Jump to content

4209 Mrc Changes? Smells Like 0660 To Me.

t-pain

By t-pain
in Michigan Legislature

 Share

Recommended Posts

t-pain Advanced Member

t-pain

Posted
Posted

rumored changes to 4209 include changes to mimic the mrc idea of mj businesses. anyone have the draft language/changes yet?

 

but this is playing out exactly the same as 0660. right?

 

first legislature seems open to accepting bill

bill gets introduced and passed easily and also signed by gov.

 

except it says dispensaries only become law if federally accepted.

 

so really, MRC should take a history lesson on SB0660 of 2013, and talk to the prarie plant systems jerks to see how well their money got spent on that worthless law hahahaha.

 

tl;dr MRC going to bribe legislature to pass another worthless law. dont do it bros! the legislature is smarter than you hahahahahaha. never thought i'd say they were smarter than anyone! i guess smart at stealing money and not following through on bribes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t-pain Advanced Member

t-pain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

bonus question.

 

two laws that say 'all other laws do not apply', which one takes precedence? i'm asking about a ballot initative vs a legislative law (milegalize v 4209), so theres no "more votes" qualifier. but also if you answer about ballot initiative v ballot initiative (say milegalize vs mmma) which supersedes ? guess the one with the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
semicaregiver Advanced Member

semicaregiver

Posted
Posted

T-pain, if you had the opportunity to listen to PlantGreenTrees last night we heard from Robin that there are a number of new groups lobbying for their piece of the pie.   This proposed change is not MRC, but another group.  She mentioned that there are six now.

 

It seems they want to add large industrial grows, i.e. 1,000 plants and they want to add another level to the distribution chain, wholesalers.

 

This all plays into the hands of LEO and PAAM who want to see everything accounted for.    The deal seems to be that the dispensaries in this scenario must buy from the distributor not dozens of caregivers.  The distributors would inturn get their inventory from caregivers and the industrial size growers.   It also opens a new opportunity for some investor types to make money on cannabis.

 

Who are these new investor types?  I would go back and watch the tape of the Judiciary testimony back on 5/7....

http://www.house.mi.gov/MHRPublic/PlayVideoArchive.html?video=JUDI-050715.mp4

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malamute Advanced Member

+Malamute

Posted
Posted

I try to tell people what is around the corner ya know.  It gets worse and they are trying.

 

They never fail to try. And remember,... this comes from our own "community"   basically.  People wonder why I get so pissy about commercial interests.  This is the watered down version,... they want worse.

 

 Distributors.... pfft.

 

 

 Also, caregivers are cut out basically, except to get a growers license you have to have been a Cg for 2 years. Once you have a license, you can no  longer be a CG.. <smack head>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malamute Advanced Member

+Malamute

Posted
Posted

 

Who are these new investor types?  I would go back and watch the tape of the Judiciary testimony back on 5/7....

http://www.house.mi.gov/MHRPublic/PlayVideoArchive.html?video=JUDI-050715.mp4

 

Well, besides the testing lab Ho'bags,... 1 hour 17 minutes is when MCDA(Denise P.) steps in and so on after I guess.  One of the problems and people behind this change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malamute Advanced Member

+Malamute

Posted
Posted

Submitted testimony

 

MCDA

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-4-30-2015-2.pdf

 

 

Oasis Wellness Center(Those wonderful dispensary owners everyone talks about looking out for the poor patient")

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-5-7-2015-5.pdf

 

Michigan Prevention Association

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-5-7-2015-4.pdf

 

Michigan Responsibility Council(MRC-Paul Welday: I always hope he has a shhitty day)

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-5-7-2015-3.pdf

 

Iron Labs

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-5-7-2015-2.pdf

 

Michigan Nurses Association

http://house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee339-5-7-2015.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Thanks

 

So what is it we can do to keep the MMMA as it is today if anything at all ?

 

The  High Courts have already said they are tried of dealing with cannabis and the MMMA and IMHO the Government only wants mroe Walls, Bars, and Guards   

 

I try to tell people what is around the corner ya know. Oh i believe you 

 

I also try to tell people too but get blamed  sometimes of  being the owner of a Dispensary   Lol 

 

People will always grow and use cannabis until caught and the Courts will always make it hard to do so 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wild Bill Advanced Member

Wild Bill

Posted
Posted
So what is it we can do to keep the MMMA as it is today if anything at all ?

 

Give your representative a larger financial incentive than the corporate interests do.

 

Take them all out to dinner at the Whitney and take them on a trip to Jamaica.

(OOPS! I meant to say a working lunch and a conference on marijuana use in other cultures.)

 

Find them all a place at your trough and you'll soon have all the friends in Lansing that money can buy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
semicaregiver Advanced Member

semicaregiver

Posted
Posted

robin is one of them. lobbying for NPRA.

Correct and NPRA is part of at least 6 active groups in Lansing.  As Robin pointed out, the addendum did not come from them or any of the activist organizations that have been a part of the negotiations with the legislature for the last two plus years.     Mal identified two likely ones above, possibly MCC, whatever group Horner is calling himself these days, and perhaps a few others.  My point was only that the draft addendum did not come from MRC, there are a number of other suspects that are more likely, i.e. MDCA or Horners group.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t-pain Advanced Member

t-pain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Denise says they need comprehensive rules so that people aren't in court like mmma patients.

 

The whole reason patients are in court is because mj is illegal you dummy. Businesses will be in court too, because it's still illegal. 4209 does not legalize marijuana. Someone needs to tell the legislature this.

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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...