News! Medical Marijuana Bills To Hit Senate Floor Next Week!

[t-pain]

so someone want to tell me how this bill is not inconsistent with the MMMA which states you can only transfer to 5 patients ?

and the MMMA has its own penalty for transferring to a non-patient...

 

 

this is in 4271:

(2) Except for the Michigan medical marihuana act, all other 
acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to
the use of medical marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

so hb4271 does not change the MMMA and does not take precedence on this issue.

and the MMMA says this:

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

Edited July 12, 2014 by t-pain

[Dank Hill]

so someone want to tell me how this bill is not inconsistent with the MMMA which states you can only transfer to 5 patients ?

and the MMMA has its own penalty for transferring to a non-patient...

 

 

 A bill to regulate medical marihuana provisioning centers and 

other related entities; to provide for the powers and duties of 

certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to 

provide immunity for persons engaging in medical marihuana-related 

activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe penalties and 

sanctions and provide remedies; and to allow the promulgation of 

rules.

 

Does the bold part not protect us under the bill?  I'm genuinely curious, I have no clue.

[Hayduke]

How long have you been growing?

 

Also, I couldn't find any language in the bill that allowed for dispensaries to cultivate.

 

Thanks

 

That is because CPU requested and provided language that took away the provisioning centers right to grow (took Mal and I a freakin' year to do that).  NPRA was absolutely flexible and above board on this, so I thank them for their willingness to listen and adjust.  Now provisioning centers may only acquire from patients and caregivers.... and in language we are still trying to eliminate, and out of state patient (who may not acquire from a provisioning center) will be allowed to transfer to a provisioning center.  

 

The argument against this revolves around an out of state transfer being illegal federally... it is a violation of the interstate commerce clause....

 

CPU will be at the hearing for 4271 and 5104, providing our most current language, and support for both bills.... then I will run down the street for the Administrative Rules Public hearing.... 

 

And there is more in the hopper, being worked on with Zap and a number of awesome, skillful, and successful attorneys.... but we will save that for another day...

 

gonna be a busy time come labor day.....

[Hayduke]

so someone want to tell me how this bill is not inconsistent with the MMMA which states you can only transfer to 5 patients ?

and the MMMA has its own penalty for transferring to a non-patient...

 

 

this is in 4271:

(2) Except for the Michigan medical marihuana act, all other 

acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to

the use of medical marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

so hb4271 does not change the MMMA and does not take precedence on this issue.

and the MMMA says this:

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

the "legal" language to allow patients and caregivers to transfer to a provisioning center was changed with language suggestions from Mal, and negotiations by me (that one took over a year of work).  In the end, because hb 4271 is a 50% bill (requiring 51% of the legislators to vote for it), it cannot modify the MMMA.  So the language that allows this transfer is in hb 5104, which is a 75% bill (requiring 75% of the legislators to vote for it), that does in fact ammend the MMMA....

 

Thank you goes to Kevin McKinney and Robin Schneider from NPRA, who have shown much skill and tact in how they put these bills forward.

 

How it plays out in the end is yet to be determined.  But I am really proud of the way the language has gone so far....

[t-pain]

hold onto your butts. we're in for a bumpy ride.

[t-pain]

the language that allows this transfer is in hb 5104

 

 

 

 

can we see the latest 5104 revision from you / mal / zap / everyone?

maybe i can read it and make suggestion

Edited July 12, 2014 by t-pain

[Hayduke]

 

 

 

 A bill to regulate medical marihuana provisioning centers and 

other related entities; to provide for the powers and duties of 

certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to 

provide immunity for persons engaging in medical marihuana-related 

activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe penalties and 

sanctions and provide remedies; and to allow the promulgation of 

rules.

 

Does the bold part not protect us under the bill?  I'm genuinely curious, I have no clue.

 

 

 

no it does not, it protects the provisioning center..... back to the 50% bill versus the 75% bill.... a 50% bill cannot modify the mmma, a 75% one, can....

[+Malamute]

HB 5104 is 'as passed by house'.  Can find on legislative site or simply google "hb 5104 Michigan".

 

No amendments made since then.

 

 We are requesting amendments to deal with the stupid labeling issue and an issue in Sec. 8 that would remove protections from unregistered patients and narrow medical conditions covered in Sec. 8.

