How To Open A Legal Dispensary !

[Norby]

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.

Or a way of knowing which cg's and disps are selling crappy meds and are unreliable.  If disps were legal you'd get actual competition instead of just the people ballsy enough to stick out there neck for money or to genuinely help patients. I just don't understand why it's so hard for ebveryone to get their way.  It's quite obvious that people want to grow their own, have a cg or go to a store.  Some want farmers mkts with the most competition, widest variety and largest wealth of knowledge available.  Some want them tested, some don't care either way if it's only 3-5/bag to get something tested.  I just don't understand why everyone has to be against someone getting their way, as long as you can do your own way who cares if there are others.  Just because i want tested meds doesn;t mean I want everyones tested.  Just because I want to grow my own and supply a few others doesn't mean I want there to be no stores or no one able to grow for themselves.  And aove all I think we can mostly agree we don't want gov't limiting anyones options or favoring any one.  I just wish we could get individuals so we don't throw everyone under the bus and have to choose sides.

[Highlander]

Or a way of knowing which cg's and disps are selling crappy meds and are unreliable.  If disps were legal you'd get actual competition instead of just the people ballsy enough to stick out there neck for money or to genuinely help patients. I just don't understand why it's so hard for ebveryone to get their way.  It's quite obvious that people want to grow their own, have a cg or go to a store.  Some want farmers mkts with the most competition, widest variety and largest wealth of knowledge available.  Some want them tested, some don't care either way if it's only 3-5/bag to get something tested.  I just don't understand why everyone has to be against someone getting their way, as long as you can do your own way who cares if there are others.  Just because i want tested meds doesn;t mean I want everyones tested.  Just because I want to grow my own and supply a few others doesn't mean I want there to be no stores or no one able to grow for themselves.  And aove all I think we can mostly agree we don't want gov't limiting anyones options or favoring any one.  I just wish we could get individuals so we don't throw everyone under the bus and have to choose sides.

 

 

This is what most of us want.  So we want controls/assurances that no one group gets their way all the way.

 

In AZ, the dispensary lobby successfully got any home grow eliminated within 25 miles of a dispensary.

 

In Cali, we saw the dispensary lobby oppose legalization.

 

In Washington State, we saw  the recreational lobby try to get taxes raised on MMJ so recreational could better compete with medical.

 

In Michigan, we've seen the dispensary lobbyists try to scare lawmakers into thinking that home grows are a huge danger.

 

So tell me, how to we give everyone what they want without someone (usually the one with the deepest pockets) trying to keep getting bigger and bigger pieces of the pie?

[Alphabob]

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.   

 

Good point. 4(e) only says that such actions shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances and fails to list the extensive protections behind 4(b); just another aspect that clearly shows these two sections are separate and distinct. In theory, it would protect you from arrest in terms of controlled substance violations, but any other listed protections would be gone (i.e. the "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" part). Many of us know how well this immunity works in real world situations however... very poorly if at all.

 

Just a side note; there will be some significant challenges for home grows in the near term (5 - 20 years). The electrical demand it is placing on the grid is substantial, which is made worse by inefficient grows or inexperienced growers. Furthermore, I don't know if you guys have noticed but night time temperatures have been significantly increasing over the last couple of decades. This is requiring individuals to run their AC 24/7 during the summer, further taxing the grid. So although I do support growing your own, things are not as simple as they may seem. It may turn out that high efficiency commercial grows  are needed to offload some of this demand on an outdated infrastructure, which is being made worse due to a changing climate. Perhaps solar panels or greenhouses would be a good investment.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/as-pot-growing-expands-power-demands-tax-u-s-electricity-grids

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3487551/Nights-getting-hotter-Scientist-discover-temperatures-hours-darkness-rising-faster-daytime.html

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alphabob

[+Malamute]

It isn't like these dispensary owners are mythical. There are only like 300 in the state.

[Highlander]

I meant section 3. If there is a distinction, it must exist there also.

 

Fair enough.  Section 3 is definitions.  I don't see any a/the ambiguity in Section 3.  Is there something specific you were referring to?

