Jump to content

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


suneday11

Recommended Posts

Well,... no. Line item generally refers to budgetary matters.  To be honest, around 40 states have executive line item vetoes and there is around 20 different laws surrounding the topic and how much veto power the executive gets by state.  So, I honestly do not know the entire line item veto authority in Michigan, but generally it deals with budget line vetoes.

 

I am expecting changes to the bills,... so it is hard to judge until the new write-ups are added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everything is being held pretty tightly under wraps.  but the group and the language writers represent a broad coalition from all sides.  therein lies the difficulty in getting things completed.

 

certainly it needs to get done under lame duck, which means soon, in order to get a Senate vote and a concurring vote in the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher Ground: Might marijuana edibles soon be legal in Michigan?  Two bills to watchBy Larry Gabriel
click to enlargelarry1-1.jpg
  •  
  •  

Big things are afoot for medical marijuana in Michigan right now. At least that's what most activists who have their eyes on Lansing believe.

House Bills 4271 and 5104 are widely expected to be passed during the lame duck session before Dec. 18. I'm not a big fan of lame duck legislation in recent years when such things as a Right-to Work bill and anti-abortion legislation have been pushed through. These bills are, however, welcome for the majority of medical marijuana patients.

HB 4271 is an amendment to the original Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) that would allow so-called provisioning centers in cities that chose to have them. Any city can choose not to allow them. A provisioning center is a place where patients can purchase medical marijuana. They call them dispensaries in other states but since that word has been controversial, the folks in Lansing have changed the language. But as Shakespeare famously wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Anyone with eyes to read the signs in their area knows that dispensaries are operating. However, many hedge the issue by calling themselves compassion clubs and having memberships instead of selling to anyone who walks in the door with a state registration card. Some counties are more tolerant than others. Having HB 4271 would level the playing field and standardize the rules.

HB 5104 would allow patients to have edible products infused with marijuana oils and butters. Currently, based on a 2013 state Court of Appeals ruling, certain edible products are illegal. The need to change this is important because many medical marijuana patients do not want to smoke their medication. Also, for some ailments it's nearly impossible to get a therapeutic dose of cannabinoids –the active chemicals in marijuana – from smoking it. Higher concentrations of cannabinoids can be achieved in these infusions.

From the start, headlines and opponents of the MMMA referred to the law as "hazy," leaving municipalities and law enforcement unclear about how to enact and enforce the law. Legislators and patient advocates have been negotiating on the language of these bills for several months.

"They will make things crystal clear for everybody, including law enforcement," says Robin Schneider, legislative liaison for the National Patient Rights Association. "The NPRA has participated in multiple working group meetings in the Senate. We feel that we are all very close to being in agreement in what needs to be in the bills moving forward. Right now we don't have any consistency out there. What this does is it clarifies who can operate a provisioning center, what criteria they have to meet, and they have to be licensed. There won't be any more operating in gray area."

There was a working group meeting on Monday, when legislators presented their final language for consideration. There is some urgency for legislators and activists to get this done now. It seems like the votes are there, and with a new legislature coming in the New Year, if it's not done they'll have to start all over with new bills. Senate majority leader Randy Richardville, who supports these laws, is term-limited, and incoming leader Arlan Meekhof was the lone vote against the bills in committee. There would have to be major wooing of him to get anywhere in the next session. Incoming Speaker of the House Kevin Cotter has already said he doesn't want to deal with the issue next year.

Now is the time if this is going to be resolved without major machinations.

"I think it's going to go, in what form, no one knows yet," says Dave Brogren, president of Cannabis Patients United, who has a seat at the table in these talks. "I'm cautiously optimistic. My major concern is not screwing up the original MMMA."

The real winners in this will be patients who have not been able to easily access medication, particularly concentrated products such as the oils used by patients to control epileptic seizures.

"There's a lot of urgency coming from patients," says Schneider. "The pediatric patients especially need the liquid form. They can't be smoking marijuana. A lot of people operating outside of the law are in desperate need of legal protection as soon as possible. They need consistent access to medicine. They need strains that have been tested."

Legal access to infused products could have made the difference for police officer Tim Bernhardt. Bernhardt was a 22-year Kent County Sheriff's Dept. officer and medical marijuana patient who committed suicide early last week while awaiting sentencing for charges related to his use of pot-infused butter to make brownies. He faced up to two years' imprisonment and $25,000 in fines. It didn't have to happen. The irony is that it would have been perfectly legal for Bernhardt to grind up marijuana buds and put that in the brownies. However, making infused butter and putting that in the brownies isn't.

