Mmma Testimony Before House Judiciary Committee, December 5, 2013

[Michael Komorn]

This Thursday, as many of you have heard already, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing three bills relating to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program: SB 660, HB 4271, and HB 5104. Each of these bills has its good and bad points, so the organization should make a public record stating position, and recommendations. While the path these bills will take is uncertain, this committee meeting is sure to be one of the very few opportunities to do so.

 

SB 660 - Pharmaceutical Grade Cannabis

HB 4271 - Provisioning Center Regulation Act

HB 5104 - Amendments to the MMMA

 

In addition, any public discussion of medical marijuana is an opportunity to bring other implementation issues to light, and this is no exception.

 

To that end, we have put significant effort over the past few days into creating a written testimony addressing the bills and our recommendations for changes. Chad is prepared to submit the written testimony, and testify for the committee in person, at Thursday's meeting at 8:15 AM.

 

We'd love to hear your input on these ideas prior to that testimony, and have attached the items that will be submitted to the committee for your review.

 

MMMA House Judiciary Testimony.pdf

 

2013-HIB-5104-amended.pdf

 

2013-HIB-4271-amended.pdf

 

2008-MMMA-MCL-333.26426-amended.pdf

 

MMMA House Judiciary Testimony - Supplemental Amendments to PHC.pdf

 

MCL-333.7212-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7401-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7403-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7404-amended.pdf

[imiubu]

Thank you

[trichcycler]

That was a lot of work guys, thank you much !

[Chauncy Gardner]

That was a lot of work guys, thank you much !

 

 

Ditto.

[t-pain]

i disagree on 2 caregivers. i'm not opposed, i just think having an online caregiver change system would achieve dispensaries without making many changes at all. i think it could be done just by lara even without changing the MMMA.

 

an instant online caregiver change system will allow:

1) visiting patients to obtain a caregiver

2) patients to change caregivers at will

3) since patients could change caregivers within 5 minutes, that would mean registered cg to patient transfers in a dispensary would be legal.

 

i would also support adding 'patient to patient' transfers to the MMMA.

Edited December 3, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

i have written my opinions after each page with my support/oppose/neutral.
thank you for taking the time to do this and thanks for testifying !!


1) MMMA written testimony, with attachments: support i would change 'unfair' to 'discriminate'.

a) Amendments to HB 5104 support you forgot to define 'extract' 'plant resin' 'inactive substance' and 'delivery medium'. also this bill would not help medibles much because we still dont know if the brownie weight can be anything, or 2.5oz or what?

b) Amendments to HB 4271 support . the ability to recieve marijuana from "visiting patients" is insane.

c) Amendments to Section 6 neutral i'd rather have p2p and instant online caregiver change system. lara at any time can limit caregiver changes (increase fee, slow processing, etc).

2) Supplemental to MMMA testimony SUPPORT hell yes! you should lead off the testimony with this.

a) Amendments to the controlled substances schedule,MCL 333.7212 support theres some talk in the MCL about Tetrahydrocannabinol wrt synthetics, you want to look more carefully at the wording...

b) Amendments to the Public Health Code:

i) Manufacture and delivery of marihuana, MCL 333.7401 SUPPORT again, check the synthetics paragraphs, they just about contain actual marijuana chemicals.

ii) Possession of marihuana, MCL 333.7403 support btw, it says posessing a controlled substance, but marijuana is in the federal controlled substance. would this make a conflict or not?

iii) Use of marihuana, MCL 333.7404 support but look at the synthetics part of the law. you may have to add somewhere 'marijuana , any parts thereof, including plants, roots, seeds, shall not be a controlled substance and shall be legal to posess, cultivate, sell ...'

Edited December 3, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

i wonder if we can come up with a list of unanswered court case questions we can submit to the legislators as well?

i mean, how many questions do we have that are untested in court? thousands? is this the right or wrong time for that?

 

well, i'll start a new thread with those ideas. if we ever get a legislator or atty general who will listen to us.

[GregS]

Wish they had given more time.

[t-pain]

maybe i am just being paranoid.

 

theres 7212d 7212e 7212f and 7212 e.x and 7212 e.viii.

but perhapse i dont know which cannabinoids are in the plant. delta 8 thc is , but not 11 hydroxy delta 8 thc ? who knows.

 

after thinking about it, it was the 'legislative intent' to ban synthetics, so i dont think it applies to regular marijuana.

