State: House Bill Would Allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

[greenbuddha]

Caregivers are permitted to recoup costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. those costs do not include profit, but time, materials, fixed and variable costs.. The answer to your question is that caregivers are not in business, by your definition.

 

Will you please give us your definition of profit?

 

 

I'm sure a bright fellow like you knows the definition of 'profit', so I'm not going to get into a peeing contest over semantics and meanings; a waste of my time.

 

More to the point: If there are no 'profits' to be made by some caregivers, in the 'recouping' of their costs 'why' so much concern that they might lose their chance to 'recoup' their 'costs' if dispensaries are allowed to exist?

 

Perhaps you have an explanation for that concern other than 'lost profits'?

 

Do please expound your theory. Can't wait to hear it.

[roadworkahead]

Just wondering? Is that a bad thing? I mean as long as a patient can get their meds at a reasonable price.

Well reasonable prices do not exist in dispensaries now. At least that's what I hear from many patients. Will the prices be more resonable if they are legally allowed to exist?

[Restorium2]

I'm sure a bright fellow like you knows the definition of 'profit', so I'm not going to get into a peeing contest over semantics and meanings; a waste of my time.

 

More to the point: If there are no 'profits' to be made by some caregivers, in the 'recouping' of their costs 'why' so much concern that they might lose their chance to 'recoup' their 'costs' if dispensaries are allowed to exist?

 

Perhaps you have an explanation for that concern other than 'lost profits'?

 

Do please expound your theory. Can't wait to hear it.

You totally missed the point about the trouble with the new dispensary law that has been floated past us. It encourages the municipalities that have, and are contemplating, taking away any home grows. It dovetails in with the most troubling local ordinances. It's the second part of a plan that has taken grow rights away from patients and caregivers. We actually have statements from locals that say they wish they had the power this dispensary law would give them because it would make their local ordinances stick and be criminally enforcable. That's the the biggest problem, not their profit margin, which is a red herring. The cost would be a secondary tragedy because their new proposed law would ensure that they have a local monopoly that would put them in a position to just name their prices.

 

To sum it up in the simplest terms; The dispensary bill would end the anonymous legal home grows that are the lifeblood of medical cannabis in Michigan. They are the most sustainable source of medical cannabis for patients in the political environment today.

[Restorium2]

"The only thing we can't do right now is prosecute. We're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place," City Attorney Ed Henneke said.

 

 

The dispensary law would make prosecution a reality. It's what they are waiting for to make their local ordinances stick.

[Herb Cannabis]

You totally missed the point about the trouble with the new dispensary law that has been floated past us. It encourages the municipalities that have, and are contemplating, taking away any home grows. It dovetails in with the most troubling local ordinances. It's the second part of a plan that has taken grow rights away from patients and caregivers. We actually have statements from locals that say they wish they had the power this dispensary law would give them because it would make their local ordinances stick and be criminally enforcable. That's the the biggest problem, not their profit margin, which is a red herring. The cost would be a secondary tragedy because their new proposed law would ensure that they have a local monopoly that would put them in a position to just name their prices.

 

To sum it up in the simplest terms; The dispensary bill would end the anonymous legal home grows that are the lifeblood of medical cannabis in Michigan. They are the most sustainable source of medical cannabis for patients in the political environment today.

 

So, your problem isn't so much the whole bill, it is the part where municipalities have to much voice and may infringe on your right to grow at home. Is that correct? If so, then why kill the whole bill, why not lobby your rep to take those parts out that endanger us. I also want them to remove the parts that allow PC's to cultivate and transfer between one another.

 

I believe that this bill, cleaned up a bit, could be a good thing for so many folks.

 

I will be in my reps office this week to thank him for co-sponsoring the bill and to voice my concerns on the things in the bill that I am at odds with, why wouldn't you think about this approach instead of just killing what could be good for so many?

[Celliach]

So, your problem isn't so much the whole bill, it is the part where municipalities have to much voice and may infringe on your right to grow at home. Is that correct? If so, then why kill the whole bill, why not lobby your rep to take those parts out that endanger us. I also want them to remove the parts that allow PC's to cultivate and transfer between one another.

