Jump to content

Does This Definition Cover Caregivers?


Celliach
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

(e) "Medical marihuana provisioning center" or "provisioning 

11 center" means a commercial entity located in this state that 
12 acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, 
13 or transports medical marihuana and sells, supplies, or dispenses 
14 medical marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or 
15 through the patients' registered primary caregivers. Provisioning 
16 center includes any commercial property where medical marihuana is 
17 sold to registered qualifying patients and registered primary 
18 caregivers. 

 

 

Wouldn't that definition include a regular caregiver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say no due to the fact that it specifically states that they distribute to a primary caregiver. My two cents.

 

Did you read it?  It said directly or to the patient's caregiver.  There's nothing there about only transferring to caregivers.  

 

 

sells, supplies, or dispenses 
14 medical marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provisioning center includes any commercial property where medical marihuana is

sold to registered qualifying patients and registered primary

caregivers.

 

I believe the vast majority of CGs live in areas zoned residential...

 

I was thinking the same thing.......BUT with the word INCLUDES - it made me take a step back from it.  

 

 I believe it would mean that any grower on commercial property WOULD be considered a Provisioning Center and would have to abide by provisioning center regulations.  So in addition to the wording before that, it INCLUDES anyone on commercial property. 

 

Like you said : I would guess that most CG's are zoned residential.  Those that are not......I suppose they would be considered a provisionary center according to the way this is written??

 

Would the answer to Celli's question then be:

 

"Yes" - it would cover CGs if they are zoned commercially? 

 

Or would it be "No" because those that are zoned commercially are INCLUDED/considered as a provisioning center??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing.......BUT with the word INCLUDES - it made me take a step back from it.  

 

 I believe it would mean that any grower on commercial property WOULD be considered a Provisioning Center and would have to abide by provisioning center regulations.  So in addition to the wording before that,it would INCLUDE anyone growing on commercial property. 

 

Like you said : I would guess that most CG's are zoned residential as well.  Those that are not......I suppose they would be considered a provisionary center according to the way this is written??

Maybe. Hard to say. As far as I know, you cannot live in a commercial building without a building inspection and occupancy permit.

 

If they remove the word 'includes' that would probably erase any doubt as to what was and wasn't a PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. Hard to say. As far as I know, you cannot live in a commercial building without a building inspection and occupancy permit.

 

If they remove the word 'includes' that would probably erase any doubt as to what was and wasn't a PC.

 

Do we always live where we grow?

 

On the other hand....

 

Do we always "sell" where we live/grow?   (any commercial property where medical marihuana is

SOLD to....)

 

If a CG was growing in a commercial location but not selling it there......

 

Not arguing here by any means. Just curious as how it will be interpreted or possibly restrict.....SIGH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we always live where we grow?

 

On the other hand....

 

Do we always "sell" where we live/grow?   (any commercial property where medical marihuana isSOLD to....)

 

If a CG was growing in a commercial location but not selling it there......

 

Not arguing here by any means. Just curious as how it will be interpreted or possibly restrict.....SIGH

Good points!

 

One thing is for sure- no matter how explicit and specific the language of any law is, there will be some #2 hole jurisdiction full of reefer madness dinosaur throwbacks that will try to pull something that attempts to ban all cultivation in their district period.

 

Lucky for us, those relics from that pre-historic era are dying off.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you read it?  It said directly or to the patient's caregiver.  There's nothing there about only transferring to caregivers.  

 

 

 

Did you read what I wrote? No where in what I wrote did I state that it says they ONLY transfer to caregivers. No wonder you are asking this question your reading comprehension level is extremely low.

 

Also it states that they distribute to a patient or a patients primary caregiver. Since unconnected Cg2p, p2p, Cg2Cg is not allowed this must be describing a different entity.

 

Since when is it proper to include in the definition of something the very thing being defined? Circular definition.

 

What is a cat?

 

A cat is a cat.

 

uh ok.

 

If a cg is transferring meds only to their 5 connected patients, they are a cg not a PC. Did Koon not just affirm that the MMMA outweighs other laws? Does it not state in the bill you are quoting from that the MMMA is the controlling document?

 

Is that clearer for you now? Maybe pictures would help as words are seeming difficult for you Cel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "regular" caregiver would be...? Hospice worker?

 

that is not what he ment, and a regular c.g is some one appointed by a pt to grow for the pt and registered thru the state!

 

 

I mean someone like myself or many of the people that participate in this forum.  A caregiver doing business as defined by the MMMA with 5 or less registered patients.

yea and my self, i dont have any kind of medical schooling but im a registered c.g for my pt!

 

 

 

What does it matter? The law is the law. No changes coming any time soon.

Lets hope one of these house bills dont jump up and bite us in the butt!

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.......BUT with the word INCLUDES - it made me take a step back from it.  

 

 I believe it would mean that any grower on commercial property WOULD be considered a Provisioning Center and would have to abide by provisioning center regulations.  So in addition to the wording before that, it INCLUDES anyone on commercial property. 

 

Like you said : I would guess that most CG's are zoned residential.  Those that are not......I suppose they would be considered a provisionary center according to the way this is written??

 

Would the answer to Celli's question then be:

 

"Yes" - it would cover CGs if they are zoned commercially? 

 

Or would it be "No" because those that are zoned commercially are INCLUDED/considered as a provisioning center??

 

yea that kinda bothers me, I live on commercial or agriculture property, there are nothing but farms and national forrest all around me, Im 2 miles from our town, we are not incorporated, I hope that makes a difference!

 

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states a commercial entity that sells to a registered patient directly, or through their caregiver.

