Jump to content

Http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/26145-State-Should-Set-Up-Dispensary-System/


Recommended Posts

Besides expanding protections from police,.. I would say the four things I wish I could change the most about our law is:

 

1) Usable marijuana limit - Any grower can testify to how moronic 2.5oz is.

 

2) Allow patients to have 2 Cg's - creates stability and competition.

 

3) Allow Cgs to service 10 patients without increasing plant numbers- CG's don't need more plants, we need more patients It also resolve overage issues, etc.

 

4) Allow pt/pt transfers and Cg to any patients transfers for no compensation.

 

 

Now, of course we want full freedom, but those 4 things would absolutely resolve almost all problems; disregarding the need for expanded police, employment and housing protections of course.

I agree with your points. My comment pertains to 1 and 3. They may be a little redundant, but I think this falls under the "reasonable amount to meet the patients needs" discussion and is one of my biggest issues. I have 2 PTs. When I harvest I tend to exceed the 2.5 oz limit. My PTs use 1-2 oz/mo as do I . So, for the next four months I'm "over" from month to month, eventually coming into compliance. By the time of the next harvest im out or very low on meds and then start over again with the same issues.

 

It "seems" from recent court cases that one can argue 'reasonable amount to meet the patients needs', but I don't like being so far over for months on end.

 

It would be nice to have some kind of a sliding scale to meet the need over the course of a grow. Ex. A grow is four months. A patient has established a need for 1 oz per month, therefore, I could "bank" 4 oz to meet that PTs needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your points. My comment pertains to 1 and 3. They may be a little redundant, but I think this falls under the "reasonable amount to meet the patients needs" discussion and is one of my biggest issues. I have 2 PTs. When I harvest I tend to exceed the 2.5 oz limit. My PTs use 1-2 oz/mo as do I . So, for the next four months I'm "over" from month to month, eventually coming into compliance. By the time of the next harvest im out or very low on meds and then start over again with the same issues.

 

It "seems" from recent court cases that one can argue 'reasonable amount to meet the patients needs', but I don't like being so far over for months on end.

 

It would be nice to have some kind of a sliding scale to meet the need over the course of a grow. Ex. A grow is four months. A patient has established a need for 1 oz per month, therefore, I could "bank" 4 oz to meet that PTs needs.

I hear that. It's a real problem. You have to learn to juggle. More smaller batches harvesting at intervals. That adds to time, trouble, and expenses. It's probably the reason that a lot of us get a little 'put off' with those that seem to not have to follow the rules. Following the rules of the MMMA are definitely a challenge. But we do have the best MM law. Imagine having to deal with just two plants in flower? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear that. It's a real problem. You have to learn to juggle. More smaller batches harvesting at intervals. That adds to time, trouble, and expenses. It's probably the reason that a lot of us get a little 'put off' with those that seem to not have to follow the rules. Following the rules of the MMMA are definitely a challenge. But we do have the best MM law. Imagine having to deal with just two plants in flower?

 

Amen. Not to cry sour grapes, but I do want a life! Meaning, I like to travel, etc., so doing a perpetual grow doesn't work for me now. Especially given I can't have anyone else (legally) in the grow room to even water the girls!

 

I'm glad I didn't sell my recent overages to The Provision Center....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PTSD. A LOT of people suffer from PTSD. That's why they canned it ..

 

To me, the PTSD petition, and how it was handled by our government, shows that we were just going through the motions of protecting ourselves from our government without a single stitch of fairness from them. 

 

Michigan gets F grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation
An honor system with no honor
By Chad Selweskiauthor-byline-rss.png     12:01 am, November 9, 2015  Updated:  11:55 am, November 12, 2015
 
 
 
The State Integrity Investigation is a comprehensive assessment of state government accountability and transparency done in partnership with Global Integrity.

In November 2013, Michigan lawmakers revealed the lengths to which they’d go to maintain the state’s secret system of funding election campaign activities.

A Senate committee was meeting in the Capitol to discuss and approve a bill that would double the maximum amount that individuals could contribute to legislative, executive and judicial candidates. The senators were told that the higher limits were unnecessary because 99 percent of Michiganians never give the maximum amount.

Then something puzzling happened. In a rare move, the legislators called a recess midway through the session. A lobbyist in the audience who was friendly with the committee chairman, it was later learned, received an urgent phone call warning that Secretary of State Ruth Johnson had just announced new administrative rules requiring the disclosure of campaign donors in all circumstances.

When the committee reconvened, an amendment was hastily attached to the legislation, which would override Johnson’s decision and preserve Michigan’s “dark money” campaign practices. House and Senate approval of the bill soon followed, as did Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature.

“We don’t have full public disclosure and it’s not because good people failed to do the right thing, it’s because those gentlemen did the wrong thing. It was a hostile action,” said Rich Robinson, the state’s top campaign watchdog at the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “And the fruits of those actions were tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed campaign cash.”  

The shadowy aspects of Michigan’s money-driven politics serve as a key reason why the state ranks last among the 50 states with a grade of F and a numerical score of 51 out of 100 from the State Integrity Investigation, a data-driven assessment of state government transparency and accountability by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity. Michigan received an F in 10 of the 13 categories of government operations that were examined.

The first State Integrity report, released in 2012, gave Michigan a similar score – 58, an F, though the state ranked 44th that time. The two scores are not directly comparable, however, due to changes made to improve and update the project and its methodology.

 

So. We have become what people used to only joke about years ago:     A Northern State with Southern State political morals.

 

We better have a ballot proposal to change the State's name to Michitucky or Michissippi, get a big, white stretch limo for the governor and confederate flag license plates for state vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...