Mmj Bills 5104 And 4271

[robertou812]

I've been contacting Michigan state senators to find out if bills 4271 and 5104 will get a vote this year.  So far it does not sound that promising.  Arlan Meekhof is in charge of deciding which bill will be put to a vote.  I contacted Arlan's staff, but they were not sure about a vote, saying the bills need more senator support.  I'm hoping you will be interested in contacting Arlan Meekhof and your local senator to ask for a vote on bills 4271 and 5104.

 

Alan Meekhof:  SenAMeekhof@senate.michigan.gov  517-373-6920

List of Senators: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/senatorinfo.html

 

Here is a portion of the letter I'm sending.

 

Arlan,

 

I’ve been watching the Michigan Senate for many months now, expecting a vote on Bill 5104 and 4271.  The Michigan House overwhelmingly passed these bills many months ago.

 

Can you explain why the Senate has not voted on these bills?  Patients in need would be helped by these bills.  Especially patients with serve epilepsy.   If you care about the patients in need, you’ll move these bills to a vote.

 

I would be interested in meeting to discuss future legislation that could further help patients in great need.  Creating a larger medical marijuana cultivation focused on high CBD and low THC medicine is greatly needed.   It’s about getting the right medicine to the people that need it most.  It’s a lifesaving medicine that could help people in your district.   This medicine is currently being used to treat thousands of patients in other states.

 

I invite you to pass along my concerns to your fellow senators in Michigan. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to discuss how we can work together to help patients in need.

 

Bob

 

Bill 4271

"medical marihuana provisioning center regulation act"

A bill to regulate medical marihuana provisioning centers and

other related entities; to provide for the powers and duties of

certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to

provide immunity for persons engaging in medical marihuana-related

activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe penalties and

sanctions and provide remedies; and to allow the promulgation of

rules.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/htm/2013-HEBH-4271.htm

 

Bill 5104

"Michigan medical marihuana act,"

Editables and Extracts

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/htm/2013-HEBH-5104.htm

 

Thanks for reading.

Edited December 3, 2014 by robertou812

[t-pain]

you should also contact the michigan state police, the michigan association of sheriffs, the michigan association of chiefs of police and ask them to support these bills, as the sheriffs and chiefs of police both wrote a letter to oppose these bills.

 

msp has been fighting in the workgroups on these bills to add in wording that will cause many problems than it will solve.

 

you can also contact the governor to get bill schuette (michigan attorney general) to stop opposing these bills. as the AG is firmly against it and has worked with the MACP (michigan assoc of chiefs of police) to oppose these bills.

[t-pain]

the problems zap details above make us question if we should even support these bills anymore.

 

(and most of us think the COA ruling on concentrates is wrong)

[+Malamute]

Richardville decides what bills hit the floor.  Meekhof will be head of the Senate next session. Meekhof voted against the bills in committee.  Support depends on the amendments.

[semicaregiver]

The problems t-pain is speaking of are in the current version of HB 5104, which 1) allows the police to arrest a patient or their caregiver in public possession of any amount of unlabeled marijuana (even a bare joint), and 2) removes affirmative defense protection for unregistered patients. Unknown amendments are also in play.

 

What does the label require? 

[+Malamute]

HB 5104 language

 

 

(N) EXCEPT WHEN BEING MANUFACTURED OR CONSUMED, ANY MARIHUANA

INFUSED PRODUCT MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED AND CLEARLY LABELED

WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

 (1) THE WEIGHT OF THE MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT IN OUNCES.

 THERE SHALL BE A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LISTED WEIGHT OF

 THE MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

 

 (2) THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MANUFACTURED THE MARIHUANA15

INFUSED PRODUCT.

 

 (3) THE DATE ON WHICH THE MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT WAS

 MANUFACTURED.

 

 (4) IF THE PATIENT RECEIVED THE MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT FROM

 HIS OR HER PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR A MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROVISIONING

 CENTER, THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSACTION OCCURRED.

 

 (5) IF THE PATIENT RECEIVED THE MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT FROM

 HIS OR HER PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR A MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROVISIONING

 CENTER, THE NAME OF THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR MEDICAL MARIHUANA

 PROVISIONING CENTER.

