Analysis Of New Edibles / Dispensary Bills

[t-pain]

just a copy of my earlier thoughts on the bills from the other thread, i may update this after re-reading the bills a few more times. as always, i still am not a lawyer, this is not legal nor medical advice, just my opinion.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-HB-4210

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-HB-4209

the lyons bill moves protections for caregivers from section 4b to section 4e2 (previously 4d2).

(2) IS in possession of an amount of marihuana OR USABLE MARIHUANA AND USABLE MARIHUANA EQUIVALENTS that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act.

the bill will use MMMP funds to create the dispensary database.

plant resin and extraction/extract are not defined



as for gaseous amounts.. please lets not fight about what gaseous is.
wax shatter hash are all solids.
oil, tincture, balms are liquids.
gaseous would be some kind of aeresol product, maybe a breath spray or inhaler.


the sec4A (stupid name for a new section in the MMMA) addition in lyons bill provides a person is not subject to arrest prosecution or criminal penalty for a transfer or use of marihuana or usable marihuana equivalents from or to a provisioning center.
 

(2) A PERSON IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARREST, PROSECUTION, OR
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR A TRANSFER OR USE OF MARIHUANA OR USABLE
MARIHUANA EQUIVALENTS FROM OR TWO A PROVISIONING CENTER IN AN AMOUNT
AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND IN CONFORMITY WITH ANY RESTRICTIONS IN THIS
ACT OR THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROVISIONING CENTER REGULATION ACT.
HOWEVER, A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR REGISTERED CAREGIVER SHALL NOT
TRANSFER MORE THAN 50 OUNCES OF USABLE MARIHUANA TO A MEDICAL
MARIHUANA PROVISIONING CENTER DURING A 30-DAY CALENDAR PERIOD.

boiled down...

(2) A PERSON IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARREST, PROSECUTION, OR
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR USE OF MARIHUANA FROM A PROVISIONING CENTER.

but it does not provide the same immunity from "denial of any right or privledge' like sec4 provides for .

what this means is that if you use marihuana or edible from a dispensary , then you CAN be given civil fines and such? or denied rights or privledges ? like they can take your drivers license away?

section 8 of the dispensary bill does not put the protections back in.
section 8 of calltons dispensary bill only provides protections from transferring, not USE...




onto calltons revised bill:

(f) "medical marihuana" means marihuana for medical use as that term is defined in section 3 of the michigan medical marihuana act, MCL 333.26423.

"medical marihuana" and "marihuana for medical use" is not defined in 333.26423, nor the lyons bill.


"a provisioning center shall not operate unless its agents are residents and have been michigan residents for at least 2 years."

no green rush here. nice. puremichigan!

it would be nice if the safety compliance facility agents had the same requirement.... flower "the werc shop".

all your sales and purchases at the dispensary will be put in the confidential connected database so stores cannot sell you more than your limit. btw this confidential database is open to court orders who will, i'm sure, be looking to see how much you bought near that date that you wrecked your car. or maybe how much you purchased and sold while asking your connected patients questions about supply problems? hmmmm many questions here.

Edited February 25, 2015 by t-pain

[Chauncy Gardner]

just a copy of my earlier thoughts on the bills from the other thread, i may update this after re-reading the bills a few more times. as always, i still am not a lawyer, this is not legal nor medical advice, just my opinion.

 

http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LyonsBill1.pdf

http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CalltonBill1.pdf

 

the lyons bill moves protections for caregivers from section 4b to section 4e2 (previously 4d2).

 

(2) IS in possession of an amount of marihuana OR USABLE MARIHUANA AND USABLE MARIHUANA EQUIVALENTS that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act.

 

the bill will use MMMP funds to create the dispensary database.

 

plant resin and extraction/extract are not defined

 

 

 

as for gaseous amounts.. please lets not fight about what gaseous is.

wax shatter hash are all solids.

oil, tincture, balms are liquids.

gaseous would be some kind of aeresol product, maybe a breath spray or inhaler.

