A Provisioning Centers Answer To Cannabis Testing Centers.

[trichcycler]

LOL @ "Tony Montana"

[Natesilver]

Again it depends on who's it selling to them. If I know where they're getting it from then maybe I would trust it or maybe not.

 

Most if not all of the regulars on this board have an appreciation for what what high quality cannabis is and take great care to achieve good results.

 

Do you think everyone is this careful? Or, could it be possible that some are only in it for the money and don't care one way or the other if it's truly high quality as long as it looks and smells good and they get good weight? Those are the one's I'm concerned about. Twenty somethings that think they're going to be living like Tony Montana because they watched a few Youtube videos and are now expert growers.

 

Here's one of the concerns brought out in the Washington report.

 

 

Can you envision a scenario where one of these clowns spills some Avid on already cured meds and thinks, "I don't want to lose my investment I'll just sell it to that dispensary across town"?

Testing for avid, e20, and various other chems ain't gonna cost $700. When we buy into this campaign of fear about the dangers of untested meds and give the govt and the lab testing industry the means to control the narrative and set the testing regulations (just to keep us "safe") is when we're gonna pay $700 a test. No one says untested meds are good. But let's be reasonable here. How many people has untested marijuana killed or permanently disabled?? Edited December 16, 2014 by Natesilver

[trichcycler]

Everybody in MI grows super quality and nobody uses or sells Avid !

[Natesilver]

Everybody in MI grows super quality and nobody uses or sells Avid !

GM I thought your thing was scaring people about Eagle 20? Maybe I'm mixed up tho

[Norby]

If I understand this correctly private food producers can sell roadside, at the fair, and in the church too with no government oversight, pesticide testing, or any testing at all.

 

But if they open up a storefront and sell to the general public they will be required to show product safety testing results. I'm not so sure that's a bad idea for a dispensary. These may be the first place a first time user visits and that patient should expect production and safety standards at the public sale. Expensive? you bet!, but that patient can find a caregiver for a personal boutique experience costing half as much too. Someone eating food stuff from a dispensary could expect the same right to safety and dosage labeling maybe?

 

its a great debate imo and will be interesting when resolved in real life.

I don't think that's right.  It's not mandatory testing when selling to the public or there would be NO recalls because it wouldn't make it there.  It's random.

 

  Your example is a perfect reason why it should be able to be tested as it's going out the door. If something happens at the dispense, after teh grower sold it to the dispense, there should be accountability

 

Testing for avid, e20, and various other chems ain't gonna cost $700. When we buy into this campaign of fear about the dangers of untested meds and give the govt and the lab testing industry the means to control the narrative and set the testing regulations (just to keep us "safe") is when we're gonna pay $700 a test. No one says untested meds are good. But let's be reasonable here. How many people has untested marijuana killed or permanently disabled??

How about how many may have developed something over a time period(lung problems, cancer, fibrosis, neurological problems even if temporary).  Whose to say as I doubt people would go to the hospital for problems and say "could this be from me smoking pot" .  Probably not many though.  But I said it before and i'll say it again, there is a difference using these chemicals to go into your stomach as opposed to changing the chemical structure thru burning and putting them in contact with the mucous membranes of your lungs.  I don't know but it's something I've worried enough about to grow my own for most of my life.  Cause I bet the guy growing it in his closet doesn't know either.  And considering his motive I'd rather have a test tell me then them.  You can do whatever the hell you want though because I don't advocate for mandatory testing, just protections if someone tries to kill me or someone else over them not wanting to lose money.

 

And remember, these aren't healthy 20 some year olds smoking on teh weekend.  Concentrates CAN concentrate more than just THC.  Since they are already sick how can you seperate what would be from pesticides, etc. and what is "normal" or if it sped up the process.  That's why there should be standards just as with food.  Do  you think any levels of pesticide residuals are fine on finished product?  If not where do YOU draw the line and what do you propose?  Just that it's not a problem, every person for themselves and no ramifications if tests show 3-4 -5 times the limit allowable on food?

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Wild Bill]

LOL @ "Tony Montana"

 

Dude! I'm gonna get rich!

 

[Natesilver]

So norby- at how many points in the transactions should the meds be tested? So far you are advocating for before the meds are put on sale at the PC, and yet again up to the time the meds leave the store with the patient to "make sure nothing has happened to them". The pc's will pass the cost of testing to the caregivers and patients. This will effectively price you out of the game as a small producer

[Norby]

No, I'm not advocating for testing even once if it's so felt. See you don't even know what I'm talking about.  Shows you didn't read my posts.  You keep guessing what I'm saying and I'll tell you if you are right.  Other than that you are wasting my time having me repeat myself over and over.  Hint: none, once twice or whatever is deemed acceptable at any point along the line.  As long as there is a repercussion for harming people or going over acceptable levels.

i see, you want me to answer your questions but you won't answer mine.  Entitled much?

