Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Under the new administrative rules for the MMFLA there is a specific section that addresses the transition period for MMFLA license holders. Rule 20 (included below) specifically references a transition period of 30 days in which marihuana products can be entered into the statewide monitoring system from the time a license is issued.

Rule 20. Transition period. (1) To ensure the safety, security, and integrity of the operation of marihuana facilities, there is a transition period consisting of 30 calendar days during which marihuana product can be entered into the statewide monitoring system to ensure statewide tracking beginning on the day a state operating license is issued to a licensee for the first time except for additional licenses issued to the same license holder for a stacked license after a first license is issued. (2) Within the 30-calendar-day period, a licensee shall do all of the following: (a) Record all marihuana product in the statewide monitoring system during this 30-calendar-day period as prescribed by the act and these rules. (b)Tag or package all inventory that has been identified in the statewide monitoring system as prescribed by the act and these rules. (c) Comply with all testing requirements as prescribed by the act and these rules. (3) After the 30-calendar-day period, any marihuana product that has not been identified in the statewide monitoring system under these rules and the act is prohibited from being onsite at a marihuana facility. (4) A violation of this rule may result in sanctions or fines, or both. (5) At any time during this 30-calendar-day period and thereafter, a marihuana facility is subject to an inspection under Rule 16.

Does this mean that any outside products (most likely produced by caregivers; plants, concentrates, and flower) would be allowed to be transitioned into the licensing system as long as they are tagged and meet testing requirements? 

This would be extremely beneficial to the transition to ensure that there is an uninterrupted supply of marihuana to patients, who rely upon dispensaries. Individuals applying for licenses or involved with such entities should still proceed with extreme caution as this rule does not legalize transfers of plants, concentrates, or flower from one caregiver to another or from a caregiver to a license holder and admitting to possession of a larger amount than 1 caregiver is allowed to carry at once or admitting to receiving a transfer from a caregiver may be incriminatory on both the license holder and the caregiver.

The question that still remains is that when an individual at a facility identifies 1,500 fully grown plants in their facility 1 day after receiving a license, is the state going to want to know where that came from?

Given the fact that caregivers are given a 5 day window to relinquish their caregiver status once approved for licensing and license holders are allowed a 30 day window to tag and test all items into the seed to sale tracking software, the question of what a transitioning caregiver should do is definitely a question to consider.

See below link for entire administrative rules:


Follow this thread as more insight and commentary will be provided daily on the emergency administrative rules and other rulings in relation to the MMFLA.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day there is some fascinating conundrum presented by LARA/BMMR.   The other day there was a post indicating that LARA was willing to accept 72 plants as nearly 100% of the liquid assets requirement for a 500 plant license.  The idea was that you had 72 ready to harvest plants each with 7 ounces valued at $300/z (LARA's #'s).   This would represent $144,000 of your $150K capitalization.   Curious how this plays out when you submit your application showing that you are ready to harvest 30+ pounds and they then turn you down.  Do then then arrest you for being over your 15z limit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Josh_Colton

I would definitely be of the opinion that any individual who applies for a license should avoid listing any caregiver plants, usable marihuana or any other marihuana infused products as part of their capitalization. Nothing good can come from the scenario described above. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The really big winners will be the existing dispensaries that are licensed locally.  

The locally licensed dispensaries now have until 2/15 to submit an application. Assuming that all the other non-locally licensed dispensaries close, the dispensaries in Detroit and Ann Arbor will have the market to themselves.   At the same time they can continue to buy from their existing sources until they get their license.  The net result could be a 4-6 month market place of only a handful of operating dispensaries that will be able to operate outside the BMMR rules that apply to state licensed dispensaries.  


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, semicaregiver said:

The really big winners will be the existing dispensaries that are licensed locally.  

The locally licensed dispensaries now have until 2/15 to submit an application. Assuming that all the other non-locally licensed dispensaries close, the dispensaries in Detroit and Ann Arbor will have the market to themselves.   At the same time they can continue to buy from their existing sources until they get their license.  The net result could be a 4-6 month market place of only a handful of operating dispensaries that will be able to operate outside the BMMR rules that apply to state licensed dispensaries.  