[Highlander]

Good point. 4(e) only says that such actions shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances and fails to list the extensive protections behind 4(b); just another aspect that clearly shows these two sections are separate and distinct. In theory, it would protect you from arrest in terms of controlled substance violations, but any other listed protections would be gone (i.e. the "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" part). Many of us know how well this immunity works in real world situations however... very poorly if at all.

 

Just a side note; there will be some significant challenges for home grows in the near term (5 - 20 years). The electrical demand it is placing on the grid is substantial, which is made worse by inefficient grows or inexperienced growers. Furthermore, I don't know if you guys have noticed but night time temperatures have been significantly increasing over the last couple of decades. This is requiring individuals to run their AC 24/7 during the summer, further taxing the grid. So although I do support growing your own, things are not as simple as they may seem. It may turn out that high efficiency commercial grows  are needed to offload some of this demand on an outdated infrastructure, which is being made worse due to a changing climate. Perhaps solar panels or greenhouses would be a good investment.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/as-pot-growing-expands-power-demands-tax-u-s-electricity-grids

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3487551/Nights-getting-hotter-Scientist-discover-temperatures-hours-darkness-rising-faster-daytime.html

 

4(e) is problematic for several reasons.  In the early days, a lot of people looked at 4(e) as saying that it is illegal to sell MMJ and that a CG can only be compensated for out-of-pocket costs. I didn't believe it  then and still don't.   I believe that 4(e) doesn't put any added requirement on the CG; rather it says that a CG's transfer of MMJ for a price isn't a "sale of controlled substances,"  not even that said transfer isn't a "sale."  The words "of a controlled substance" are there for a reason.  If the intent of the law had been to say that a CG can't sell MMJ, then the words "of a controlled substance" would have no meaning.  So we have to interpret that the words do have some meaning, otherwise the sentence would simply state "Any such compensation shall not constitute a sale."

 

As you probably know, the COA ruled  that "sale" of MMJ is not protected because "sale" is not included in "medical use" and "sale" means a transfer for a price - not simply a transfer.  The MSC rightfully ruled that a "sale" is a type of transfer, and therefore, certain sales of MMJ are protected under the act.

 

Where the problems arise, primarily, is the protection of p2p and CG2CG sales.  One would have to conclude that if 4(e) allows a CG to sell MMJ to a patient, but 4(e) says nothing about a patient selling to a patient or a CG selling to a CG, that this omission in intentional, such that there is no protection for p2p or CG2CG sales.

 

. 

 

 

 

The various interpretations would ripple through the act.  For example,

[+Malamute]

Just something I wrote awhile ago ...

 

 

 

MMMAct-

 

Sec 6(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.

 

 

 

 

Definiton of "costs" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Cost" n 1. The amount paid or charged for something; price or expenditure. Cf. EXPENSE

 

 Types of costs:

 

 aboriginal cost

 after cost

 applied cost

 average cost

 avoidable cost

 carrying cost

 common cost

 cost of completion

 direct cost

 distribution cost

 fixed cost

 flotation cost

 historical cost

 implicit cost

 indirect cost

 manufacturing cost

 marginal cost

 mitigation cost

 mixed cost

 net book cost

 opportunity cost

 original cost

 prime cost

 prophylactic cost

 replacement cost

 social cost

 sunk cost

 tangible cost

 transaction cost

 unit cost

 variable cost

 

It goes on for 2 more pages with full definitions... ;-)

 

 

 

Definition of "Compensate" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Compensate" vb. 1. To pay (another) for services rendered <the lawyer was fairly compensated for their time and effort> 2. To make an amendatory payment to; to recompensate.

 

 

Definition of "Compensation" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Compensation" n. Remuneration and other benefits recieved in return for services rendered; esp. salary or wages.

   "Compensation consists of wages and benefits in return for services. It is payment for work, If the work contracted for is not done, there is no obligation to pay. [Compensation] includes wages, stock options plans, profit-sharing, commissions, bonuses, golden parachutes, vacation, sick pay, medical benefits, disability, leaves of absence, and expense reimbursement." Kurt H. Decker & H. Thomas Felix II, Drafting and Revising Employment Contracts S 3.17, at 68(1991).

