Neil Rockind Interview, Comments On Provision Centers

[Restorium2]

The biggest problem today for the caregiver/patient model are municiplities. It's hand down that they are the ones we are having the most trouble with. And then you want to enable them. I don't expect you to listen to anything I write after you do that. Your agenda goes direcctly against us. It's obvious.

[OG Fire Beaster]

I think empowering them will have the opposite effect. They will be able to make decisions without being micromanaged. Some wont be able to think for themselves and make a mess of it, I think a lot more will do just fine.

 

Do you think that there are no more advancements in marijuana as a medicine? This provides a method for more research to be done. A Safety Compliance Center (not mandatory) could be a lot of different things.

[SFC]

But he is in no way connected to any of them or their interests ya'll. ^^^

[Northern Lab]

But he is in no way connected to any of them or their interests ya'll. ^^^

 

Why is it that no one questions your motives?

[SFC]

Question away Northern. I have never hid anything as far as my motives. What sinister plan do YOU think I have?

[Peragro]

<snip>

Please show me examples of where I have it backwards.

<snip>

 

Really? It might be easier to point out where you don't have things "backwards". But since you asked...

 

You seem to think that government within a State can (or should be) "bottom up". That's not the way our system works (and it never has been). Sure; we elect our representatives. But ordinances (municipal "laws") cannot deny/disparage rights/privileges granted at the State level any more than statutes (State laws) can deny/disparage rights granted at the Federal level. This is how the 1964 Civil Rights Act "ended" racial segregation.

 

I use this example because most of the "confusion" (misinformation) seems to be based on that whole blather about "States' Rights" (and a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional law). Too bad all that ever was is a "cover phrase" for Segregationists and NeoFascists (of whom there is no shortage in Michigan, unfortunately). States (and even municipalities) can "soften" higher-level punishments within their borders (Ann Arbor's "fine and release" policy) and they can enumerate additional rights/privileges ("late" liquor licenses). But they can't (legally) countermand higher-level rights/privileges or "common law" rights. If you still don't grasp these basic concepts, there are many excellent "Intro to Law" textbooks and websites out there. Please choose at least one and read it.

 

As for whether decriminalization has been "seriously considered"; go to druglibrary.org and read (at least) the abstracts of the studies presented there. Almost every one of them says that decriminalization is the only sensible "answer" to cannabis prohibition. I'm guessing that you're either too young to realize that NORML is "old" or you're just not up-to-speed on the history of cannabis prohibition and "reform" efforts.

 

The "problem" is that our "elected officials" decided to ignore the "smart people" who wrote those studies (many of which were commissioned by the government itself in a pathetic attempt to justify their policies). The Federal government has a long and storied history of ignoring "smart people" (see also: kicking the head of the AMA out of the hearings on the Marihuana Tax Act).

 

Speaking of MTA/1937; what about 1968 (Leary v. US)? Cannabis was decriminalized at the Federal level for nearly two years because Timothy Leary spotted the law's unconstitutionality, challenged a conviction on that basis, and won. The government's response was the Controlled Substances Act (1970). Nixon's new "War on Drugs" was a direct consequence (and "judicial tool") of FBI/COINTELPRO. This is no "conspiracy theory" (see: "FBI Family Jewels").

 

My personal favorite "victory" came in 1976 (Randall v. US). One man with glaucoma won us all the right to medical use (under the common law doctrine of necessity). The Federal government still provides cannabis to the surviving patients. The entire State-level "medical use movement" was "born" because of the CIND program (or, rather, the fact that the first Bush administration closed it to new applicants in 1992, citing something about a "tough on drugs image"). At the State level, we simply add the "You-Can't-Come-In!" aspect of the Commerce Clause to limit Federal interdiction (DEA even came out "on our side"; stating publicly that folks who are in compliance with State laws are their "lowest priority").

 

Also troubling (about 4271) is that it gives Feds "the OK" to come in and bust people. That's an extremely dangerous precedent for a legislature who's also trying to pass a "firearms freedom act" (which operates under the aforementioned "intrastate limitation" of the Commerce Clause). But most of those "Class of 2010" GOP legislators are just plain clueless (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). It's almost charming.

 

I'll agree that we're seeing a "high point" for "anti-prohibition" in the nation as a whole. And (thanks in part to the Internet) factual information about cannabis (including the aforementioned studies) is finally getting out to "the masses". But to come off as if nothing important happened during the past 70 years? That's just ignorant (and, frankly, disrespectful).

 

Also; this isn't Wikipedia. You want citations? LMGTFY!

[hic]

And I ain't buying it... No babes in the wilderness round here Jack...