 

(P) IN A PUBLIC PLACE, THE PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST UNDER

 SUBSECTION (A) OR (B) DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING

 APPLY:

 

(1) THE USABLE MARIHUANA AND MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT ARE

 PACKAGED AND EACH PACKAGE IS LABELED WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE USABLE

 MARIHUANA.

 

(2) THE TOTAL WEIGHT INDICATED ON THE PACKAGE LABELS IS NOT

 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR (B). THE

 INDICATED WEIGHT IS PRESUMED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. HOWEVER, THIS

 PRESUMPTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL FROM

 ARRESTING AN INDIVIDUAL IF THERE IS AN ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT

 THE INDICATED WEIGHT IS NOT CORRECT AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT IS GREATER

 THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR (B).

 

 

[Willy]

Just more nit pickin to be able to  have a reason to arrest and detain, and forfeiture... 

[t-pain]

so if you keep the stems on and the seeds in, its not 'usable marihuana' ? heh

[semicaregiver]

The wording of the bill just generates more questions in my mind.

 

First, what is a "public" place?   I would expect that my home and that of my patient's are not public places, but what about my car as I transport the meds in the required "sealed" container?   For that matter, is a provisioning center a public place?  The dispensaries I have been in all restrict access to the public.  

 

Second, how is the word "usable" being used?  All of the requirements regarding labels seem to relate to infused products, but then all of a sudden the word "usable" appears....

 

(1) THE USABLE MARIHUANA AND MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT ARE

 PACKAGED AND EACH PACKAGE IS LABELED WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE USABLE

 MARIHUANA.

 

Third, what hoops does one need to jump thru for the infused product details.  For example, could one go to leafly.com and just get the average thc content for the strain that you used and put it on the label, or would you need to pay for a lab test? 

[+Malamute]

Sec. N  was in the original version of HB 5104. 

 

Sec. P was an amendment added at the last minute by the Michigan state police when the bill was passed out of the House Judiciary committee.

 

Police thought they could just bunch in everything, force unreasonable labeling, and create a guaranteed money maker for themselves.

[Hayduke]

so if you keep the stems on and the seeds in, its not 'usable marihuana' ? heh

that dog don't hunt, T-Pain.... 

[t-pain]

First, what is a "public" place?   I would expect that my home and that of my patient's are not public places, but what about my car as I transport the meds in the required "sealed" container?   For that matter, is a provisioning center a public place?  The dispensaries I have been in all restrict access to the public.

police will arrest and seize everything and let courts sort it out. you know the drill.

Second, how is the word "usable" being used? All of the requirements regarding labels seem to relate to infused products, but then all of a sudden the word "usable" appears....

usable means dried flowers and leaves , and with 5104, extracts, liquids, gases, edibles. so you'd have to label your buds.

 

Third, what hoops does one need to jump thru for the infused product details.  For example, could one go to leafly.com and just get the average thc content for the strain that you used and put it on the label, or would you need to pay for a lab test?

you misread, its not thc content, its how much bud you put in the brownie. 1oz of bud, 3 oz of bud.

 

(N) EXCEPT WHEN BEING MANUFACTURED OR CONSUMED, ANY MARIHUANA- 8

INFUSED PRODUCT MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED AND CLEARLY LABELED 9

WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

now it gets complicated because they want each edible individually labelled and packaged. so you cannot have a bag of gummies or a bag of brownies.

 

nor can you have more than one cannabis oil gel cap in a container, each gel cap must be individually labelled and packaged. EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME.

Edited December 4, 2014 by t-pain

[semicaregiver]

Thanks Mal.   That makes it clearer, although I am still wondering about the word "public".  And they labelled the original ACT as being unclear and grey.

 

So for just flowers they want the bag to have the weight and caregiver's name.  I am guessing that most caregivers already put the strain and weight on product they give their patients so the only addition would be the caregiver's name.   Seems like the only purpose of this addition is to trap the patient that got some material from someone other than a card carrying caregiver or licensed provisioning center.   Really just bull..s..t.   If a patient were to get material from the black market, they could just put it in the package they got from their carded caregiver.  