Edited December 3, 2013 by t-pain

[bobandtorey]

This Thursday, as many of you have heard already, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing three bills relating to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program: SB 660, HB 4271, and HB 5104. Each of these bills has its good and bad points, so the organization should make a public record stating position, and recommendations. While the path these bills will take is uncertain, this committee meeting is sure to be one of the very few opportunities to do so.

 

SB 660 - Pharmaceutical Grade Cannabis

HB 4271 - Provisioning Center Regulation Act

HB 5104 - Amendments to the MMMA

 

In addition, any public discussion of medical marijuana is an opportunity to bring other implementation issues to light, and this is no exception.

 

To that end, we have put significant effort over the past few days into creating a written testimony addressing the bills and our recommendations for changes. Chad is prepared to submit the written testimony, and testify for the committee in person, at Thursday's meeting at 8:15 AM.

 

We'd love to hear your input on these ideas prior to that testimony, and have attached the items that will be submitted to the committee for your review.

 

MMMA House Judiciary Testimony.pdf

 

2013-HIB-5104-amended.pdf

 

2013-HIB-4271-amended.pdf

 

2008-MMMA-MCL-333.26426-amended.pdf

 

MMMA House Judiciary Testimony - Supplemental Amendments to PHC.pdf

 

MCL-333.7212-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7401-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7403-amended.pdf

 

MCL-333.7404-amended.pdf

Thank you for taking the time to help

I do not speak for the MMMA but i can say that the MMMA is and has alway been for the Patients and Caregivers 

[t-pain]

Thank you for taking the time to help

I do not speak for the MMMA but i can say that the MMMA is and has alway been for the Patients and Caregivers 

 

thats the point bob, they want our opinion on this testimony so they can speak for us (me, you, everyone here).

so give us your opinion on the changes presented by the MMMA. are they good? any changes you want to make?

[GregS]

I intend  to speak to some of the requirements of 0660 in regard to testing. Gamma irradiation to sterilize is nothing more than wheel spinning. Heat and fire are used in the delivery of cannabis, and there is nothing that sterilizes as well as they do. Period. Perhaps you will find room to do the same. There are other facets of the bill that seek to demean the quality of home grown herb. That is just wrong, and any of us can gladly put our product up against any commercially grown. It is like comparing a hothouse tomato to one from your garden in August.

 

I will submit more wide ranging written testimony, and there will be much more. When is the deadline for written comments?

Edited December 3, 2013 by GregS

[t-pain]

the best compromise i could come up with for irradiation was if they only mandated 50% of the marijuana produced to be irradiated.

that way , the patient could chose regular or irradiated marijuana.

[GregS]

I think it wise to work the conversation to more closely reflect cannabis as an easily grown garden herb with medicinal qualities, rather than a potentially dangerous drug as has been the case, and intend to submit that the legislature should necessarily show harm cause by cannabis that would require strict, hands on control. Kept within the patient community, it would be smart to legislate something that opens up p2p transfers clearly and concisely. There is no good reason that the limited population of patients should not be permitted to share the stuff among themselves.

[GregS]

I am thinking about and beyond the impending testimony in terms of changing the conversation to reflect that cannabis is a benign substance with medicinal qualities. My intention is to address it as such throughout any future discussion. Your point is taken. Ty.

 

Would it be too much to suggest that the SC decision in McQueen that disallows p2p, and consider that this is a civil rather than criminal decision, is an unintended consequence of the written law? Rhode Island's legislature clarified its law to expressly permit it. That law more closely resembles our own than just about any other. Another option might be to strike the sentence, "The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act." from 4(d)(2).

Edited December 3, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

thats the point bob, they want our opinion on this testimony so they can speak for us (me, you, everyone here).

so give us your opinion on the changes presented by the MMMA. are they good? any changes you want to make?

Thank you

As we can see here any change to the MMMA will be interpreted by the Courts while someone is inn a Criminal case

one time the prosecutor even appealed the word )THE) and the letter (A) at the C.O.A 

 

I support no change to the Law

 

are saying change is coming and we need to come up with something we all can live with ?

[bobandtorey]

I am thinking about and beyond the impending testimony in term of changing the conversation to reflect that cannabis is a benign substance with medicinal qualities. My intention is to address it as such throughout any future discussion. Your point is taken. Ty.

 

Would it be too much to suggest that the SC decision in McQueen that disallows p2p, and consider that this is a civil rather than criminal decision, is an unintended consequence of the written law? Rhode Island's legislature clarified its law to expressly permit it. That law more closely resembles our own than just about any other. Another option might be to strike the sentence, "The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act." from 4(d)(2).