 

No we just buy who clicks the most round here right SCF. - wink

[Peragro]

A "Safety compliance facility" is "an entity which tests 'marihuana' ... for contaminants or potency". Any "physicians" (doctors) who work for a "safety compliance facility" cannot put up seed money ("no financial interest") and must be unpaid ("no compensation"). That sort of kills the idea that "serious" research will be conducted in those facilities (scientific/medical journals don't exactly have a track record of publishing papers/studies written by "laypeople"). Pharmaceutical research is an expensive, "heady", and time-consuming business. "Big Pharma" spends billions of dollars on each new drug they bring to market (see: Forbes).

 

I guess that research could be handled at colleges and universities around Michigan (as it has been in the past) but there are no provisions in 4271 for this (and no mention of "higher education" at all). Since most educational institutions accept some kind of Federal money, DEA or FDA might have something to say about them handling Michigan cannabis (even if no Federal funds are used). But, as I mentioned, this is expensive business even if your staff is unpaid. Someone would have to fund that research. Any takers?

 

Besides; every study I've seen comparing isolated/synthetic cannabinoids (or mixtures thereof) with whole-plant cannabis has favored the herbal form. There are thousands of different strains with varying concentrations of dozens of chemicals (psychoactive or not). This is why growers who plan to "pass on" their "overages" should invest in thin-layer chromatography (cheap; fairly accurate) or GC/MS (expensive; more accurate) testing so their patients will know exactly what they're putting into their bodies. The importance of a "free", "affordable", and "open" marketplace cannot be stressed enough (and 4271 just doesn't "do it").

Edited March 4, 2013 by Peragro

[GregS]

A "Safety compliance facility" is "an entity which tests 'marihuana' ... for contaminants or potency". Any "physicians" (doctors) who work for a "safety compliance facility" cannot put up seed money ("no financial interest") and must be unpaid ("no compensation"). That sort of kills the idea that "serious" research will be conducted in those facilities (scientific/medical journals don't exactly have a track record of publishing papers/studies written by "laypeople"). Pharmaceutical research is an expensive, "heady", and time-consuming business. "Big Pharma" spends billions of dollars on each new drug they bring to market (see: Forbes).

 

I guess that research could be handled at colleges and universities around Michigan (as it has been in the past) but there are no provisions in 4271 for this (and no mention of "higher education" at all). Since most educational institutions accept some kind of Federal money, DEA or FDA might have something to say about them handling Michigan cannabis (even if no Federal funds are used). But, as I mentioned, this is expensive business even if your staff is unpaid. Someone would have to fund that research. Any takers?

 

Besides; every study I've seen comparing isolated/synthetic cannabinoids (or mixtures thereof) with whole-plant cannabis has favored the herbal form. There are thousands of different strains with varying concentrations of dozens of chemicals (psychoactive or not). This is why growers who plan to "pass on" their "overages" should invest in thin-layer chromatography (cheap; fairly accurate) or GC/MS (expensive; more accurate) testing so their patients will know exactly what they're putting into their bodies. The importance of a "free", "affordable", and "open" marketplace cannot be stressed enough (and 4271 just doesn't "do it").

 

Do you think it too much to suggest that evidence of harm done by untested mj be a part of the deliberations?

 

Please do not address me as having in any way insulted you. My remark regarding the age of the p2p thread, March, 2012, is a simple obsevation. Nothing more, and nothing less. There is nothing critical invoved. Your response was out of line, and your apology sincere by about half.

Edited March 4, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Is there any conversation going on anywhere to include further pt/cg accommodation in the bill when it moves through Committee? Should we perhaps lobby for a clause that expressly permits p2p and considers usable mj in foodstuffs? It is not too much to expect that they throw us a bone or two?

Edited March 4, 2013 by GregS

[SFC]

Shut up Greg.Nobody owes you an apology. Peragro, I salute. Awesome post (#56!) We beat our heads against the wall trying to show some of these people what is going on behind the veil but they are blind. The chance to cash in has them all falling all over themselves to be the first behind bars..

Edited March 4, 2013 by SFC

[GregS]

You appear exceptionally polite this morning. FWIW, I accept the apology.

Edited March 4, 2013 by GregS

[Northern Lab]

Question away Northern. I have never hid anything as far as my motives. What sinister plan do YOU think I have?

 

I don't know, I could probably come up with something, but I'm not very good at paranoid hysteria.

[SFC]

Anytime Northern...

[+Malamute]

Is there any conversation going on anywhere to include further pt/cg accommodation in the bill when it moves through Committee? Should we perhaps lobby for a clause that expressly permits p2p and considers usable mj in foodstuffs? It is not too much to expect that they throw us a bone or two?

 

You have to open the Act to accomplish that.

[Restorium2]

You have to open the Act to accomplish that.