 

 

 Definition of "Expense" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

 "Expense" n.  An expenditure of money, time, labor, or resources to accomplish a result;

[Alphabob]

Section 3 only uses “a” throughout the language, but you would have to look at how the definitions interact for meaning. Under ‘caregiver’ it does not state anything about having to register or even being connected to a patient. It simply states “…a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana…”. “‘Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia…”. This would therefore imply that “the” is an exception that provides additional section 4/8 defenses to individuals directly connected to a particular patient, i.e. caregiver, doctor, ect. Although ‘a patient’, ‘a caregiver’ and ‘a physician’ refer to indefinite individuals in specific groups, some individuals in each group are connected to others by a definitive ‘the’.

 

I agree with the history of 4(e), but I also side with Justice Cavanagh that 4(d)(2) only refers to the patient receiving medical marijuana. Thus a patient providing it to another would not have their ‘medical use’ questioned, as long as they abide by limits and section 7. The problem I have with MSC ruling is how they ignore basic law. If section 4(b) includes protections for selling to connected patients, then section 4(e) cannot be interpreted in the same manner. When the section leaves out both the language of being connected to a patient and extended protections beyond controlled substance laws, its a no-brainer. I believe this is what the Syllabus is referring to with Justice Cavanagh by “The majority’s interpretation was inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation…”.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alphabob

[trichcycler]

BAM ! BAM! BAM ! guys, thanks for the work above, awesome!!!!

[Highlander]

Good point. 4(e) only says that such actions shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances and fails to list the extensive protections behind 4(b); just another aspect that clearly shows these two sections are separate and distinct. In theory, it would protect you from arrest in terms of controlled substance violations, but any other listed protections would be gone (i.e. the "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" part). Many of us know how well this immunity works in real world situations however... very poorly if at all.

 

Just a side note; there will be some significant challenges for home grows in the near term (5 - 20 years). The electrical demand it is placing on the grid is substantial, which is made worse by inefficient grows or inexperienced growers. Furthermore, I don't know if you guys have noticed but night time temperatures have been significantly increasing over the last couple of decades. This is requiring individuals to run their AC 24/7 during the summer, further taxing the grid. So although I do support growing your own, things are not as simple as they may seem. It may turn out that high efficiency commercial grows  are needed to offload some of this demand on an outdated infrastructure, which is being made worse due to a changing climate. Perhaps solar panels or greenhouses would be a good investment.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/as-pot-growing-expands-power-demands-tax-u-s-electricity-grids

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3487551/Nights-getting-hotter-Scientist-discover-temperatures-hours-darkness-rising-faster-daytime.html

You are wise to be thinking ahead on the future cost of indoor growing. But I don't share the same doomsday outlook. When I had my first indoor garden, I wasn't aware of a single indoor garden store in Michigan. This was in about 1996. Cali had just passed the first med MMJ law. I found exactly one website with indoor growing advice. It was published by a guy in Cali and called "James' grow at home journal." He discussed how to buy commercial HIDs and convert them for growing. And he chronicled his grow from his initial DIY setup to finish. I was super-paranoid back then. I was even too paranoid to buy lights from Home Depot, let alone go to a local electrical supply house to buy the needed capacitors and ignitors to convert a parking lot light for an indoor grow. I used some old t-12 flourscents, a halogen work lamp, and a mercury vapor. Still, I had a decent harvest. Better than the brick I had been buying through established channels.

 

We made a lot of progress in the intervening 20 years. There is so much more information available now. New growers are learning how to maximize potency with known strains and are learning grow techniques to maximize yield. Cloning, rather than growing bagseed, saves a lot of time, effort, and electricity. Practicing good indoor grow management easily quadruples indoor yields today vs. yields 20 years ago. This also results in higher potency in the finished product. With all of the information now available, this trend can't help but continue.

 

Now, we are finally seeing progress with more efficient lighting. I bought a few LED fixtures in 2009. They were terrible. Just a few days ago, I visited a CG friend who converted to LEDs recently. He spent about $900 per fixture to replace each 1,000 watt HPS, with each fixture using less than 400 watts and generating little to no heat. He sells excess meds at a farmers market. His meds were as good as any I've encountered, and he yields about 4 oz per plant, grown in dirt and vegged for about 60 days and flowered for about 9 weeks.

