The Corrector just received a report on what went on at the Havre City Zoning and Planning committee hearing last night regarding medical marijuana. The committee consists of Chairwoman Janet Tretheway, Andrew Brekke, Pam Hillary, and Woody Woodwick. There were about 65 people in attendance and people spoke both for and against marijuana use, however this city committee is only empowered to deal with zoning issues relating to these new marijuana businesses. Initiative 148, which made the use of medical marijuana legal passed with 62% of Montana voters favoring the legalization. The committee heard testimony both pro and con in a meeting lasting about two hours and finally a motion was made to place a 90 day moratorium on the granting of any new variances for any new businesses in Havre until the Zoning committee had a chance to receive public input and start the process to bring the City’s archaic zoning regulations up to date. Currently medical marijuana growing and dispensing businesses do not fall under any of Havre’s zoning regulations.
It has become obvious over the last few weeks that the administrative rules implemented to correspond to Initiative I-148 have many aspects of the marijuana business left to vague interpretations and this next year’s legislature will have to implement some additional laws, rules, and regulations to oversee this business.
With that in mind the Corrector would like to point out the elected officials and candidates that have shown concern with working within our political system to get a handle on the deficiencies in our current State Medical Marijuana law and that attended the Tuesday night meeting. House District 33 Representative Wendy Warburton, Senate District 17 candidate Rowlie Hutton, and no candidates for House District 34. Even though the law enforcement community was represented by numerous officers there were no Hill County attorney candidates in attendance, no Hill County Justice of the Peace candidates, and no Hill County Commissioner candidates other than Mike Anderson. It was painfully obvious that there are but a few candidates that think this issue deserves any further consideration.
Do the absent candidates for this year’s elected offices not want us to know their feelings in regards to the regulation of medical marijuana?
Though the Corrector has came out against Democrat Commissioner and Candidate Mike Anderson this election, we humbly tip our hat to him for not only attending, but voicing his concerns involving the lack of regulation and oversight on the new medical marijuana businesses and sharing his thoughts as to what needs to be done.
The next meeting is to be held in council chambers on March 30th at 5:15 pm
wow, a moratorium will really do the trick Good Grief!
ReplyDeleteI watched a really scary episode of "Holmes on Homes" on HGTV the other night and think it should be one more thing to take into consideration when determining how to regulate the marijuana growing operations.
ReplyDeleteA landlord gets a call from the police that her rental property has been used for a growing operation. The damage is horrendous. Besides the legal problems this creates for the landlord, the damage was caused by "illegal activity" and the insurance company refuses to pay for any of the damages.
I have included a quote from the preview of the show...it's Season 6, Episode 6 and available online at HGTV Holmes on Homes. Just one more thing that hasn't come up yet in permitting these operations!
"Since she was the owner of the dwelling, the authorities wanted to charge her with the production and distribution of a controlled substance. Although it took some time and effort, the charges were eventually dropped, but her legal troubles were not over. In converting the house into a grow-op, the tenants took major liberties with the electrical wiring, the plumbing and the ventilation system. Add to that the monstrous amounts of mold growing everywhere, the house was declared unfit for human habitation and Lisa was ordered by the courts to bring the house back up to code. The problem is that all of her money was tied up in the house itself and she no longer has the rental income to pay for the mortgage, much less the repairs."
this moratorum will do nothing. There is nothing the city can do by law. Whatever fix is made will have to come from the legislature.
ReplyDeleteCall your representatives Warburton and Bergren and see what they say.
sounds like a slum-lord at work here CrabbyGirl...most Landlords check on thier Property often to make sure it is still OK...no Boo-Hoo for this person or anyone like her...
ReplyDeleteCrabby, as a landlord's son, I can tell you that a landlord ultimately has control over who to rent to. I know it is a lot easier to seek out government checks for these properties, but a landlordcan choose to instead maintain a nice property and ask a pretty penny for the opportunity to live there. With the amazingly high number of slum lords in this little town of ours, I am amazed that there are no units declared unfit in Havre..... unless of course you consider the fact that inspections simply do not happen here. Zoning laws are not enforced here, (at least until we don't want something in our backyard). Wouldn't it make more sense to allow the "growers" to put up a store front in downtown, where there is parking, better traffic control, and no schools or residences??
