Search results

Where's the button for "like your post, but not the info in it"? :)

I want to correct a misstatement I made in an earlier post. Thanks to Myk63 for pointing this out. The state does specify a maximum wait time, contrary to what I wrote earlier: (410 ILCS 130/60) (Section scheduled to be repealed on July 1, 2020) Sec. 60. Issuance of registry...

Who did you e-mail? I might like to add my voice....

I wonder if the lawmakers who wrote the law are aware that it's taking this long for approvals?

Do you have insider information? Do you know for sure that there isn't someone whose job is to answer phones while others only process paperwork and don't answer phones? This gets to a point I was just trying to make in another post: no one seems to know what the actual processing entails...

I understand what you're saying, but that analogy doesn't apply in this situation. We're discussing the implementation of a state law, not an order of fries at a private business. The people answering the phones at IDPH are there specifically working for our benefit, on our dime, not for a...

Ha ha. That's a clever spin, but are you really saying that if you call, they'll throw away your application? That's just silly.

Maybe I'm getting too old and cranky, but I think we should be burning up the phones at the IDPH office that deals with this, letting these people know that we're not going to just sit back and allow them to put our health on the back burner. The more calls, emails, letters, the better. What's...

It's worth noting that we all seem to have accepted that 90 day process as part of the standard protocol at this point, when in fact there is no such process described in the law. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the law that refers to any processing deadlines between the state's...

I've been going over the language of the law trying to find where or how I'm misinterpreting my reading of it, and I think I finally found it. Section 62, subsection H, which is also quoted elsewhere in this thread, states: "The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the...

I feel the need to say this every time I comment on this subject, but again, I am not a lawyer :) If you have expertise in this area that I don't, I'll gladly defer to you on this. Having said that, I have read this particular law pretty closely. The language I quoted from the law (and I do...

Also not trying to engage in an argument, but.... That's a different law, which as you point out, is irrelevant to the issue I was addressing. The actual relevant language I was referring to is this directive for what went into law on 12/1 (the bold emphasis is mine): Public Act 100-1114...

I'm about 60 days into my wait right now. Because the law does state in unambiguous terms that every pending applicant will be granted provisional access on 12/1, I called my designated dispensary today to ask what they know about this. The person I spoke with was knowledgeable and helpful...

All of this discussion of which application date the state is currently processing makes me wonder - does any know exactly what the processing entails? What exactly takes place when they get to your application? Is it sent to a state approved doctor for review, then either approved or denied by...

So it sounds like the infrastructure is already in place. If that's the case, all that would need to be done is that the state would need to issue the provisional access documents to everyone who is in the system already who hasn't yet been issued a card. They must have that info in a database...

So are you saying that the dispensary told you that there's more paperwork for provisional access in addition to the application that has already been submitted to obtain the card?

Good question. Even though it appears that the state hasn't sent out any provisional access paperwork to applicants, I wonder if dispensaries have been notified that it begins today and given instructions on how to deal with it. The way I read the law, the dispensaries will need to access the...

Well, as I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer, but: "Implement rules" by that date = "provisional access" by that date, the way it's written. There's nothing in that section of the law that specifically excludes or allows for ANY exceptions, so by definition it must be included.

The reason(s) I think the state will balk: every single thing they've done regarding MMJ until now. But FWIW, I wasn't specifically referring to patients who will ultimately be denied - I was referring to everyone who as applied. Every step of the way they've stumbled and delayed this process...

I was curious about what if anything changes tomorrow, 12/1, the date given for Illinois to "adopt" - not just announce, but "adopt" - the regulations signed into law on 8/28 as part of the Opioid Alternative Program. I'm not a lawyer, but I know how to read :), so I dug into the specifics...