House Bill No 4210

[Greg Rx]

For those legal minds out there. 

 

This bill opens the act of 2008, right? So it needs 2/3 majority to amend, right? With the absolute ban of caregiver to caregiver sales, we should do our best to keep this from happening. Or is this going to be a fight between caregivers and dispensaries?

 

Do they have 2/3 ? Do we have any support to amend this bill before it becomes law?

Seems like this will be a problem even if we pass MiLegalize. Have we already been out flanked?

[Greg Rx]

Even better. Do they think we are going fight for this bill? Wait, to amend the bill or to pass the bill to amend the act?

Edited September 28, 2015 by Greg Rx

[free420country]

What does this bill do?

[+Malamute]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fxi0kn3122pqdma1h5pa5enr))/documents/2015-2016/billcurrentversion/House/PDF/2015-HCVBH-4210-5631.PDF

 

 

That.

[t-pain]

4210 would make it so edibles and oils would be specifically allowed.

i think it would also ban butane extractions.

 

it could do anything else they wanted , since they are opening the act again.

it also includes stuff for 4209 to be passed (dispensary bill)

 

and yes, they have 75% vote block. they've had 75% vote block since 2012 too. so dont get so worried about it. but BE VERY CAUTIOUS OF THIS BILL NO DOUBT. call your reps and tell them not to destroy the act....

[t-pain]

(3) 72 FLUID OUNCES OF MARIHUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT IF IN A LIQUID FORM.

 

 

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[+Malamute]

Transport is nonsense and forcing patients to pay cost of dispensary tracking bill.

 

 Loss of rights and privileges. loss of privacy. That tracking stuff is insane.

[t-pain]

yeah, you cant transport edibles unless they are labelled exactly in 4210

 

stupid moo poo.

 

what , are cops going to weigh things? carry a scale?

weigh each bud? and then weigh each infused marijuana sans container? lol

[Greg Rx]

What does this bill do?

I was most worried about how they are trying to legitimize all the poor court rulings. No caregiver to caregiver sales, transport law, and restrict sales to the 5 patients. Just the opposite of what we would want added to the act.

[trichcycler]

if they're aiming for "restricting access to five patients only", isn't that a tell tale sign there is not restriction to five currently ?

[bobandtorey]

if they're aiming for "restricting access to five patients only", isn't that a tell tale sign there is not restriction to five currently ?

you said it not me 

 

Whats not in the Law 1 of 2008 is legal ? when judges dismiss cases those people are not guilty When a jury says not guilty you are not guilty but when a prosecutor says you are guilty  then

 

you must appeal =  $$$ and if a Judge say's case dismissed the prosecutor can appeal and sometimes does = $$$$

 

All sounds like a chance to me 50/50 less if you have no $$$$

 

 

I'am good now and follow all rules and Law's of Law 1 of 2008 it's the best way to stay out of Court and keep all your money  

[t-pain]

i dont get this. guys

 

tell me why this bill is retroactive if the labelling requirements dont help the previous cases that ran afoul of edible weight?

 

and because they cant make ex-post-facto laws , criminalizing something which was legal before.

 

so whats the point of this being retroactive? anyone?

[mp4c]

i dont get this. guys

 

tell me why this bill is retroactive if the labelling requirements dont help the previous cases that ran afoul of edible weight?

 

and because they cant make ex-post-facto laws , criminalizing something which was legal before.

 

so whats the point of this being retroactive? anyone?

 

The only point is that a charge may turn from a felony into a 93 day misdemeanor.

 

The bill is going to get a whole lot worse in the Senate.