 

I believe that this bill, cleaned up a bit, could be a good thing for so many folks.

 

I will be in my reps office this week to thank him for co-sponsoring the bill and to voice my concerns on the things in the bill that I am at odds with, why wouldn't you think about this approach instead of just killing what could be good for so many?

 

Because we have a better understanding of how the legislature works after having dealt with them a lot over the last four years.

[Restorium2]

So, your problem isn't so much the whole bill, it is the part where municipalities have to much voice and may infringe on your right to grow at home. Is that correct? If so, then why kill the whole bill, why not lobby your rep to take those parts out that endanger us. I also want them to remove the parts that allow PC's to cultivate and transfer between one another.

 

I believe that this bill, cleaned up a bit, could be a good thing for so many folks.

 

I will be in my reps office this week to thank him for co-sponsoring the bill and to voice my concerns on the things in the bill that I am at odds with, why wouldn't you think about this approach instead of just killing what could be good for so many?

No, that is incorrect. The problem with the law is what it is designed to do. The whole idea behind it is flawed. It's 'designed' to regulate caregivers and patients where they are already being regulated unfairly. There is no 'COULD BE', they already are doing this and begging for something to make it stick. I just posted a begging quote by Henneke.

Herb,

You keep on 'trying' to make it look like this is just conjecture about things that might happen. I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring what is there for you to see so many times now, it's getting to seem like that. We have given you solid quotes from locals and many examples of ordinances that are begging for this law to make it so that there will be no more anonymous home grows at all. There is no 'good' in this law because if a municipality wanted a dispensary then they would already have one. This law is more designed to limit than to give choices.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Restorium2

[+Malamute]

So, your problem isn't so much the whole bill, it is the part where municipalities have to much voice and may infringe on your right to grow at home. Is that correct? If so, then why kill the whole bill, why not lobby your rep to take those parts out that endanger us. I also want them to remove the parts that allow PC's to cultivate and transfer between one another.

 

I believe that this bill, cleaned up a bit, could be a good thing for so many folks.

 

I will be in my reps office this week to thank him for co-sponsoring the bill and to voice my concerns on the things in the bill that I am at odds with, why wouldn't you think about this approach instead of just killing what could be good for so many?

 

This is why we all have a right to redress our government. Make your feelings known as we all should. I am happy to agree on what is highlighted in your quote and please do tell them so. I agree that both of those things are concerns and if you need any help or pointers in speaking with your Rep., i would be glad to help.

[Restorium2]

I'm thinking they would just add that in later anyway, even if you had it removed now.

[+Malamute]

Wouldn't surprise me either. But, we might as well agree on something so a message gets through. It's a start. :-) Small start.

 

We can do wtvr we want besides it,... but hey,..

Edited March 18, 2013 by Malamute

[GregS]

I'm sure a bright fellow like you knows the definition of 'profit', so I'm not going to get into a peeing contest over semantics and meanings; a waste of my time.

 

More to the point: If there are no 'profits' to be made by some caregivers, in the 'recouping' of their costs 'why' so much concern that they might lose their chance to 'recoup' their 'costs' if dispensaries are allowed to exist?

 

Perhaps you have an explanation for that concern other than 'lost profits'?

 

Do please expound your theory. Can't wait to hear it.

 

If this is some kind of game, count me out. I have stated what I think. You apparently missed it, so I will go over it once more in a little more detail.

 

Resto and I see this thing in pretty much the same light. Jamie Lowell and other dispensary interests, Rep. Callton, working on behalf of the State of Michigan, and their toadies and gangmembers, are not realizing the benefit they want from our medical use. In order for them to take profits, which you seem to suggest are disallowed, and to tax us heavily, is what they are unapologetically after. They must establish dispensaries and eliminate the competition. Prosecution is a necessary part of their scheme. Doing the math, selling grams that we gladly sell for $8 to $15 per gram for $40 and more, and patients being permitted to grow their own, it is clear that it is immense and unconscionable profit that they seek. Caregivers are a bargain to the end consumer, they being patients. 300% markups are uncommon in retail, and to insist that dispensaries look out for patient interests is just stupid. We are, after all discussing dispensary establishment in this thread. If you missed it, many of us are seriously disabled and live on limited incomes.

