Judiciary Hearing On Hb 4271- House Tv Broadcast

[GregS]

I guess so.

I somehow knew you'd see it my way.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GregS

[shishka]

 ok let do the math for 12 plants using a 1000w

light for 3 months 320

nuts around 20 bucks

dirt around 60

out come is 400

now how much from plants for 12 and this is on the low end ===== around 5lbs

so who is the rip offs

 

me I grow for myself and no one else and I do fine with a 250w cost 25 buck for light a month and I only grow 4 at a time

 

5 pounds from a 1000 huh?

 

In 3 months, is that right?

 

You Zerocool, should write a book as you have obviously figured out something no one else on earth has figured out.

 

You should not speak of things you know nothing about.

[Northern Lab]

Why should the government not be required to show harm? If there is harm, what is it, and what authority do they have to back it up?

I agree with your underlying point. As DA for a moment, I would say that even common health store homeopathic remedies are subject to in-house testing by the company at the very least. I think we have to weigh the risks against the benefits, just like we do when we buy from a farmers market or fruit stand verses the grocery store. there is potential for widespread harm to the population in a grocery store environment,not so much at the roadside vegetable stand, so much tighter controls are put on grocery stores.

 

we didn't always have tight regulations on grocery stores, and what we have now has evolved over the course of a hundred years or so. people had to die of foodborne illness before regulations were put into place for establishment that have the potential to cause widespread harm in the population with contaminated product. now that these regulations are in place, it almost becomes natural for people to Expect tighter quality control in the grocery store environment. does that mean the grocery store food is safer? No. Does that mean the roadside stand is a more dangerous place to buy produce? No. both places could be equally safe.

 

regulations intended to prevent foodborne illness only came about after people got sick and/or died of foodborne illness. if we decide to wait for people to get sick and/or die from contaminated cannabis, regulations will come. it truly is a moral dilemma.

 

In a market with low anonymity, where the potential for widespread harm is nonexistent, a mandate would be insane and unworkable. Like putting a gc at the local farmer's veggie stand.

 

In a market with more anonymity, like a dispensary, an argument for mandating tighter QC and testing could be made. The potential for widespread harm is greater, although still fairly limited. Lacking a mandate, dispensaries facing stiff competition would likely test for at least cannabinoid levels, which doesn't have squat to do with safety, and more to do with staying competitive and insuring customer satisfaction. Eventually competition and consumer demand would force dispensaries to implement more safety related testing, making a mandate moot.

[solabeirtan]

I agree with your underlying point. As DA for a moment, I would say that even common health store homeopathic remedies are subject to in-house testing by the company at the very least. I think we have to weigh the risks against the benefits, just like we do when we buy from a farmers market or fruit stand verses the grocery store. there is potential for widespread harm to the population in a grocery store environment,not so much at the roadside vegetable stand, so much tighter controls are put on grocery stores.

 

we didn't always have tight regulations on grocery stores, and what we have now has evolved over the course of a hundred years or so. ***people had to die of foodborne illness before regulations were put into place for establishment that have the potential to cause widespread harm in the population with contaminated product.*** now that these regulations are in place, it almost becomes natural for people to Expect tighter quality control in the grocery store environment. does that mean the grocery store food is safer? No. Does that mean the roadside stand is a more dangerous place to buy produce? No. both places could be equally safe.

 

regulations intended to prevent foodborne illness only came about after people got sick and/or died of foodborne illness. if we decide to wait for people to get sick and/or die from contaminated cannabis, regulations will come. it truly is a moral dilemma.

 

In a market with low anonymity, where the potential for widespread harm is nonexistent, a mandate would be insane and unworkable. Like putting a gc at the local farmer's veggie stand.

 

In a market with more anonymity, like a dispensary, an argument for mandating tighter QC and testing could be made. The potential for widespread harm is greater, although still fairly limited. Lacking a mandate, dispensaries facing stiff competition would likely test for at least cannabinoid levels, which doesn't have squat to do with safety, and more to do with staying competitive and insuring customer satisfaction. Eventually competition and consumer demand would force dispensaries to implement more safety related testing, making a mandate moot. Really

 

You may  know your gc_s? History not so much. *** Steady working the FUD angle, its a free country, ehhh?

