Clear and Unambiguous

Someone please educate me. My mind is open, and I am willing to listen if you have some proof of what you claim. Here is my issue, Rick Jones has backed way off of his attempts to stop us from assembling. Compassion Clubs are a way to assemble. So, what exactly is your issue with Rick's latest bill? Is it the right to medicate together in a social nature? I am not being sarcastic here at all. I am a somewhat intelligent person, and for the life of me I can not understand what the protest to these talks are. Please explain it to me. Please help me understand. The feds are asking the state to sell us out, and we are focusing on fighting for the right to medicate together at a club? Hit me upside the head with what I am missing, because I feel like a real jerk right now for not understanding.

No, that does not help. We need to see the PROPOSED MMJ ORDINANCE. I would advise that you get that, readi it, and perhaps even post it here for feedback. Never walk into a meeting to complian unless you know EXACTLTY what they are proposing. You may not want to complain once you understand it. You might even want to walk in there and thank them for doing thier jobs, rather than hiding from medical marijuana. Being prepared for a fight is good, but don't ever assume there is going to be a fight. Maybe they want your advice.

A copy of the ordinance should be available to the public. Please obtain it and post it on this thread, otherwise we are just talking. Based on what I have seen on the ordinance so far, it zones an area for patient to patient transfers to take place outside of a residential neighborhood. It looks like they are trying to provide some clear rights to do so. Be careful what you oppose guys. It looks like Southfield was trying to expand our rights by granting some zoning rights without affecting anyone's current rights the other night, and for some reason people had a problem with it. So, the city said "Oh, we thought you wanted more rights under our zoning laws, never mind, 6 more months on a moratorium". If you keep fighting every little attempt by localities to make for proper zoning of businesses, you are going to screw yourself really bad. I could be wrong. Like I said, get the ordinance and post it.

I would say that the battle and support for patients to grow has been won. Not just legaly, but hearts and minds. More sick poeple are understanding the benefits, and they in turn explain it to those close to them. Everyone knows someone that is sick, even leo. Money does not harm people, the love of money harms people. It is an important distinction, like the difference between avarice and greed. My question, why is the US Chamber of Commerce so against a plant? They are a huge player in this entire ordeal.

A couple points here for clarification, not in argument. I believe in Arizona that the wording of the law regarding dispensaries in proximity to caregivers was in the original initiative. This would mean the state did not set that up, but rather the group that set forth the initiative did. Perhaps it helped them gain backing for the project from one group by putting it in, but I don’t think that came from the MPP. The current MPP model is drafted to work for legislation, not voter backed initiatives. Not every state allows constitutional amendments to be put forth by the people, so a model that preemptively answers legislature’s concerns is needed for those cases. In states where you can have a voter initiative to amend the constitution, the wording of the initiative must not represent more than one constitutional amendment, or else it would be turned down by the SOS. So, you have to keep it short and sweet, or you signatures will be invalid. Michigan’s was pretty darn short for this reason, as well as not to give opponents ammunition. Also, state regulated does not mean state run. Regulation is a great way of signaling to the law enforcement at all levels that a facility is compliant with state laws. If we can achieve that without touching the current law, it is a very a good idea.

There is very little support for “large commercial grows”, but it has little to do with chemicals. Chemicals are only needed in uncontrolled /unsanitary environments, not “large environments”. I have seen some pretty nasty basements out there, small as they may be. In a “commercial setting”, it can be easier to construct a true medical growing environment and provide big time lumens. It is not in the patient’s best interest to have a small number of large grows though, because if they were shut down it would greatly hinder the patient supply. A vast cottage industry is seems to be more appropriate. The ACLU is of the opinion that a caregiver or a patient should have options for grow space outside of a residential community and is suing for that right. I think they will win. But can one caregiver justify the overhead entailed with maintaining and securing a commercial property? That is a tough one. Also, the DEA seems to be of the opinion that several caregivers operating within one grow is worth investigating (see Lansing), and nothing good ever happens after an investigation begins. The way this has played out in other states is that each county decides upon its own plant limit per cooperative into their regulations. Magically, that number seldom exceeds 99, which seems to reduce the amount of curiosity from higher levels of law enforcement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLorH_eFXGs&feature=player_detailpage