 

 

the sec4A (stupid name for a new section in the MMMA) addition in lyons bill provides a person is not subject to arrest prosecution or criminal penalty for a transfer or use of marihuana or usable marihuana equivalents from or to a provisioning center.

 

 

boiled down...

 

but it does not provide the same immunity from "denial of any right or privledge' like sec4 provides for .

 

what this means is that if you use marihuana or edible from a dispensary , then you CAN be given civil fines and such? or denied rights or privledges ? like they can take your drivers license away?

 

section 8 of the dispensary bill does not put the protections back in.

section 8 of calltons dispensary bill only provides protections from transferring, not USE...

 

 

 

 

onto calltons revised bill:

 

(f) "medical marihuana" means marihuana for medical use as that term is defined in section 3 of the michigan medical marihuana act, MCL 333.26423.

 

"medical marihuana" and "marihuana for medical use" is not defined in 333.26423, nor the lyons bill.

 

 

"a provisioning center shall not operate unless its agents are residents and have been michigan residents for at least 2 years."

 

no green rush here. nice. puremichigan!

 

it would be nice if the safety compliance facility agents had the same requirement.... flower "the werc shop".

 

all your sales and purchases at the dispensary will be put in the confidential connected database so stores cannot sell you more than your limit. btw this confidential database is open to court orders who will, i'm sure, be looking to see how much you bought near that date that you wrecked your car. or maybe how much you purchased and sold while asking your connected patients questions about supply problems? hmmmm many questions here.

 

 

What they are doing strikes me as a diversion. They are opening up the act and getting the required 75% support by writing all kinds of bogus "sounds-good" changes and then when they have the support they need, they will proceed to really gut the act with last minute changes that no one will bother to read.

 

WE ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE ALL THE MARIJUANA WE WANT FROM A DISPENSARY! Why do they need to put  in an amendment that will "allow" us to use dispensary meds?

 

They are using confusing language to distract other law makers who may not be all that amenable to changing the law. They want to make it sound as if they are improving the bill when in fact their goal is to decimate its protections.

 

I repeat:  ANYONE WHO VOTES REPUBLICAN AND BELIEVES IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS DECEIVING THEMSELVES.

These backward SOB's want to take us all back to the "Good Old Days" of the 19th century! They are Luddites.

[blackhorse]

Thanks T-pain for posting the two new bills. Read the Lyons bill and will read other one tomorrow.

Edited February 14, 2015 by blackhorse

[t-pain]

while re-reading the bills today i ran into another inconsistency.

 

the dispensaries only have to get edibles tested.

the buds that dispensaries sell do not have the requirement to be tested for pesticides. 

 

required testing for all buds would increase the bud prices substantially.

[t-pain]

lyons edibles bill HB4210:

 

it adds 

Sec 4N and 4O

 

(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-
infused product to any individual.

 

 

(o) A registered caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-
infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient
to whom he or she is connected through the department's
registration process.

 

but later adds Sec 4A2

 

 

(2) A person is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or
criminal penalty for a transfer or use of marihuana or usable
marihuana equivalents from or to a provisioning center in an amount
authorized by law and in conformity with any restrictions in this
act or the medical marihuana provisioning center regulation act.
However, a qualifying patient or registered caregiver shall not
transfer more than 50 ounces of usable marihuana to a medical
marihuana provisioning center during a 30-day calendar period.

 

these sections 4N 4O and 4A2 are in conflict. which one takes precedence?

4A2 specifically says in conformity with any restrictions in this act, thus making it impossible for a patient or caregiver to be protected in manufacturing or transferring to a dispensary.

 

this addition is super flawed and needs a rewrite.

 

it would be much easier just to write a simple sentence making p2p, p2cg, cg2p and cg2cg legal.

then you write ONE sentence saying that dispensary employees are considered caregivers if they follow whatever dispensary rules to be registered as caregivers.