 

It does not state a caregiver that sells to their registry connected patients.

 

That is the difference.

 

If you go outside of what the MMMA allows then you may be considered a PC. If you stay within what the MMMA says is allowed you are not a PC.

 

The zoning monster is not coming to get you. People are reading things that are not there so that they may try and advance their agenda.

 

Show me where all of these CGs have been shut down by zoning. Not attempted to be shut down, but actually prevented from growing marijuana for their registry connected patients through zoning laws. Show us. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..........Show me where all of these CGs have been shut down by zoning. Not attempted to be shut down, but actually prevented from growing marijuana for their registry connected patients through zoning laws. Show us. Please.

The type of zoning law that can come into play are the home based business laws.  While  you can make a good argument that you are not a "business" under the MMMA, add in the pc language and it makes it harder to prove you are not a business when you are selling to the pc.

 

I have seen this first hand with the City of Livonia.   A close friend has his garage grow burn down.   His paperwork was all inorder and the city had no problem.  Now he has gone in for a permit to rebuild the garage and the city has defined him as a home based business.   They specifically said he can grow in his house, but not the garage since the existing laws that prevents you from having a home based auto repair business also prevent you from using your garage for any home  based business.   He has a small 800 square ft home with 2 kids and no basement.  Growing in the house in not practical.   The point of this is there are cities trying to regulate growing thru zoning laws.  The addition of the Provisioning Center language will make it easier to press for all sorts of inspections and permitting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states a commercial entity that sells to a registered patient directly, or through their caregiver.

 

It does not state a caregiver that sells to their registry connected patients.

 

That is the difference.

 

If you go outside of what the MMMA allows then you may be considered a PC. If you stay within what the MMMA says is allowed you are not a PC.

 

The zoning monster is not coming to get you. People are reading things that are not there so that they may try and advance their agenda.

 

Show me where all of these CGs have been shut down by zoning. Not attempted to be shut down, but actually prevented from growing marijuana for their registry connected patients through zoning laws. Show us. Please.

Well OG you make me feel better for a lil bit, I have to read it before I say kewl, and when I do I will mention you, Thanks for your suggestions!

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states a commercial entity that sells to a registered patient directly, or through their caregiver.

 

It does not state a caregiver that sells to their registry connected patients.

 

That is the difference.

 

If you go outside of what the MMMA allows then you may be considered a PC. If you stay within what the MMMA says is allowed you are not a PC.

 

The zoning monster is not coming to get you. People are reading things that are not there so that they may try and advance their agenda.

 

Show me where all of these CGs have been shut down by zoning. Not attempted to be shut down, but actually prevented from growing marijuana for their registry connected patients through zoning laws. Show us. Please.

 

first off I dont know if im with you or against you, Im sure it dont matter to you,,,,,

 

Lets give it a lil time, pm me, talk to me a little but!

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phaq

 

Right on. We all know people will do what they want. That includes local and state officials. If someone said that the language of the MMMA could possibly allow ID cards to take over 100 days should we of all voted against it? No, of course not. The do nothing because of fear of what some people may try and do is not beneficial to us.

 

No one has been to court and been ruled to be a buisness because they are growing and selling to their 5 registered patients. It takes more to be a commercial entity than someone just saying you are. You need tax IDs, licenses, etc. Cel and others have been parroting this garbage for a long time and it is getting old.

 

I have an attitude on this topic because of Cel's snarky response about not reading his post when Cel is clearly the one not reading and comprehending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "regular" caregiver would be...? Hospice worker?

Yea but if the hospice worker is not a c.g for a person who is a registered c.g there is nothing as far as thc or cbd's go, get these poor people to be pts so we can give them more then the fake tablets the big pharms make, If we make c.gs available to pt's in these hospice programs we may be able to save a few. I know when they call in hospice there is not much time left, my 25yr old brother in law had hospice in at 25 yrs old, it wasnt eve 10 weeks befor the end, they only had marinol for him, if mj was legal at the time maybe he would have had a more peaceful death, they gave him them sweet people from hospice, who has the unbeleivable job of seeing several hundred people dit!

 

 

Peace, Im getting Ill

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phaq

 

That is a good idea. A "like entity" could be a medical marijuana consulting firm that goes to hospice patients and consults with them and delivers medicine to them.They could monitor the effectiveness of the types and dosages, without having to be registered to them. It would also separate the hospice worker from the entire situation so that they and their company do not even have to be involved with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are reading things that are not there so that they may try and advance their agenda.

 

 

 

I am glad you understand how they will interpret things!  I have seen first hand how "they" have interpreted things thus far.  Every county/municipality does things differently and to say they would all be on the same page in interpreting this would be too far fetched.  

 

As far as agendas go, I have none directly. The only agenda I have ever had is to help keep patients and CGs educated, informed and safe.  A pretty straight forward "agenda".   I deal with facts as much as possible.  I haven't even decided whether I think the bill is a good or bad thing yet........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

I know different cities will interpret things differently. Cant base decisions like this off of the nuts in Oakland and places like that. They make it publicly known they are anti MMMA and do not respect any form of medical marijuana. Many places will implement it properly, especially if they may benefit from the economic activity. I would guess over half the state.

 

I have no idea what will happen with this bill but the big scary bad man of zoning issues has been being chirped before 4271 was ever even made public. I don't buy it. The MMMA is clear that a Cg servicing their 5 patients is above local zoning issues. The rest will depend on how they work around the transferring issues, if it is indeed a problem.

 

The more that marijuana is able to be integrated into society legally, the better. I don't think this is perfect, just better than nothing. Two steps forward and one step back is still progress.

Edited by OG Fire Beaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...