Nothing like a little 4 AM snow shoveling to get the blood pumping……. I always start and end my thought process toward these things with this question- “Is it in the best interest of the patient and does it fall within the scope and intentions of the MMMA?” I do not include this question anywhere along the line- “Is it in the best interest of the distribution of wealth among caregivers?” This question leads to price fixing, so I actually don’t ever ask it. A caregiver or patient should be allowed to accept as little reimbursement for their costs as they wish. They should be able to give it away if they want to. They should also have a safe place to conduct that transfer, such as a farmer’s market with no barriers to state compliant entrants. It matters not who owns the facility under this scenario, so long as price fixing is avoided. I also see no problem with voluntary testing for purity. It is in the patient’s best interest and does not impose upon the current law. If a patient prefers a tested product, it should be a choice available to them. Fair assessment? I think you are a well intentioned person, but I have been quite offended at a few of your posts. Forgive me for asking this, but have you taken it upon yourself to complain to federal agents about someone who is operating in a fashion you do not agree with? I am sorry, but some of your previous posts were a bit haunting so I have to throw it out there. Also, I am sorry that you are sick and I hope you can find peace.

Absolutely. The current laws would make anything else illegal. A Safe Access Center, whether the endeavor is distribution, preparation, cultivation, or anything to do with marijuana, can not go outside of the already broad rules of the MMMA. Therefore, a Safe Access Center must can only allow patients and caregivers to touch (or even have access to) marijuana. Nothing can take place without them. The idea is not create new laws, but rather to establish entities that operate within the law’s framework, as well as its intentions. So, when someone asks for a zoning permit or proposes as ordinance to grow or distribute marijuana, it is assumed that such a facility will be in compliance with state law. Otherwise, the proposal itself would be illegal anyhow, trying to assert that the county has priority over the state. We already won at the state level.... Likewise, if the proposal were to try to limit the powers of the MMMA of 2008, it would be unconstitutional. I suppose if someone wanted to be specific, they could add "no activity allowed that contradicts Michigan state law".... That would sum it up, no?

Here is a VERY ROUGH draft of some ideas to bring forth. It is inspired by the MPP's current model draft legislation, and has been altered for a constitutional amendment being contemplated in another state. So, there are parts that might not make sense for Michigan. I think it could be smoothed out and presented at county levels. Enjoy- Section 2. Definitions (a) “Registered safe access center” means a not-for-profit entity registered pursuant to section 15 that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, transports, supplies, or provides marijuana, paraphernalia, or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients, registered qualifying caregivers, or registered safe access center. (b) “Safe access center agent” means a principal officer, board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a registered safe access center Section 15. Registration of Safe Access Centers. (a) Safe access centers may operate if they have been issued a valid registration certificate from the department, or if the department has not acted upon the proposed safe access center within 20 days of receiving request and payment for registration. When applying for a safe access center registration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following in accordance with department regulations: (1) A non-refundable registration application fee in an amount of $1000, which shall be refunded within 30 days if rejected. (2) The legal name of the proposed safe access center. (3) The physical address of the proposed safe access center and the proposed physical address of any additional locations, if any, where marijuana will be cultivated, harvested, packaged, labeled, or otherwise prepared for distribution or distributed by the safe access center. (4) The name, address, and date of birth of each principal officer and board member of the safe access center, provided that all such individuals shall be at least 21 years of age. (5) Written approval from the appropriate city, township, or village zoning official for the proposed address or addresses of the safe access center’s location or locations. (b) an application for a safe access center registration certificate must be denied if any of the following conditions are met: (1) the applicant failed to submit the materials required by this section. (2) the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 20; (3) one or more of the prospective principal officers or board members has been convicted of an excluded felony offense; and (4) One or more of the principal officers or board members is younger than 21 years of age. (e) When issuing a safe access center registration certificate, the department shall also issue a renewable registration certificate with an identification number. Section 20. Requirements, Prohibitions, Penalties. (a) A registered safe access center shall be operated on a not-for-profit basis. A registered safe access center need not be recognized as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service and is not required to incorporate pursuant to ____. (b) The operating documents of a registered safe access center shall include procedures for the oversight of the registered safe access center and procedures to ensure accurate recordkeeping. © A registered safe access center shall implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana. (d) A registered safe access center and a registered safety compliance facility may not be located within 500 feet of the property line of a preexisting public or private school, place of worship, or daycare facility. (e) A registered safe access center is prohibited from acquiring, possessing, cultivating, manufacturing, delivering, transferring, transporting, supplying, or dispensing marijuana for any purpose except to assist registered qualifying patients with the medical use of marijuana directly or through the qualifying patients' designated caregivers. (f) All cultivation of marijuana for registered safe access centers must take place in an enclosed, locked location at the physical address or addresses provided to the department during the registration process, which can only be accessed by safe access center agents working or volunteering for the registered safe access center. (g) A registered safe access center may not acquire usable marijuana or mature marijuana plants from any person other than another registered safe access center, a registered safe access center agent, a registered qualifying patient, or a registered designated caregiver. (h) Before marijuana may be transferred to a designated caregiver, registered qualifying patient, a registered safe access center agent must determine that the individual is a current cardholder in the verification system and must verify each of the following: (1) that the registry identification card presented to the registered safe access center is valid; (2) that the person presenting the card is the person identified on the registry identification card presented to the registered safe access center agent; (i) A registered safe access center or registered safe access center agent shall not dispense more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana to a registered qualifying patient, directly or via a designated caregiver, in any seven day period. Registered safe access centers shall ensure compliance with this limitation by maintaining internal, confidential records that include records specifying how much marijuana is being dispensed to the registered qualifying patient and whether it was dispensed directly to the registered qualifying patient or to the designated caregiver. Each entry must include the date and time the marijuana was dispensed. (j) A registered safe access center or registered safe access center agent may only dispense marijuana to a visiting qualifying patient if he or she possesses a valid ______ registry identification card and if the procedures in sections (h) and (i) are followed. (k) No person who has been convicted of an excluded felony offense may be a registered safe access center agent. (l) The department may issue a civil fine of up to $1,000 for violations of this section. (m) The department may suspend or revoke a registration certificate for serious or multiple violations of this chapter and regulations issued in accordance with this chapter. A registered safe access center may continue to cultivate and possess marijuana plants during a suspension, but it may not dispense, transfer, or sell marijuana. (n) The suspension or revocation of a certificate is a final department action, subject to judicial review. Jurisdiction and venue for judicial review are vested in the _____ Court. (o) Any cardholder who sells marijuana to a person who is not allowed to possess marijuana for medical purposes under this chapter shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and shall be subject to other penalties for the unauthorized sale of marijuana. (p) The department may revoke the registry identification card of any cardholder who knowingly commits multiple or serious violations of this chapter. (q) Registered safe access centers are subject to reasonable inspection by department regulations. The department shall give at reasonable notice of an inspection under this chapter.

