Jump to content

A Provisioning Centers Answer To Cannabis Testing Centers.


slipstar059

Recommended Posts

If a company like CB Scientific can make a "percentage based" home test to detect thc and cbd's than the testing industry should be able to replicate a cheap and easy test for dispensaries, and Patients, looking for contaminates. The cbd testing seems like a great idea for home based growers looking to lower THC, and raise cbd levels, through breeding.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/27019350/comp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They test potency levels as well. The darker the liquid gets the higher the percentage of THC/CBD is. Three different shades determine the THC percentage If a small company can produce and sell these for 15 bucks a test than it stands to reason the same kind of inexpensive test could be used to screen for contaminates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just that the they appx levels, including the user's ability to interpret the colors/shade... we all see slightly differently & even the printing of the scale varies from batch to batch. Its a ballpark at best, with a decently sized margin of error.

 

That said, even the high end tests have a decent +\- margin, and that is tied to procedures, substitute standards & sample variances.

 

What's of practical value to the majority of patients is a pesticide/fungicide test, along w mold/bacterial culture samples... which are more costly to run and have less benefit to those selling vs thc numbers. In other words, many just dont want to run em. The mold/bacterial tests is actually smearing a sample onto a agar dish & growing the cultures to take a comparison on what grows & how much of it... btw every sample (every sample) grows something... we dont even have an over/under on how much is 'bad' vs 'good' vs 'acceptable'. Spores are omnipresent, despite having no apparent infection/germination on the sample material.

 

Too little understanding of the relative importance of these tests exist at current. And let us not forget the testing centers are there to make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for pesticide/fungicide tests, dont you have to run a gc on it ?

you know how we got the pesticide limits we have today?

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/factshts/residu2.pdf

 

The manufacturer must present test data to show the pesticide will not pose unacceptable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.

oh boy i feel safer already. of course monsanto tested roundup on animals and then found the safe amount, right? right.

pesticide complaint and information line
1877 378 5463
anyone want to call it up and ask for more info?

 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/ucm111508.pdf

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Michigan dispensary bill poised to adopt testing regulations; will they use the $700/test standards pushed by Randy Richardville and Rick Jones in 2012-s Pharmaceutical Grade Marijuana Act?

 

Representatives have said it. Activists have imagined it was coming. Industry leaders are nervous about the implications of it. The one thing nobody knows yet is, what is a mandatory testing program for Michigan’s medical marijuana going to look like?

 

We can look into the future by evaluating the past. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R- Monroe), powerful Senator Rick Jones (R- Grand Ledge) and longtime marijuana foe Sen. Roger Kahn (R- Saginaw) sponsored the Pharmaceutical Grade Marijuana Act (PGM) in 2012; testing standards included in that bill were extensive, harsh and unobtainable by Michigan’s current marijuana testing industry. The bill was never brought up for a vote.

 

2013-s House Bill 4271 is called The Provisioning Centers Act (PCA), a bill designed to allow distribution centers to sell medical marijuana to licensed patients in Michigan. The bill failed to gain any traction in 2012 but in 2013, PCA sponsor Representative Michael Callton (R-Nashville) has garnered some pretty heavy duty support from other House Reps- including a Republican contingent that is pushing to move this bill through the legislature.

 

To get a bill passed in 2013 Michigan means you have to compromise- and on the issue of marijuana, any positive law that gets passed will have to be seriously compromised to get votes. The Republican-controlled House and Senate are filled with old school drug warriors that haven’t brought their attitudes toward the medicinal use of marijuana in line with societal thinking.

 

HB 4271 is stuck in Committee- the House Judiciary Committee, to be exact. When Callton announcedearlier this year that his bill would be heard in Committee and even voted on, it was a bittersweet mixture of excitement and trepidation: what was sacrificed to gain this vote? Callton announced that members of the Committee- Republican members- were suggesting mandatory testing of marijuana had to be included for the bill to move forward. Questions exist as to what the testing requirements will be, and Callton has not provided a revised version of HB 4271 for evaluation.

