MMPR Grow op: Small Scale

The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
By the way here's a giant " FUCK YOU " to those who would like to profit from me by taking my rights to produce my own meds and buy yours.....Fuck You Greed Bag....never a cent from me. I'm gonna watch you loose all your money...plus I'm gonna help that cause.
If your trying to be an LP...you just don't understand weed and it's nature...AT ALL.
Go back to selling books or insurance or trips abroad or nursing.
And when Your poor and sick...I'll give you some of mine, so you'll maybe get it then
BOYCOTT MONEY THIRSTY LP's AT ALL COSTS. THEY ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF HUMAN LIFE.
The Gov is screwing us all....and LP's are gettin too.
 
D

DKane

Member
Dear all new comer to this thread.

While this started out as a great thread to help prospective LP's learn a little more about the MMPR and aid them in their application process, over the last year it has sadly become a place where wannabe LP's come to die. Those who remain and were present all along have now become bitter old men who by virtue of repetitive posts on this very thread, have come to believe that they know it all and are sure that if they couldn't succeed, you can't. So don't be hindered by the haters who will inevitably storm their wrath upon you at the first comment that mentions an intention of becoming a LP. So to all those that would like to learn more about the MMPR and what it takes to retain a License under it. Come join a new thread that will be created right after this post. Let's call it, How to be the MMPR and Health Canada's bitch. Cause thats what it's gonna take. But actually the thread name will be How to become a LP. Hope to see those who are interested there. For those who know they were being referred to above, please spare us your badbad vibes they are not wanted nor appreciated. This is your grave don't come back from the dead now and disturb the living, you ol' trolls.
 
itsmehigh

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
Your wasting your time here with these patients. They see everything to do with LP's as evil, and I don't blame them. The current monstrocities that represent the current MMPR, no way represent what the MMPR could be or should be. Most of the current LP are corporations that are more concerned with their stock prices than their quality of service and meds. HC has made it very difficult to navigate through their very ambigious regulations, often enforcing un written regulations that applicants had no idea they even existed. I have been involved in 3 applications, so far only one has been approved to build out, virtually the same application. There are many who have been approved to build, but now sit in limbo for what ever reasons, only HC knows. The fact is our supreme leader does not endorse mmj, and what would have been approved last year is now being rejected. I have seen it first hand. HC can reject an application simply on a whim, with no explanation or means of recourse other than a judicial review.

Itsme.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
@itsmehigh trying to explain this deal to someone that has no clue and is obviously here for other reasons is not worth your time.
Let him go at it!! Hell. Tell him his ideas are just so awesome he can't miss.

:lol: might have something to do with not making it, with anything else. ;)
 
D

DKane

Member
Thanks for the input. I would like to point out one thing. You mentioned 1 of 3 applications which were virtually the same got accepted. The obvious response would be . How can HC approve one and not the other and say there is any sense of consistency. I believe that this is because HC implicates many times throughout the guidelines(especially those concerning security) the necessity of an extremely unique plan a that is specifically catered to each facility. While I'm sure you are doing this, it is probably very easy for HC to catch similarities or where one would technically be paraphrasing (which as we all learned in high school still counts as plagiarism). So the fact that your application are similar is not necessarily any assurance at all that one will succeed over the other. And if I were HC I could argue that this is an effort to encourage smaller entities to pursue a license as this would discourage bigger firms to duplicate proven models and dominate the market thereby negatively opening the way for the little guy. It could also be said that because smaller entities lack the funds to employ big consultation firms there applications would necessarily be more diverse and unique in nature. This ultimately can be seen as a security tactic. The legislation makes constant reference to risk reduction. Having every building inherently unique would definitely help achieve this goal as an industry. So while your problem is real and serious, it will mainly affect consulting firms and larger producers that are looking into multiple locations. The little guy should not be hindered by the fact that consultants are getting mixed results. For the little guy it just takes one, which all consultants (at least on this thread) have alleged to accomplish. The link to the new forum i talked about above is below.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/how-to-become-a-lp-a-mmpr-thread.859074/
 
itsmehigh

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
I don't buy it, every application should be nearly identical. If you address all that's in the guidance document, every applicant should have the same right answers. Floor plans will be different, but everything else should be the same in compliance. QA, security, tracking, ect. Should be the same for all LP's. The sheer volume of applicants is what HC is concerned with, so they start arbitrarily eliminating them for what ever reason they can think of. The latest was the un written rule of no houses within 500m, where is that in the guidance material?. How can one abide to their regulations if we don't know about them. Many of the first LPs have houses around them, but now application are being rejected. Why is that? Our first app. Was approved with many house in the zone, but another recent one was rejected because there were 5 houses within a km radius, "posing a security risk to the community" , even though the municipality/community, fire, and RCMP all supported our site, via a risk threat analysis.

Itsme.
 
D

DKane

Member
You already have the answer just are a little unwilling to see it. As you can see the 500m unwritten rule is not really a rule at all and subject to each location again reemphasizing this uniqueness principle I was getting across. That is a stipulation directly related to that given site. Housing spacing is a factor related to multiple elements including zoning bylaws, the political structure of the surrounding area and how they feel about your presence, consent, approvals, and notifications you've sent out to local authority and potentially even local residence. What city council's take on it is, other buildings surrounding them and the likely foot and road traffic that would be near by. These are just a few factors that are all likely to be considered whn devising specific instruction for particular sites. It may just be that everytime they send it back as I'm guessing you are in llimbo with the other 2 your fatal mistakes is thinking you know the problem and approaching it the same way. You can choose not to buy it, but not exploring the options could be at your expense.
 
itsmehigh

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with local government, purely a way to eliminate applications because HC has determined it to be a so called security concern. Even though we have documents from the local athorities stating otherwise, and endorsing our site plan. HC can basically say anything to derail an application, simply to eliminate the sheer volume of applicants. 1st it was QA, then security, then tracking, now it's the 500m rule, what's next?

Itsme.
 
itsmehigh

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
Example, 2013 application submitted in Ont. was approved for build out, over 2 dozen houses within the 500m. 2014 same application in BC with different floor plan, with under half dozen houses within 500m, denied.

Itsme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top