 

***unless you have some relevant references for your claims on this I'll share the Google version "The history of the FDA can be traced to the latter part of the 19th century and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Division of Chemistry (later Bureau of Chemistry). Under Harvey Washington Wiley, appointed chief chemist in 1883, the Division began conducting research into the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market."   wiki_FDA

 

...this all started with the Dept of Agriculture, which was basically about creating pesticides, or poisoning us. Which spawned the Bureau of Chemistry. Since it was in its infancy at this point  of our developement. So guess what they evolved into: The Pharmacuetical Industry the people that brought us such Life Saving creations as Chemotherapy, Radiation, how about Agent Orange, Paraquat... which will eventually lead to the 'Marijuana' Tax Act of 1937.

 

Give me a case of Food Poisoning any day. Along with my # of cannabis!   

Edited May 28, 2013 by solabeirtan

[Northern Lab]

Um, what?

[phaquetoo]

no nate, they changed the typical procedure and made this a "discussion" (their words) about how medical marihuana should be distributed.  The whole morning was choreographed carefully by proponents.

 

there will be additional hearings on HB 4271 and they will include public testimony.

 

someone who stayed around will have to let us know about the afternoon session, if there was one.  They had a session at the Capitol for the full House (not about this bill at all) and they never quite know if they will reconvene for additional testimony before House Judiciary.  Meaning you could wait around for 3 or 4 hours and not get nothin (so to speak)....

 

I have asked Zap to upload the written testimony from the hospice nurse who testified.  She was a lovely, kind, thoughtful person, but her amendment is like fingernails on a chalkboard.... I hope he puts it up for all to see.... I know how to email attachments but not how to put em up here!

copy and paiste, if you have a copy of the testimony, copy it and paiste it in here, on the bottom right of this box press more reply options that way you can preview your post before you put it in here, if ya need help pm me, I will do what i can for you!

 

Peace

Jim

[Celliach]

i think some people need to read things a few times over to get the point and the point with my post was that we all need to work together as one team and fight for what the people of this Great State has given the sick

Ask not what the sick can give but ask what you can do for the sick

 

If we do that we'll be trampled on by the big money dispensary people.

[GregS]

I agree with your underlying point. As DA for a moment, I would say that even common health store homeopathic remedies are subject to in-house testing by the company at the very least. I think we have to weigh the risks against the benefits, just like we do when we buy from a farmers market or fruit stand verses the grocery store. there is potential for widespread harm to the population in a grocery store environment,not so much at the roadside vegetable stand, so much tighter controls are put on grocery stores.

 

we didn't always have tight regulations on grocery stores, and what we have now has evolved over the course of a hundred years or so. people had to die of foodborne illness before regulations were put into place for establishment that have the potential to cause widespread harm in the population with contaminated product. now that these regulations are in place, it almost becomes natural for people to Expect tighter quality control in the grocery store environment. does that mean the grocery store food is safer? No. Does that mean the roadside stand is a more dangerous place to buy produce? No. both places could be equally safe.

 

regulations intended to prevent foodborne illness only came about after people got sick and/or died of foodborne illness. if we decide to wait for people to get sick and/or die from contaminated cannabis, regulations will come. it truly is a moral dilemma.

 

In a market with low anonymity, where the potential for widespread harm is nonexistent, a mandate would be insane and unworkable. Like putting a gc at the local farmer's veggie stand.

 

In a market with more anonymity, like a dispensary, an argument for mandating tighter QC and testing could be made. The potential for widespread harm is greater, although still fairly limited. Lacking a mandate, dispensaries facing stiff competition would likely test for at least cannabinoid levels, which doesn't have squat to do with safety, and more to do with staying competitive and insuring customer satisfaction. Eventually competition and consumer demand would force dispensaries to implement more safety related testing, making a mandate moot.

I'm afraid this does not address any harm caused by cannabis. Foodborne illness is a red herring and is a bacterial infestation. While I guardedly appreciate the need for quality and purity standards for retail sales to the general public, much as other retail herbal remedies, there is no compelling reason at a smaller scale. Customers have become smarter about inspecting cannabis for those purposes, know better than before to identify by smell, taste, and close visual means, and that will continue and become more prevalent as the population becomes more familiar with the product. Peeling back the husk on an ear of corn and looking for bugs or signs that they have infested it and tasting some kernels is the only QA necessary. To take a small amount of cannabis that has been closely inspected and sparking it up, the other necessary characteristics are apparent.

 

The last I remember an adulterated product was the government's use of paraquat. Aside from that, when has anyone been in any way injured by the stuff? Absent that, the need is unjustified. Generalized statements about the potential for harm are disingenuous. Where is the necessary and duly diligent argument? What is the harm? To this point I have seen nothing.

