Clare County Compassion Club

[Herb Cannabis]

Jamie does have the ability if not the ambition to fix some of these transgressions and it is not fair for us to paint him with Robin Schnieders brush. Unfortunately tho Jamie you are somewhat guilty by association. We all have had to adjust our positions and words to some degree over the last few years, Jamie is no exception.

 

HC, it is safe to say you are only choosing to hear what fits into your vison of this law and the events that have surrounded its history. Plus, you were under the influence of a maniacal liar for a couple years. That kind of programming may never wear off.

 

I simply have a differing opinion of the matters at hand than you. I pray that nothing ever happens to your or your cg's crop like what happened to mine and that you never have the need for a PC. Others including yours truly happens to need one at the moment. The "old marine" may have had some influence on me, however, I am my own man, a free thinker and an old soldier.

[cristinew]

Oh well Herbie you and Jammie L, you guys, Never read section 6 d and broke the law and said ip2p was legal ,,, you both were wrong and you both will be wrong again with this,,

 

I contacted my Michigan rep,,, and said vote NO to any dispensary bill s

[+Malamute]

I simply have a differing opinion of the matters at hand than you. I pray that nothing ever happens to your or your cg's crop like what happened to mine and that you never have the need for a PC. Others including yours truly happens to need one at the moment. The "old marine" may have had some influence on me, however, I am my own man, a free thinker and an old soldier.

 

You need a CG, not a PC. ;-)

[+Malamute]

 

 

Screw you MSC for killing pt/pt transfers, I don't appreciate it one bit.

 

If in fact what you claim has transpired, it was illegal. I've heard these rumors as well, I hope that they are wrong.

 

Pt/Pt wasnt killed,... it never legally existed as so many of us tried to warn.

[+Malamute]

07-04-2012, 12:37 PM#8blueberryAdministrator Join Date Apr 2012 Posts 725 Images 30

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is a lot of your rights will end up being traded away for these dispensary bills. No one should use another persons rights under the law as a windfall. All of the people in leadership positions now are primarily for dispensary rights regardless of the cost. They will play word games but they are using the same playbook that has been used in every state that has passed a medical marijuana law. Most of these people are already millionaires but that is not enough for them. They want it all. Thanks, Bb

 

 

 

 

Heh.

 

07-03-2012, 11:24 PM#4[/url]

 

 

 

blueberryAdministrator Join Date Apr 2012 Posts 725 Images 30

 

 

 

 

They will say to you that it was two years ago. Maybe they have found Jesus. They are no longer the money grubbers that they were two years ago. I agree that 5580 is a takeover of the caregiver system in it's current form but it is also unconstitutional. There can be no regulation of patients/caregivers by localities. In addition commercial grows will put big targets on the backs of anyone who takes a bite of that apple. 5580 is the Colorado model and our caregivers know what has happened there. it is illegal for anyone other than a dispensary to sell marijuana. Why would any caregiver agree to that? It would be suicide. Thanks, bb

 

 

 

 

 

Heck, even JoJo figured this one out.... hahaha.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

I have never lobbied for, suggested, or ever thought that it was an acceptable idea to reduce caregiver rights or to circumvent the caregiver system, at all. I have been consistent in action, in recorded statements, and in understanding and belief that it is crucial to preserve the caregiver system.

 

There are no quotes or articles that have been displayed here in which a regrettable statement is made, nor is there any suggestion, from me, of diminishing the caregiver system.

 

Just unintended consequences relative to your intended results and (ex)partners exact words. *shrug*

 

How could we possibly relate the two aye?

 

I suppose i would just ask for some more details as to what was said during the private meetings with the city council members and who they were, who submitted and suggested the language that was adopted and the ideas pushed for, how did the meetings go, at what time did you realize CG's were going to get dorked and why the decision not to focus on saving CG's over commercial growing/retail, what was if any MACC"S influence over the ordinance; were chuck, rick, matt, darrel, anthony, robin, jesse, matt etc etc involved in this language and its agreed lobbying messages and intent? What mistakes were made and situations that arose that caused the language in the ypsi ordiannce to come to being so bad and how could have CG restrictions been avoided or what exactly caused them?