ReplyDeleteAs far as regulating the business, I am sure that all the caregivers and patients would love to see some regulation, having actually talked to a few of these seedy individuals, I get the impression that they would appreciate the opportunity to run their businesses.
I can't help but think that there is an easy way to test this product, just like meat or dairy.
Maybe a co-op for the distribution to patients??
1. The grower brings their product to the co-op, where they are charged a fee to have it tested, and the product is either accepted or rejected.
2. Upon rejection, the product is destroyed (preferably flushed and not burnt) ;)
3. Upon acceptance, the caregiver leaves the product at the co-op, which is the only licensed RETAILER for Medical Marijuana.
4. Any grower caught selling product outside of the co-op is charged with distribution, and has their license permanently revoked by the state.
5. The co-op is only allowed to sell a grower's product to patients registered to the grower.
6. The co-op submits a transaction report to all the members and the state.
7. The co-op pays the growers for product sold weekly.
8. Growers and patients pay an administration fee to the state, a small percentage built into each transaction. The fees to be used to fund anti drug task forces.
This would make any sale outside the property of the co-op illegal. This would move the legal transactions out of residential neighborhoods.
what do you think??
it cant work.....The STATE would be the BOSS here...Admin fees to the state & STATE ran Task Forces.
ReplyDeleteMT State would be the Godfather of it all...nice try though...U are thinking...
Neo-Con,
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I AM for the state regulating these operations is the fact that they are receiving over 1000 new applications a day. I would hope you see that that is a ridiculous amount. I do not think it should be left in the hands of the caregiver to decide who can and cannot purchase their product. If a person has a green card, they should be eligible. I think the blame for the outbreak of application is the state not turning down enough applications, and I would guess a few radical doctors who are wearing out their pens burning through their prescription pads. In my opinion the task forces are important in the fight against the illegal trade going on. If a caregiver is selling to people without green cards, or people with green cards are selling to those without them, they should be prosecuted. Also, please keep in mind that the task forces also help battle against the Meth problem in our state, a problem that usually draws in younger people and the lower middle class. It also fights against the cocaine trafficking that tapes place in Havre's upper crust. I acknowledge that there will never be a perfect system, do you?
I hav'nt even read the Law about the Legalization that I voted for...But I am sure that only the legality of it statewide for the usage of the "Product" for registered "Patients"...Nowhere in that law (I Dont Think)..is that the "Caregivers" can "SELL" the "Product" to the "Patient"...They can grow & GIVE it!...let me know if I'm wrong ,but the local "Authorities" here have every right to arrest for "SALES"..!!
ReplyDelete50-46-201. Medical use of marijuana -- legal protections -- limits on amount -- presumption of medical use. (1) A person who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to 50-46-103 may not be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner or be denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board or the department of labor and industry, if:
ReplyDelete(a) the qualifying patient or caregiver acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or transports marijuana not in excess of the amounts allowed in subsection (2); or
(b) the qualifying patient uses marijuana for medical use.
(2) A qualifying patient and that qualifying patient's caregiver may not possess more than six marijuana plants and 1 ounce of usable marijuana each.
(3) (a) A qualifying patient or caregiver is presumed to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana if the qualifying patient or caregiver:
(i) is in possession of a registry identification card; and
(ii) is in possession of an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the amount permitted under subsection (2).
(b) The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the possession of marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the symptoms or effects of a qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.
(4) A physician may not be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner or be denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the board of medical examiners or the department of labor and industry, for providing written certification for the medical use of marijuana to qualifying patients.
(5) An interest in or right to property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to medical use may not be forfeited under any provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense.
(6) A person may not be subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, as provided in 45-4-102, or other provisions of law or any other offense for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this chapter.
(7) Possession of or application for a registry identification card does not alone constitute probable cause to search the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card or otherwise subject the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the card to inspection by any governmental agency, including a law enforcement agency.
