[dddaver]

So is Governor Quinn going to sign that shit or what? I think it has been on his desk for awhile. I think I read it was pretty restrictive anyway. Maybe he's thinking "pocket-veto".

[TokerAce]

Sup, who knows if he will sign it or not. Doesn,t really matter if you crunch the numbers its a diaster waiting ti happen! 60 despensaries, 22 growers, and peeps get up to 2.5 oz every 2 weeks. With just 50k patients thats 250,00 oz each month. thats 11363 oz every grower has to produce each month. DEA will go nuts and raid everyone. I have a business man that wanted to get into it and his attornies ask how he felt about life in jail!

Ty

[Julian]

The businessman should stick to business .....and the attorneys were obviously not MMJ seasoned. (My dart thrown would say they were real estate or trust attorneys "Businessmen" rarely have criminal attorneys retained . Businessmen from non MMJ states typically do not have MMJ seasoned attorneys retained also .

HB 01 passed through final senate vote May 17th, (less than 30 days ago, inc, non business days) and, it is "restrictive" in many ways, it is reasonable in others, but it is legislation which ad's another medical state to the U.S, with the possibility of quite a few changes being made along the way, as has occurred in many states .

There are many things which are less than desirable contained, unfortunately, these mainly fall to the patients, which are in end, the reason for the implementation.

They will not , for the most part, affect cultivation, no dispensary operator(s)/operations.

It is also a "Pilot" program. There are many whom are quite optimistic it will pass through shortly, myself included.

I also do not agree (respectfully) with the above analysis of production requirements. There are far too many variables which will come into play for any projections to be made. (I do feel that many potential cultivation center candidates (many, not all) do not have a firm grasp on many aspects.

There is a operational gap also between the geographic assignment of the cultivation centers and potential dispensaries which I believe will cause a serious problem for the patient(s). (Limited number of dispensaries, not geographically assigned, vs. even lesser number of cultivation centers that are.

[ILL-IN-GROWER]

Hey there neighbors!

Julian, you mention changes being made along the way if passed.

Do you think there is a possibility of allowing personal production under the current program? If so, how would we go about it?? I'm not too optimistic the 22/60 plan will be able to provide sufficient medicine and would think this might be a stepping stone. Proving that the system is incapable of working the way it was designed could be grounds for an amendment, I would hope... Whether it's patients in rural areas that do not have the population to sustain a dispensary and therefore access medicine, or the inability to keep quality medicine in stock...

But I'm not too well versed in the law. Could patients bring a suit against the state lobbying for personal cultivation based on something like this?


Surely a seasoned MMJ attorney would be able to tell me more

[hamstring]

The Gov has his hands full with pension reform and getting re-elected. My 2 cents is he has his people running the numbers as we speak. Checking public opinion crossing T's and dotting i's. He's not going to rush this its a huge political challenge and this will make national news.

I dont have any educated response to the 22/60 but I would agree geographically speaking this is going to be a challenge. You have Chi town and the next biggest city is around 200K population.

So even if this passes the implementation for this will be messy to say the least. Getting local government to jump on board will not be easy in many of these smaller cities. It would make sense to me that the ones to jump on board first will most likely be the ones who are in financial trouble much like Chicago.

Have my fingers crossed.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by ILL-IN-GROWER

Hey there neighbors!

Julian, you mention changes being made along the way if passed.

Do you think there is a possibility of allowing personal production under the current program? If so, how would we go about it?? I'm not too optimistic the 22/60 plan will be able to provide sufficient medicine and would think this might be a stepping stone. Proving that the system is incapable of working the way it was designed could be grounds for an amendment, I would hope... Whether it's patients in rural areas that do not have the population to sustain a dispensary and therefore access medicine, or the inability to keep quality medicine in stock...

But I'm not too well versed in the law. Could patients bring a suit against the state lobbying for personal cultivation based on something like this?

Surely a seasoned MMJ attorney would be able to tell me more

Well, to begin, my attorney comment(s) above were quite genuine. I think it irresponsible for a (most likely) attorney to comment and advise, specifically regarding an investment matter, beyond the scope of their expertise. There are endless ways to structure participation if an interest that would/will/can limit any individuals exposure. Their response is not one I personally would find acceptable. An acceptable response would be "This is not within my area of expertise, I would advise you seek counsel regarding this matter/these questions from someone who specializes in this/these specific areas", similar to what would be expected of an M.D. (To make a determination on something, instead of referring to a specialist to confirm". Personally? That statement would make me find another attorney, as I would then question what other matters are they commenting/advising upon that is also beyond their scope of expertise.