 

I know much of this myself, but it would be cool to hear some more.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Malamute

[Herb Cannabis]

Oh well Herbie you and Jammie L, you guys, Never read section 6 d and broke the law and said ip2p was legal ,,, you both were wrong and you both will be wrong again with this,,

 

I contacted my Michigan rep,,, and said vote NO to any dispensary bill s

 

Thank you for participating in our political system, so few do. I also contacted my rep (who just so happens to be a co-sponser) and presented my views as well.

 

You need a CG, not a PC. ;-)

 

I appreciate the thought, but, I am my caregiver, I don't need another, it is just a matter of waiting for my crop to come in. I'm not going through the grind of switching things around.

 

Pt/Pt wasnt killed,... it never legally existed as so many of us tried to warn.

 

Pt/Pt was not forbidden by IL 1 of 2008 either, we both know that if it isn't expressly forbidden by law, it was legal.

 

 

Heh.

 

Heck, even JoJo figured this one out.... hahaha.

 

I refuse to believe that you are quoting Bb after the way he was trashed on here. Unbelievable!

[jamieuke]

 

 

Just unintended consequences relative to your intended results and (ex)partners exact words. *shrug*

 

How could we possibly relate the two aye?

 

I suppose i would just ask for some more details as to what was said during the private meetings with the city council members and who they were, who submitted and suggested the language that was adopted and the ideas pushed for, how did the meetings go, at what time did you realize CG's were going to get dorked and why the decision not to focus on saving CG's over commercial growing/retail, what was if any MACC"S influence over the ordinance; were chuck, rick, matt, darrel, anthony, robin, jesse, matt etc etc involved in this language and its agreed lobbying messages and intent? What mistakes were made and situations that arose that caused the language in the ypsi ordiannce to come to being so bad and how could have CG restrictions been avoided or what exactly caused them?

 

I know much of this myself, but it would be cool to hear some more.

 

 

I dealt with the city, almost on my own. MACC didnt exist and I didnt know most of the people on your list yet.

 

Darrell attended some meetings. I submitted a proposal ordinance that Chuck helped to write, based on language used in Rhode Island.

 

A new city planner came in along the way and formed a task group that included herself, chief of police , fire marshall, council member , building inspector, and others. They met with me, MML, consulted with their attorney, and others. They created the ordinance through this process. It looked nothing like what I had submitted.

 

What I had submitted was only related to dispensing in commercial zones. I had nothing to do with the residential side, except for speak against it.

 

The blame for the bad residential part of the ordinance, goes to those in opposition. They tried to base it on what Mish and the MML did in Grand Rapids, early on. Before that happened in GR, I met with the planner there, with a local activist and explained why it was not a good idea.

 

Many people read p to p into the law, including judges from circuit court and the Court of Appeals. At least one Justice demonstrated a much less political decision, that used the basic elements of construction.

 

In addition, what we did was to create a more functional method to facilitate the point of the Act, and it worked. No unintended consequences except, perhaps, how efficient it proved to be.

 

I have been active working against restrictive local ordinances that limit caregivers, ever since I got involved.

 

 

[maxmax]

their will be some kind of pc one day soon and their is a need for them i see both sides of the fences

[Restorium2]

I dealt with the city, almost on my own. MACC didnt exist and I didnt know most of the people on your list yet.

 

Darrell attended some meetings. I submitted a proposal ordinance that Chuck helped to write, based on language used in Rhode Island.

 

A new city planner came in along the way and formed a task group that included herself, chief of police , fire marshall, council member , building inspector, and others. They met with me, MML, consulted with their attorney, and others. They created the ordinance through this process. It looked nothing like what I had submitted.

 

What I had submitted was only related to dispensing in commercial zones. I had nothing to do with the residential side, except for speak against it.

 

The blame for the bad residential part of the ordinance, goes to those in opposition. They tried to base it on what Mish and the MML did in Grand Rapids, early on. Before that happened in GR, I met with the planner there, with a local activist and explained why it was not a good idea.

