Senate Passes Bill To Weed-Out Obstacles To Marijuana Investing

[bobandtorey]

Medical marijuana shops would have an easier time getting financial backing from a bank or credit union, even through their product is federally illegal, under a bill that passed the Senate, 27-7, this morning.

Rep. Klint KESTO's (R-Commerce Twp.)  HB 5144 gives accountants and banks immunity for doing the bookkeeping and administrative work of legal marijuana operations. The bill would also allow a grower to sell marijuana to another grower and a producer to sell a product to another producer. Also, a secure truck wouldn't be needed to transport marijuana from one place to another if they are in the same location. 

In some states, medical marijuana companies have had trouble opening accounts with banks and other financial institutions due to institutional concerns over the federal prohibition. As a result, the companies have come to rely heavily on cash, a development which it is believed would be likely to attract crime. If signed into law,  HB 5144 will provide protections against state or local government prosecutions, thus helping to open the door to companies getting financial backing (See "Committee Looks For Ways To Get Cash Out Of Medical Marijuana Businesses," 11/8/17).

In addition, the bill also prevents the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board from issuing operating licenses to facilities in local governments that haven't previously allowed these types of businesses to open. 

Also, local governments would need to pass an ordinance before allowing medical marijuana shops to open in their municipality. A copy of that resolution would need to be given to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. 

The seven senators who voted against the bill today were Sens. Ken HORN (R-Frankenmuth), Phil PAVLOV  (R-St. Clair), John PROOS  (R-St. Joseph), Dave ROBERTSON  (R-Grand Blanc), Tory ROCCA  (R-Sterling Heights), Tonya SCHUITMAKER  (R-Lawton) and Dale ZORN  (R-Ida).  HB 5144was passed by the House on Nov. 30 with a 95-13 vote. 

MIRS asked Pavlov why he'd voted against the bill. 

"Because I don't think this is a good policy decision for Michigan," Pavlov said. 

MIRS asked if that meant he'd voted "no" because he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana. 

"That's right," Pavlov said.

[shishka]

8 hours ago, bobandtorey said:

Medical marijuana shops would have an easier time getting financial backing from a bank or credit union, even through their product is federally illegal, under a bill that passed the Senate, 27-7, this morning.

Rep. Klint KESTO's (R-Commerce Twp.)  HB 5144 gives accountants and banks immunity for doing the bookkeeping and administrative work of legal marijuana operations. The bill would also allow a grower to sell marijuana to another grower and a producer to sell a product to another producer. Also, a secure truck wouldn't be needed to transport marijuana from one place to another if they are in the same location. 

In some states, medical marijuana companies have had trouble opening accounts with banks and other financial institutions due to institutional concerns over the federal prohibition. As a result, the companies have come to rely heavily on cash, a development which it is believed would be likely to attract crime. If signed into law,  HB 5144 will provide protections against state or local government prosecutions, thus helping to open the door to companies getting financial backing (See "Committee Looks For Ways To Get Cash Out Of Medical Marijuana Businesses," 11/8/17).

In addition, the bill also prevents the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board from issuing operating licenses to facilities in local governments that haven't previously allowed these types of businesses to open. 

Also, local governments would need to pass an ordinance before allowing medical marijuana shops to open in their municipality. A copy of that resolution would need to be given to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. 

 

I assume the author meant temporary operating license?

 

Upon reading the bill nowhere does it state what is in bold in the above quoted article.

I did find this interesting however. 

A GROWER LICENSE AUTHORIZES THE SALE OR TRANSFER OF SEEDS, SEEDLINGS, OR TISSUE CULTURES TO A GROWER FROM A REGISTERED PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR ANOTHER GROWER WITHOUT USING A SECURE TRANSPORTER. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by shishka

[bax]

it does say that in the bill. i thought it was a rule already, its possible they are just making the rule into law. basically you cant get a state license unless the township/locality has an ordinance opting-in to the program. which is what everyone already knew. this bill is actually a common sense bill out of kesto.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-5144

you have to read the s-1 amended substitute bill. not the bill that was introduced. its on page 12:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1k2ixckwvevbvobkyzmoizbh))/documents/2017-2018/billcurrentversion/House/PDF/2017-HCVBH-5144-8795.PDF
 

in a municipality ISSUE A STATE OPERATING LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT 4
unless the municipality IN WHICH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MARIHUANA 5
FACILITY WILL OPERATE has adopted an ordinance that authorizes that 6 type of facility.

that paragraph, although strikethrough does not show here so it looks bad haha ^^^^

which i honestly really cant believe kesto is making this MMFLA thing work. i guess the money is flowing.