Reminds me of asking the surgeon, that left the baloney sandwich inside you the last time, to try it again. (baloney)

[OG Fire Beaster]

Peragro

 

Thanks for the history lesson. Most of what you said is common knowledge, except for the norml part, I thought they were created yesterday...

 

There has never been the amount of states that have either legalization or medical laws as there is today. You can try and take away from that all you like but we have reached a milestone.

 

Most people are aware of the CIND program. It doesn't change what I said. Many communities are able to make decisions from the bottom up. Ever hear of a dry country? 4271 as written now, does not take away from the MMMA. Don't ignore that. If some places are choosing to ignore the MMMA now, it has nothing to do with 4271. It hasn't even passed yet.

 

What is to stop someone from opening a testing center and collecting samples from all across the state and analyzing them. It is a start and yes research will be done. It may not fit your criteria of serious research, but it will be more than what is able to be done today.

 

SFC

 

Ya keep those money blinders on. Cause that's all it is about.

 

It will take incremental steps for full legalization to happen. This is one of them.

[Northern Lab]

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..

 

What interests might those be?

[Restorium2]

Peragro

 

Thanks for the history lesson. Most of what you said is common knowledge, except for the norml part, I thought they were created yesterday...

 

There has never been the amount of states that have either legalization or medical laws as there is today. You can try and take away from that all you like but we have reached a milestone.

 

Most people are aware of the CIND program. It doesn't change what I said. Many communities are able to make decisions from the bottom up. Ever hear of a dry country? 4271 as written now, does not take away from the MMMA. Don't ignore that. If some places are choosing to ignore the MMMA now, it has nothing to do with 4271. It hasn't even passed yet.

 

What is to stop someone from opening a testing center and collecting samples from all across the state and analyzing them. It is a start and yes research will be done. It may not fit your criteria of serious research, but it will be more than what is able to be done today.

 

SFC

 

Ya keep those money blinders on. Cause that's all it is about.

 

It will take incremental steps for full legalization to happen. This is one of them.

The bad actors right now are the overzealous municipalities. You don't need to throw them a bone. You need to bat them on the nose and tell them to go and lie down. Just say that in the title and we will all be on board.

 

Just put this in the title;

 

"Municipalites will follow the MMM Act as written and will not ever be allowed to trump state law with their actions. No inspections of caregiver grows. No zoning caregivers at all. No fees or regulations for caregivers. All municipalities that have zoned caregivers out of their grows need to reverse this."

 

Then go about the business of outlining your Christmas list for dispensaries. Yup, caregivers and patient 'wants and needs' come first before commercial entites(Caregivers are not commercial entities you idiots in municipalities that think so).

[TheHarvester]

I was having a conversation with a fellow patient about this whole mess this morning and they asked a very good question I didn't know the answer to, and Google hasn't been much help either. How many Dispensaries closed due to lack of business? A lot, a few, none? Not legal intervention or other things outside simple lack of patronage.

 

If there were a significant amount, it would certainly be of aid to those wishing to prove that their existence is over rated and there clientele is over stated.

[maxmax]

I was having a conversation with a fellow patient about this whole mess this morning and they asked a very good question I didn't know the answer to, and Google hasn't been much help either. How many Dispensaries closed due to lack of business? A lot, a few, none? Not legal intervention or other things outside simple lack of patronage.

 

If there were a significant amount, it would certainly be of aid to those wishing to prove that their existence is over rated and there clientele is over stated.

 

And the out of State people can't get their meds ether without the dispensary

[TheHarvester]

I don't understand you response Max?

[maxmax]

I think about the out of state people that have cards when they come here they are legal to buy meds

If they are only here for a week or so do they get a caregiver? I don't think so

[SFC]

Sorry Max, but out of state people don't even factor into this. WE pay taxes and vote here. Maybe they should lobby themselves, I am not doing it for them.

[Peragro]

OGFB: It's unlikely that you've had time to study a law textbook... Also; you don't seem to have read what I wrote (but I'll get to that).

 

Of course "most of what I wrote" is "public knowledge" (that was more or less my entire point). But just because it's "public" doesn't mean it's "common knowledge". CIND was fairly "hush-hush" outside NORML and "LGBT" circles until it was shut down. Even then; it was "national news" (on CNN) for about half the day. Ask people who aren't in the MMMP registry (and who didn't vote for the MMMA) about CIND. I'm guessing that 80/100 will have no clue that there was ever a Federal "medical marihuana program" and 90/100 will have no idea how or why it happened.

 

These "dry counties" of which you write are "allowed" by statute. If that seems like a familiar strategy, that's because it is. 17 States disallow "dry counties". So rather than refuting my point you have, in fact, reinforced it. So, uh, "thank you"?

 

I didn't "make light" of anything but your "backwardness". I even agreed that we're at a "high point"! Sweet Raptor Jesus...

Edited March 4, 2013 by Peragro