you don't think that companies will try and profit from that? Get used to the idea. It will happen in all of our lifetimes. Pretending that the plant should not be allowed to be used by the rest of the population is the true selfish stance., This is the beginning of a change in our countries view towards cannabis, if this law doesn't pass it will be another one, that is inevitable. This anti stance is just contributing towards the continued failed policies of the past. I know, I know, Ypsilanti.

You have it exactly backwards. This bill RESTRICTS cannabis, not frees it. It's The Right Hand Man of the restrictors. It's their tool of choice right now. You see the threat of restrictions but can't recognize one when it's right in your face on paper. The bill talks about restrictions starting in the title. You speak of a positive image yet you boast the very thing that has given us the worst image to the public. You are an oxymoron MACHINE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFC

 

If you don't like my answer too bad.

What am I being misleading about? My feelings would not change if there are PCs and Pts/Cgs are not allowed to sell to them.

 

Rest

 

Please show me examples of where I have it backwards. By examples I mean text from the proposed legislation or statements of intent from legislators. I do not mean the secret info that only you have that provides you with the certainty with which you make your statements. We are all in agreement that the legislation will change, you seem to be in the "know" about what it will absolutely contain. Care to share? According to the current text, a PC or like entity must be on commercial property to qualify as such. I don't see where the connection keeps being made that a Pt or CG will become a commercial entity. I do not care about 3 or 4 committees that are breaking the current law, like Ypsilanti, if that is your only evidence then it is very weak. They are making those regulations under the MMMA, not 4271. Maybe you should be mad at the MMMA as well?

Edited by OG Fire Beaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFC If you don't like my answer too bad. What am I being misleading about? My feelings would not change if there are PCs and Pts/Cgs are not allowed to sell to them. Rest Please show me examples of where I have it backwards. By examples I mean text from the proposed legislation or statements of intent from legislators. I do not mean the secret info that only you have that provides you with the certainty with which you make your statements. We are all in agreement that the legislation will change, you seem to be in the "know" about what it will absolutely contain. Care to share? According to the current text, a PC or like entity must be on commercial property to qualify as such. I don't see where the connection keeps being made that a Pt or CG will become a commercial entity. I do not care about 3 or 4 committees that are breaking the law like Ypsilanti, if that is your only evidence then it is very weak. They are doing it under the MMMA, not 4271. Maybe you should be mad at the MMMA as well?

Showed you 6 ways to Sunday. In PMs and in many posts. Nothing secret. It's obvious for any caregiver that ALREADY has been told they can't grow in their homes. And no, it's not just ypsy. I just showed you published facts from ypsy to prove the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put this in the title and everyone but the dispensaries will be on board;

 

 

This bill will ensure that local municipalities will not be able to use local ordinances to restrict patient or caregiver grows in any way. This bill will force local municipalities to follow the MMM Act exactly how it's written without any further restriction or inspection of any kind. This bill will ensure that a patient's right to privacy is not altered from what the MMM Act says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rest

 

Right except that you never actually showed me anything other then your opinion. All you have said is that Cgs will be zoned as commercial entities if 4271 passes. I'm asking for some type of proof, or an acknowledgement that it is only your opinion. You present it as fact and certainty while attacking anything and anyone that wants a cannabis related business. They are all greedy, they are all only about money, they will all poison people, they will all rip off people, and so on. Many of these people that you are attacking have put their lives on the line to make changes to the way things are and have been. Yet you lump them all under one group that you have decided they belong in. I just want to see something besides your opinion. The towns that are regulating Cgs as commercial entities now are doing so under our current laws that you are so fond of. A Cg is just as likely to use pesticides, dangerous chemicals, and over charge as anyone else is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put this in the title and everyone but the dispensaries will be on board;

 

 

This bill will ensure that local municipalities will not be able to use local ordinances to restrict patient or caregiver grows in any way. This bill will force local municipalities to follow the MMM Act exactly how it's written without any further restriction or inspection of any kind. This bill will ensure that a patient's right to privacy is not altered from what the MMM Act says.

 

Is that a fact? I think that is completely false. You do have an interesting opinion though. Doesn't seem to be based of off much though. The rest of the state does not cater to the few heavy anti marijuana communities. We just don't. Move out of those places or work to change them. Our grow rights are not going away, you may give them up because you don't want to fight the battle with your city council, but they are still your rights per the MMMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...