 

I said a dispense COULD test caregivers overages so that they can wipe people off the list who's meds are unacceptable.  If a dispense was opened by someone at a store that I was getting all my supplies at they could choose to take the risk and sell a cg product knowing they never bought anything other than organic and they can visual for bugs, mold, etc. Patients COULD test their caregivers meds and have solace in knowing that a caregiver CAN get in trouble if their meds are overpesticided.  The idea that any meds COULD be tested and teh seller held accountable should keep people more on the up and up, even if it's just confiscating the product, which could be seen as a fine.  I couldn't care less if anyone ever did do an actual test.  Get it now?

If there were no fine or penalty for selling something harmful to patients what is the sense in any regulation or standard.  Even if it's loosing the product.  With no repercussions you lay EVERYTHING on the patient with NO personal responsibility anywhere along the way.  Is this what you are proposing?  I won't answer anymore unless you answer me.  you have doged every question and just asked another.  you are just throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks and I'm getting quite tired of it and obviously slandering me without even knowing what I'm saying.  Or is it libel in writing?  At the very least mischaracterizing everything I say.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[+Malamute]

Testing on commercial(in Michigan) allows the current pt/cg system to undercut the commercial entity with this type of system.  Cg's sell at wholesale prices minus the cost of testing. ;-)

[Natesilver]

No, I'm not advocating for testing even once if it's so felt. See you don't even know what I'm talking about. Shows you didn't read my posts. You keep guessing what I'm saying and I'll tell you if you are right. Other than that you are wasting my time having me repeat myself over and over. Hint: none, once twice or whatever is deemed acceptable at any point along the line. As long as there is a repercussion for harming people or going over acceptable levels.

i see, you want me to answer your questions but you won't answer mine. Entitled much?

 

I said a dispense COULD test caregivers overages so that they can wipe people off the list who's meds are unacceptable. If a dispense was opened by someone at a store that I was getting all my supplies at they could choose to take the risk and sell a cg product knowing they never bought anything other than organic and they can visual for bugs, mold, etc. Patients COULD test their caregivers meds and have solace in knowing that a caregiver CAN get in trouble if their meds are overpesticided. The idea that any meds COULD be tested and teh seller held accountable should keep people more on the up and up, even if it's just confiscating the product, which could be seen as a fine. I couldn't care less if anyone ever did do an actual test. Get it now?

If there were no fine or penalty for selling something harmful to patients what is the sense in any regulation or standard. Even if it's loosing the product. With no repercussions you lay EVERYTHING on the patient with NO personal responsibility anywhere along the way. Is this what you are proposing? I won't answer anymore unless you answer me. you have doged every question and just asked another. you are just throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks and I'm getting quite tired of it and obviously slandering me without even knowing what I'm saying. Or is it libel in writing? At the very least mischaracterizing everything I say.

Any mandated testing should be based on science and not the lab testing racket's profit motives or their campaigns of fear. So test for avid, e20, and a couple other things. Your rambling inarticulate posts only serve to stoke that fear and contain no cogent points except talking points for the industry. I seriously doubt you are a grower, and if you are, you are too foolish to understand how extensive and unnecessary testing requirements will impact your ability to sell to pc's.

[trichcycler]

GM I thought your thing was scaring people about Eagle 20? Maybe I'm mixed up tho

Years before the MMMA I watched the forums and noticed people with mites and or molds usually were taking advice from others who

were infected too. I messaged enough growers to learn how to avoid these issues without gimmicks or sprays. I followed one set of instructions and built the room, supplied the controls and avoided pest infestation since the beginning. I grow in dirt, used to allow my little dogs inside freely, and used fresh rabbit turds from outdoor hutches, needless to say, I am convinced the correct controls with some common sense will always avoid mites and mold. My room, along with the rooms that I know of following the saem controls experience the same results as I do. With that said, growing medicine with anything less than proper controls and common sense is an invitation to mites and mold. Since these can be avoided with a little cash, what could possibly be the reason of stalling the proper controls? ==that's my thing, if I got a thing lol

 

peace

[slipstar059]

If a dispensary charged, say 200 dollars for an ounce, and 300 dollars for a tested ounce, of the same strain. Which would sell out faster. Do certified organic farmers have to be tested?

Clean green certified gives the patient the knowledge that it's certified Organic. Edited December 17, 2014 by slipstar059

[slipstar059]

Also why does 4271, s-1 use the word "manufactures" when describing the actions of a provisioning center? Page 2, Line 10, section E.

[Norby]

Any mandated testing should be based on science and not the lab testing racket's profit motives or their campaigns of fear. So test for avid, e20, and a couple other things. Your rambling inarticulate posts only serve to stoke that fear and contain no cogent points except talking points for the industry. I seriously doubt you are a grower, and if you are, you are too foolish to understand how extensive and unnecessary testing requirements will impact your ability to sell to pc's.

