How To Open A Legal Dispensary !

[imiubu]

I spent yesterday at a local cannabis farmers market.

I spoke directly to at least 75 people, CG/ PT and dispensary owners.

 

I was amazed and disheartened by the consistent lack of knowledge the

common cannabis users have.  Such a lack of awareness about the dispensary

lobby and their repeated attempts to throw home growers under the bus.

 

Even the disp owners were adamant about their legality.

 

All agreed that the market is preferred over any dispensary.

 

We have a local patient support group that meets once a week.

I pitched the idea of a workshop to help pt/ cg to gain confidence in

speaking with their local officials and legislators. 

 

I just plant the seeds ya know

[Highlander]

Well dispensaries were legit based upon the MMMA… that is until the MSC ruling came in and twisted the language beyond recognition. Some of the claims made by MSC are just as bad as those coming from CoA. Here is just one example,

 

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.

 

Plain language reading: Any registered person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition. Unlike section 4(b) that specifically states “for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana”, section 4(e) allows any registered primary caregiver to provide medical marijuana to any registered patient regardless if they are connected through the registration system. The difference is that section 4(b) also allows for 12 plants and 2.5 ounces per connected patient.

 

What the MSC sees: “§ 4(e) independently describes the relationship between a registered caregiver and his registered qualifying patient and provides an additional protection for the patient-caregiver relationship by emphasizing that it is not a criminal act for a registered qualifying patient to compensate a registered primary caregiver for costs associated with providing marijuana to the patient.”

 

WRONG.

 

The court claims that medical use of marijuana includes the transfer of marijuana and thus the sale. They then contradict themselves by stating section 4(e) provides additional protections to patient-caregiver relationships with respect to compensation/sales, when the definition of medical use already does so. It is a basic rule that if a law can be read in such a way that it becomes redundant, then it should be read in a non-redundant way. MSC failed to do so, just as they failed to provide statutory interpretation in almost every case. In fact, the dissenting opinion directly states such. IMO these individuals need to be debarred asap.

 

How they got to “his” from “a” is a mystery, but there are several examples of this in McQueen alone (how do you interpret something word by word when you change the words?). Regardless, this is the portion of the law that explicitly states a registered caregiver can provide medical marijuana to any registered patient.

 

As to how one could operate a dispensary after this ruling, well you would need something beyond MMMA after MSC screw up. However, it appears that dispensaries in places like Ann Arbor are essentially legal and haven’t been raided since 2013 by DEA. So the easiest solution is to open a dispensary in a city that protects them and is large/powerful enough to fend off MSP. Here’s another idea that I came up with; have each patient bring in a small amount of bud when they go to the dispensary. The patient/customer provides the dispensary with a small amount of bud for the budtenders medical use (and $ donation), while the dispensary simultaneously provides the customer with their requested meds. Problem solved, transaction provides medical benefits both ways .

You are doing the same exact thing you are accusing the courts of, replacing words in a word-by-word interpretation. You had to change "a" to "any" to make your interpretation fit what you wanted. A and any have different meanings. They aren't even the same parts of speech. A is a noun and any is an adjective. The fact that the act uses " a" patient instead of " any" patient speaks volumes.

[Restorium2]

You are doing the same exact thing you are accusing the courts of, replacing words in a word-by-word interpretation. You had to change "a" to "any" to make your interpretation fit what you wanted. A and any have different meanings. They aren't even the same parts of speech. A is a noun and any is an adjective. The fact that the act uses " a" patient instead of " any" patient speaks volumes.

From circa '09. A blast from the past. We keep having to go over the same old ground.

[imiubu]

There is a rally/ protest at the Captiol building this Tues.  The dispensaries are being raided

and now they want the community to come out to 'stop the raids'.

 

The cannabis community IMO has needed support for several issues in the past and even

recently (crappy bills for instance) yet there has been very little to no support in this area.

 

The dispensaries are being raided and NOW they want a call to arms???  BAH.

 

I would love to attend merely for the opportunity to see people I don't see on a regular basis.

 

Atm... though giving and receiving hugs is a heck of a motivator... I am opting out of supporting this rally.

 

It will be interesting to see how the media twists the message.

[Highlander]

"A" when used this way is not a noun. It might also be important to discuss the difference between "a" patient and "the" patient, since section 3 uses both several times.