 

Many people read p to p into the law, including judges from circuit court and the Court of Appeals. At least one Justice demonstrated a much less political decision, that used the basic elements of construction.

 

In addition, what we did was to create a more functional method to facilitate the point of the Act, and it worked. No unintended consequences except, perhaps, how efficient it proved to be.

 

I have been active working against restrictive local ordinances that limit caregivers, ever since I got involved.

The fact is you praised them after they ruined growing for anyone but you. You can't deny that.

 

Your dispensary bill gives those who did this more power. It enables them. You can't deny that either.

 

Your whole track record is stained with failure to protect grow rights for caregivers and patients.

 

Why would anyone in their right mind think that this dispensary language would not just follow your path and cause more destruction for growers and help you with your monopoly?

 

You have failed miserably for us patients and you say it's someone elses fault. But then you turn around and pat them on the head and give them a law that helps them continue in the direct 'that's not your fault'. Who would buy that?

[Restorium2]

their will be some kind of pc one day soon and their is a need for them i see both sides of the fences

They are already there, eating your lunch, building power to finish the job. It's crazy the people I see roll over for this. What is the deal?

[maxmax]

I dealt with the city, almost on my own. MACC didnt exist and I didnt know most of the people on your list yet.

 

Darrell attended some meetings. I submitted a proposal ordinance that Chuck helped to write, based on language used in Rhode Island.

 

A new city planner came in along the way and formed a task group that included herself, chief of police , fire marshall, council member , building inspector, and others. They met with me, MML, consulted with their attorney, and others. They created the ordinance through this process. It looked nothing like what I had submitted.

 

What I had submitted was only related to dispensing in commercial zones. I had nothing to do with the residential side, except for speak against it.

 

The blame for the bad residential part of the ordinance, goes to those in opposition. They tried to base it on what Mish and the MML did in Grand Rapids, early on. Before that happened in GR, I met with the planner there, with a local activist and explained why it was not a good idea.

 

Many people read p to p into the law, including judges from circuit court and the Court of Appeals. At least one Justice demonstrated a much less political decision, that used the basic elements of construction.

 

In addition, what we did was to create a more functional method to facilitate the point of the Act, and it worked. No unintended consequences except, perhaps, how efficient it proved to be.

 

I have been active working against restrictive local ordinances that limit caregivers, ever since I got involved.

 

all right thats good for me thanks

[Restorium2]

Jamie Quote; I have been active working against restrictive local ordinances that limit caregivers, ever since I got involved.

 

Then why is it that you have the most restrictive ordinances in your area? And those ordinances make you money. Who would be gullable enough to believe that you fought so hard and lost, BUT made a pile of cash off your FAILURE?

[Restorium2]

Jamie Quote; In addition, what we did was to create a more functional method to facilitate the point of the Act, and it worked. No unintended consequences except, perhaps, how efficient it proved to be.

 

EFFICIENT! No doubt about it. Make an area of the state so it's just like Arizona medical. Then make a dispensary bill that takes that model right qacross the state.

[Northern Lab]

This is reminiscent of the CPU vs Joe Cain battles over the last package of bills. CPU was attacked for 'enabling' when they were working to soften the legislation.

[+Malamute]

I dealt with the city, almost on my own. MACC didnt exist and I didnt know most of the people on your list yet.

 

Darrell attended some meetings. I submitted a proposal ordinance that Chuck helped to write, based on language used in Rhode Island.

 

A new city planner came in along the way and formed a task group that included herself, chief of police , fire marshall, council member , building inspector, and others. They met with me, MML, consulted with their attorney, and others. They created the ordinance through this process. It looked nothing like what I had submitted.

 

What I had submitted was only related to dispensing in commercial zones. I had nothing to do with the residential side, except for speak against it.

 

The blame for the bad residential part of the ordinance, goes to those in opposition. They tried to base it on what Mish and the MML did in Grand Rapids, early on. Before that happened in GR, I met with the planner there, with a local activist and explained why it was not a good idea.