The current law does not address dispensaries, and the legality of patient to patient transfers justifies their existence. Therefore, dispensary regulation can take place without affecting the current law whatsoever. The state should take no other action than to issue an opinion that patient to patient transfers are legal. From there, it is up to each county to set regulations. A city may then add a layer of regulation within that county’s framework. Whether or not you are an advocate of such regulation is pointless, because it is inevitable. It can’t be stopped. It is just the way it is. The only question to be answered at this point is if the regulation will come from a small special interest group, or by a larger and more representative group of patients and caregivers. Based on how this thread is proceeding, it appears as though the later is in trouble. Larger groups (if they can come together) would be well advised to come up with their own set of regulations to present at the county level for dispensaries, while at the same time making it clear that they will not accept any changes to the current law. Personally, I would like to see a not-for-profit entity outlined that combines the farmer’s market model with the locker box rental model. The farmer’s market appears to be in the patient’s best interest (assuming price fixing between farmer’s is avoided), and the locker box rental allows for sales tax to be collected. And since such a model has no name, I am going to go ahead and call it a “Safe Access Center.” I am sick of the "D" word and will not speak it anymore. Any thoughts on proposing “Safe Access Centers” at the county level without laying a finger on the current law and without jeopardizing current rights?

Attention MMJ patients, caregivers, entrepreneurs, doctors and all who support the power of the people. Your help is needed at 7pm at Bedford Township in Monroe County tonight. What we have here is a township that, despite not having received a single application for a Medical Marijuana related business, has decided to ban these applications in the form of a 6 month moratorium. The strategy of the township is clear. By establishing and renewing a moratorium, they can stay out of court because they have not formerly banned such applications. By not accepting such applications, they avoid turning such businesses down for approval, which also helps them avoid court. If they are able to do this without resistance, what other tactics will they employ? Are they of the opinion that the people of Michigan who passed this constitutional amendment are opposed to MMJ related businesses? This can not be. They are taking the law into their own hands. This town hall rules over 4 separate townships in the Southeast. If they pull this off, your town could be next. Please be at Bedford Town Hall, 8100 Jackman Rd in Temperance (48182) at 7pm tonight. We have some educating to do.

Bedford Township, which encompasses Lambertville, Bedford, and part of Erie will be voting on a moratorium this Tuesday, the 10th, at 7 pm. Come show your support for MM patients!!!!! 8100 Jackman Rd. Temperance, mi 48182-9481 The township phone # is 734-847-6791 The website is http://www.bedfordmi.org/