 

Where I do not agree with Resto is in the insistence that 4271 will make prosecution possible. I further believe that there is nothing that can be added to it which would change that. The provisions of the MMA still protect us from arrest. penalty and prosecution, and until and unless that is changed, no law can be legitimately brought to bear in dragging us through the courts and putting us in prison, so long as we remain in compliance with that, and only that, law. It is nonetheless reasonable to expect that police, court, and legislative power, and to include dispensary operators and supporting commercial interests, will do their damndest to erode and eliminate our protections. It is that which we are concerned about. We did a fine job last summer in turning back the intrusive measures that the legislature, which had and still has support of some of these other groups, that would have infringed on, and indeed eliminated, many of our rights under the law, but this thing is not over by a long shot.

 

If you have a point to make, please go right ahead. Continued sullen insistence calling our motives into question, and with nothing to support your statements, is not the way to resolve your loosely stated and unqualified and vague accusations. I have been pretty clear in stating my position, and do not think it too much to ask that you show the same courtesy.

 

WWBD?

Edited March 18, 2013 by GregS

[greenbuddha]

So, your problem isn't so much the whole bill, it is the part where municipalities have to much voice and may infringe on your right to grow at home. Is that correct? If so, then why kill the whole bill, why not lobby your rep to take those parts out that endanger us. I also want them to remove the parts that allow PC's to cultivate and transfer between one another.

 

I believe that this bill, cleaned up a bit, could be a good thing for so many folks.

 

I will be in my reps office this week to thank him for co-sponsoring the bill and to voice my concerns on the things in the bill that I am at odds with, why wouldn't you think about this approach instead of just killing what could be good for so many?

 

 

I agree with you totally, Herb.

 

But we would have to do all we could involving our reps in Lansing to try and insure the continued right of patients to grow for themselves, privately, or to have a private caregiver do it for them.

 

I also think a dispensary bill should have in it a clause that requires a dispensary to purchase a certain percentage of its meds supply from the 'overages' that patients and caregivers might have.

 

That way, if a private caregiver is 'dropped' by his/her patient without notice, the caregiver could get back some of their 'grow costs', and patients, if they find themselves with more meds than they need, (as long as they are not growing in excess of their legal number of plants) could sell their 'overages' and cover their costs of growing also.

[Timmahh]

It doesn't matter what clause is inserted, it cannot amend the rights given by the MMA unless it passes by 75%.

 

Wrong.

[+Malamute]

One little sentence and a 75% vote GregS.

 

"CULTIVATE OR KEEP MARIHUANA PLANTS IN A FACILITY AT A LOCATION THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MARIHUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES."

 

 

You were positive pt/pt was legal too.

 

Do not underestimate.

 

The intent is there. The vessel of its birth is present.

 

Be Wary.

[Restorium2]

Where I do not agree with Resto is in the insistence that 4271 will make prosecution possible.

 

In the long run I believe you will be found to be correct there Greg. It's all the trouble to finally get there in the courts that troubles me. It's not automatic in today's Michigan. Municipalities will run this up their flag poles and leave it there until the Supreme Court stops it.

[Timmahh]

"The only thing we can't do right now is prosecute. We're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place," City Attorney Ed Henneke said.

 

 

The dispensary law would make prosecution a reality. It's what they are waiting for to make their local ordinances stick.

This could not be more true. This is the end goal. Allowing municipalities to put in place local ordinances that are enforceable.