 

Why?

[solabeirtan]

I agree with your underlying point. As DA for a moment, I would say that even common health store homeopathic remedies are subject to in-house testing by the company at the very least. I think we have to weigh the risks against the benefits, just like we do when we buy from a farmers market or fruit stand verses the grocery store. there is potential for widespread harm to the population in a grocery store environment,not so much at the roadside vegetable stand, so much tighter controls are put on grocery stores.

 

we didn't always have tight regulations on grocery stores, and what we have now has evolved over the course of a hundred years or so. people had to die of foodborne illness before regulations were put into place for establishment that have the potential to cause widespread harm in the population with contaminated product. now that these regulations are in place, it almost becomes natural for people to Expect tighter quality control in the grocery store environment. does that mean the grocery store food is safer? No. Does that mean the roadside stand is a more dangerous place to buy produce? No. both places could be equally safe.

 

regulations intended to prevent foodborne illness only came about after people got sick and/or died of foodborne illness. if we decide to wait for people to get sick and/or die from contaminated cannabis, regulations will come. it truly is a moral dilemma.

 

In a market with low anonymity, where the potential for widespread harm is nonexistent, a mandate would be insane and unworkable. Like putting a gc at the local farmer's veggie stand.

 

In a market with more anonymity, like a dispensary, an argument for mandating tighter QC and testing could be made. The potential for widespread harm is greater, although still fairly limited. Lacking a mandate, dispensaries facing stiff competition would likely test for at least cannabinoid levels, which doesn't have squat to do with safety, and more to do with staying competitive and insuring customer satisfaction. Eventually competition and consumer demand would force dispensaries to implement more safety related testing, making a mandate moot.

 

 

You may  know your gc_s? History not so much. *** Steady working the FUD angle, its a free country, ehhh?

 

***unless you have some relevant references for your claims on this I'll share the Google version "The history of the FDA can be traced to the latter part of the 19th century and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Division of Chemistry (later Bureau of Chemistry). Under Harvey Washington Wiley, appointed chief chemist in 1883, the Division began conducting research into the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market."   wiki_FDA

 

...this all started with the Dept of Agriculture, which was basically about creating pesticides, or poisoning us. Which spawned the Bureau of Chemistry. Since it was in its infancy at this point  of our developement. So guess what they evolved into: The Pharmacuetical Industry the people that brought us such Life Saving creations as Chemotherapy, Radiation, how about Agent Orange, Paraquat... which will eventually lead to the 'Marijuana' Tax Act of 1937.

 

Give me a case of Food Poisoning any day. Along with my # of cannabis!   

 

 

Um, what?

Yes I suppose all the references were confusing, ehhh? also I forgot to call out directly the particular line of BS I found to be most misleading. My appologies.  

[Northern Lab]

I'm afraid this does not address any harm caused by cannabis. Foodborne illness is a red herring and is a bacterial infestation. While I guardedly appreciate the need for quality and purity standards for retail sales to the general public, much as other retail herbal remedies, there is no compelling reason at a smaller scale. Customers have become smarter about inspecting cannabis for those purposes, know better than before to identify by smell, taste, and close visual means, and that will continue and become more prevalent as the population becomes more familiar with the product. Peeling back the husk on an ear of corn and looking for bugs or signs that they have infested it and tasting some kernels is the only QA necessary. To take a small amount of cannabis that has been closely inspected and sparking it up, the other necessary characteristics are apparent.

 

The last I remember an adulterated product was the government's use of paraquat. Aside from that, when has anyone been in any way injured by the stuff? Absent that, the need is unjustified. Generalized statements about the potential for harm are disingenuous. Where is the necessary and duly diligent argument? What is the harm? To this point I have seen nothing.

 

Why?

I agree that there is not a preponderance of evidence to justify a mandate. My comparison to grocery stores was an attempt to apply context to the issue.

 

The fact is, government agencies are generally reactive rather than proactive. That means they won't do anything unless or until someone gets hurt. I think they will take the same course of action in this case. If no one ever gets hurt, there is no justification for onerous regulation.

 

  

Yes I suppose all the references were confusing, ehhh? also I forgot to call out directly the particular line of BS I found to be most misleading. My appologies.  

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make here.