Pretty much what we have had for the last what, 5-8 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I would be of the assessment that any person who applies for a permit ought to abstain from posting any parental figure plants, usable marihuana or some other marihuana injected items as a feature of their capitalization. No good thing can emerge out of the situation portrayed previously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kevinjoseph said:

I would be of the assessment that any person who applies for a permit ought to abstain from posting any parental figure plants, usable marihuana or some other marihuana injected items as a feature of their capitalization. No good thing can emerge out of the situation portrayed previously.

I don’t know, last month or the month before a dude was approved for a class A and his capitalization attestation included 72 plants and a picture of a pile of cash. 

You never know. 

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By T2Tone
      Michigan's #1 Podcast about Cannabis legal issues, licensing, medical marijuana and other stuff in the realm of legal matters.
      The Planet Green Trees Podcast is hosted by attorney Michael Komorn, co-hosted by Jamie Lowell, Rick Thompson, Jim Powers and Debra Young. The Planet Green Trees Podcast dives deep into the waters of Cannabis Law and Culture with guests that are leading the way in the booming industry.
      Planet Green Trees Episode - 434 "Vacated, Vindicated and Medicated"
      Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity Florida Congressman Wants To Downgrade Controlled Substance Scheduling For Marijuana MI AG Nessel Forms Marijuana Legal Workgroup WATCH PLANET GREEN TREES SHOW HERE

    • By Michael Komorn
      No love for dispensaries or other cannabis businesses in Michigan cities / townships.
    • Guest Josh_Colton
      By Guest Josh_Colton
      The BMMR has provided a list of 3rd party software providers that integrate with the METRC
    • By Michael Komorn
      Pregnancy and Medical Marijuana
      Expectant mothers are searching for answers about the safety profile of Medical Marijuana. Unfortunately the scientific community has dropped the ball and kicked it off the cliff on this issue. The lack of scientific research is due to marijuana’s illegality. Further, there exist huge biases within the published research. Mostly the research confounds marijuana use with tobacco and/or alcohol, two known causes of fetus and child harm. Separating out marijuana effects from the self-reported research on mothers who also smoke tobacco and drink alcohol is impossible. Likewise no pregnant women are signing up for research studies due to the illegality of marijuana and CPS removing children from mothers for testing positive for marijuana use.
      Many organizations quote from other organizations, who quote from other studies and reviews. The Minnesota Department of Health OFFICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS quotes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee report:
      In the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists official committee opinion, interim update Oct 2017, the committee found:
      Uninformed opinion, with zero evidence and lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are used to scare mothers away from a nontoxic plant. These uninformed unscientific opinions are being used by lawmakers to craft laws continuing the cycle of FUD and the illegality of marijuana. “Oh we don’t know what marijuana does, so let’s treat it like heroin” and “if anyone questions our opinion of marijuana, we’ll call them dirty lazy pothead stoner hippies” or “puppets of the marijuana industry”.
      But we do know what marijuana does. One cannot live in a bubble and ignore reality and the world around us. Women smoke and eat marijuana while pregnant.
      Cannabis use during pregnancy in France in 2010
      Trends in Self-reported and Biochemically Tested Marijuana Use Among Pregnant Females in California From 2009-2016

      Much of the opinions on marijuana are tainted by a small number of poorly designed studies on marijuana. For example, the National Institute of Health gives grants to researchers through NIDA, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to study marijuana. NIDA’s focus is on drug abuse, so 90% of its grants are for studies on marijuana abuse, not marijuana benefits. When you ignore half of your research, you ignore science. Many of these studies are completed in order to get future grants from NIDA; research is often conducted from the conclusion backwards in order to show some kind of harm from marijuana use. This, in of itself, does not bias research.
      The bias is introduced when researchers are rushed and forced to publish results, even if the studies were deficient. For example, every website and newspaper ran with the story about marijuana using children lose IQ points. Not many reported on the follow-up study that could not replicate the first study. When eliminating co-founders, the new study found no drop in IQ points. Further, research on twin siblings showed that the drop in IQ was due to parenting, binge drinking or other societal influences, not marijuana.