That's why the provision in HB 5104 is so desperately needed. If it passes, "By April 1, you will have statewide clarity for how infused products are viewed and allowed," says Jamie Lowell, chair of the Michigan Chapter of Americans for Safe Access and proprietor of Third Coast Compassion Center in Ypsilanti. "It's taken three years and been introduced twice. It's taken a lot of work from all of the stakeholders. ... It will involve local communities, and provisioning centers and testing labs will be regulated on a statewide level. "

That's a long way from growing your own, but a lot of people can't do that. In addition to getting everyone on the same page and allowing patients better access to their medicinal needs, it will hopefully lead to fewer arrests of people who believe they are following the law. In the case of Sgt. Bernhardt, it turned tragic. That's one kind of tragedy we can eliminate with some common-sense actions.

Alysa Erwin update: Erwin, who turned 18 in early October, represents a tragedy avoided.This teenager has been fighting brain cancer with hemp oil since she was 14 years old. She was in remission for two years, but after she was unable to get a consistent supply of the oil it came back with a vengeance, spreading into other areas and into her spinal fluid. Back in July,the teenager's parents were told that she had but a few weeks to live. However, she got better when her parents were able to get more medication. A recent MRI taken at the CS Mott Children's Hospital in Ann Arbor has confirmed that Erwin's cancer is abating and her tumors are shrinking. When Erwin was first diagnosed, doctors estimated she had 18 to 24 months to live with chemotherapy treatments. She stopped the debilitating chemo and went on hemp oil. She was declared cancer-free about the time she was expected to die. 
Now what Alysa needs is for the medical establishment to get on board and help her and her parents in figuring out how to best use the hemp oil in her treatments.

 

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/higher-ground-two-bills-to-watch/Content?oid=2271457

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo 4271 isnt crystal clear at all.

Leaving anything as important as selling marijuana up to a city government muddies the waters with law enforcement. Going that route will never make things crystal clear. But if you are already operating a dispensary you can't help but have a lot of 'wishful thinking' I'll bet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hayduke, so should we contact our reps to vote against 5104 with public labelling or what? we need guidance here

tough call... as of last S1 in the Senate that language is still in the bill (but things have moved a long way since early Sept when the S1 was voted in).  we have asked repeatedly to put it into hb 4271 where it more appropriately belongs. until the "new" sub bill drops (maybe today but surely before next week) there is nothing to call on.  I hesitate to comment in any public way at this time, because it is a fluid topic and likely one would not be correctly on point in making statements.  our team has our own guidelines to deploy depending on how things get written.  sorry for not being more specific, but I am just being straight in saying the ball is still in the air...  so I remain cautiously optimistic... I can say without hesitation, CPU has given enough language to rewrite the dictionary, and regarding hb 5104 we have been consistent in opposing that particular language in this particular bill... and let me say again: our language writer is the best one around by a long shot....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tough call... as of last S1 in the Senate that language is still in the bill (but things have moved a long way since early Sept when the S1 was voted in).  we have asked repeatedly to put it into hb 4271 where it more appropriately belongs. until the "new" sub bill drops (maybe today but surely before next week) there is nothing to call on.  I hesitate to comment in any public way at this time, because it is a fluid topic and likely one would not be correctly on point in making statements.  our team has our own guidelines to deploy depending on how things get written.  sorry for not being more specific, but I am just being straight in saying the ball is still in the air...  so I remain cautiously optimistic... I can say without hesitation, CPU has given enough language to rewrite the dictionary, and regarding hb 5104 we have been consistent in opposing that particular language in this particular bill... and let me say again: our language writer is the best one around by a long shot....

 

Thank you Hayduke, for all you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does. For sure. And perhaps the Governor is unable to veto?

 

from mich constitution

 

 

§ 33Bills passed; approval by governor or veto, reconsideration by legislature.

Sec. 33.Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law, and

the governor shall have 14 days measured in hours and minutes from the time of presentation in which to

consider it. If he approves, he shall within that time sign and file it with the secretary of state and it shall

become law. If he does not approve, and the legislature has within that time finally adjourned the session at

which the bill was passed, it shall not become law. If he disapproves, and the legislature continues the session

at which the bill was passed, he shall return it within such 14-day period with his objections, to the house in

which it originated. That house shall enter such objections in full in its journal and reconsider the bill. If

two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in that house pass the bill notwithstanding the objections of

the governor, it shall be sent with the objections to the other house for reconsideration. The bill shall become

law if passed by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in that house. The vote of each house shall

be entered in the journal with the votes and names of the members voting thereon. If any bill is not returned

by the governor within such 14-day period, the legislature continuing in session, it shall become law as if he

had signed it.

 

so if they have the amount of votes they can ovverride the gov veto powers.

 

and because it requires 3/4 , its automatically non-veto'able. guess the gov cant help us now, although he could reject it just out of principal, if its within the time frame, in the middle of december, wouldnt that push it into 2015 and thus the bill would die ? :)

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...