Hb 4271 Distribution Bill

[Celliach]

OG, the new law can't supercede the new law without getting 75% approval in the congress.  4271 CANNOT change anything in the MMMA with out the super-majority.  You seem to think that because it's a new law it will over ride the old one and that's not how this works.

[northerngal]

This is how I see it. The current law did not allow it. So a new law is being written that does allow it.

I see that compassion is leaking out again. Is it compassion for all or just those that agree?

 

NG

Maybe they are doing it because the tide is changing and marijuana being sold out of stores is becoming the new norm.

 

 Who is making this become the "new norm"?   How is "the tide" changing?  I suppose I don't get that statement. 

[OG Fire Beaster]

NG

 

Colorado, Washington, DC, Arizona, New Jersey. Im sure there are some more. It was not so when the MMMA was passed.

 

Cel

I don't think 4271 amends the MMMA. I think it creates a new exception to the PHC. I don't see how it has to supercede the MMMA. I Just read the McQueen ruling again and repeatedly the statement from the court is what is allowed by the MMMA, not what is forbidden. It seems that 4271 is supplemental not altering.

[northerngal]

NG

 

Colorado, Washington, DC, Arizona, New Jersey. Im sure there are some more. It was not so when the MMMA was passed.

 

I see what you mean now.   I thought you were referring to a "new norm" here in Michigan.  Thank you for your clarification.

[Celliach]

Well hopefully we won't go the way of those other states here in Michigan.  Maybe we can the shining example on the hill.

[shishka]

I believe Nevada is trying to get rid of home grows with dispensary bill SB 374, amendment 333.

 

Seems to be the trend these days. One step forward two steps back.

Edited May 21, 2013 by shishka

[phaquetoo]

... and the Act says pt/cg cannot transfer outside a specific registry relationship.

 

 This isn't difficult OG.

 

 1+1=2.

1st grade math and maybe 3rd grade english and your good to go, you can read and you can do the numbers!

 

Peace

Jim

[OG Fire Beaster]

Does 3rd grade English include the difference between your and you're?

It would help me if someone can show me where the ruling, that makes all of this so obvious, prevents new exceptions to the PHC from becoming law.
From my view a law must take away from the MMMA in order to conflict with it. So 1+1 does equal 2. As in two laws that provide exceptions to the PHC.

Edited May 21, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[peanutbutter]

Have you read the McQueen ruling you moronic piece of obfuscation?

 

WOW!! clever use of words .. bravo.

 

Sir .. you have confused the code of law and Supreme Court rulings.

 

What you stated may indeed be in that ruling, but only an illiterate moron would think those words are now contained in the law itself.

[peanutbutter]

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a

qualifying patient’s approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary

caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

Add in the MSC ruling which states it even more bluntly, and I have no idea why this is a difficult concept to understand.  O wait,... it isn't,... Pb is just talking out his asss and trying to parse words to cover up the blatant flaw in the legislation.

 

Hey!! better!! A quote of the law.

 

What's the difference between a "qualifying patient" and a "patient?" The qualifying patient is registered ...

[semicaregiver]

Is it possible that everyone here is arguing about the trees instead of the forest?

 

If I know that the MMMA will need to be changed and it will require a 75% majority, maybe a strategy might be to create "provisioning centers", i.e. 4271, then with dispensaries codied into law, go back to the legislators and change the MMMA. Yes the change to the MMMA will need a 75% vote, but now you are asking the legislators to just make a technical adjustment to allow what they have already voted in to go forward. Seems to me that if you go to the legislators after they buy into 4271, changing the MMMA will be an easier sell.

 

I have no knowledge as to whether this is the thought or not, all I am doing here is listening to the various arguments and posturing as to the possible game plan.

[Hayduke]

so the only reason people are (rightly) apprehensive about this bill is because , due to crazy legislators, they can basically change it at will? and add anything anti-mmma they want?

 

of course its easy for them to get 75% , we saw it last year with right to work and the 3 mmma bills.

i still say 4856 isnt an mmma bill imo, needs a court challenge.

 

are people apprehensive because after they approve this bill, they will cut out personal grows?

in one state, i think you arent allowed to grow for yourself if there is a dispensary within 25 miles of you?

so it is a possibility. if this is the case that you are scared of, please state it so we know what the problem is and why we should also be wary.

 

i still dont think theres any snowball chance in hell that the legislature is going to approve of dispensaries in any shape or form.

how many co-sponsors does it have ?

t pain, yes we are concerned about all the things you mentioned.

 

If the act is open just look out, it will be a sh*t storm.

 

Yes if they give dispensaries a niche, they may well remove the right to grow your own meds....

 

as to your final sentence, I am not so confident they will fail....

[Hayduke]

Is it possible that everyone here is arguing about the trees instead of the forest?

 

If I know that the MMMA will need to be changed and it will require a 75% majority, maybe a strategy might be to create "provisioning centers", i.e. 4271, then with dispensaries codied into law, go back to the legislators and change the MMMA. Yes the change to the MMMA will need a 75% vote, but now you are asking the legislators to just make a technical adjustment to allow what they have already voted in to go forward. Seems to me that if you go to the legislators after they buy into 4271, changing the MMMA will be an easier sell.

 

I have no knowledge as to whether this is the thought or not, all I am doing here is listening to the various arguments and posturing as to the possible game plan.

semi, an easier sell for sure... to take away growing rights and allowing the dispensaries to control the entire shooting match.  I think your theory totally plausible, and it is one reason that concerns me.

