Jump to content

Michigan Lawmakers Plan To Legalize, Revive Medical Marijuana Dispensaries


bobandtorey
 Share

Recommended Posts

After the Michigan Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that dispensaries have no legal grounds to operate in the state shutting down all but a handful of dispensaries, thousands of patients were left without a reliable and safe means of accessing medicine.

 

State lawmakers see that as a problem, and are currently in talks over a bill that would legalize and regulate the dispensaries reports Jake Neher with Michigan Public Radio.

Rep. Mike Calton, a Republican from Barry County, has already sponsored a failed medical marijuana bill this past sesion, but says he is starting to see growing support for a similar proposal - notably from his GOP colleagues.

"I definitely feel that, as Republicans, we're not going to survive unless we adequately address contemporary issues like medical marijuana," Calton told MPR.

Calton, a chiropractor by trade, said his last attempt at legalizing dispensaries was sparked by a 75-year-old Parkinson's disease patient he cares for. Calton says the woman benefits from edible medical cannabis and without dispensaries she would be left without any medicine whatsoever as she doesn't know any caregivers and can't grow for herself.

Calton's original bill, HB 5580, would have allowed for dispensaries and created a state program to regulate them. It also would have allowed communities to limit the number of dispensaries or outright ban them. Employees would have to undergo background checks and anyone with felony convictions would be prevented from operating or working at a dispensary.

He says any future proposals would likely need to include things like mold, mildew and pesticide testing as well as increased security measures in order to get more Republicans on board.

Several news agencies have pointed out that Calton's bill likely also failed due to it falling on an election year and many legislators didn't want to make waves while up for reelection. The Michigan legislature is on break until August 27, when the 2013 session resumes from the summer recess.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/07/michigan_lawmakers_plan_to_legalize_revive_medical_marijuana_dispensaries.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then it would require a 3/4 vote in both the House and Senate.  This is the Summer Break, some like to release chatter to the media to keep their pet issue alive.

 

I'm not convinced that it would need a supermajority, being that it would still be legislation that would expand the MMMA, rather than limiting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, but I do believe you are incorrect Natesilver.  Who decides if it expands the MMMA or limits it, the devil would be in those details for sure?

 

Nope, you would need 3/4 to amend the bill resultant from the initiative.  It is the law in Michigan that determines this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no Bob, sorry man, but that is a bitter inaccurate statement.

 

fine to say Oakland County went after you hard...

 

Also fine to say you had some real douche bags representing you early on.  Would you suggest no errors by the defense were made in light of what we know now?

 

(I do agree that this is in hind site totally, but your complaints about no one following the law is getting old, and even if right on some levels, reveals a certain defeatist attitude I am not willing to accept)

Edited by Hayduke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but No we had Great Lawyers you can't get any better then Case Dismissed

and i am not in anyway bitter we where Lucky i have been saying that for 4 years 

Grateful 

Luckier then the one that will  end up in court after us because they still think today they our Legal  

we did have two bad Lawyer that the MACC paid for they where BAD Lawyers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B&T. I believe the 'dispensary thing' (although it may be unpopular with some people) could happen.

 

Maybe one of the 'lawyer' people can chime in on this, but a 'dispensary bill', that is totally separate from the MMM Act and 'not' an alteration of the MMM Act, would stand a chance of being passed into its own legislation. No 3/4 of the legislators would be needed.

 

The 'dispensary legislation' could just state that dispensaries are now legal, with no mention of the MMM Act at all. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theoretically you are correct greenbuddha, and the 50% strategy of not altering the Act is their goal.

 

Rhetorically do you think the Atty Gen would challenge that strategy in court and demand a 3/4 vote?  Because that is the question that is quite real.

 

And how can a caregiver or patient "legallly" transfer overage to a provisioning center when the words of 4271 are in direct conflict with the MMMA in that regard?  The MMMA specifically says it trumps other bills.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theoretically you are correct greenbuddha, and the 50% strategy of not altering the Act is their goal.

 

Rhetorically do you think the Atty Gen would challenge that strategy in court and demand a 3/4 vote?  Because that is the question that is quite real.

 

And how can a caregiver or patient "legallly" transfer overage to a provisioning center when the words of 4271 are in direct conflict with the MMMA in that regard?  The MMMA specifically says it trumps other bills.....

 

 

Not real sure, but please show if you can (I don't think so, but it might be there) where the MMM Act mentions anything about 'overages' being dealt with in any way or situation.

 

If 'dispensaries' and the issue of overages are not stated or covered in the MMM Act, any legislation related to dispensaries and overages would 'not' be in conflict WITH the MMM Act, to my thinking anyway. 