 

We may not agree on if "a" is used as a noun here or not.  No matter.  The second point you raise is also important.  (I assume you meant section 4 not 3)

 

(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.

 

"A" as the indefinite article, refers to a non-specific member of a set (in this case the set = patients or caregivers).   "The" as the definite article refers to one specific member of the set (of patients or caregivers).

 

If the presumption of medical use existed for p2p or CG to any patient, the above would have to be reworded as follows:

 

(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 a qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

[Norby]

There is a rally/ protest at the Captiol building this Tues.  The dispensaries are being raided

and now they want the community to come out to 'stop the raids'.

 

The cannabis community IMO has needed support for several issues in the past and even

recently (crappy bills for instance) yet there has been very little to no support in this area.

 

The dispensaries are being raided and NOW they want a call to arms???  BAH.

 

I would love to attend merely for the opportunity to see people I don't see on a regular basis.

 

Atm... though giving and receiving hugs is a heck of a motivator... I am opting out of supporting this rally.

 

It will be interesting to see how the media twists the message.

Umm, I saw handouts at the dispensaries about the bills back before they were changed.  how would anyone know since they don't frequent dispensaries and blamed them for everything so that none would hang out here so that there could be some back and forth with getting together and helping each other.?

[imiubu]

Hu?

[Alphabob]

You are doing the same exact thing you are accusing the courts of, replacing words in a word-by-word interpretation. You had to change "a" to "any" to make your interpretation fit what you wanted. A and any have different meanings. They aren't even the same parts of speech. A is a noun and any is an adjective. The fact that the act uses " a" patient instead of " any" patient speaks volumes.

 

If I said "go get me a bird", would you assume that I meant any bird? If I said "go get me his bird", would you assume that I meant a specific bird owned by someone? There is a significant difference between what the court stated versus what the law says, I just don't see that in my arguement. If it were the other way around, you can bet that the court would flip the argument and claim they were right.

 

Simplest plain language meaning of the bill surely does separate a large range of actions available to connected caregivers versus the very limited scope of compensation for any ("a") patient. Part (b) includes transfers and sales already and interpreting section (e) as the same as (b) makes it redundant. According to the rules of statutory interpretation, (e) must be given its own effect via plain language reading... 

 

"(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act..."

 

"(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."

 

Again, the MSC screwed up; and if the writers of MMMA did not intend for non-connected transfers then they also screwed up in more ways than one. I can make several solid arguments for non-connected transfers with MMMA language; sections 4(d), 4(e), 4(i), 4(j) and 4(k). Take it from the MSC itself via McQueen:

Justice CAVANAGH, dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the MMMA and would have held that when a qualified  patient  transfers marijuana to another qualified patient, both individuals have the right to assert immunity under §4 of the act. The  presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marijuana may be rebutted with evidence that the conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s medical condition. The majority reasoned that the reference to “the” qualified patient requires the conclusion that only the recipient of marijuana is entitled to §4 immunity for a patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana. The majority’s interpretation was inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation and with the purpose of the MMMA. The reference in § 4(d)(2) of the act to “the” qualifying patient simply requires that one of the two qualified patients involved in the transfer of marijuana have a debilitating medical condition that the transfer of marijuana  is  intended  to  alleviate. The majority’s erroneous interpretation of § 4(d) further led it to an incorrect conclusion that any facilitation of a patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana was enjoinable as a public nuisance. 

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alphabob

[imiubu]

This site and your local dispensary are not the exclusive sources for what is happening in the MI cannabis world.

 

I suggest that if people are interested in finding out the truth, perhaps widening their resources would be quite eye opening.

 

For those less prone to hunt things up themselves... I will dig up some of what has been said and done AGAINST home growing

by the disp. lobby.

[Highlander]

If I said "go get me a bird", would you assume that I meant any bird? If I said "go get me his bird", would you assume that I meant a specific bird owned by someone? There is a significant difference between what the court stated versus what the law says, I just don't see that in my arguement. If it were the other way around, you can bet that the court would flip the argument and claim they were right.

 

Simplest plain language meaning of the bill surely does separate a large range of actions available to connected caregivers versus the very limited scope of compensation for any ("a") patient.

 

"(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act..."

 

"(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."

 

Again, the MSC screwed up; and if the writers of MMMA did not intend non-connected transfers then they also screwed up in more ways then one. I can make several solid arguments for non-connected transfers with MMMA language. Take it from the MSC itself via McQueen:

 

 

The bird analogy doesn't quite fit to explain the construction of the statements, unless you are a bird. (because the analogy deals with a person and a bird)

 

So let's say you are a bird.