[+Malamute]

HB 4271 has some issues.  It isn't necessarily our focus due to our neutrality to dispensaries; but for concern of atrocious language passing in general or making sure patients aren't completely dorked, we have worked on some of the language fixes with the primaries of the bill.

[t-pain]

5104's amendments are scary.

[Dank Hill]

HB 4271 has some issues.  It isn't necessarily our focus due to our neutrality to dispensaries; but for concern of atrocious language passing in general or making sure patients aren't completely dorked, we have worked on some of the language fixes with the primaries of the bill.

I'm planning on opening a dispensary once the bill becomes law, right now I'm a caregiver for 5 patients.  So I guess I could grow bigger plants and supply my dispensary and find another few reliable caregivers who can supply me if I cant grow enough, though i am nervous to rely on growers I've never met...

 

Is there anywhere online I can read the amendments to 5104?

Thanks

[bobandtorey]

That is because CPU requested and provided language that took away the provisioning centers right to grow (took Mal and I a freakin' year to do that).  NPRA was absolutely flexible and above board on this, so I thank them for their willingness to listen and adjust.  Now provisioning centers may only acquire from patients and caregivers.... and in language we are still trying to eliminate, and out of state patient (who may not acquire from a provisioning center) will be allowed to transfer to a provisioning center.  

 

The argument against this revolves around an out of state transfer being illegal federally... it is a violation of the interstate commerce clause....

 

CPU will be at the hearing for 4271 and 5104, providing our most current language, and support for both bills.... then I will run down the street for the Administrative Rules Public hearing.... 

 

And there is more in the hopper, being worked on with Zap and a number of awesome, skillful, and successful attorneys.... but we will save that for another day...

 

gonna be a busy time come labor day.....

  

 

 

Thanks CPU and Hayduke , and Mal for staying on the side of all  PT/CG in Michigan 

[bobandtorey]

HB 5104 is 'as passed by house'.  Can find on legislative site or simply google "hb 5104 Michigan".

 

No amendments made since then.

 

 We are requesting amendments to deal with the stupid labeling issue and an issue in Sec. 8 that would remove protections from unregistered patients and narrow medical conditions covered in Sec. 8.

Thanks

 

Unbelievable 

 

Am sure we all agree on removing any and all protections  i knew this was happening  for a long time 

 

No jury no medical marihuana spoken in a court in front of no jury  

 

Count me end ------ NOT like it would make any thing change 

 

Cannabis == $$$ i think we all  know

[+Malamute]

Thanks, and we just do the best we can. 

[Hayduke]

we are just a few guys who watch what is happening and try to react.  the core of our philosophy is unchanged....

[t-pain]

i thought the labelling stuff wasnt going to apply to patients making their own?

 

they excluded personal use infused products from manufacturing.

but not possessing ??

[+Malamute]

Well, there is flawed language that is requiring patients to do the same labeling as what was intended for provisioning centers(date made, manufacturer, weight etc.). The police want everything labeled. So beyond the basic labeling problem I speak of,  labeling with weight marihuana infused products, the police requested that ALL usable marihuana be labeled.  They got their amendment.  So there are two points of issue to be handled in that section of 5104.

 

Removing patients from excessive labeling requirements for "marihuana infused products" and only require usable marihuana equivalents weights on medibles etc.

 

Then removing "usable marihuana" from labeling requirements completely.

[+Malamute]

http://cannabispatientsunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/HB-5104-recommendationjune-20.pdf

 

That should help explain it.

 

The "pg 12 line 4" section was the police amendment added.

 

 Here is the the bill, HB 5104 in its current form "as passed by the House":

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2013-HEBH-5104.pdf

 

 

 Ya need both i guess... :-)

[Restorium2]

Well, there is flawed language that is requiring patients to do the same labeling as what was intended for provisioning centers(date made, manufacturer, weight etc.). The police want everything labeled. So beyond the basic labeling problem I speak of,  labeling with weight marihuana infused products, the police requested that ALL usable marihuana be labeled.  They got their amendment.  So there are two points of issue to be handled in that section of 5104.

 

Removing patients from excessive labeling requirements for "marihuana infused products" and only require usable marihuana equivalents weights on medibles etc.

 

Then removing "usable marihuana" from labeling requirements completely.