 

'Dispensaries' would be an entirely new legislation, and if it's new legislation the AG would have to try to defeat its passing by drumming up support against 'dispensary' legislation as best he could, whatever that might add up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not real sure, but please show if you can (I don't think so, but it might be there) where the MMM Act mentions anything about 'overages' being dealt with in any way or situation.

 

If 'dispensaries' and the issue of overages are not stated or covered in the MMM Act, any legislation related to dispensaries and overages would 'not' be in conflict WITH the MMM Act, to my thinking anyway. 

 

'Dispensaries' would be an entirely new legislation, and if it's new legislation the AG would have to try to defeat its passing by drumming up support against 'dispensary' legislation as best he could, whatever that might add up to.

I apologize for not being clear.  I was referring to hb 4271 the provisioning center bill with that reference.  You say here the overage issue would not be in conflict with the mmma.  Well let me tell you, virtually all the attorneys I know, Rep Callton himself, and many who I am not going to name here for their privacy reasons, from NPRA, acknowledge this in fact is a problem with their bill.  They are attempting to come up with a fix short of being required to need a 3/4 majority to pass (perhaps adding language to make oil and cannabutter legal for mmj patients could be added to 4271 and make it a 3/4 bill?  But do ya think it would have any hope of passing?  Really?) But it has not surfaced yet.  Nor has language removing the rights of a provisioning center to cultivate.  It has been promised that language will be removed.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Now Rep Callton gives press interviews suggesting the bill will gain traction at hearings in the fall.  To me this is hyping during summer break.  And they still have yet to see how Senator Jones will deal with this bill.  

 

The first step is still yet to be determined, but the House Judiciary must first agree to have hearings.  If/when that happens the game begins.  Proponents wish to keep this hush hush so that only "their" testimony gets heard.  The first disasterous non hearing resulted in a slanted demand for testing because most mmj was full of mold and bugs (they said over and over).... I was appalled at this bs as I sat there... but it was the order of the day.  And it included insane testimony from another wack job end of life hospice worker demanding truly crazy FDA type requirements on testing everything.  So now rumor has it Rep Cotter the chair of the House Judiciary who has blocked hearings for 4271 up until now, will allow them to go forward because of compromises that would force testing of medical marijuana.  This is the rumor... not a fact...  Of course it should be said that no one has a copy of any language of this proposed legislation.  But once you start a ball rolling downhill, it tends to pick up speed...

 

The MMMA specifically trumps 4271 precisely because of it's words.  The limits to transferring overage that is allowed in 4271 specifically, is the language from the MMMA which tells us about patients and caregivers and who they may transfer to.  Additionally you can look at McQueen at the Supreme Court level and Carruthers at the CoA level to see what can a cannot be legally done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sec. 3. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, if a

provisioning center has been granted any applicable required

municipal registration or license and is operating in compliance

with this act and any applicable municipal ordinance, the

provisioning center and the provisioning center agents acting on

its behalf are not subject to any of the following for engaging in

activities described in subsection (2):

(a) Criminal penalties under state law or local ordinances.

(b) State or local civil prosecution.

© Search or inspection, except for an inspection authorized

by the municipality.

(d) Seizure.

(e) Any sanction, including disciplinary action or denial of a

right or privilege, by a business or occupational or professional

licensing board or bureau.

 

does any of this protect against arrest ? i think not.

(a) only covers court judgements?

(b) only covers courts?

(d) is broken in the MMMA all of the time , and the atty general says police dont have to give marijuana back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for not being clear.  I was referring to hb 4271 the provisioning center bill with that reference.  You say here the overage issue would not be in conflict with the mmma.  Well let me tell you, virtually all the attorneys I know, Rep Callton himself, and many who I am not going to name here for their privacy reasons, from NPRA, acknowledge this in fact is a problem with their bill.  They are attempting to come up with a fix short of being required to need a 3/4 majority to pass (perhaps adding language to make oil and cannabutter legal for mmj patients could be added to 4271 and make it a 3/4 bill?  But do ya think it would have any hope of passing?  Really?) But it has not surfaced yet.  Nor has language removing the rights of a provisioning center to cultivate.  It has been promised that language will be removed.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Now Rep Callton gives press interviews suggesting the bill will gain traction at hearings in the fall.  To me this is hyping during summer break.  And they still have yet to see how Senator Jones will deal with this bill.  