 

Exactly. Thus why a new Disp Law issued in 2013, Having similar or exact exclusion, would be the newest Law passed via Legislation that would Over Ride the OLDER MMMAct. or Atleast that is the angle they will push for, fully DISREGARDING the fact that MMMA of 2008, is a PEOPLE's INITIATIVE and there for not only Trumps any Local or State Law, but Also Trumps a Ruling from the Supreme Court. and that is where we have them by the short hairs, But ONLY IF WE PRESS THE ISSUE, and to date, it seems most are wrapped up in the LAWS, and forgetting about the Government, and where they GET Their Authority. its not via Laws, it is Via the People, and when the People in this State of Michigan Pass a Peoples Initiative, We Have Spoken and they Must follow.

 

Ofcourse, unless the PEOPLE are to foolish to realize where the real fights are being waged.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Timmahh

[greenbuddha]

If this is some kind of game, count me out. I have stated what I think. You apparently missed it, so I will go over it once more in a little more detail.

 

Resto and I see this thing in pretty much the same light. Jamie Lowell and other dispensary interests, Rep. Callton, working on behalf of the State of Michigan, and their toadies and gangmembers, are not realizing the benefit they want from our medical use. In order for them to take profits, which you seem to suggest are disallowed, and to tax us heavily, is what they are unapologetically after. They must establish dispensaries and eliminate the competition. Prosecution is a necessary part of their scheme. Doing the math, selling grams that we gladly sell for $8 to $15 per gram for $40 and more, and patients being permitted to grow their own, it is clear that it is immense and unconscionable profit that they seek. Caregivers are a bargain to the end consumer, they being patients. 300% markups are uncommon in retail, and to insist that dispensaries look out for patient interests is just stupid. We are, after all discussing dispensary establishment in this thread. If you missed it, many of us are seriously disabled and live on limited incomes.

 

Where I do not agree with Resto is in the insistence that 4271 will make prosecution possible. I further believe that there is nothing that can be added to it which would change that. The provisions of the MMA still protect us from arrest. penalty and prosecution, and until and unless that is changed, no law can be legitimately brought to bear in dragging us through the courts and putting us in prison. It is nonetheless reasonable to expect that police, court, and legislative power, and to include dispensary operators and supporting commercial interests, will do their damndest to erode and eliminate our protections. It is that which we are concerned about. We did a fine job last summer in turning back the intrusive measures that the legislature, which had and still has support of some of these other groups, that would have infringed on, and indeed eliminated, many of our rights under the law, but this thing is not over by a long shot.

 

If you have a point to make, please go right ahead. Continued sullen insistence calling our motives into question, and with nothing to support your statements, is not the way to resolve your loosely stated and unqualified and vague accusations. I have been pretty clear in stating my position, and do not think it too much to ask that you show the same courtesy.

 

WWBD?

 

Didn't miss a thing, Greg. Already took into account all of those issues you mentioned.

 

And I made no accusations. All of my original statements were put forth as questions, if you care to review my original post.

 

AND, I still am concerned that SOME caregivers, not all, may be against the idea of dispensaries, however those dispensaries might be set up, out of a fear of lossing their 'supplier status'. I'll let you surmise what their motivations might be.

 

And if you will notice, I said 'SOME' caregivers.

 

If you or anyone else falls into that 'SOME' category, so be it... if not, have a nice day.

 

And all of my comments have reflected the issue of the establishment of dispensaries, in case 'you' missed it.

 

And please also note, that nowhere in any of my posts did I use the word stupid, ignorant or any other word that might impugn or belittle someone elses comments.

[GregS]

One little sentence and a 75% vote GregS.

 

"CULTIVATE OR KEEP MARIHUANA PLANTS IN A FACILITY AT A LOCATION THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MARIHUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES."

 

 

You were positive pt/pt was legal too.

 

Do not underestimate.

 

The intent is there. The vessel of its birth is present.

 

Be Wary.

 

How would that work, as long as key provisions, viz., protection from arrest, prosecution, or penalty, of the MMA remain unchanged?

Edited March 18, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Didn't miss a thing, Greg. Already took into account all of those issues you mentioned.

 

And I made no accusations. All of my original statements were put forth as questions, if you care to review my original post.