If they want all usable marijuana labeled then they need to describe usable better. We need a moisture content range for usable. Then we can adjust our cannabis to fit the law. Then we will all need a perpetual curing system that is variable depending on usage. I already do that BUT I'm not trusting law enforcement to be on the same page with 'usable'. I'm sure they like it vague but that will not work for us anymore.

[GrowGoddess]

I'm planning on opening a dispensary once the bill becomes law, right now I'm a caregiver for 5 patients.  So I guess I could grow bigger plants and supply my dispensary and find another few reliable caregivers who can supply me if I cant grow enough, though i am nervous to rely on growers I've never met...

 

Is there anywhere online I can read the amendments to 5104?

Thanks

 

If all goes well you shouldn't need to worry about accepting other growers products. I was reading about a dispensary owner from CA stating that they made it mandatory for testing on concentrates. When he tested the concentrates, every sample of BHO showed too high of levels of a particular chemical which is poisonous. All of the BHO was removed from the shelves. His very best BHO maker had to tweak his process in order for his product to be considered approved for sale. If I am not mistaken, all of his products get tested before any supplier gets paid. If the product fails the testing, the supplier gets the product back with the test results. In other words, if I were to open a dispensary, I would have everything tested and carefully examined as a protection factor. I would make sure that the moisture content in buds was not too high to eliminate the possibility of the product developing mold during storage. I would also carefully look the product over for potential parasites, pet hairs, mold, etc. I would also have the THC and CBD content tested for the benefit of the patients to help them find what they are looking for.

 

That would be fun to have a job dispensing meds! Especially if the customers were happy!

 

Best of luck to ya! I hope it all works out well.

[bobandtorey]

I'm planning on opening a dispensary once the bill becomes law, right now I'm a caregiver for 5 patients.  So I guess I could grow bigger plants and supply my dispensary and find another few reliable caregivers who can supply me if I cant grow enough, though i am nervous to rely on growers I've never met...

 

Is there anywhere online I can read the amendments to 5104?

Thanks

 i am also planing to open one soon i have no suppliers at this time but have put out a Craigslist Add out 

[Dank Hill]

 i am also planing to open one soon i have no suppliers at this time but have put out a Craigslist Add out 

I'm hoping that if I max out my numbers, I will be able to supply my store myself, I never go over 40 plants with my current system but if I max out my 72 I think I could supply a lot of patients in my little town...exciting times.

 

So, how's your court case going?  I see your going to the supreme court?  Best of luck buddy

[Herb Cannabis]

so someone want to tell me how this bill is not inconsistent with the MMMA which states you can only transfer to 5 patients ?

and the MMMA has its own penalty for transferring to a non-patient...

 

 

this is in 4271:

(2) Except for the Michigan medical marihuana act, all other 

acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to

the use of medical marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

so hb4271 does not change the MMMA and does not take precedence on this issue.

and the MMMA says this:

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

I believe that one would be considered in the medical use when dealing with the dispensaries and therefore protected.  I'm not a lawyer and this is only an opinion.

[Restorium2]

If all goes well you shouldn't need to worry about accepting other growers products. I was reading about a dispensary owner from CA stating that they made it mandatory for testing on concentrates. When he tested the concentrates, every sample of BHO showed too high of levels of a particular chemical which is poisonous. All of the BHO was removed from the shelves. His very best BHO maker had to tweak his process in order for his product to be considered approved for sale. If I am not mistaken, all of his products get tested before any supplier gets paid. If the product fails the testing, the supplier gets the product back with the test results. In other words, if I were to open a dispensary, I would have everything tested and carefully examined as a protection factor. I would make sure that the moisture content in buds was not too high to eliminate the possibility of the product developing mold during storage. I would also carefully look the product over for potential parasites, pet hairs, mold, etc. I would also have the THC and CBD content tested for the benefit of the patients to help them find what they are looking for.

 

That would be fun to have a job dispensing meds! Especially if the customers were happy!

 

Best of luck to ya! I hope it all works out well.

Sounds like a perfect way for any dispensary to unfairly get around wording in a law designed to make it so they have to fairly choose who supplies them. Dispensaries need to be totally unconnected with any testing or they will scam us with arbitrary standards.

 

Never forget the famous Michigan dispensary owner quote, "We will have to use that marijuana that stinks like chemicals in the medibles."

[shishka]

How will the 50 ounces every 60 days be enforced? Sounds like Michigan will need a marijuana enforcement division like CO.