 

I say "go get me a bird, and feed the bird."

 

You come back with a bird, any bird.  Then you feed the bird. 

 

If you fed yourself, you didn't feed "the" bird.

[trichcycler]

would patients be willing to boycott those dispensaries known to be part of the "lobby" I wonder

[Restorium2]

would patients be willing to boycott those dispensaries known to be part of the "lobby" I wonder

How would you tell the difference? By the color of their spots?

[trichcycler]

I dunno, the anti dispensary folks group them all together. I know of at least one that hates the "dispensary lobby" so maybe someone else cold identify the labeled ones, other wise how do we know its not jus those few in Ann Arbor doing it, or the like. surely not every criminal dispensary is involved in scrapping our grow rights by joining some lobby group right?

[Highlander]

If I said "go get me a bird", would you assume that I meant any bird? If I said "go get me his bird", would you assume that I meant a specific bird owned by someone? There is a significant difference between what the court stated versus what the law says, I just don't see that in my arguement. If it were the other way around, you can bet that the court would flip the argument and claim they were right.

 

Simplest plain language meaning of the bill surely does separate a large range of actions available to connected caregivers versus the very limited scope of compensation for any ("a") patient.

 

"(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act..."

 

"(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."

 

Again, the MSC screwed up; and if the writers of MMMA did not intend non-connected transfers then they also screwed up in more ways than one. I can make several solid arguments for non-connected transfers with MMMA language. Take it from the MSC itself via McQueen:

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is some substance to the argument that because 4(b) protects a CG for possession of meds and plants for patients "to which he is connected through the department's registration process" and 4(e) doesn't speak to any required connection, that the requirement of the connection written in one section and absent from another section is relevant and significant, such that 4(e) doesn't require the connection.

 

But there is a double-edged sword there because "protected from arrest" etc. is written in 4(b) but not 4(e), so under this same theory, one would have to conclude  that the absence of protection from arrest written into 4(e) is also significant and relevant.   

Edited March 20, 2016 by Highlander

[Norby]

This site and your local dispensary are not the exclusive sources for what is happening in the MI cannabis world.

 

I suggest that if people are interested in finding out the truth, perhaps widening their resources would be quite eye opening.

 

For those less prone to hunt things up themselves... I will dig up some of what has been said and done AGAINST home growing

by the disp. lobby.

Care to find out exactly WHO they are and if ANY local dispensaries give money?  On one hand I hear they can't keep in business and on the other I hear they are making enough to fund the dispensary lobby.

[Norby]

How would you tell the difference? By the color of their spots?

Your right, maybe we should lump them all together.  I hear some caregivers are working outside the mmma and using it for a front.  Maybe we should lump all caregivers too.  How are we to tell right?

[Norby]

This site and your local dispensary are not the exclusive sources for what is happening in the MI cannabis world.

 

I suggest that if people are interested in finding out the truth, perhaps widening their resources would be quite eye opening.

 

For those less prone to hunt things up themselves... I will dig up some of what has been said and done AGAINST home growing

by the disp. lobby.

I have no doubt the disp lobby will throw everyone under the bus but just because it has dispensary in teh name doesn't mean that any ma and pa disps support them.  I believe all the people supporting the disp lobby wouldn't open an "illegal" business because of the risks, tehy pay the money to own the field, they don't play in it illegally and hope they don't get busted, they invest money to make things their way.  Just my thought.

[Highlander]

Your right, maybe we should lump them all together.  I hear some caregivers are working outside the mmma and using it for a front.  Maybe we should lump all caregivers too.  How are we to tell right?

 

I don't think this as a suitable comparison, because I've yet to hear a single CG say that only CGs should be able to grow meds.  I've never heard of a CG saying that patients who are felons shouldn't be able to grow their own.  If we saw story after story of CGs trying to limit patients' right to grow 12 plants, then I'd be wary of most CGs, same as I'm wary of most dispensaries. 

[Norby]

Hu?