 

thats ALL YOU making whoopee NEED. not some convoluted crap like this.

it would have the added effect of protecting and enabling visiting qualified patients and caregivers of minor patients to access medical marijuana.

Edited February 25, 2015 by t-pain

[YesMichigan]

(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual.

 

(o) A registered caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

 

(2) A person is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or criminal penalty for a transfer or use of marihuana or usable marihuana equivalents from or to a provisioning center in an amount authorized by law and in conformity with any restrictions in this act or the medical marihuana provisioning center regulation act.

 

You can't go selling it to random individuals. You can sell it to or purchase from an entity known as a "Provisioning Center" without penalty. There is no contradiction that I see.

Edited February 25, 2015 by YesMichigan

[t-pain]

from 4209:

(k) "Provisioning center agent" means a principal officer,
board member, employee, or operator of a provisioning center, or
any other individual acting as an agent of a provisioning center.

 

now you can see its contradictory already, "provisioning center" "provisioning center agent" and "individual"....

 

 

(g) "Medical marihuana provisioning center" or "provisioning
center" means a commercial entity located in this state that
acquires, possesses, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or
transports medical marihuana and sells, supplies, or provides
medical marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or
through the patients' registered primary caregivers. Provisioning
center includes any commercial property where medical marihuana is
sold to registered qualifying patients or registered primary
caregivers.

 

dunno man. a patient would be transferring to a provisioning center itself, not an individual? try explaining that in court?

 

yesmichigan, to be protected, 4a2 would have to say "provisioning center and provisioning center agent".

 

i appreciate the back and forth, we need to examine these changes in the smallest minute detail or else we run into problems later.

Edited February 25, 2015 by t-pain

[YesMichigan]

from 4209:

(k) "Provisioning center agent" means a principal officer,

board member, employee, or operator of a provisioning center, or

any other individual acting as an agent of a provisioning center.

 

now you can see its contradictory already, "provisioning center" "provisioning center agent" and "individual"....

 

 

(g) "Medical marihuana provisioning center" or "provisioning

center" means a commercial entity located in this state that

acquires, possesses, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or

transports medical marihuana and sells, supplies, or provides

medical marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or

through the patients' registered primary caregivers. Provisioning

center includes any commercial property where medical marihuana is

sold to registered qualifying patients or registered primary

caregivers.

 

dunno man. a patient would be transferring to a provisioning center itself, not an individual? try explaining that in court?

 

yesmichigan, to be protected, 4a2 would have to say "provisioning center and provisioning center agent".

 

i appreciate the back and forth, we need to examine these changes in the smallest minute detail or else we run into problems later.

 

Really doesn't matter what we see or read. If they can misinterpret "any mixture or preparation" does it matter what anything says? I don't think so. Not to be cynical, just pragmatic. I enjoy back and forth that's respectful so it's all good.

 

"from 4209:

(k) "Provisioning center agent" means a principal officer,

board member, employee, or operator of a provisioning center, or

any other individual acting as an agent of a provisioning center.

 

now you can see its contradictory already, "provisioning center" "provisioning center agent" and "individual"...."

 

I don't see a contradiction here. The word "individual" exists but it exists within the context of the "individual acting as an agent of a provisioning center". 4209(k) does not define an "Individual" rather it defines an agent. All citizens are individuals. This is written to allow "Sam" to go pick up a batch of overages from across town on behalf of the Provisioning Center and do it as an agent and thus protected even though he/she is not an employee of the Center.

 

"dunno man. a patient would be transferring to a provisioning center itself, not an individual? try explaining that in court?

 

yesmichigan, to be protected, 4a2 would have to say "provisioning center and provisioning center agent".

 

Correct, a person (doesn't say they have to have a card) can transfer to a State licensed Provisioning Center. This entity has the authority to make the transactions as listed. The entity has agents who appear to transact all business with absolute power of agency. I'm sure that won't be the case down the road, but as written you do highlight a missing component for completeness and I agree your change to 4a2 would be wise. Great eye and thank you for making me think on it.