 

Last year’s bill to create a Pharmaceutical Grade Medical Cannabis industry in Michigan contained exhaustive and cumbersome regulations. The PGM would have created a parallel industry which required a patient registration and business certification system completely separate from the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMA). This parallel system would have mandated some very tough requirements- including testing standards that no current marijuana testing company in Michigan could satisfy.

 

“It is very important that every patient have access to medicine that have been screened or tested for safety in order to obtain healthful products. We do need to be sure that such testing is affordable and achievable,” said Robin Schneider of the Michigan-based National Patients Rights Association (NPRA).

 

Current testing standards available in Michigan do not include the ability to test for many of these substances; a ‘plate test’ involves a petri dish, an incubator and other laboratory equipment that are not used by marijuana testing facilities like the Michigan Testing Authority, Iron Labs or Cannalytics.

 

“I would have to purchase a machine that would cost me $250,000,” to be in compliance with just the metals component of these standards, said Ken Beyer of MTA. “Similar testing in Massachusetts costs $700 per test.” Neither of those figures include the costs of plate testing, which is not required in Massachusetts. These additional costs may make the cannabis distributed through the Provisioning Centers so expensive that legal patients will be driven away from places of safe access and back to the black market.

 

Where did these standards come from? They were a Senate creation.

 

The House of Representatives had their 2012 version of the PCA- HB 5681- which did NOT include these exhaustive testing standards. Even if the compromises Callton is willing to make to advance this bill out of the House include reasonable testing standards that are acceptable to the marijuana community, there is no guarantee that Richardville and Jones will not force adoption of some of the PGM standards to ensure the bill’s passage through the Senate.

 

When SB 1349 was introduced medical marijuana organizations were outraged. An article from the MMJ Business Daily in June of 2012 reports:

 

The NPRA came out against the bill this week, saying it was “introduced under the guise of helping ensure the quality and purity of medical marijuana” but that in reality it “would essentially lead to the equivalent of a big box retailer opening next door to a small family-owned business.” In other words, the bill would make it nearly impossible for smaller businesses and caregivers to meet costly requirements for obtaining a license to distribute medical marijuana.

 

If this year’s Provisioning Centers Act becomes a vehicle for the Pharmaceutical Grade Marijuana Act’s most anti-patient and anti-business components, it’s sponsors can expect to lose the support of the medical marijuana community very quickly. Senator Jones- who introduced a bill to remove glaucoma as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana use- and Senator Kahn- who was a sponsor of anti-medical marijuana legislation in 2009 and 2010- are certainly poised to force their hand on the issue.

 

Jones is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, an obstacle the PCA must endure before the full Senate has a chance to vote on the bill. Kahn is a player whose influence should not be underestimated, but Senator Richardville is the man with the final say on the entire process. He decides which bills are brought before the Senate for a vote; it is his approval that will need to be satisfied before the Provisioning Centers Act can become law. -theweedblog-

Edited by slipstar059
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HB 4271 is stuck in Committee- the House Judiciary Committee, to be exact. 

 

this is an old or incorrect artcle

 

4271 was in the house judiciary committee in 2013.

 

2/19/2013 HJ 15 Pg. 172 referred to Committee on Judiciary

2/20/2013 HJ 16 Pg. 177 printed bill filed 02/20/2013

 

4271 made it out of the senate gov operations committee in august.

 

1/8/2014 SJ 1 Pg. 13 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

8/13/2014 SJ 59 Pg. 1589 REPORTED FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

8/13/2014 SJ 59 Pg. 1589 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IMMEDIATE EFFECT

8/13/2014 SJ 59 Pg. 1589 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-HB-4271

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you guys so worried about testing, your saying it's all Uber expensive when it's really not. I know a couple peeps who have had there MEDS tested. It's like 75 dollars or something maybe 150 max.

 

The only reason I can see any one would Beatch about testing is they GROW SHWAG and know ounce these bills pass with the testing there ish outa luck! Cuz there NugZ got moldy bugs and won't pass the tests.

 

An from what I have read, In the last draft the testing was on the centers.

 

So I suppose you might beatch if your a lazy greedy provisioning center owner. Trying to swindle another dollar outa the farmers pockit. Ya need to just cover the cost cuz all ya do is sit on your AZZ and slang dime bags.

 

Anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually the cost of testing falls to the farmer.