 

like john lennon said in 1969, if you want to legalize, give the government its cut of the money.

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by bax

[shishka]

19 hours ago, bobandtorey said:

 

In addition, the bill also prevents the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board from issuing operating licenses to facilities in local governments that haven't previously allowed these types of businesses to open. 

Also, local governments would need to pass an ordinance before allowing medical marijuana shops to open in their municipality. A copy of that resolution would need to be given to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. 

 

I think what you are saying bax is covered by the second paragraph stating an ordinance must first be passed. 

 

What the first paragraph states is that if local govt have not previous allowed facilities,like Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Lansing, Detroit, Flint ect have, that the board will not allow these facilities going forward. 

At least that is the way it reads, otherwise the second paragraph is redundant. 

[Restorium2]

29 minutes ago, shishka said:

I think what you are saying bax is covered by the second paragraph stating an ordinance must first be passed. 

 

What the first paragraph states is that if local govt have not previous allowed facilities,like Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Lansing, Detroit, Flint ect have, that the board will not allow these facilities going forward. 

At least that is the way it reads, otherwise the second paragraph is redundant. 

'Not Allowed' would mean that there is a local ordinance not allowing them. 

The law simply states that the State can't overrule what the locals have in place. 

Kind of redundancy when we know that the locals have to ok it first.

It's a way to make the locals feel more comfortable with the situation by stating things redundantly (Kesto). 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Restorium2

[shishka]

Yeah I guess I'm just playing semantics but I stand by my original statement.

 

On a side note, I hope any CG that plans on hiring on with a licensee and is bringing in their own genetics has a good contract so you don't get fired the minute your genetics hit metrc.

[Restorium2]

2 minutes ago, shishka said:

Yeah I guess I'm just playing semantics but I stand by my original statement.

 

On a side note, I hope any CG that plans on hiring on with a licensee and is bringing in their own genetics has a good contract so you don't get fired the minute your genetics hit metrc.

You stated that only municipalities that allowed dispensaries before will be allowed to allow them now. Which is totally false for sure. I know of at least one example that doesn't fit that. Bangor Township never allowed them before and they will be allowing them in the future with the new law. 

 

[shishka]

7 hours ago, Restorium2 said:

You stated that only municipalities that allowed dispensaries before will be allowed to allow them now. Which is totally false for sure. I know of at least one example that doesn't fit that. Bangor Township never allowed them before and they will be allowing them in the future with the new law. 

 

Exactly! Which is why this sentence by the author of the article Bob posted is nonsensical.

"In addition, the bill also prevents the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board from issuing operating licenses to facilities in local governments that haven't previously allowed these types of businesses to open"

[Restorium2]

12 hours ago, shishka said:

Exactly! Which is why this sentence by the author of the article Bob posted is nonsensical.

"In addition, the bill also prevents the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board from issuing operating licenses to facilities in local governments that haven't previously allowed these types of businesses to open"

Means they had an ordinance against them. Not sitting on the fence. Actually took steps to exclude them. And have not repealed the ordinance. Makes perfect sense. It keeps the village idiots against cannabis from getting out their pitchforks and signs against cannabis and parading around the town because they think they have more work to do protecting themselves from you. Makes them realize that if they bullied their local officials into baseless ordinances then those baseless ordinances will keep the State from letting people go around their BS. 

 

[Restorium2]

Here's an example;

Freemont will not have to worry about any potential state sanctioned pot stores or warehouse grows because they have this official pile of ordinance;

http://www.fremonttownship.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3c7pq5OQh4Q%3D&tabid=61

 

[Phil69]

What does it all come down to again?

Money- the feds want that interest, even though they won't approve from where it came

Hell, when they shut down, here shortly, we just replace them all (that easy, right?😒)