Senate Bill 660 - Prairie Plant Law Video A Must Watch

[+Malamute]

Well, this bill doesn't become feasible and enforceable  until the Feds do schedule it schedule 2.

 

And when the Feds do reschedule, this bill will mean nothing because every single citizen in the US will have the same access to a schedule 2 narcotic as they do now with drugs like hydrocodone and cocaine.  You will have to go to your doctor for every prescription so you can buy some pharmaceutical at the pharmacy.  It won't be "crude" cannabis either as that will never make it through FDA approval.

 

 So, this bill is useless in my view as Michigan cannot forbid a felon from getting oxycodone legally and prairie plant is nothing more than a street corner drug dealer, just like most current dispensary operators, trying to make a buck with sketchy legislation.  Prairie is just going for the big enchilada in their corner of the market and in the end, the FDA will either privately contract them to grow plants for extraction or they won't, if they even allow natural plant extracts.

 

 *shrug*

[+Malamute]

Btw,  if the Feds rescheduled as schedule 3, this bill would not allow Prairie to operate!

 

 Heh,... kinda funnyish. ;-)

[bobandtorey]

How is it possible for the  state to implement a law like this if the feds continue to classify mj as a schedule 1 drug ?

IMO the State can reschedule  Cannabis as i have seen in other States that have already done it CT comes to mind

[t-pain]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and t-pain you would be well advised to recognize our "elected officials" are human too, and they do not like to be jammed up, and they have a legal right and responsibility to vote on on the bills before them.  So if you think Rick was on target, well fine.  But don't ever freakin hope those Senators will e-v-e-r vote the way you would like.

 

 

you're implying that richardsville would change his vote or table the bill if someone had politely brought up these concerns with 0660?

 

or you mean he would vote 'our way' on theorhetical bills in the future?

 

looking at randy richardville's record, the last time he voted 'nay' on a bill was in 2010:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/12017/randy-richardville

one of the bills he voted nay on? prohibiting texting while driving.

 

 

also, you catch more flies with vinegar.

maybe i sound like a penis for saying that, but i like to use scientific and truthful idioms instead of baloney ones.

 

you do have a point hayduke about treating people with respect.

the door of respect swings both ways.

did richardville ask his constituents about 0660?

did he notify them of the hearing/meeting/public testimony?

did richardville consult anyone at all for this bill?

did richardville ask anyone for contact information? except MMU (who didnt have contact info)

 

did richardville only hold the hearing because he was required by law?

 

voting the way i like?

what if the way i like is mostly in line with the democratic party?

republicans dont vote the same way as the democratic party these days.

 

i'd still like to know what rick said or did in his testimony that you think was 'not appropriate'?

could you elaborate on that?

when richardville asked other senators if they had anything else to say , and rick asked him again about his concerns? lol.

[t-pain]

Prairie is just going for the big enchilada in their corner of the market and in the end, the FDA will either privately contract them to grow plants for extraction or they won't, if they even allow natural plant extracts.

 

sativex is in phase-3 fda trials already

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01361607

[+Malamute]

Exactly.

[Hayduke]

you're implying that richardsville would change his vote or table the bill if someone had politely brought up these concerns with 0660?

What I am saying is there are more votes down the road, and no need to be rude to make our points.

or you mean he would vote 'our way' on theorhetical bills in the future?

I have no idea how he will vote in future bills until I see the bills.  On 660 he was the sponsor and the committee chair.  Clearly he wanted to push this bill for multiple reasons no doubt.  But it takes skill to get a change in a bad bill as well as kill a bill or get a bill introduced.  Perhaps this bill could have been softened had the testimony gone better.  Truthfully I would not single out Rick's testimony, which as I previously stated was good to a point, anymore than "most" of the testimony last week that talked about everything marijuana related EXCEPT the bill at hand.

looking at randy richardville's record, the last time he voted 'nay' on a bill was in 2010:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/12017/randy-richardville

one of the bills he voted nay on? prohibiting texting while driving.

 

 

also, you catch more flies with vinegar.

maybe i sound like a penis for saying that, but i like to use scientific and truthful idioms instead of baloney ones.

