Do You Support The New Edible/concentrate Bill?

[Natesilver]

Restarting this topic now that the bill is out. I've also tried to be fair and accomodate the most basic, unloaded, answers in the poll. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know and I can make modifications. Please include comments for why you voted the way you did.

 

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2013-HIB-5104.pdf

[Celliach]

I oppose this bill on the grounds that it will open up the MMMA and make it susceptible to other changes that our community might not find conducive.  Also, I feel that this bill is not needed at this point after the community raised the money for Carruthers defense in the MSC, a ruling from which would solve the problem we are having right now.  I just don't think we should jeopardize the MMMA to do something that the courts are already involved with.  If the MSC rules against us in the Carruthers case it might be a different story.

[Hayduke]

I agree with Celli on this matter entirely...

[imiubu]

I oppose this bill on the grounds that it will open up the MMMA and make it susceptible to other changes that our community might not find conducive.  Also, I feel that this bill is not needed at this point after the community raised the money for Carruthers defense in the MSC, a ruling from which would solve the problem we are having right now.  I just don't think we should jeopardize the MMMA to do something that the courts are already involved with.  If the MSC rules against us in the Carruthers case it might be a different story.

 

 

I agree with Celli on this matter entirely...

yep.

 

In the other thread of this subject, I simply said "I don't like it". 

Celliach you nailed it.

[trichcycler]

any movement to further restrict an adult's  choice to consume cannabis in any manner not in violation of another's rights is not liked by me.

[t-pain]

there are multiple problems with the bill.

 

first: it does not define words that it adds to the law 'plant resin' 'extract' 'extraction' 'inactive substance'.

second: it removes the 'any amount of marijuana, but only 2.5oz usable marijuana' sec4 defense theory.

third: it may limit the amount of 'marijuana' and 'usable marijuana' combined to total 2.5oz ? the wording is bad.

fourth: it needs to amend sec4a to add 'any inactive substances mixed with usable marijuana shall also be allowed under state law and not included in this amount'.

otherwise, i dont believe this will help any patient at all.

fifth: it opens up the law to the prohibitionist represenatives.

 

aside from that, i'm for any bill that actually helps patients.

does this bill help patients? no idea.

 

can we all agree that this bill does not make the law more clear?

[bobandtorey]

I oppose this bill on the grounds that it will open up the MMMA and make it susceptible to other changes that our community might not find conducive.  Also, I feel that this bill is not needed at this point after the community raised the money for Carruthers defense in the MSC, a ruling from which would solve the problem we are having right now.  I just don't think we should jeopardize the MMMA to do something that the courts are already involved with.  If the MSC rules against us in the Carruthers case it might be a different story.

I am sorry if i missed something has the  MSC, agreed  taken the case up ? 

[Celliach]

No, but we are already exploring this avenue which has the potential to cause much less damage than opening up the MMMA.

[+Malamute]

It's a flawed bill.  It has been flawed since I seen the the model language used by NPRA to attempt a bill. 

 

We may need a bill, but this language is just wrong, dangerous and not thought out at all.  Unfortunately, NPRA has shown themselves to always push and introduce extremely flawed language.

[GregS]

I think it's schit.

Edited November 5, 2013 by GregS