 

The demand for efficient indoor grow lights is finally pushing the market to offer better solutions.

 

This CG grows his maximum of 72 plants and harvests four plants per week with an average yield of 4 oz per plant....so a pound a week. His total costs, after about a $10,000 investment in his setup, are about $600/month.

 

Capitalize that $10,000 over five years, and add the monthly costs. Then divide by 64 oz/month. That comes to a total cost of about $12 per oz, not including any labor.

[Highlander]

Section 3 only uses “a” throughout the language, but you would have to look at how the definitions interact for meaning. Under ‘caregiver’ it does not state anything about having to register or even being connected to a patient. It simply states “…a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana…”. “‘Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia…”. This would therefore imply that “the” is an exception that provides additional section 4/8 defenses to individuals directly connected to a particular patient, i.e. caregiver, doctor, ect. Although ‘a patient’, ‘a caregiver’ and ‘a physician’ refer to indefinite individuals in specific groups, some individuals in each group are connected to others by a definitive ‘the’.

 

I agree with the history of 4(e), but I also side with Justice Cavanagh that 4(d)(2) only refers to the patient receiving medical marijuana. Thus a patient providing it to another would not have their ‘medical use’ questioned, as long as they abide by limits and section 7. The problem I have with MSC ruling is how they ignore basic law. If section 4(b) includes protections for selling to connected patients, then section 4(e) cannot be interpreted in the same manner. When the section leaves out both the language of being connected to a patient and extended protections beyond controlled substance laws, its a no-brainer. I believe this is what the Syllabus is referring to with Justice Cavanagh by “The majority’s interpretation was inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation…”.

This is all good fodder to fire from our cannons when case law comes-up. If only we the people could weigh-in on a COA or MSC proceeding, which, it seems we should be able to do considering that the MMMA was a peoples' initiative and should be interpreted in laymans' parlance.

 

Myself, I agree with the majority opinion of the MSC on the McQueen ruling. But who am I? Just another layperson schmuck. So we have Justice Cavanaugh writing a dissenting opinion. I can't buy-into his opinion, mostly because his dissenting opinion, which stated that the majority opinion didn't properly consider rules of statutory interpretation, offered no detail. I'd love to see a thorough dissenting opinion on this topic.

[t-pain]

The people that wrote the law, paid for the law and passed the law will tell you without any fidget room, dispensaries or patient to patient transfers were never ever in the law.

then why does sec4a protect patients for transfer and delivery?

[t-pain]

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.

"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.

reminds me of this from mcqueen actually.

 

While the introductory language of § 4(d) refers to “a” qualifying patient, that indefinite article simply means that any qualifying patient may claim § 4(d) immunity, as long as the

marijuana-related conduct is related to alleviating “the” patient’s medical condition.

 

 

so the MSC switches "a" and "any" when they want to , and dont switch "a" and "any" when they dont want to.

 

a means any. can we move on now?

[Norby]

This is what most of us want.  So we want controls/assurances that no one group gets their way all the way.

 

In AZ, the dispensary lobby successfully got any home grow eliminated within 25 miles of a dispensary.

 

In Cali, we saw the dispensary lobby oppose legalization.

 

In Washington State, we saw  the recreational lobby try to get taxes raised on MMJ so recreational could better compete with medical.

 

In Michigan, we've seen the dispensary lobbyists try to scare lawmakers into thinking that home grows are a huge danger.

 

So tell me, how to we give everyone what they want without someone (usually the one with the deepest pockets) trying to keep getting bigger and bigger pieces of the pie?

By singling them out and fighting them, not by throwing ALL dispensaries or ALL caregivers or ALL patients in a group.  We NEED to stick together to fight them.  Is it possible?  Not sure but I know it isn't possible if we separate into groups.  Go against all dispensaries and the ma and pa disps and we(cg and patients who want dispensaries or caregivers) loose to the dispensary lobby.

[+Malamute]

The people that wrote the law, paid for the law and passed the law will tell you without any fidget room, dispensaries or patient to patient transfers were never ever in the law.

