Proposed Rule Changes

Thought I'd start a new thread for this rather than clutter up the FAQ with ensuing discussion. I have only glanced at it thus far, and read the mailing from mmc on it. They seem quite concerned by it but so far after only a brief reading I don't see anything too alarming. That can easily change as I learn more.

One thing that kinda threw me in the Press Herald story this morning was that the sponsor of 1296, Rep. Sanderson, stated that the original intent was for people to be able to grow outside. I never got that at all with the language of the law, nor have I ever heard anyone in government say so.

Here's a link to the Press Herald story:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/new-marijuana-rules-proposed_2012-07-26.html

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/dlrs/rulemaking/proposed.shtml

you can submit comments here:
https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/dlrs/rulemaking/rulemaking_comments.shtml?id=416676

I read though most of it.

limit of 12 female plants in veg per patient...no more unlimited

Incidental amount of marijuana. Incidental amount of marijuana per patient
means 12 female nonflowering marijuana plants and marijuana seedlings, seeds,
stalks and roots that are not included when calculating the allowable amounts of
marijuana specified in these rules. See 22 M.R.S.A. §2422 (4-A).




This looks bad:

Enclosed area with residence. The enclosed cultivation area
must be located where the qualifying patient or caregiver
resides. The owner of the property where the qualifying patient
or caregiver resides must give written authorization before the
marijuana cultivation area is located on the property.

One of the major motivations for LD1296 was to ensure that outdoor growing was allowed, since after the Baldacci Task Force rewrote the 2009 Citizen's Initiative they attempted to define the only allowed growing location as in a building. At the Public hearings on the changes to the law, one of the major things discussed by the Public and the bill's Sponsor was the need to ensure outdoor growing was allowed, and the definition of an enclosed locked facility was written specifically to allow outdoor growing.

Section 2.7 of the proposed rules (online at http://www.mmcmonline.org/images/stories/proposed-10-144-cmr-chapter122.pdf ) greatly tightens the definition of an "enclosed, locked, facility" to require exterior lighting with motion detector, effectively wrecking people's ability to have the darkness required for flower plants. It also would require an 8 foot fence blocking any view (standard fence hight is 6ft), both imposing extra costs and reducing needed ventillation, increasing risk of mold. It also allows the Department of Health and Human Services to create new security requirements at any time.

More info at www.mmcmonline.org

And unless the enclosed area is like twice as big as necessary, an 8 ft fence is going to block a lot of sun too.

I know nothing about combating this stuff. How do we fight these insane rule changes?

If one wanted to take a little more active role in helping our cause, what would you guys suggest?

unohu69 said:

I know nothing about combating this stuff. How do we fight these insane rule changes?

If one wanted to take a little more active role in helping our cause, what would you guys suggest?

Click to expand...

Attending the public hearing would be a start. Read the proposed rules, think about what specifically concerns you about it, be prepared to speak on that or submit comment afterward.

I want to do the same, attend a hearing. I cannot make it to Augusta though, does anyone know if they will have others around the state? I would think at the very least if we could all get a list of "concerns" together and try to speak as a whole. I would love to help however I can

I left my comment here it is for all to see I might be off on how some of these new rules would work but here are the problems i see.

I feel that some of the new proposed rules were made specifically to burden the small grower/patient growing for them self. The rules would raise the cost of security while drawing more attention to grow facilities. Right now there are many patients growing their own. These patients go unnoticed because of the normal 6 foot fences and not having bright light that can be set off by wind and wildlife. This is the State of Maine and some of us live in the woods, we would not want to disturb wildlife and their natural habitat with bright lights. I also feel that making a property owner give written permission is a violation of the privacy act if you’re a patient. If you rent on a large piece of land and have permission to build the facility that should be all that matters. By making the property owner give written permission only make him liable at the federal level and I as a property owner would not want to be held liable for another actions in this manner. This makes it possible for feds to try and take renters property and is not good at all.