 

For an infused product, it would seem reasonable that a competent caregiver would know the quantity of cannabis they used and it would be important to communicate that to the patient so they could made a determination regarding dosage.  In that same vein, a date of manufacture could be important if one is concerned about potency loss over time.   I would agree that these details are important technical issues that should be communicated to a patient and the caregiver should know the details.  That said, they should not be an excuse to arrest someone.    

Edited December 4, 2014 by semicaregiver

[t-pain]

wow i didnt even think of that. yeah they want to close the ability for patients to aquire from the black market. insane!

[Restorium2]

In all practicality, this really doesn't work for anyone at all, especially IN YOUR HOME. Even after alcohol prohibition they didn't care what you had IN YOUR HOME. It's just a trap that only helps law enforcement. I can only see using these instructions for a road trip, not in my home. No one is going to follow these rules to a T and a LOT more patients are going to be seen in non compliance. Just sickening. Sure, it fits with the patient that only gets their meds at a dispensary, doesn't grow and experiment. The rest of us get hosed.  This will just drive a wedge between us and LEO again. The bad cops will have what they want, a way to mess with every single one of us if they want to. Tightening restrictions are their game. No doubt about it. Republicans writing more laws and rules to lord over us just like they say they hate and work to lessen. 

[Restorium2]

(2) THE TOTAL WEIGHT INDICATED ON THE PACKAGE LABELS IS NOT

 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR (B). THE

 INDICATED WEIGHT IS PRESUMED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. HOWEVER, THIS

 PRESUMPTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL FROM

 ARRESTING AN INDIVIDUAL IF THERE IS AN ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT

 THE INDICATED WEIGHT IS NOT CORRECT AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT IS GREATER

 THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION

[Restorium2]

 

(2) THE TOTAL WEIGHT INDICATED ON THE PACKAGE LABELS IS NOT

 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR (B). THE

 INDICATED WEIGHT IS PRESUMED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. HOWEVER, THIS

 PRESUMPTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL FROM

 ARRESTING AN INDIVIDUAL IF THERE IS AN ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT

 THE INDICATED WEIGHT IS NOT CORRECT AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT IS GREATER

 THAN THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION

 

Cop; "That chit is really strong(articulated) so I'm going to arrest you because I can. "

[Restorium2]

What can we do to kill this garbage? For good. Anyone got the right monkey wrench?

[Restorium2]

After this I will have to have every single crumb labeled IN MY HOME. WTF? 

[AbominableDro-Man]

What a ridiculous set of guidelines. Here's to hoping it's fought out to the end where a legitimately working system can be found.  

[Restorium2]

Here's to stopping them short of 75% so that patients can still purchase what they need anywhere they can.

 

Right now as registered patients we can have 2.5 ounces.

 

That will end and be replaced with; You can have 2.5 IF you tell us exactly where you got it, who grew it where and when.

 

It's a HUGE loss.

[+Malamute]

Many people are diligently working to fix this.  Keep your fingers crossed.

[+Malamute]

I know.  Ridiculous requirements. Hopefully we can kill the nonsense.

[bobandtorey]

In all practicality, this really doesn't work for anyone at all, especially IN YOUR HOME. Even after alcohol prohibition they didn't care what you had IN YOUR HOME. It's just a trap that only helps law enforcement. I can only see using these instructions for a road trip, not in my home. No one is going to follow these rules to a T and a LOT more patients are going to be seen in non compliance. Just sickening. Sure, it fits with the patient that only gets their meds at a dispensary, doesn't grow and experiment. The rest of us get hosed.  This will just drive a wedge between us and LEO again. The bad cops will have what they want, a way to mess with every single one of us if they want to. Tightening restrictions are their game. No doubt about it. Republicans writing more laws and rules to lord over us just like they say they hate and work to lessen. 

And i agree then taking out the 

raffirmative defense protection for unregistered patients.

[Restorium2]

Knowing the source, the wording doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me are the folks with stars in their eyes that can't see the terrible consequences of just the wording that we get to see now. Last time it got worse, as the process moved along, not better.