Consensus for Ideal Outcome

bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
and it wasnt them threatening us, it was us scared of it happening. Gmack...calm me son,calmmmm
 
leaffan

leaffan

Well-Known Member
Gmack420 said:
Need me to make it any more obvious? Who said they were going to close the border? They may have said they don't want us to legalize and it could impact trade but who said they were going to close the border?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of a veiled threat?
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I don't think they meant it literally when they said it, but the threat was to slow trade and travel enough to cause a financial crisis. Much like sanctions on Russia ...only baby ones.
Click to expand...
I know that. It was most the trade aspect not travel so much. But leaffans makes it sound like the borders would close and going to the us would stop. Just not true.
 
leaffan

leaffan

Well-Known Member
Gmack420 said:
I know that. It was most the trade aspect not travel so much. But leaffans makes it sound like the borders would close and going to the us would stop. Just not true.
Click to expand...
The threat was that trade would stop...which is all that matters.
People not being able to "visit" the States...who cares.
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
leaffan said:
The threat was that trade would stop...which is all that matters.
People not being able to "visit" the States...who cares.
Click to expand...
Cite your source. But you can't it was all back room discussions. You can't say what was said. So stop saying it like its a fact. You don't have a clue what was said.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
Gmack, in the few years ive been here ive never seen the people you pick on be picked on. Now i have reason to believe they are not the problem, im sure you know why. Someone has already asked you to stop being insulting and calling names. Just calm the fuck down with the argumental attitude and provide something possitive. We want to keep you around and unfortunately mods watch us canucks alot so its really just a heads up...medicate why dont chya.
 
leaffan

leaffan

Well-Known Member
Gmack420 said:
Cite your source. But you can't it was all back room discussions. You can't say what was said. So stop saying it like its a fact. You don't have a clue what was said.
Click to expand...
Sure...like I have those references at my finger tips. LOL.
Ok you win Gmack, that's all that matters eh.
Jean outright lied to us to buy votes...bahahahaha
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
oddish said:
I get very confused on these forums sometimes. Possibly because there's 1000 different viewpoints. Possibly because people are so bull-headed that they forget to make sense when they reply.

I have a genuine question here - I was going to poll it but it seemed too strange.
What is the consensus for the ideal outcome in 2015. Is it that you will win the court case, with the outcome being that the MMAR is legalized again, and anyone with a medical permit can continue doing as they have for the past X years? Do people think the MMPR will actually be shut down? Do you believe they will go further than re-instating the MMAR and actually change the written laws?

I am truly curious what some of you think. I feel that there are people on here who seem to think that Jan/Feb might result in even better conditions than the pre-MMPR MMAR.

Sensible answers would be preferred, but I know that's too much to ask for.
I would like to have a real conversation about this, not a fight about what we want, but rather what we expect.
Click to expand...
I think I have already said it on other threads, but you're right,it does get confusing searching. If we are talking just medical, what I would want is an improved mmar that would include all patients regardless of when they got sick. I think plant counts need a serious adjustment, but everyone should have the right to grow enough plants to supply themselves or have someone do it for them. The mmpr can and will still exist, at least some of the LP's will, to supply those who would rather just buy their meds. Obviously my greatest hope (other than winning the lottery) is to see total legalization within 2 years. I am pretty confident we'll get there.
 
Brewery

Brewery

Well-Known Member
On topic:

My honest expectations (maybe a little hopeful)

I doubt we'll see a repeal of the LPs right to produce and sell - in fact I can see them being able to increase via marketing and perhaps storefront sales.

Mmj identification will be re-centralized. Hc will likely be the gatekeeper.

The mmpr medical document requirements will likely be kept for a max g/day threshold. Hc seems to like the 2-5g/day figure.

Any prescription over the threshold will be difficult to obtain and will force patients to jump through hoops again.

Hopefully Growing rights will be reinstated for all patients. I suspect they will place a maximum plant count regardless of g/day prescription.

I don't think we'll see dg's as an option under the new system - the LPs will likely be cited as the replacement. Hopefully there is less red tape involved to break up the current LP monopoly.

Brew
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Brewery said:
I don't think we'll see dg's as an option under the new system - the LPs will likely be cited as the replacement. Hopefully there is less red tape involved to break up the current LP monopoly.
QUOTE]
If no dg's, people will argue that the lp's can not provide a consistent, specific strain, or oil etc. I don't doubt they may try, but it will just lead to another challenge and the courts will continue to dismiss cases as the judge in Vancouver just did. Hopefully we'll get legalization which will make both the mmar and mmpr obsolete.
Click to expand...
 
Brewery

Brewery

Well-Known Member
I have to admit my ignorance in the dg model - I gather that the intent was to allow patients to assign third plant count to a friend/ fellow patient. Was compensation covered? We're there limits on numbers of patients?
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
Brewery said:
I have to admit my ignorance in the dg model - I gather that the intent was to allow patients to assign third plant count to a friend/ fellow patient. Was compensation covered? We're there limits on numbers of patients?
Click to expand...
Yes it was limited to 4 patients per dg. The compensation part was totaly up to the dg and the patient. That system is prime to abuse. As a dg you can only ship what the patient legally can have per month. And unless you suck at growing the amount of plant per gram you could grow vastly exceeds the patients needs. Anything extra should be destroyed. But most like hiitsme diverted any extra bud directly to the bm and profited hugely on that.
 
leaffan

leaffan

Well-Known Member
Gmack420 said:
Yes it was limited to 4 patients per dg. The compensation part was totaly up to the dg and the patient. That system is prime to abuse. As a dg you can only ship what the patient legally can have per month. And unless you suck at growing the amount of plant per gram you could grow vastly exceeds the patients needs. Anything extra should be destroyed. But most like hiitsme diverted any extra bud directly to the bm and profited hugely on that.
Click to expand...
4 patients per dg?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top