There are many possibilities, and touched on above is a practical concern: If Dispensary licenses are not/will not be limited/controlled the same as cultivation centers, then theoretically, where will that leave a patient 100 miles from the nearest dispensary?. New Mexico had issues with such matters. Mailing is prohibited. Delivery options becomes problematic/cost prohibitive. District 1 (Basically Cook) may very well find far, far, far in excess of 60 applications in itself, and then financially, will dispensaries in all other centers be able to sustain operations (financially).

There are many possibilities.

Originally Posted by hamstring

The Gov has his hands full with pension reform and getting re-elected. My 2 cents is he has his people running the numbers as we speak. Checking public opinion crossing T's and dotting i's. He's not going to rush this its a huge political challenge and this will make national news.

Agreed. Definitely.There are also groups voicing their protest (IL LE), and so on.

I dont have any educated response to the 22/60 but I would agree geographically speaking this is going to be a challenge. You have Chi town and the next biggest city is around 200K population.

I would not be surprised if majority of dispensaries end up in Chicago metro (Plainfield to the West, Gurnee to the North, Tinley to the South), which also leads to what is/will be the process if the first 60 approved applications fall in a certain location(s), as above. What is a patient to do when no dispensary within certain distance, as surely will, indeed, be the case. Can a dispensary in Peotone be maintained financially? What will a patient in Galena do if Rockford (2 hours?+/-) is the nearest dispensary, and so on....

Rockford?, probably. Springfield?. I'm sure. Carbondale? Most likely. And so on, but that leaves quite a bit of square miles unserved/inaccessible to many.

Operations(al) note: There may be solutions to such.

So even if this passes the implementation for this will be messy to say the least. Getting local government to jump on board will not be easy in many of these smaller cities. It would make sense to me that the ones to jump on board first will most likely be the ones who are in financial trouble much like Chicago.

Have my fingers crossed.

One area which is addressed, which could be a problem, and many are not aware of as of yet , which differs from other states, is, it is contained within the proposed, that banning either cultivation centers or dispensaries from a community is not allowed. (Example: Naperville or Oak Park cannot ban dispensaries from operation in that community, and so on, which may very well bring more issues, and, something people may not be aware has occurred in other states, as many in CO and CA, and other states know. HB 01 prohibits communities from banning MMJ facilities.

I have already done quite a bit of work (consulting) with individuals and groups which have, to start with, absolutely no familiarity with the history of the industry (as above), nor have read a single word of the proposed legislation. I do not think any are aware of this (municipalities which will not welcome, that bill prohibits them from banning facilities, which could be another challenge.)

Quite a bit is, of course, speculation, other than what bill contains.

[Benjamin Check]

Dispensaries in Chicago....I predict a RASH of robberies and a few deaths, then the people who opposed it will be saying "you said weed wasn't violent!" Rumors will be flying, "yo son, this bitch whose cousin gets weed from there says they be having like 50 pounds in that motherfucker yo. 50 pounds of kush, purp,....bruh all type of shit!" That is the exact conversation that will take place several times, damned near word for word.

[ILL-IN-GROWER]

Was doing a bit of reading and came across this quote from the trib... https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,426018.story


"As part of the bill, the state would license 22 growers and allow for as many as 60 distribution centers — one per each senate district.

Guenther said that, with two senate districts in Mundelein, it remains to be seen what the effect of medical marijuana will be in the village."


Now I don't remember coming across this in the bill, but it makes a bit of sense. Some of those districts are quite large though... Unfortunately it seems the discussions out there are more focused on potential abuse, the black market, road safety, and employer/business ramifications, as opposed to patient advocacy, accessibility, low cost, and quality control.....

[ILL-IN-GROWER]

I went back through the bill with our good old friend, ctrl f, and found no mention of assigning the dispensaries according to senate districts...

[Julian]

It is also not specified dispensaries as not-for/non profit formation, yet within the initial requirements, applicants experience in such to be spelled out.

I have heard the above (assignment of dispensary locations) quite a bit recently, and no, it is not contained within.

As always, the absurdity of commentaries (story above) never fails......("joints could end up sold on the street" in Mundelein...and, seriously, who gets almost 3 rolled per gram ...(As the very same region has it's share of Section 8 housing. Whats next, Highwood, Waukegan and North Chicago worried about a stray gram "making its way to the street"? ...As they meet to determine how cultivation facilities will affect the community ...(Not first choice of location for a District one potential application for Cultivation Center, I can safely say ...)

Always good for a laugh is accompanying stories....Teen sues United for failing to stop masturbator, man charged with having sex with pit bull at pound, and Marijuana "poisoning" on the rise with Colorado kids.....Yet the appearance of an stray joint is a cause for concern ....