 

Rep Callton told me the transfers issue was real.  Jamie Lowell told me the transfer issue is real.  The A2 Guild's attorney confirmed my suspicion.  Five CPU attorneys confirmed the transfers are not legal for the transfering party.  How many more people shall I cite?  I don't like the way it is being done.  I don't think any of them are bad people, I don't hate them or wish them ill.  I do think this was not well thought out.  the MMMA trumps any other law.  It says it in black and white.  Please give me the legal theory how this new bill 4271 overrides the MMMA and allow transfers specifically made illegal by the McQueen ruling?  Not trying to be rude or harsh, but you gotta give me more than deep felt opinions.

 

PB, I won't respond to the word nonsense you are playing.  I am not climbing down into your sandbox.  But you sir, while smart, are no freakin' lawyer, doctor or chemist, and your self promotion is indeed shameful.  My advise is to sit this discussion out, because it is hockey playoff time and the elbows are going to get harsher in my written words if you insist on clouding the water here.

 

Now in fairness, they are working on an approach to allow these transfers legally.  I will not share that info as it was given in confidence.  But it is not real presently.

 

To assume the legislature will not want something back if they allow provisioning centers is naive, in my opinion.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Hayduke

[Highlander]

Hey!! better!! A quote of the law.

 

What's the difference between a "qualifying patient" and a "patient?" The qualifying patient is registered ...

 

There is no difference between a 'patient' and a "qualifying patient."  Registration makes no difference here.

 

(i) "Qualifying patient" or "patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Highlander

[Highlander]

PB, this is where you avoid the fact that you were wrong and instead you accuse me of being drunk.

 

I'll save you the trouble.

 

I'm drunk as a skunk.

 

But there still isn't a difference between a "patient" and a "qualifying patient."

[semicaregiver]

semi, an easier sell for sure... to take away growing rights and allowing the dispensaries to control the entire shooting match.  I think your theory totally plausible, and it is one reason that concerns me.

 

Rep Callton told me the transfers issue was real.  Jamie Lowell told me the transfer issue is real.  The A2 Guild's attorney confirmed my suspicion.  Five CPU attorneys confirmed the transfers are not legal for the transfering party.  How many more people shall I cite?  I don't like the way it is being done.  I don't think any of them are bad people, I don't hate them or wish them ill.  I do think this was not well thought out.  the MMMA trumps any other law.  It says it in black and white.  Please give me the legal theory how this new bill 4271 overrides the MMMA and allow transfers specifically made illegal by the McQueen ruling?  Not trying to be rude or harsh, but you gotta give me more than deep felt opinions......

The reason for my analogy to the "forest for the trees" perspective is all the discussion in this thread focuses on the conflict between 4271 and the MMMA. I do not think the proponents of 4271 are concerned with the conflict between it and the MMMA. There is no need to create any legal brief on how 4271 ove rides and/or conflicts with the MMMA. Your quotes from Calton et al suggest they understand the conflict. All I am suggesting is a theory on why they do not seem to be concerned. You get 4271 passed and then go back and change the MMMA. Step 1 get the legislation to buy into dispensaries, step 2 fix the conflict, i.e. amend the MMMA.

 

Again, this is just my best guess after listening to all sides and trying to make sense of their confidence.

[Hayduke]

and it is a theory I find plausible and reasonable....

 

it is the beware of unforeseen consequence scenario....

[ozzrokk]

There is no difference between a 'patient' and a "qualifying patient."  Registration makes no difference here.

 

(i) "Qualifying patient" or "patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Well that is how it reads now....... After they made there little "Near harmless changes that so many were at least somewhat ok with" ........... It did not read that way originally thus they wanted to make the little "Near harmless changes"......Funny how that LITTLE change may have really changed things and they did it with the caregiver definitions too......

[ozzrokk]

Well hopefully we won't go the way of those other states here in Michigan.  Maybe we can the shining example on the hill.

 

 

Not go by the way of Colorado???????? Really????????  Full on legalization?????????

 

 

Edited to add that I do realize that you are talking about the way the medical aspect of those states went but look at how that turned out in the long run for Colo......

Edited May 21, 2013 by ozzrokk

[+Malamute]

Well that is how it reads now....... After they made there little "Near harmless changes that so many were at least somewhat ok with" ........... It did not read that way originally thus they wanted to make the little "Near harmless changes"......Funny how that LITTLE change may have really changed things and they did it with the caregiver definitions too......

 

 

 We fought that specific change the whole way.  Most thought it was harmless; we knew better.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Not go by the way of Colorado???????? Really????????  Full on legalization?????????

 

 

Edited to add that I do realize that you are talking about the way the medical aspect of those states went but look at how that turned out in the long run for Colo......

 

IMO California is the gold standard for successful medical marijuana laws. That is what we should be striving for.

[Celliach]

California is a clusterf**ck.  Legality changes with the town lines.  You can be legal selling, cross the street and not be legal anymore.  

[GregS]

The announcement says that testimony is to be heard. Is that correct? Isn't the committee required to announce a comment period? Speculation has been made that the committee members want to move it through quickly, and without testimony from all who would like to make a case.

[GregS]

“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

 

George Bernard Shaw

[pergamum362]

“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

 

George Bernard Shaw

Lol