 

AND, I still am concerned that SOME caregivers, not all, may be against the idea of dispensaries, however those dispensaries might be set up, out of a fear of lossing their 'supplier status'. I'll let you surmise what their motivations might be.

 

And if you will notice, I said 'SOME' caregivers.

 

If you or anyone else falls into that 'SOME' category, so be it... if not, have a nice day.

 

And all of my comments have reflected the issue of the establishment of dispensaries, in case 'you' missed it.

 

I guess i'll have a nice day, even though I think dispensaries are the road to the end of our pt/cg right to grow.

Edited March 18, 2013 by GregS

[greenbuddha]

I guess i'll have a nice day.

 

 

Please do!

[Herb Cannabis]

No, that is incorrect. The problem with the law is what it is designed to do. The whole idea behind it is flawed. It's 'designed' to regulate caregivers and patients where they are already being regulated unfairly. There is no 'COULD BE', they already are doing this and begging for something to make it stick. I just posted a begging quote by Henneke.

Herb,

You keep on 'trying' to make it look like this is just conjecture about things that might happen. I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring what is there for you to see so many times now, it's getting to seem like that. We have given you solid quotes from locals and many examples of ordinances that are begging for this law to make it so that there will be no more anonymous home grows at all. There is no 'good' in this law because if a municipality wanted a dispensary then they would already have one. This law is more designed to limit than to give choices.

 

I want to believe in our law, I'm not trying to be hard headed about this either. I believe that there are two distinct points of view clashing here. I want to take the position that this bill has great potential to do good things for us, I want to work with it. Nothing else is on the table at the moment. Perhaps the 3MA can write a better bill. I am not alone in my position, there are many others who feel the same. The bill does indeed require a fix, as is is not good for us.

 

You on the other hand, want it to go away, want nothing to do with it as you are convinced that the bill was written to infringe on your rights as a MMJ patient. What would be acceptable in your views? How would it have to look for you to lend your support?

 

This question is intended for the Admin: Does the 3MA take an official position on HB4271? If so, what is it and why? What can the 3MA do to fix HB4271?

[Restorium2]

I want to believe in our law, I'm not trying to be hard headed about this either. I believe that there are two distinct points of view clashing here. I want to take the position that this bill has great potential to do good things for us, I want to work with it. Nothing else is on the table at the moment. Perhaps the 3MA can write a better bill. I am not alone in my position, there are many others who feel the same. The bill does indeed require a fix, as is is not good for us.

 

You on the other hand, want it to go away, want nothing to do with it as you are convinced that the bill was written to infringe on your rights as a MMJ patient. What would be acceptable in your views? How would it have to look for you to lend your support?

 

This question is intended for the Admin: Does the 3MA take an official position on HB4271? If so, what is it and why? What can the 3MA do to fix HB4271?

I would support a dispensary bill that clearly starts at the state level and doesn't lend any credibility or power at the municipality level. Then we can amp up the fight against municipalities who have already zoned home grows away. I see these overbearing municipalities as the worst thing going against us right now. I'm not going to be for anything that further empowers them like HB4271 does from start to finish.

[Restorium2]

In no uncertain terms;

The municipalities that have overuled state law and killed home growing need a kick in the arse, not a pat on the back.

Write something that does that.

[greenbuddha]

This bill would not be considered by the legislature at all without the local option. That is the whole point of it for many of the supporters. We could lobby until we are blue in the face, but trying to get that part removed is essentially arguing against the bill.

 

 

If that is the case, Zap, and this bill passes as it is, then 'we' as the MMJ community are going to have to become much better regarding our political activism, both at the state AND the local levels.

 

We have to do all we can to make positive changes to this bill, both before and after, if it does pass into law as it stands.

[greenbuddha]

I guess i'll have a nice day, even though I think dispensaries are the road to the end of our pt/cg right to grow.

 

 

Then we have to do all we can to change this bill to reflect the concerns of both 'patients' and 'caregivers'.

 

I am 100% behind that.

 

My rep has already been contacted.