It's only rambling because you refuse to understand my point and continue to misrepresent my view. 

 

Wow you're thick.  I AM NOT FOR MANDATORY TESTING IE requirements!  you seem to think if you say it enough it becomes true.  Did you see the pics of my garden here, my caregiver ads?  Total dumbazz throwing meaningless accusations.

 

  So YOU are for mandatory testing.  And you've been accusing me of it this whole time? Useless waste of my time.  you want to mandate testing and I don't, I want it random and by whoever wants to and punishable offenses for those jeapordizing public health.  There are already SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON PESTICIDE LEVELS ALLOWED FOR FOOD.  THAT IS SCIENCE AND CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS FOR MJ.  Although it should be more strict just according to method of ingestion these SCIENTIFIC premises can be used to assign acceptable levels.  The testing companies don't just pull #'s out of the air for acceptable levels, they are based on scientific studies. I can't believe you've been mischaracterizing my view as one for mandatory testing and all along you are the one advocating for mandatory testing and still won't answer my questions.

[Restorium2]

It's either voluntary, everyone gets to choose when and where their cannabis gets tested. Or it's mandatory, where someone else tells you when it needs to be tested.

Pick one.

[Norby]

option 1.  That was evident all along though.  Please, please explain to me why there can not be ramifications if it's voluntary.  I just can't seem to wrap my head around it and your killing me with the suspense.  And please hurry, only 8 minutes left.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[t-pain]

Also why does 4271, s-1 use the word "manufactures" when describing the actions of a provisioning center? Page 2, Line 10, section E.

 

in this case manufactures could mean processing, extracting, baking, etc

[slipstar059]

If it becomes legal federally won't this all fall to the FDA anyways?

[trichcycler]

lol@ "8 minutes"

[Hayduke]

Also why does 4271, s-1 use the word "manufactures" when describing the actions of a provisioning center? Page 2, Line 10, section E.

that is not in the s-3 draft 3...

 

you are in the definitions, and 'manufactures' would refer to infused products likely... I see that word in g) as a word in the definition of a medical mj provisioning center, so it's been moved around... but to trying to look at this bill word by word is a bit of an error until you read it all and can see the bigger picture... and remember the next question is what is the definition of the word manufactures? lol

 

take a deep breath, I am trying to do that myself, remember not to fret too much about things that have not passed and do not have a Governor's signature..... 

 

I am not sure why you are asking slipstar...?

[Indigro]

Here's a basic common sense approach....

 

Every batch that comes in to a disp has 2 or 3 of the biggest nugs (colas) stripped apart under a compound microscope. If anything had germinated, you will see it, clearly. Every grower should do this anyway before they dry it, let alone sell it. A little guidance/experience in identifying fungal structures & we can all identify it, though there are minor complications such as the micro-strands that develop between a gland head & it touching/sticking yo nearby plant matter & stretching. Otherwisr, you can clearly make out mycellium & conidia.

 

Enforce regulations that require licensing to sell, purchase, or use any chemical pesticide/fungicide. Dont specifically know how it is here, but from other places i'v been they cant retail this just anybody... though I know that is what happens in the real world, anyone buys it. There should be mandatory safety training on its usr, in order to buy it/use it, and a retailer can not sell it to anyone rhat doesn't have such training/licensing.

And if you do use it w/o such expertise, you lose your cg rights.

[slipstar059]

I just wondered because when someone is charged for growing, it's a manufacturing charge. It seems to open the door for commercial production, but all I've been hearing is that it prohibits dispensaries from growing their own. Is s-2, or s-3 open to the public?

 

(e) "Medical marihuana provisioning center" or "provisioning

center" means a commercial entity located in this state that

acquires, possesses, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or

transports medical marihuana and sells, supplies, or provides

medical marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or

through the patients' registered primary caregivers. Provisioning

center includes any commercial property, whether owned or leased,

where medical marihuana is sold to registered qualifying patients

and registered primary caregivers

Edited December 17, 2014 by slipstar059

[slipstar059]

Thanks zap, I'm going to read it through. Still the same language for a Provisioning center.

[slipstar059]

Why are there exemptions for a visiting patient to sell? Is a visiting patient allowed to bring in pounds, if his state allows for it? Shouldn't there be something in the bill that says a visiting patient is subject to the same regulations Michigan citizens are?

Sec. 10. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a

visiting qualifying patient, registered qualifying patient, or

registered primary caregiver who supplies, sells, transfers, or

delivers marihuana to a provisioning center that is registered,

licensed, or otherwise allowed by the municipality in which it

operates in compliance with this act is not subject to any of the

following for engaging in that activity

Edited December 17, 2014 by slipstar059

[slipstar059]

Sorry, I'm still in the air about recommending this to my senator. Just trying to get all the facts before I call in. The latest revisions seem pretty good. Just a few iffy areas.

Edited December 17, 2014 by slipstar059