I have no comment in this regard...

you do have a point hayduke about treating people with respect.

the door of respect swings both ways.

did richardville ask his constituents about 0660?

did he notify them of the hearing/meeting/public testimony?

did richardville consult anyone at all for this bill?

did richardville ask anyone for contact information? except MMU (who didnt have contact info)

I have never had too much difficulty getting along with Sen Richardsville, and likely he followed the law in everything he did.  But my point is that "we" are the one's coming to him to ask him to make changes or to cancel out a bill.  So we are the ones who need to be polite and deferential.  Not him, he is the driver of the car and the one setting the agenda, and yes, he has a vote and we do not...

did richardville only hold the hearing because he was required by law?

probably, but so what...

voting the way i like?

what if the way i like is mostly in line with the democratic party?

republicans dont vote the same way as the democratic party these days.

Last I looked from the Gov on down is all Republican including the courts…. I am thinking that is the party you need to get in touch with if you have hopes of legislative success...

i'd still like to know what rick said or did in his testimony that you think was 'not appropriate'?

could you elaborate on that?

when richardville asked other senators if they had anything else to say , and rick asked him again about his concerns? lol.

I am not taking this bait…lol… the video makes my case pretty clear.  And note that the only Dem, Sen Whitmer stated she was a medical marijuana supporter…. yet she turned away from Rick and Charmie's speech making and then abstained.  You know what that means?  Well it means even our supporter on the committee did not buy into their testimony enough to vote NO...

 

so there ya have it...

 

and I will say t, those are all very very good comments and questions….

[GregS]

Will you then write to Richardville, t-pain, to let him know what you thiink please? Maybe you can sway him to accept your arguments.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

They won't care what anyone thinks 

[t-pain]

Will you then write to Richardville, t-pain, to let him know what you thiink please? Maybe you can sway him to accept your arguments.

 

oh greg you spoil-sport. its so much easier to argue on the forums than to do any actual work or letter writing.

challenge accepted.

i'll read the bill and come up with some constructive criticisms for it and mail randy about them.

Edited November 11, 2013 by t-pain

[GregS]

oh greg you spoil-sport. its so much easier to argue on the forums than to do any actual work or letter writing.

Gotta love it. Let us know if you get a response.

[t-pain]

What I am saying is there are more votes down the road, and no need to be rude to make our points.

 

And note that the only Dem, Sen Whitmer stated she was a medical marijuana supporter…. yet she turned away from Rick and Charmie's speech making and then abstained.  You know what that means?  Well it means even our supporter on the committee did not buy into their testimony enough to vote NO...

 

so there ya have it...

 

and I will say t, those are all very very good comments and questions….

 

i appreciate your gracious response. i think we agree more than we disagree.

i wasnt there, its hard to tell what happened from the videos alone.

while the marijuana testimony was compelling, it was lacking on relevance to this bill.

the witnesses said it was relevant, but the senator waved his hand and said 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'.

 

obviously, the crowd was hostile and snickered and hooted and hollar'd more times than represenatives are used to.

if you look at american history, politics was always a violent sport. they used to DUEL with pistols to settle arguments!

 

now if you will excuse me, i have some long bill to read and try to comprehend.

[t-pain]

can someone explain which department will be handling the pharmacuitical grade cannabis licensing?

as far as i can tell, its not going to be LARA.

 

22 (2) THE DEPARTMENT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FUND FOR
23 AUDITING PURPOSES AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL EXPEND MONEY FROM THE
24 FUND, UPON APPROPRIATION, ONLY FOR THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS
25 ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTING, ADMINISTERING, AND ENFORCING THIS
26 ARTICLE.

is the "department" the department of treasury? and the state treasurer is the director?
is it the "DEPARTMENT of insurance AND FINANCIAL SERVICES" ?

[GregS]

Screw 666,

 

That should be our slogan.

[bobandtorey]

Sorry but the Bill # is 606

[GregS]

Sorry but the Bill # is 606

But not to us irreverent cannabis activists. 666 gets the point across. Let's call it poetic license.