 

 

 

then why does sec4a protect patients for transfer and delivery?

 

Let me just preface all of this with the fact I fought FOR pt/pt.

 

 

First, When asking MPP about the possibility of pt/pt transfers, they unequivocally stated they did not intend for there to be a concept of pt/pt transfers in the law they wrote.  Any possible interpretation of the law they wrote that may lead one to believe that, was unintentional. 

 

Now, there are laws written daily that authorize or do things that are unintended. Drafters of legal language screw up all the time. During the cutting, drafting and pasting process, some words were left in that may have altered original intent. Thus why we ran with the concept that pt/pt may be legal due to an error in the drafting process. 

 

Also, MPP knows they didn't allow for such transfers in the language and did do their best to correct that in several states, such as Rhode Island, by amending their previous language in the legislature(wouldn't it be nice to have a reasonable legislature) to include such transfers without remuneration.

Rhode Island Amendment:

 

 (o) A cardholder may give marijuana to another cardholder to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 21-28.6-4.

 

 

The restrictor on compensation in our law comes in the fact they specified the only person who can receive compensation that isn't considered sale of a controlled substance thus leading to the idea that patients cannot.: They didn't want drug felons selling drugs.

 

(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.

 

 

But to address your point, of course we have the definition of medical use to look at:

 

Sec.3(f) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

 

When added to Sec4(a) as you state:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient 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 the medical use  DELIVERY of marihuana  in accordance with this act,.....

 

 

Which is where we have continually ended up at.  Is delivery inclusive and allowable "in accordance with this act?"

 

 Our courts say No.  As is discussed in depth for years now. Please don't make me type it all out for the 7 millionth time.

 

So,.. what do we know?

 

The Drafters  ofour law, as I stated, absolutely 100% did not intend for pt/pt transfers under Sec. 4 protections. They have stated this publically and actually set out to resolve that problem in the future draft language they propose, and in amendments to current laws to allow for it.

 

The drafters were generally incompetent booobs as has been shown over and over and over again. But hey, they tried and did get it passed, so only so much criticism can be laid at their feet. It has been our responsibility to fix their mistakes. Unfortunately we are dealing with a republican and unfriendly government.  Rhode island had no problem adding compassion centers, pt/pt transfers, housing protections etc etc etc.  Our government is terrible.

 

Also, our courts are terrible as we all know. I 100% believe, liberally interpreted, we could have had pt/pt transfer without compensation if we had liberal judges.  But we have an insanely conservative judiciary and we now live by their interpretations; an interpretation that does consider original intent, unfortunately, as stated by MPP.

 

 

As far as very specifically the argument you may be looking for T-pain,... it doesn't really exist; the answer to "why?... oversight and incompetence I guess?

[+Malamute]

By singling them out and fighting them, not by throwing ALL dispensaries or ALL caregivers or ALL patients in a group.  We NEED to stick together to fight them.  Is it possible?  Not sure but I know it isn't possible if we separate into groups.  Go against all dispensaries and the ma and pa disps and we(cg and patients who want dispensaries or caregivers) loose to the dispensary lobby.

 

Patients and caregivers did not start this fight. Commercialists did.  Caregivers didn't come out and say they thought dispensaries were bad. Dispensaries came out and said caregivers are bad, dangerous, put patients at risk, grow unsafe medicine, that safe medicine cannot be grown by individuals in their basement and that caregivers require blowjobs from their patients in parking lots.  And I could go on and on and on and on and on and on.

 So,... no, they(commercialists) have proven themselves untrustworthy, dangerous, harmful and willing to destroy caregivers completely.  And even the ones that don't want to see caregivers restricted or removed, will barely shed a crocodile tear if they get what they want.  Commercialists think their hopes and dreams will be fulfilled by making a fortune off the backs of the sick and disabled people in Michigan.

 

 Patients and caregivers have done nothing but defend themselves from the onslaught of greed and commercialism.  Patients and caregivers could give a crapp about the concept of dispensaries. We give a crapp because of what they say and do over and over and over again throughout the entire country.

[+Malamute]

At what cost Norby?