 

 

 Another option might be to strike the sentence, "The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act." from 4(d)(2).

 

WOW! great and if that was to happen then we all would be FREE and would win

 

so they are not going to go for that part

 

imho we need to come up with something where they think they won maybe you are on the right track

[Chauncy Gardner]

I think it wise to work the conversation to more closely reflect cannabis as an easily grown garden herb with medicinal qualities, rather than a potentially dangerous drug as has been the case, and intend to submit that the legislature should necessarily show harm cause by cannabis that would require strict, hands on control. Kept within the patient community, it would be smart to legislate something that opens up p2p transfers clearly and concisely. There is no good reason that the limited population of patients should not be permitted to share the stuff among themselves.

 

You hit the nail on the head there. If lawmakers are going to put constraints on what they believe to be a dangerous drug, then would it be too much to ask that  they provide evidence that the drug is dangerous?

 

I mean, is it really too much to ask?

[imiubu]

Wow, great work on such short notice.

 

Hard to believe that more members are not

making some comments here.

 

I had a few questions.  I will have to go back

and re read as I have misplaced my notes

 

zap, I know you will do a superb job delivering

testemony and I thank you again and again for all

you and Mr. Komorn do, fighting the good fight.

[Got Brownies]

With the following "usable marijuana" definition within HB 5104  

 

"Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves, and flowers, PLANT RESIN, OR EXTRACT of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant OR ANY INACTIVE SUBSTANCE USED AS A DELIVERY MEDIUM FOR USABLE MARIHUANA."

 

Question is since non-incidental seeds, stalks, usable roots, or uncured (wet) marijuana, (used for example juicing cannabis) fall under definition of "Marijuana" of PHC...if in possession of the aforementioned "Marijuana" are you still not section 4 immune and have to raise a costly section 8 defense?

 

Whenever have a moment to entertain this question please do. 

[Got Brownies]

Thank you Zap and Komorn for your unwavering commitment....it is truly inspiring. 

 

Thanks for pointing me to the thread  imiubu...still reading and taking notes and may have just been kicked to the couch for the rest of the night..

 

I believe the definition of "usable marijuana" should be closer too

 

"Usable marijuana" means the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, PLANT RESIN, EXTRACT and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots, of the plant and DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHT OF ANY NON-MARIJUANA INGREDIENTS COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA AND PREPARED FOR INGESTION. 

[imiubu]

Thank you Zap and Komorn for your unwavering commitment....it is truly inspiring. 

 

Thanks for pointing me to the thread  imiubu...still reading and taking notes and may have just been kicked to the couch for the rest of the night..

 

I believe the definition of "usable marijuana" should be closer too

 

"Usable marijuana" means the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, PLANT RESIN, EXTRACT and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots, of the plant and DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHT OF ANY NON-MARIJUANA INGREDIENTS COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA AND PREPARED FOR INGESTION. 

I'll second that ^^

 

 

You are welcome

[t-pain]

 

Question is since non-incidental seeds, stalks, usable roots, or uncured (wet) marijuana, (used for example juicing cannabis) fall under definition of "Marijuana" of PHC...if in possession of the aforementioned "Marijuana" are you still not section 4 immune and have to raise a costly section 8 defense?

 

 

nobody knows yet. no case hit the supreme court so far.

people need to ask their represenatives to ask the AG to clarify the law for us on issues like this.

[bobandtorey]

Wow, great work on such short notice.

 

Hard to believe that more members are not

making some comments here.

 

I had a few questions.  I will have to go back

and re read as I have misplaced my notes

 

zap, I know you will do a superb job delivering

testemony and I thank you again and again for all

you and Mr. Komorn do, fighting the good fight.

Yes thanks for all the hard work done and theirs still time to make some calls and or E-mails to your Rep i have already made a few calls and E-mail myself and will do some follow ups tomorrow 

 

i do believe it is time to let your opinion  be heard 

[Got Brownies]

 

 

Section 4(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

Section 4(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

May I propose if the definite article “the” in Section 4(d)(2) controls the analysis of the SC Mcqueen decision which makes indefinite article “a” in Section 4(e) meaningless why not strike the word "the" and input "a" in section 4(d)(2) which would therefore bring back meaning to section 4(e) that allows caregivers/patients to assist ANY patient in the medical use and caregivers can be reimbursed for cost?