Exactly who has "stakes" in any proposed mmj bills up for vote?

Dr. Bob said:

ok, so let's take 5580 and see what the bad provisions are and what local profiteers are behind them....

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2012/05/02/first-look-michigan-house-bill-5580-would-permit-regulate-dispensaries/

First Look: Michigan House Bill 5580 Would Permit, Regulate Dispensaries

In a drastic departure from the consistent attempts to chip away at the Medical Marihuana Act, three Michigan House Representatives have sponsored a bill that would permit and regulate medical marihuana dispensaries. For the details about House Bill 5580, please continue reading.
On May 1, 2012, Republican representatives Mike Callton and Kevin Daley, along with Democratic representative Phil Cavanagh, introduced HB 5580 (HB 5580 – PDF), otherwise referred to as the “Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center Regulation Act.”

Definitions

In general, HB 5580 would regulate the commercial operations commonly referred to as medical marhuana dispensaries. It would also expressly allow for marihuana testing facilities and the cultivation of marihuana in nonresidential areas. A review of the bill’s main definitions is necessary before reviewing its details:
“Provisioning center” is defined as a “commercial entity located in this state that acquires, possess, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or transports marihuana and sells, supplies, or dispenses marihuana to registered qualifying patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers.”
“Safety compliance facility” is defined as an “entity that tests marihuana produced for medical use for contaminates or potency.”
“Secure cultivation facility” is defined as a “nonresidential building or location within a nonresidential building that is equipped with locks or other security devices to prevent unauthorized entry.”

Protections

If a provisioning center acts in accordance with the bill, and obtains any required municipal licenses, the center and its employees are immune from state criminal penalties, civil prosecution, unauthorized searches, seizures, or sanctions for engaging in certain actions.
Those actions include purchasing marihuana seeds and marihuana from patients, caregivers, or other provisioning centers (unless a municipal restriction is in place), cultivating marihuana within a secure cultivation facility, possessing marihuana paraphernalia, processing or possessing processed marihuana, transporting marihuana between provisioning centers (unless a municipal restriction is in place), and selling or dispensing marihuana upon certain conditions.
Safety compliance facilities receive similar protections for acquiring, possessing, transporting, and returning marihuana. Safety compliance facilities are also permitted to receive compensation for their actions.
Finally, patients and caregivers receive similar protections for transferring, delivering or selling marihuana to a provisioning center, provided the marihuana was produced by the patient or caregiver and the municipality permits this activity. Patients and caregivers are also protected for purchasing marihuana from a provisioning center within the bill’s guidelines.

Municipal Oversight

HB 5580 does not, however, outright legalize dispensaries (or provision centers). Specifically, a municipality has the choice to prohibit the operation of provisioning centers within its limits, or, place additional regulations on their operations. The bill also permits municipalities to require licensure or registration for safety compliance facilities.
Unless specifically permitted by a municipal ordinance predating the bill, no provisioning center, safety compliance facility, or secure cultivation facility would be permitted within 1,000 feet of a school.

Operation

Section 7 outlines a number of restrictions on the operation of provisioning centers, secure cultivation facilities, and safety compliance facilities.
Provisioning centers are not permitted to share office space with a physician, to advertise on the radio or billboard, permit on-site consumption, dispense more than 2.5 ounces to any patient within 10 days, or dispense or sell to others prohibited from obtaining marihuana.
Further, provisioning centers must maintain certain records, provide proper labeling on marihuana infused products, perform background checks on employees, and maintain adequate security systems, among other items.
The bill also requires provisioning centers to follow certain procedures for verifying a person’s ability to acquire medical marihuana under state law.

Conclusion

There is little doubt the State of Michigan can handle, regulate, or oversee the medical marihuana program better. House Bill 5580 is one of the many bills introduced in an attempt to provide clarity to the Act. Whether or not the bill passes, it will promote rational debate on its merits. That debate is what will help this state enact reasonable, responsible regulations that protect patients and municipalities alike.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary committee. You can follow its progress here.

guess we know why they call you the man. / "...an attempt to provide clarity to the act". luv that statement..

Something that comes to mind is how entire counties will become completely "dry" areas. places like oakland and livingston counties among at least a few others. as long as patients and cg's are protected by the current act to cultivate, I only see one problem w this. patients that aren't mobile may not be readily able to aquire needed meds. perhaps a delivery service cld fill the gaps in these dry spaces.

Dr. Bob said:

BTW, my suggestion for taxation was to require a $10 per ounce or portion thereof 'stamp'. If you wanted to transfer meds at a farmers market for example you would weigh the meds, mark the weight on the container, put the appropriate number of stamps on it and have at it. So long as there was a stamp on it, you could transfer for compensation to any patient or caregiver, so long as they also had cards allowing them to possess the amount transferred.

Thought it was a pretty elegant and non-intrusive system that would help both distribution and the state treasury. Simple and easy to check too.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

they used to have marijuana tax stamps---
in the 70s I believe

that is the best system I could think if you wanted to sell it and the govt still gets their taxes without being intrusive

as long as you had the stamp you were golden

abe supercro said:

I'd like to understand who owns the handful of state sanctioned provision-centers in NJ. And how much in annual fees it takes to renew that gig. Believe the same thing is happening in Massachusetts. patients required to only obtain state affiliate-grown medicine.
talk about tricked out shit.

Click to expand...

its Guido corleone--don't tell him I told you!

(and the politicians he owns)

his provisi's feature guido cornholy kush,
factory-made tlc.