 

What are you willing to give up for dispensaries?

 

 In this state, without a ballot initiative, what are you willing to give up for dispensaries to exist 'legally'?

 

 It is going to cost.  Inspections for growers? Local registration of grow? Caregivers serving only 1 patient now? Removal of home growing for patients? Less plants and Usable allowed?  Public database for police?

 

It is going to cost Norby. What are YOU willing to give up for dispensaries?

 

 This is not a philosophical discussion. This is reality.

 

 I WILL NEVER stand beside groups that propose all of what I said there and MUCH MUCH more, just so they can become commercialists.

[imiubu]

Yep, what Mal said.

 

 

Norby, I've done my homework.  I've kept up with the news.  I keep reference files and bookmarks etc...

I do have this information stored somewhere in my voluminous and currently quite disorganized files.

 

I have a vested interest in all of this so, I took the time to gather the info.

 

Perhaps, if this is a subject of interest to you/ others... they should also do the same research?

 

There is a site that will tell you exactly who paid how much to which legislators etc...

I don't remember the name and I am not going to look for it atm.

 

Maybe someone else can link it up real quick?

 

There will be a place to start.  Then there are oodles and oodles of quotes right from

the horses mouth.  I just don't have it in me this morning to dig it all up.

 

We are not lying about this... where do you think Senator Jones got the idea that home

grows are dangerous and CG grow moldy cannabis along with all kinds of disinformation?

The PATIENTS?  The small home grower w/ no interest in commercialization?

 

As I've said plenty of times b4... the few spoil it for the many... and that is just a fact

of life.

 

Not all disp owners are part of the lobby... okay, that's possible.

 

 

Here's a thought.  If 'all' the disp owners are/ were originally CG's... then BAM!

they have the capitol to open a store front... well, makes me wonder just how

close they were following the law prior and what created this mega cash flow?

 

Where did that capitol originate?

 

hmmm

 

Got a banging headache and am sorry if I come across pizzy.

 

 

Edit to add;

I get out into the community.  I go to events, meetings, the Capitol bldg.

LARA hearings, etc, etc...

 

Maybe some folks need to broaden their horizons further than the screen

and keyboard in front of them for a closer look at the cannabis world in MI.

[Restorium2]

And even if you don't get out much you have had to have heard this;

 

The Michigan Legislator, lobbied by the dispensaries, said this on record;

 

A VOTE AGAINST (MY LEGALIZATION OF DISPENSARIES BILL) IS A VOTE FOR HOME GROWS.

 

He actually told us we could have one or the other and if you want dispensaries then home grows are dead.

[Norby]

Patients and caregivers did not start this fight. Commercialists did.  Caregivers didn't come out and say they thought dispensaries were bad. Dispensaries came out and said caregivers are bad, dangerous, put patients at risk, grow unsafe medicine, that safe medicine cannot be grown by individuals in their basement and that caregivers require blowjobs from their patients in parking lots.  And I could go on and on and on and on and on and on.

 So,... no, they(commercialists) have proven themselves untrustworthy, dangerous, harmful and willing to destroy caregivers completely.  And even the ones that don't want to see caregivers restricted or removed, will barely shed a crocodile tear if they get what they want.  Commercialists think their hopes and dreams will be fulfilled by making a fortune off the backs of the sick and disabled people in Michigan.

 

 Patients and caregivers have done nothing but defend themselves from the onslaught of greed and commercialism.  Patients and caregivers could give a crapp about the concept of dispensaries. We give a crapp because of what they say and do over and over and over again throughout the entire country.

So ALL dispensaries came out and said caregivers are bad?  And when I dropped off tests yesterday 7 of 10 samples that week came back with mold(which they don't post publicly on Iron Labs site).  So are the dispensaries just reporting what they see in testing and cg are getting "back" at them.  Because as I said I got my patients because tehir caregivers were selling them moldy meds and couldn't get rid of mites.

 

And i give a crap about my patients who had to go to dispensaries and get moldy meds from their caregivers so it looks like no one is in the clear here.  It seems that if you had the info of who is the dispensary lobby that would've been one of the highlighted things on the site, unless of course you were just trying to lump all disps together and cause a cg/disp war.