[GregS]

My point is that no harm from cannabis has been demonstrated in thousands of years of recorded use, and in all likelihood none was apparent in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years of pre-history that is certain to have involved use. Not only is there no preponderance of evidence, to my understanding there is absolutely none.

 

It's allll good.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

Do we really need the government in our grow rooms telling us we have to test the medicine we grow for our wives and other family members?

[Northern Lab]

My point is that no harm from cannabis has been demonstrated in thousands of years of recorded use, and in all likelihood none was apparent in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years of pre-history that is certain to have involved use. Not only is there no preponderance of evidence, to my understanding there is absolutely none.

 

It's allll good.

 

 

That is my general understanding as well.

 

 

Do we really need the government in our grow rooms telling us we have to test the medicine we grow for our wives and other family members?

Nope. Has anyone here suggested that we should be?

[Zerocool]

lets see I remember when our own government went and used paraquat back in the 70s them mex farmers cut it down and shiped it to the good old usa and no one died from that as I know of so you money grubbing dispensary folks I will be LOL when this fails as you spent all that coin and it did not help any one sorry to say it will not pass.........

[Northern Lab]

Are there dispensaries in the UP?

[GanjaWarrior]

Because in the USA, we, the people, are the government.

 

I'm not saying the government is working for the interests of the majority right now though.  There are financial interests that have taken over our system and use it to enrich themselves.  That's not the government's fault.  That's our fault for letting those people use the government as their puppet.  It's not the government we can't trust, It's the people that we are letting manipulate the government that we can't trust.

 

 

no....wrong. in America ist hasn't been we the people for a very long time. It is our fault, we have a duty to revolt and over throw this bs, but thats not what your talking about. yes it is very much so the government we cant trust. thats the very foundation of this nation. we have forgotten that, and so we suffer.

[GregS]

I'm a little confused. Inasmuch as the hearing, as it turns out, was not to discuss 4271, but rather the larger issues, is there an option to submit written testimony as we would during any public comment period with any bill? Would those comments carry the same weight as contributions intended for a specific purpose? I mean, I could write a book, given the apparent purpose of the committee.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

 

 

That is my general understanding as well.

 

 

Nope. Has anyone here suggested that we should be?

 

No, but that's what is going to happen if we, here, don't stop it.  The hearing was all about testing, testing, testing.  The legislators, who know nothing about MMJ except what they're told, are getting the impression that we want, and need, testing.  For them to start considering that all MMJ needs to be tested, according to the testimony they just heard, is not a far stretch.

 

The next argument is that it's only for commercial operations, but CGs are getting lumped into the definition of "commercial operations."  As I noted before, the township next to me has instituted an ordinance that states you can't transfer or use MMJ in a commercial operation.  they define a commercial operation as anyone growing MMJ for resale.....anyone.  That's a caregiver as far as I can see, and as far as the township is concerned.  If you live there, you cannot be a CG and have your PTs come to your house for medicine, nor can you medicate yourself inside of your house.  

 

This is the future we have to be careful about.

[Celliach]

no....wrong. in America ist hasn't been we the people for a very long time. It is our fault, we have a duty to revolt and over throw this bs, but thats not what your talking about. yes it is very much so the government we cant trust. thats the very foundation of this nation. we have forgotten that, and so we suffer.

 

It hasn't been for the people since the 80s when the people decided the government was a separate entity from them and decided to combat it instead of making it work the way we were supposed to according to the constitution.  It's actually people with the attitude that the government is the enemy and should be combated instead of used correctly, that's the main problem with getting our government back.

 

WE are the government.  It's time we all realized that and started taking the government back and making it work for us instead of for corporate interests.

[Celliach]

Are there dispensaries in the UP?

 

 

There may be one still operating in Harvey. They did sell .8 gram as a gram for $30, and it was moldy commercial outdoor grown weed.  Not medicine at all.  They didn't have a very good reputation and I think they closed down since the McQueen ruling, but don't quote me on that.  We got so many complaints about them at the DCCC that we had to stop recommending the place and actually started warning patients about them.

 

The rest closed after McQueen, except the vending machines, and I think they are all confiscated by now.  If not all, then most of them.  About two weeks ago I got a call from Ironwood and the guy said they still had one out there, or at least did a month ago when he visited the business that was renting the space for the machine.

[Northern Lab]

No, but that's what is going to happen if we, here, don't stop it.  The hearing was all about testing, testing, testing.  The legislators, who know nothing about MMJ except what they're told, are getting the impression that we want, and need, testing.  For them to start considering that all MMJ needs to be tested, according to the testimony they just heard, is not a far stretch.