(8) A registry identification card or its equivalent issued by another state government to permit the medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient or to permit a person to assist with a qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana has the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.
History: En. Sec. 4, I.M. No. 148, approved Nov. 2, 2004; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 156, L. 2009.
50-46-205. Limitations of Medical Marijuana Act. (1) This chapter does not permit:
ReplyDelete(a) any person to operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana;
(b) the use of marijuana by a caregiver; or
(c) the smoking of marijuana by a qualifying patient:
(i) in a school bus or other form of public transportation;
(ii) on any school grounds;
(iii) in any correctional facility; or
(iv) at any public park, public beach, public recreation center, or youth center.
(2) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require:
(a) a government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana; or
(b) an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.
(3) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to allow a caregiver to use marijuana or to prevent criminal prosecution of a caregiver who uses marijuana or paraphernalia for the caregiver's personal use.
History: En. Sec. 6, I.M. No. 148, approved Nov. 2, 2004; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 156, L. 2009.
50-46-102. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
ReplyDelete(1) (a) "Caregiver" means an individual, 18 years of age or older who has agreed to undertake responsibility for managing the well-being of a person with respect to the medical use of marijuana. A qualifying patient may have only one caregiver at any one time.
(b) The term does not include the qualifying patient's physician.
(2) "Debilitating medical condition" means:
(a) cancer, glaucoma, or positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or the treatment of these conditions;
(b) a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following:
(i) cachexia or wasting syndrome;
(ii) severe or chronic pain;
(iii) severe nausea;
(iv) seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or
(v) severe or persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease; or
(c) any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the department by rule.
(3) "Department" means the department of public health and human services.
(4) "Marijuana" has the meaning provided in 50-32-101.
(5) "Medical use" means:
(a) the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia by a qualifying patient or a caregiver relating to the consumption of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition;
(b) the use of marijuana or paraphernalia by a qualifying patient to alleviate the symptoms or effects of the patient's debilitating medical condition; or
(c) the use of paraphernalia by a caregiver for the cultivation, manufacture, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana for use by a qualifying patient.
(6) "Paraphernalia" has the meaning provided in 45-10-101.
(7) "Physician" means a person who is licensed under Title 37, chapter 3.
(8) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.
(9) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the department that identifies a person as a qualifying patient or caregiver.
(10) (a) "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of marijuana and any mixture or preparation of marijuana.
(b) The term does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.
(11) "Written certification" means a qualifying patient's medical records or a statement signed by a physician stating that in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition and the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the qualifying patient.
History: En. Sec. 2, I.M. No. 148, approved Nov. 2, 2004; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 156, L. 2009.
50-46-206. Affirmative defense. Except as provided in 50-46-205, it is an affirmative defense to any criminal offense involving marijuana that the person charged with the offense:
ReplyDelete(1) (a) has a physician who states that or has medical records that indicate that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the person's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the potential benefits of medical marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the person; or
(b) provides marijuana to a person described in subsection (1)(a) if the person does not provide marijuana to anyone for uses that are not medical;
(2) (a) is engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the consumption of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of the medical condition of the person identified in subsection (1)(a) if the person charged with the offense is a qualifying patient or a caregiver; or
(b) is engaged in the use of marijuana if the person charged with the offense is a qualifying patient; and
(3) possesses marijuana only in an amount that is reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of alleviating the symptoms or effects of the medical condition of the person identified in subsection (1)(a).
History: En. Sec. 7, I.M. No. 148, approved Nov. 2, 2004; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 156, L. 2009.
NOWHERE IN ANY OF THIS IS THE WORD OR WORDS "SELL" OR "SALE"...how they got around to a price point is beyond me? Was it just "ASSUMED" that it would be sold for whatever they wanted to charge?...NO...ther was never any intention of "SALES"...
this part is Confusing...
ReplyDelete(c) the smoking of marijuana by a qualifying patient:
This Part is needed(U never Know who is carry what)
(6) A person may not be subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, as provided in 45-4-102, or other provisions of law or any other offense for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this chapter