It may be a run on but you should see from being here that any dispensary owner speaking on this forum would've been run off long ago and any disp owner or worker who reads this forum would not post because of the not so warm and friendly atmosphere here.  It's dividing and conquering by keeping people split up.  Not saying it's the sites fault just how it is.  Personally it looks to me as if the people who kept running dispensaries and selling to patients got run out by people who wouldn't stay open.  Just what it looks like from an overview of attitudes on the site.  not saying some disp owners didnt act like asses and it caused a big rift or fight but that's what it seems like from someone coming here years after the falling out occured.

[Highlander]

I have no doubt the disp lobby will throw everyone under the bus but just because it has dispensary in teh name doesn't mean that any ma and pa disps support them.  I believe all the people supporting the disp lobby wouldn't open an "illegal" business because of the risks, tehy pay the money to own the field, they don't play in it illegally and hope they don't get busted, they invest money to make things their way.  Just my thought.

 

It's kinda like what we saw during the first gulf war.  Stores all over southeast Michigan that were owned by mideastern folks had US flags and yellow ribbons.  If I were running a dispensary I'd do what is necessary to make sure customers know where my support was.  I'd have "We support patients' rights to grow their own" on a sign outside the building.  And I'd try to educate customers about upcoming legislation that would be bad for them.

[Norby]

I don't think this as a suitable comparison, because I've yet to hear a single CG say that only CGs should be able to grow meds.  I've never heard of a CG saying that patients who are felons shouldn't be able to grow their own.  If we saw story after story of CGs trying to limit patients' right to grow 12 plants, then I'd be wary of most CGs, same as I'm wary of most dispensaries. 

Hmmm, I haven't heard disps say that felons shouldn't be able to grow their own meds either.  I have heard of cg's spraying the crap out of plants, selling their meds to others than their patients and leaving them hanging, selling moldy meds, selling the tops to disps and bottoms to theri patients, making them wait in the cold hours, not showing up, etc.etc.etc. Lump all of one you should lump all of the other with the stories you hear, it's only fair.

[Highlander]

A better comparison for my point is caregivers informing patients of their grow habits.  Certainly, there is a lot of chatter that many CGs use harsh chemicals, etc.  So when a smart CG advertises his service, he will make an effort to set himself apart from the bad actors.  It is easy to do.

[Norby]

It's kinda like what we saw during the first gulf war.  Stores all over southeast Michigan that were owned by mideastern folks had US flags and yellow ribbons.  If I were running a dispensary I'd do what is necessary to make sure customers know where my support was.  I'd have "We support patients' rights to grow their own" on a sign outside the building.  And I'd try to educate customers about upcoming legislation that would be bad for them.

I've seen the literature about the bills at disps.  Some of the dips are just into helping the local patients with meds and aren't political. But I don't think many, even here, understand the disp lobby.  I think it's mostly a divide and conquer technique and people here equate the 2 just because they both have the word dispensary in common.

[Highlander]

Hmmm, I haven't heard disps say that felons shouldn't be able to grow their own meds either.  I have heard of cg's spraying the crap out of plants, selling their meds to others than their patients and leaving them hanging, selling moldy meds, selling the tops to disps and bottoms to theri patients, making them wait in the cold hours, not showing up, etc.etc.etc. Lump all of one you should lump all of the other with the stories you hear, it's only fair.

 

I haven't either.  The bad actors went way past that and went directly for the gold, eliminating all home grows.

 

Sounds like we should be in agreement on this.  Smart dispensary owners will make sure customers know that they are not trying to eliminate home grows.  Smart CGs will make sure customers know they are not: "spraying the crap out of plants, selling their meds to others than their patients and leaving them hanging, selling moldy meds, selling the tops to disps and bottoms to theri patients, making them wait in the cold hours, not showing up, etc.etc.etc."

 

And like in any other business, you shine the light on the bad actors and draw positive attention to the good.  Eventually, the market sorts it out.  That is, of course, if we had some way of knowing which dispensaries were supporting legislation that is bad for patients.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Highlander

[Norby]

A better comparison for my point is caregivers informing patients of their grow habits.  Certainly, there is a lot of chatter that many CGs use harsh chemicals, etc.  So when a smart CG advertises his service, he will make an effort to set himself apart from the bad actors.  It is easy to do.

Ya, pretty much any salesman can say what'll get a patient in.  I've got all my patients because of sweet talkers who couldn't deliver.  Lot's of people can talk a good game and string people along.  One was my patient well a female patients cg who also owned a dispensary and hires local college kids to trim.  See the line gets blurred when you figure a lot of these disp owners are also cg's.