      Try reading that last sentence again. In a world of science, evidence, reasoning and logic, a doctor makes a statement that decades of use of marijuana might make you lose intellectual function, based on conjecture.
      NIDA also continues to perpetuate the myth that Marijuana is a “gateway drug”.
      These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances.
      NIDA, NIH, FDA, DEA, including other federal, state, and local government organizations and private companies continue to perpetuate these and other lies in order to keep marijuana illegal. ASA has filed complaints against the DEA multiple times to get it to remove incorrect statements about marijuana off of the DEA’s website.
      A cyclical pattern emerges from the current and past situation surrounding marijuana.
      1.      Stymied scientific research, due to illegality of marijuana and government funding biases
      2.      Using stymied scientific research as a reason to ignore reality.
      3.      Repeating the biased scientific research, long after it was shown to be deficient.
      4.      Using the deficient biased research in “meta-reviews”. Thus taking bad science as a base to create more bad science just by doing an analysis of the bad science conclusions.
      5.      Even after a research study has been fully proven to be deficient and conflicting with better research, continue to hold it up as if it is still valid in some way.
      6.      Publish opinions as if they were facts, without any data to back up any claims.
      Continue reading for more conflicting studies and more calls for research.
      Marijuana: Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure in the Human
      Marijuana use in pregnancy and lactation: a review of the evidence
      Marijuana and Pregnancy
      The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy
      Prenatal Tobacco, Marijuana, Stimulant, and Opiate Exposure: Outcomes and Practice Implications 
      Many of these studies contradict themselves. Some report differences in birth weight, some show no differences. Read the studies yourself!
      House bill 5422 will force MMFLA provisioning centers to give patients and caregivers an unscientific pamphlet, as described by the legislature.
      HB 5222 looks like it will pass. All this fear and doubt of a non-toxic 5,000+ year old medication used by millions of humans in every country in the world.
    • By Michael Komorn
      After the MMMA was enacted by a vote of 63% of Michigan voters in 2008, the legislature has declined to add any new qualifying conditions to protect patients from arrest.
      Senator Rick Jones even attempted to remove Glaucoma from the MMMP's list of qualifying conditions. Patients , caregivers and other interested parties wrote in opposition to the bill.
      A handful of petitions have been submitted over the years. LARA (and the previous MDCH department) have used various reasons and tricks to deny these petitions. Only Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been added as a qualifying condition to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Autism and Parkinson's disorder petitions were approved by the Michigan medical marihuana review board (the board consists mostly of physicians). These petitions were denied by the LARA director. The petitions were not deficient in any way and should have been accepted by LARA. We resubmitted the Autism petition again, with 20 additional research studies.
      Now, with the help of numerous patients, researchers, Dwight Z. and Dr. Christian Bogner along with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association and Michael Komorn, we have assembled a massive amount of peer-reviewed medical research and government data to show that these conditions should be approved to protect patients, caregivers and physicians from arrest for the medical use of marijuana to treat their conditions.
      This project took months of work. Reading, organizing, searching and collecting thousands of pages of research from all over the world. Including the most up to date medical studies, peer-reviewed patient surveys and the national reviews of all medical marijuana studies by the National Academies of Science. The oldest peer-reviewed medical research paper cited within these petitions was from the first volume of The Lancet in 1889. Birch EA. The use of Indian hemp in the treatment of chronic chloral and chronic opium poisoning. The Lancet. 1889;133:625.
      Cannabis, Indian Hemp, Marijuana, whatever you call it, physicians were using this non-toxic plant in 1889 to treat chronic opium poisoning and opium addiction. As opioid based prescriptions are addicting and killing approximately 142 Americans each day in 2017, medical marijuana is a non-lethal non-toxic way to avoid "America enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks."
      The qualifying condition petitions were based primarily on the following:
      Already approved qualifying conditions in other medical marijuana states. Historical and ancient medical books. Patient self-reports and surveys. US Government Department of Health and Human Services Patent on using marijuana to treat many diseases and injuries, including brain injury on humans. Institute of Medicine 1999 report on medical marijuana. This report was the basis for the MMMA, specifically cited within the Michigan law, MCL 333.26422 (b). National Academies of Science (formerly the Institute of Medicine) 2017 updated report on medical marijuana. Included research not only supports each qualifying condition petition, but also answers questions that the LARA directors, physicians and medical marijuana review panel board members had asked of past petitioners. Reports on dosages, safety profiles of marijuana, statistics from the CDC and Poison Control, and information from NIH, FDA and the DEA are presented in the petitions. This information was included in order to compare the safety, effects and side-effects of medical marijuana with FDA approved prescription medications.
      All of the patients, caregivers, researchers, the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association and it's president Michael Komorn fully agree that marijuana should be removed from the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana should continue to be studied as a treatment for every human and animal disease. Marijuana also should be submitted to the FDA for approval as a medicine. We fully support all clinical trials related to using marijuana as a treatment for any condition, disease or injury. As all of the scientific peer-reviewed published clinical trials show, marijuana is an effective medicine.
      The http://www.nih.gov website was heavily utilized throughout this project for locating scientific peer-reviewed published research, reports and information.
      The petitions are grouped by similar conditions, symptoms or mechanisms of treatment. Included in this post are some choice quotes from a few studies in each group of petitions.
      Marijuana and Medicine Assessing the Science Base 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine

      Medical Cannabis in Arizona: Patient Characteristics, Perceptions, and Impressions of Medical Cannabis Legalization.
      Preliminary assessment of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a cannabis-based medicine (Sativex) inthe treatment of pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis
      Transdermal cannabidiol reduces inflammation and pain-related behaviours in a rat model of arthritis


      Effects of smoked marijuana in experimentally induced asthma.
      Effects of cannabis on lung function: a population-based cohort study
      Newspaper ad from 1876 selling marijuana cigarettes for treating asthma.

      You may laugh at a marijuana cigarette as a real medical treatment, but marijuana is a verified bronchodilator similar in strength to albuterol, the standard asthma medication. The medical efficacy of this specific brand of Asthma cigarettes were specifically exempted within the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as created by the United Nations. This means these marijuana cigarettes were still able to be sold after each country banned marijuana.
      The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017)
      The Impact of Marijuana Use on Glucose, Insulin, and Insulin Resistance among US Adults
      Marijuana Use Patterns Among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
      Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program: Patient Experiences from the First Program Year by the MN Department of Health 2016.
      Cannabinoids and the Urinary Bladder
      Cannabinoids and gastrointestinal motility: Animal and human studies
      Medical cannabis – the Canadian perspective
      Impact of cannabis treatment on the quality of life, weight and clinical disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a pilot prospective study.

      Medical Marijuana and Organ Transplantation: Drug of Abuse, or Medical Necessity?

      LARA statistics show the majority of the 250,000+ patients in the MMMA are using cannabis to treat chronic pain. As we know that the medical use of marijuana can treat “severe and chronic pain” already, it can and should be used to treat regular generic pain that is not severe and chronic.
      The reports and information from the Minnesota Department of Health on its medical marijuana program are very detailed and informative about patients experiences with medical marijuana.
      Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program: Patient Experiences from the First Program Year by the MN Department of Health 2016.
      Other states already approve of medical marijuana for Parkinson's Disease.
      Including: Georgia, Vermont, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and California

      Tourette’s Syndrome is an approved medical marijuana qualifying condition in Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota and Ohio. While the MMMA covers persistant and severe Muscle Spasms, Tourette's Syndrome sufferers may not have the severe symptoms that qualify.
      The 1999 Institute of Medicine report states that marijuana can be used to treat Tourettes

      Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Program lists Autism as a qualifying condition.
      There are two clinical trials for Autism and cannabis in 2017:
      Cannabinoids for Behavioral Problems in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Double Blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial With Crossover.
      Cannabidivarin (CBDV) vs. Placebo in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
      Safety and Efficacy of Medical Cannabis Oil for Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: An-Open Label, Add-On, Pilot Study.
      An Open Label Study of the Use of Dronabinol (Marinol) in the Management of Treatment-Resistant Self-Injurious Behavior in 10 Retarded Adolescent Patients

  • Create New...