 

There is evil where this dwells.

 

Do you agree?

Edited November 13, 2013 by GregS

[Zerocool]

IT PASSED TODAY

[Petyr]

PASSED ROLL CALL # 517 YEAS 22 NAYS 16 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0

 

So it passed 22 to 16 in the senate, now on to the house.

 

MI state senate has 26 repubs and 12 democrats, so 4 Repubs must have voted against it.

 

MI state house is 59 repubs and 51 democrats. If a similar number of repubs vote against it, it may yet fail.

[Kingdiamond]

So does anyone believe that the feds will reschedule cannabis to make this pharmacy model reality ?

 

I don't no way .

[Petyr]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20131113/NEWS04/311130027/Michigan-Senate-OKs-sale-marijuana-pharmacies
 

 

“Why are we spending taxpayer time and resources for an out-of-state corporate constituent who may or may not come to the state,” said Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing. “ And we’re not doing squat for anything to help current constituents who can not access medical marijuana.”

 

 

 

And Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said the bill will begin the process of getting marijuana sales out of homes and into pharmacies.

“It’s time to get marijuana out of houses and put it somewhere else,” he said. “Let the pharmaceutical companies grow it and sell it in pharmacies.”

Edited November 13, 2013 by Petyr

[trichcycler]

 I agree, no way, not for this bill

[bobandtorey]

So does anyone believe that the feds will reschedule cannabis to make this pharmacy model reality ?

 

I don't no way .

Sorry i do think it will happen i have seen other Bill's pass in another State but i  can't find it it was in CT i think

[bobandtorey]

i think it is here

 

Sec. 2. Section 21a-243-8 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies is amended by adding a new subsection (g) as follows:

 

 

 

(NEW) (g) Marijuana, including any material, compound, mixture or preparation which con- tains its salts, isomers and salts of isomers, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of these salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.

 

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
(A) Purpose: To reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Public

Act No. 12-55.

(B) Summary: At present, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department’s proposed regulations reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance.

© Legal Effects: At present, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. Under this classification, marijuana cannot be legally produced, prescribed or possessed. The Department’s proposed regulations classify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance. As a Schedule II controlled substance, marijuana can be legally produced, prescribed and dispensed under strict controls. 

 

http://www.ct.gov/dcp/lib/dcp/pdf/laws_and_regulations/ecopy_reg_6135.pdf

[Kingdiamond]

Sorry i do think it will happen i have seen other Bill's pass in another State but i  can't find it it was in CT i think

No state in this country has been able to get the federal government to reschedule cannabis to my knowledge Bob.

[Kingdiamond]

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-federal-government-will-not-reschedule-marijuana

 

•The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs – a 1961 international treaty (amended in 1972) that attempted to make the legal controls on a variety of drugs standard among all the signatories. Under this treaty, cannabis is specifically bound by the restrictions of all drugs found in Schedule I, with additional restrictions specific to cannabis also listed.
•The Controlled Substances Act – a federal law of the United States that was implemented in order to comply with the various international treaties, including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Controlled Substances Act categorizes each controlled substance into five categories, with Schedule I being the most restrictive category. Cannabis was placed in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty.

To summarize the complicated situation, at least as I understand it, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was not self-executing, which means that each country that signed the treaty still had to establish laws to comply with the terms of the treaty. In the United States, the Controlled Substances Act was the result.

With passage of the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Attorney General was granted the authority to schedule, reschedule or remove a drug from scheduling (who has delegated that authority to the Drug Enforcement Agency). Further, each state within the United States also established laws controlling drugs using a similar scheduling framework (many simply adopted the federal standards within their state statutes, while others have some differences).

The question that arises from this very complicated situation is: “Can the federal government simultaneously comply with the treaty as required and reschedule marijuana removing it from Schedule I?” The answer appears to be “no.” The treaty specifically states:

“
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28. ”

Either the treaty would need to be modified or cannabis must remain in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty. The only other option would be to remove ourselves from the treaty, but the United States was a major player in passing the treaty AND ensuring that cannabis was strictly regulated under its terms, so that is unlikely.