 

The next argument is that it's only for commercial operations, but CGs are getting lumped into the definition of "commercial operations."  As I noted before, the township next to me has instituted an ordinance that states you can't transfer or use MMJ in a commercial operation.  they define a commercial operation as anyone growing MMJ for resale.....anyone.  That's a caregiver as far as I can see, and as far as the township is concerned.  If you live there, you cannot be a CG and have your PTs come to your house for medicine, nor can you medicate yourself inside of your house.  

 

This is the future we have to be careful about.

Have they attempted to enforce it?

 

If so, what was the outcome?

 

A local township here crafted some hair brained ordinance that tried to restrict how many people a cg could have a his home, requiring registration of caregivers, and all sorts of ridiculous crap. It's unenforceable, as are the vast majority of these 'we have to do something!' ordinances. Too often they're drafted by people with no sense of their job, and the level of authority they actually hold, and that makes almost all of them laughable.

 

The point is, a township could TRY to define a home based cg as a commercial operation, they could also vote to change the definition of the word 'patient', either one will fail once challenged. They're betting we won't challenge them, and they're probably right. We won't, until they attempt to enforce it, then they're in for a world of crap.

[Northern Lab]

There may be one still operating in Harvey. They did sell .8 gram as a gram for $30, and it was moldy commercial outdoor grown weed.  Not medicine at all.  They didn't have a very good reputation and I think they closed down since the McQueen ruling, but don't quote me on that.  We got so many complaints about them at the DCCC that we had to stop recommending the place and actually started warning patients about them.

 

The rest closed after McQueen, except the vending machines, and I think they are all confiscated by now.  If not all, then most of them.  About two weeks ago I got a call from Ironwood and the guy said they still had one out there, or at least did a month ago when he visited the business that was renting the space for the machine.

Is that the typical experience at up dispensaries?

[Celliach]

Have they attempted to enforce it?

 

If so, what was the outcome?

 

A local township here crafted some hair brained ordinance that tried to restrict how many people a cg could have a his home, requiring registration of caregivers, and all sorts of ridiculous crap. It's unenforceable, as are the vast majority of these 'we have to do something!' ordinances. Too often they're drafted by people with no sense of their job, and the level of authority they actually hold, and that makes almost all of them laughable.

 

The point is, a township could TRY to define a home based cg as a commercial operation, they could also vote to change the definition of the word 'patient', either one will fail once challenged. They're betting we won't challenge them, and they're probably right. We won't, until they attempt to enforce it, then they're in for a world of crap.

 

You do realize that 4271 will turn over jurisdiction of the MMMA as far as commercial operations are concerned to local governments, right?  That's the danger!

 

As it stands right now, that ordinance I was talking about is unenforcable.  If 4271 passes, as it's currently written, that ordinance can be fully implemented with the state's blessing.  I don't know why I can't get you to understand that.  You need to think two steps ahead like they're doing.  That's where the danger lies and the first half of the trap has already been set with the passage of these cookie cutter ordinances written by think tanks opposed to the MMMA.   These ordinances have been passed all over the state, all they need is 4271 to pass so they can be legitimized and overrule the MMMA.

[Celliach]

Is that the typical experience at up dispensaries?

 

Well, since that is pretty much the only dispensary ever in the UP, then yes, it's typical.

[Northern Lab]

You do realize that 4271 will turn over jurisdiction of the MMMA as far as commercial operations are concerned to local governments, right? That's the danger!

 

As it stands right now, that ordinance I was talking about is unenforcable. If 4271 passes, as it's currently written, that ordinance can be fully implemented with the state's blessing. I don't know why I can't get you to understand that. You need to think two steps ahead like they're doing. That's where the danger lies and the first half of the trap has already been set with the passage of these cookie cutter ordinances written by think tanks opposed to the MMMA. These ordinances have been passed all over the state, all they need is 4271 to pass so they can be legitimized and overrule the MMMA.

 

does 4271 give locals the ability to define a commercial operation? i dont believe it does, as 4271 seems to define a commercial op for them already. There is no authority to re-define the English language by township. That's just silly.

 

Well, since that is pretty much the only dispensary ever in the UP, then yes, it's typical.

Well, I can see where the hate for dispensaries comes from... Edited May 28, 2013 by Northern Lab