 

I've read the statements.  i know there is bad on both sides. but I'll say it again, if you group all disps and cg together we've already lost.  Maybe you should start using the term commercial dispensary lobby(not ma and pa disps) so there isn't confusion.  It took me over 2 years to finally get someone to say that the disp lobby wasn't the current ma and pa shops and I think that it was blurred for a reason.

[Norby]

Yep, what Mal said.

 

 

Norby, I've done my homework.  I've kept up with the news.  I keep reference files and bookmarks etc...

I do have this information stored somewhere in my voluminous and currently quite disorganized files.

 

I have a vested interest in all of this so, I took the time to gather the info.

 

Perhaps, if this is a subject of interest to you/ others... they should also do the same research?

 

There is a site that will tell you exactly who paid how much to which legislators etc...

I don't remember the name and I am not going to look for it atm.

 

Maybe someone else can link it up real quick?

 

There will be a place to start.  Then there are oodles and oodles of quotes right from

the horses mouth.  I just don't have it in me this morning to dig it all up.

 

We are not lying about this... where do you think Senator Jones got the idea that home

grows are dangerous and CG grow moldy cannabis along with all kinds of disinformation?

The PATIENTS?  The small home grower w/ no interest in commercialization?

 

As I've said plenty of times b4... the few spoil it for the many... and that is just a fact

of life.

 

Not all disp owners are part of the lobby... okay, that's possible.

 

 

Here's a thought.  If 'all' the disp owners are/ were originally CG's... then BAM!

they have the capitol to open a store front... well, makes me wonder just how

close they were following the law prior and what created this mega cash flow?

 

Where did that capitol originate?

 

hmmm

 

Got a banging headache and am sorry if I come across pizzy.

 

 

Edit to add;

I get out into the community.  I go to events, meetings, the Capitol bldg.

LARA hearings, etc, etc...

 

Maybe some folks need to broaden their horizons further than the screen

and keyboard in front of them for a closer look at the cannabis world in MI.

And you have all this info and these are the posts you make.  I have the info, I've done the work but I don't feel like giving you the info?  Maybe if everyone had that attitude there wouldn't be ANY information on this site.  Maybe, like me, you should post more about your experiences outside this bobard.  I try to post all I can about NYS but people don't want to hear it.  I post everything about my CBD experiences.  What if I just said I know about it but I don't feel like looking it up?  Do you not think it's important?  Do you not want people to know so that they just lump them all together?  It seems that the info you speak of should be what this site is about.

[imiubu]

Please clarify 'ma and pa shops' .

imho they almost all began as this type shop as they aren't like franchised or anything

 

 

I could very well link up the info but I'm not doing it at this moment.

 

I am still suggesting that people do a bit of their own leg work.

[Norby]

At what cost Norby?

 

What are you willing to give up for dispensaries?

 

 In this state, without a ballot initiative, what are you willing to give up for dispensaries to exist 'legally'?

 

 It is going to cost.  Inspections for growers? Local registration of grow? Caregivers serving only 1 patient now? Removal of home growing for patients? Less plants and Usable allowed?  Public database for police?

 

It is going to cost Norby. What are YOU willing to give up for dispensaries?

 

 This is not a philosophical discussion. This is reality.

 

 I WILL NEVER stand beside groups that propose all of what I said there and MUCH MUCH more, just so they can become commercialists.

Not a thing, we deserve both as that is what PATIENTS want.  It doesn't matter what I want, what do the patients who use disps want?  I'm not going to throw them under the bus.  The reality is that splitting and making people choose between one or the other will never work.

 

PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS USE DISPENSARIES, stop lying.  If they couldn't care less about them they wouldn't be USING them.

[Norby]

Please clarify 'ma and pa shops' .

imho they almost all began as this type shop as they aren't like franchised or anything

 

 

I could very well link up the info but I'm not doing it at this moment.

 

I am still suggesting that people do a bit of their own leg work.

The ones that don

't support the dispensary lobby, you should know you have the list.

[+Malamute]

Almost all that information is on this site Norby. Use the search function yourself instead of being too lazy.