 

The first step is still yet to be determined, but the House Judiciary must first agree to have hearings.  If/when that happens the game begins.  Proponents wish to keep this hush hush so that only "their" testimony gets heard.  The first disasterous non hearing resulted in a slanted demand for testing because most mmj was full of mold and bugs (they said over and over).... I was appalled at this bs as I sat there... but it was the order of the day.  And it included insane testimony from another wack job end of life hospice worker demanding truly crazy FDA type requirements on testing everything.  So now rumor has it Rep Cotter the chair of the House Judiciary who has blocked hearings for 4271 up until now, will allow them to go forward because of compromises that would force testing of medical marijuana.  This is the rumor... not a fact...  Of course it should be said that no one has a copy of any language of this proposed legislation.  But once you start a ball rolling downhill, it tends to pick up speed...

 

The MMMA specifically trumps 4271 precisely because of it's words.  The limits to transferring overage that is allowed in 4271 specifically, is the language from the MMMA which tells us about patients and caregivers and who they may transfer to.  Additionally you can look at McQueen at the Supreme Court level and Carruthers at the CoA level to see what can a cannot be legally done.

 

 

As usual, this legislation, 4271, right along with all other legislation that is passed or defeated will depend on the  'wording' and the amount of $$$$ money thrown into it to buy  the votes of our wonderful representatives in Lansing, no matter how I, you, or anyone else wishes it might turn out based upon our own interpretations of the MMM Act.

 

And of course all of our guessing about the outcome won't matter a tinker's darn once the votes are bought and sold and the results are in. 

 

My humble recommendation would be to contact the reps in Lansing and let them know if you are pro or con on the passing of any new legislation, including 4271.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for contacting me about House Bill 4271, which would allow municipalities to license medical marijuana dispensaries in their jurisdictions. I apologize for the delay in answering your letter. I received a great deal of correspondence on this topic, and I want to take time to make sure that everyone gets the thoughtful reply they deserve.

 

HB 4271 was introduced in response to a Michigan appeals court decision that prohibited patient-to-patient sales and authorized municipalities to shut down dispensaries as public nuisances. The medical marijuana amendment to the Michigan constitution does not explicitly provide for dispensaries.

I support the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers, as guaranteed under the state constitution.  That is the main reason I co-sponsored this bill. Many witnesses have given moving testimony at recent hearings as to why they need dispensaries. They need a reliable supply of lab-tested marijuana medications, and many of them are too sick or inexperienced to produce their own medications. Even established providers can suffer crop failures that interrupt the supply of needed medication. Dispensaries fill a vital need for these patients, and HB 4271 would provide some protection for dispensaries under state law.

I understand that you and many others in the medical marijuana community are concerned about protecting the autonomy of home growers, worrying that vertical integration (dispensaries controlling marijuana production from seed to sale) will put caregivers at a competitive disadvantage. My colleagues and I will continue to work during the committee process to ensure that the bill is narrowly written and does not impair the constitutionally protected role of caregivers. Nothing in the current bill would prevent caregivers from growing marijuana as they do now, nor would it force patients to buy from dispensaries. If, as you fear, dispensaries raise prices to unaffordable levels, then customers will go elsewhere. If caregivers are producing better marijuana at better prices, they will be able to compete with dispensaries for patients. Patients will have more options, not fewer.

 

HB 4271 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee, and I will support it unless I receive compelling new information to the contrary. If you know of any specific way in which HB 4271 would harm home growers of medical marijuana, I would like to know about it so that I have the full picture. I always take constituent opinions into account when considering legislation.

Thank you again for taking the time to advocate on this issue.

Sincerely,

Jeff Irwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despair...we need a disp bill that works.

Other states have 'dispensary laws' that still allow 'patients AND caregivers' to continue to grow, which takes away the fear patients and caregivers might have related to losing their rights.

 

I personally think SOME caregivers however, fear a loss of 'monetary compensation' if dispensaries are allowed. I believe the 'better bud' grown will set the market; if the 'better bud' is grown by a caregiver, great, if not the patient has the option of going to a dispensary to obtain their meds.

 

MTCW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other states have 'dispensary laws' that still allow 'patients AND caregivers' to continue to grow, which takes away the fear patients and caregivers might have related to losing their rights.

 

I personally think SOME caregivers however, fear a loss of 'monetary compensation' if dispensaries are allowed. I believe the 'better bud' grown will set the market; if the 'better bud' is grown by a caregiver, great, if not the patient has the option of going to a dispensary to obtain their meds.

 

MTCW

You sure? Dispensaries would hold prices up. Their having to pay overhead would make their product expensive to the point that caregivers would have a real competitive advantage. If anything, caregivers would stand to make more than they can without dispensaries.

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...