 

 But,  Where it will be burdensome here more so than other places is because of the restricted amount allowed to be taken in.  A test will have to be done on 2.5oz- max 15oz of product. If it costs $500 to do a test,... it is ok on 15 oz($30-$35oz) but unbearable on amounts at 2.5oz( $200 oz testing cost).  What this would do is price the average patient out of selling to a provisioning center. And on the flipside, increases costs to patients on the retail side.

 

In other states, such as Colorado, they have commercial grows and they are allowed to test per batch or per 10 lbs max.  So a $500 test on 10 lbs costs around $3/oz.

 

So,... there  needs to be a balance that occurs.

 

I mean,... how accurate is testing a small sample out of 10lbs of plants?

 

But at the same time, some basic quality assurance should be done.

 

Does that occur on the producer side in this state(patients/caregivers) or the retail side(provisioning centers)?

 

 If the producer side,... regulations then must appear for safety concerns which ensues inspections.

 

 On the retail side,.. it will drive costs up, but free market principles show that a quality product at the right price will rule the day.

 

I dunno. Million thoughts around this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw,... I just used the $500 figure for arguments sake.

 

 The testing I have seen that would need to coincide with USP standards can range  depending on the depth of the testing performed, especially pesticide testing.  So a real thorough test would range around $300-$1000 depending how insane ya decide to be.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could even see random testing, for individual farmers, with visual inspection everytime. Skip to 4:46 to see Karen O'Keef's (one of the MMM Act's writers) recomendation to the House of Representatives concerning testing.

If you don't want to watch I'll paraphrase. Testing should be optional not mandatory, because not all communities will be able to afford the lab equipment, and it would prevent small communities from opening up dispensaries. Federal law prevents it from being shipped, so there are no options left, but to go without. She also mentions using microscopes for a visual test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I said before.  May not have mold when the dispense buys it but bad storage could create mold.  Should be random somehow so that everything sold out of a dispensary HAS THE POSSIBILITY of being tested instead of consumed.  That is the best way to make sure they know their shiit and do the best for proper storage and handling, etc.

  Random tests, done by them, of individual growers would make them have to know who they are buying from.  Makes the whole thing a little more personal, which used to be all the testing needed.  You had to hold your head up hi in the community and transparency, where everyone knows everyone, seems to me the best and cheapest way to keep people on the up and up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I said before.  May not have mold when the dispense buys it but bad storage could create mold.  Should be random somehow so that everything sold out of a dispensary HAS THE POSSIBILITY of being tested instead of consumed.  That is the best way to make sure they know their shiit and do the best for proper storage and handling, etc.

  Random tests, done by them, of individual growers would make them have to know who they are buying from.  Makes the whole thing a little more personal, which used to be all the testing needed.  You had to hold your head up hi in the community and transparency, where everyone knows everyone, seems to me the best and cheapest way to keep people on the up and up.

The best test for mold is the consumer looking at the cannabis with a loop. A loop is very inexpensive. All that is needed is a little bit of education and a $10 loop. Does that cover your 'possibility of being tested'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the significant body count and unmeasurable devastating effects that dirty bud has historically had on society I don't think the importance of mandated testing can be overemphasized. It's sad but I'm sure everyone here has a story about someone they've lost to dirty untested bud. It's an epidemic. I'm sure many of the senators remember back in college how many of their peers died or were permanently disabled from the scourge of dangerous untested marijuana.

Back to reality- what's wrong with a simple test for the presence of say 5-10 things that shouldn't be there? Why so complicated and expensive?

Edited by Natesilver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that was real about that dispensary TV show was that everything they were testing for could be seen visually. Rejected cannabis was rejected by the visual test. All the rest is just 'fluff' for someone to scrape a dishonest living out of patients pockets. Or a roadblock to patients getting their meds(bad legislators and Schuette).

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know what kind of testing i want done? i want each grower to smoke his own batch, in the disp, with witnesses.

 

that way it will be known if the batch wasnt flushed right or whatever. because it will burn to black and maybe spark etc.

 

tired of these restaurants where no one who works there eats the food, including the cook. what do you mean you wont even taste it? how disgusting is it if you wont even taste it??

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...