Ok so other than the possibility of 'dry counties' and the lack of inclusion (yet) of my idea about the 'pure Michigan' sourcing for the meds and the tax stamp, what is the objection to this bill and who stands to gain? I don't see a provision that impairs home grows or delivery services for that matter.

Dr. Bob

the guido corleones...
delivery service is complicated entering a dry county.
add that to your fixes, along w pure michigan
sourcing. thanks

Can you answer the question Dr. Bob, or share your opinion: Who would benefit from the passage of this bill?

Dr. Bob said:

Ok so other than the possibility of 'dry counties' and the lack of inclusion (yet) of my idea about the 'pure Michigan' sourcing for the meds and the tax stamp, what is the objection to this bill and who stands to gain? I don't see a provision that impairs home grows or delivery services for that matter.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

Me either, I read it all.

Well.....

I think this would set up a dispensary industry that would employ people, so they would like it.

Patients would have an outside channel to get med if they didn't wish to grow, didn't have caregivers, or were out. They would also be better consumers by having access to different strains, which they could later grow.

Patients wishing to grow could, or have their own caregivers, and both would have a source of income by selling overages.

There is no requirement for an exclusive dispensary system at the expense of patients or caregivers.

The state would like it because they could regulate and tax it.

Downside.

Zoning is up to local communities (which they like there is your hidden agenda...they can stop it cold), though this would not affect patient or caregiver grows.
Extra taxes and regulations will affect the cost.
Still dealing with the federal issue
Typical BS about schools/etc would limit zoning options

It is not where I would like to see it. I'd accept it better if the pure Michigan requirement was added, along with a STATED protection of caregiver/patient rights to grow (none of the smoke and mirrors like they did in AZ). I'd like to see what the 'background checks' are looking for and what the requirements are.

It is a work in progress, one I am not involved with, but I don't see the invisible hands of the Illuminati doing their sinister work. I do see an effort to improve by augmentation the distribution system, a way for new growers to obtain seed/clones, and a way for small mom and pop grows to make a little geld to make their mortgages. I DONT see provisions for large scale commercial operations that would attract a criminal element or big pharma.

Dr. Bob

Jose' Corleone - Illuminati
(or investors aligned w or parallel biz, not universe)

lg production will take place in commercially zoned structures, already are adj. to A2., local muni's will get w the program (annual fees XL), inspectors half-see bounty among warehouse ceilings, this cld be considered A First Phase. idea of proviso's acquiring from outside sources will become rare, just sayin'...

Wow Bob is all-pro dispensary, he made some good points.

Oh one other downside. If there were provisioning centers, there might be less of a demand for home grows or caregivers. In order to compete, caregivers would have to offer better service and price compared to the centers. That might drive the price down and be more work in the customer service end for them.

Dr. Bob

eco nomics tru

I am pro patient/caregiver, but see the need to have some sort of system to help with redistribution of meds- which helps patients obtain their meds. Would be nice to have a way to dump overages to stay in limits, and to have access to seeds/clones/different strains. And of course as a backup supply. The entire issue of apartment dwellers, folks living in section 8 housing, and a host of other difficulties with patients growing or getting caregivers could be helped.

Dispensary has a little greasy wink wink feel to me. Personally I like the idea of farmers markets to keep the business interests minimized. I could see a place for both though, as long as the laws were in place to protect growers and patients. Dispensaries would be especially helpful in urban settings where supplies may have to come in from out of town making a farmers market more difficult.

Dr. Bob

abe supercro said:

Jose' Corleone - Illuminati
(or investors aligned w or parallel biz, not universe)

lg production will take place in commercially zoned structures, already are adj. to A2., local muni's will get w the program (annual fees XL), inspectors half-see bounty among warehouse ceilings, this cld be considered A First Phase. idea of proviso's acquiring from outside sources will become rare, just sayin'...

Wow Bob is all-pro dispensary, he made some good points.

Click to expand...

I don't have all the answers, or even the right answers, but I am willing to look at things and see if they solve problems.

I would LOVE to see the MMMA amended to specifically include provisions requiring protections of patients at work, in housing situations, and with physician/pain contract issues. In Michigan, medical marijuana is not a violation of a pain contract or illegal drug use. I'd like to see this codified. Question is, how to do it and give it teeth.

Dr. Bob

Nice. Thx for your thoughts

wanted to say hi to everyone at roi. I used to spend a bit of time over at another site but like what I see over here.

I do have a question for dr bob, if this doesn't belong here let me know.

Why are you seeking the personal information of folks that post at another site? Were you able to get that information? Are you seeking private information of posters here as well?

Ok, more then one question but I am curious if my private information is at risk.

mancelonaman said:

wanted to say hi to everyone at roi. I used to spend a bit of time over at another site but like what I see over here.

I do have a question for dr bob, if this doesn't belong here let me know.

Why are you seeking the personal information of folks that post at another site? Were you able to get that information? Are you seeking private information of posters here as well?

Ok, more then one question but I am curious if my private information is at risk.

Click to expand...

It doesn't belong here. Unless you can show a posting from me about anything like that.

Let me ask you a question. If my home address was posted by someone using a screen name, along with requests that someone come 'visit' my wife and children, do you think some folks might be interested in the true identity of that individual? I would suggest that before you ask leading questions, like yours, designed to cast suspicion where none is needed, you ask yourself if there is any time such a request would be reasonable.

This is neither the place nor is it appropriate to ask such questions.

Dr. Bob

Does anyone else feel it is strange that someone should pop in to this site and on their first post suggest I was somehow trying to find personal information on intensely private people?

Dr. Bob

Ok point taken, I am not here to cast suspicion just looking for answers.