 

Many people read p to p into the law, including judges from circuit court and the Court of Appeals. At least one Justice demonstrated a much less political decision, that used the basic elements of construction.

 

In addition, what we did was to create a more functional method to facilitate the point of the Act, and it worked. No unintended consequences except, perhaps, how efficient it proved to be.

 

I have been active working against restrictive local ordinances that limit caregivers, ever since I got involved.

 

Thanks Jamie.

 

So it is your view as well as mine i raised here, that MML is piggybacking local ordinance proposals and using the fear of home growing and commercial operations to push their model language agenda through?

 

Do you find it dangerous to be the one(or involved with the people) pushing the angle that home growing is dangerous in neighbourhoods, CG's are incompetent and akin to street dealers and basicly pushing groups like MML. MTA and PAAMs agenda through for them, and is this why you have backed away from fully supporting this flawed bill and its approach?

 

Do you see there to be danger involved with introducing the vessel and providing the fear and fodder to accellerate the oppositions ability to instill harsh regulations statewide as they have done in dozens upon dozens of municipalities such as Ypsilanti?

 

Can you help negate the damage being caused by this "safe access" propaganda?

 

And would you be willing to stand up against the sources of said damaging propaganda?

[+Malamute]

This is reminiscent of the CPU vs Joe Cain battles over the last package of bills. CPU was attacked for 'enabling' when they were working to soften the legislation.

 

That would be a very dim view.

 

CPU were not the ones that submitted the language to be passed. If CPU had introduced the Walsh bills for consideration, then i suppose it could be called similar.

[Northern Lab]

You submitted proposed language that softened the bills. It really isn't much different.

 

[SFC]

 

I appreciate the thought, but, I am my caregiver, I don't need another, it is just a matter of waiting for my crop to come in. I'm not going through the grind of switching things around.

 

How is that working out again? lol

[+Malamute]

 

I refuse to believe that you are quoting Bb after the way he was trashed on here. Unbelievable!

 

I figurede ya would get a kick out of that.. :-)

 

It was done in jest.

 

Relax a little and look at the seriousness of the questions being asked. Some people feel as though they can do nothing to change or steer the future of medical cannabis in Michigan. That could not be further from the truth.

 

The problem is, we as a community seem to always want to shoot ourselves int he foot because of the blindness of greed, ambition and lack of foresight and strategic understanding.

 

If ya take the time to understand the simple yet numerous intricacies of the situation, you would realize, you can make a difference and we do not have to settle. We do not have to do things that stick it to ourselves and there are reasonable approaches to achieve what is needed int he end if moving tacticly throught he field of mines which stand before us.

 

I really want to hear some of these answers from Jamie. I pose real questions and middle ground.

 

It is important and i do hope this is a teaser for a great meeting at this CC.

[SFC]

Northern, come one man. That is ridiculous. While a bunch of you including Jojo the clown were screaming their heads off we got serious and countered. We were also totally flamed with outright lies about the language we submitted. And now we see who the real traitor was all along.. Don't we

[+Malamute]

You submitted proposed language that softened the bills. It really isn't much different.

 

Not really at all. It would have been like if we went to Ypsi and tried to stop Jamie from doing damage by protecting caregivers and saying to not to mess with the common law rights of a residence.

 

Its a very different beast my friend.

 

We did not propose legislation, we only tried to stop the damage.

[Northern Lab]

Yes, you were unfairly attacked IMO.

 

Now the shoe is on the other foot. How quickly the oppressed become the oppressors...

[SFC]

How are we oppressing? By telling them to stop throwing caregivers under the bus to advance their cause?

 

Also, I have never been oppressed. Instead of sitting around this circle jerk and listening to a charlatan con man we got busy meeting with reps and countering with language changes. The exact same thing we are prepared to do this time when it is time.

Edited March 9, 2013 by SFC

[Restorium2]

This is reminiscent of the CPU vs Joe Cain battles over the last package of bills. CPU was attacked for 'enabling' when they were working to soften the legislation.

Ah, but there is one huge difference isn't there? One you conveniently ignore. Jamie's 'failure' makes him money. Then he submits language to enhance his 'failure'.