Lp INS
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
No I don't think so actually. The security requirement is crazy. Ins companies will soon prefer LP's IMOSo I take it that there are INS companies out there willing to insure LP's. Wonder how long it is until you hear about theft's and break ins.
"Inside" jobs will abound and the TAX payers(you and I) will pay once again.
It's going to be a real shit show.
Kootenaygirl
Active Member
Why rob the LP when it has no cash, a vault, cameras, barbed wire and can call the police, when "black market joe" has made it so easy for you?
Add the 10 year criminal record checks for those that work there and LP's should come in well under the averages for crime I would bet, isn't that the whole point of all this shit?
Nobody understands the LP facility issues... it is not the crime... not the smell...not the bad element, or the potential environmental damage.
In my estimation there are four "real" or "true" issues associated with LP's 1)the imposing size of the building(s) (2) night security lighting (3) HVAC noise (4) privacy issues with all the outside cameras.
These issues are rarely even discussed due to all the propaganda we've been spoon fed for decades!
You need to educate before you wade in to a public meeting or you'll get eaten alive. Don't under estimate dumb people in groups.
Insurance companies are licking their lips with all the propaganda supporting their inflated profit margins at the expense of the LP's and therefore patients, not the public. They charge a ton and do not actually insure anything, but if you need a bank, they have you by the short hairs.
Add the 10 year criminal record checks for those that work there and LP's should come in well under the averages for crime I would bet, isn't that the whole point of all this shit?
Nobody understands the LP facility issues... it is not the crime... not the smell...not the bad element, or the potential environmental damage.
In my estimation there are four "real" or "true" issues associated with LP's 1)the imposing size of the building(s) (2) night security lighting (3) HVAC noise (4) privacy issues with all the outside cameras.
These issues are rarely even discussed due to all the propaganda we've been spoon fed for decades!
You need to educate before you wade in to a public meeting or you'll get eaten alive. Don't under estimate dumb people in groups.
Insurance companies are licking their lips with all the propaganda supporting their inflated profit margins at the expense of the LP's and therefore patients, not the public. They charge a ton and do not actually insure anything, but if you need a bank, they have you by the short hairs.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Then why all the secrecy? There is something that LP's are afraid of if there are asking and getting what they want from the gov.
The secrecy is all about image. Just think about it, you have the current LP's talking about 15-20 current employees with estimates that in the future they can double or triple that. How secret can the location really be. It's just to show the municipality that they are serious about safety
Kootenaygirl
Active Member
Secrecy about location is a joke and an unrealistic expectation for any LP. The secrecy should be about business strategies, growing techniques and breeding programs. The security secrets are a given
I don't know what you think the government is doing to help LP's, Whatfg? The gov. does not help LP's, they provide an obstacle course, followed by a gauntlet. They are only providing the motivation to learn new things, they are teaching me about patience, they are teaching me how to deal with a bully you can't beat. Helping LP's or wannabe's, NOT!
I think the secrecy is a knee jerk reaction, instinct taught to everybody regarding marihuana. Not a reality, regarding security.
I don't know what you think the government is doing to help LP's, Whatfg? The gov. does not help LP's, they provide an obstacle course, followed by a gauntlet. They are only providing the motivation to learn new things, they are teaching me about patience, they are teaching me how to deal with a bully you can't beat. Helping LP's or wannabe's, NOT!
I think the secrecy is a knee jerk reaction, instinct taught to everybody regarding marihuana. Not a reality, regarding security.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
This came from HC regulatory impact. I don't really care whether or not you think this is helping LP's or not, I think it does make things easier for them
In addition, under section 66 of the MMPR, licensed producers are required to state their "site address" on the label on the immediate container for dried marihuana. Some licensed producers have pointed out that this requirement forces them to disclose the location of their operations to clients and members of the general public which, they believe, exposes their facilities to increased security risks. While the requirement to state the address of the licensed producer on the label is consistent with labelling practices for other controlled substances, such as morphine, these substances are typically dispensed from a pharmacy and show the address of the retailer (i.e. pharmacy) and not that of the manufacturer or wholesale distributor. Despite the fact that licensed producers have similar security requirements as those licensed to produce other narcotics, there is concern that the illegal widespread use of marihuana for recreational purposes may increase the risk that a licensed producer would be the target of crime if the production location is more generally disclosed. The Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Relating to Marihuana for Medical Purposes (the Amending Regulations) remove the obligation for the licensed producer to state their site address on the label and allow the licensed producer discretion in determining how their location information is disseminated.
Section 66: Paragraph 66(a) under the section is amended to remove the requirement to state the site address on the label of the immediate container for dried marihuana. Instead licensed producers are required to state a telephone number and email address with which they can be contacted. The amendment does not prohibit a licensed producer from stating their address on the product label for business or other reasons, if they see merit in doing so.
Section 1: A definition of pest control product has been added to this section of the MMPR to align with the definition for "pest control product" under the PCPA.
Section 6: Subsection 6(2) is amended to indicate that the prohibition against the sale or provision of marihuana with "additives" in subsection 6(1) of the MMPR excludes a residue of a pest control product unless a maximum residue limit is specified for the product and that limit is exceeded. This change replaces the previous provision on maximum residue limits and is better aligned with the relevant sections of the PCPA in respect of maximum residue limits
Section 54: This section is amended to indicate that pest control products that are not registered but otherwise authorized under the PCPA may be used on marihuana for medical purposes in addition to those which are registered. The change ensures that pest control products which are otherwise compliant with the PCPA are available for use.
Paragraphs 66(d) of the English version contained the phrase "upper left corner" and was inconsistent with the French version of the same paragraph. The word "corner" is replaced by "quarter" to correct the error and be consistent with the French version
Section 92: Subparagraph 92(b)(iv) of the French version contains a use of the masculine when the feminine should be used. The word "duquel" is replaced with "de laquelle" to correct the grammatical error.
In addition, section 54 of the MMPR restricts the use of pest control products on marihuana only to products that were 'registered' under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). Under the PCPA, products undergo a premarket approval process to minimize the associated risks. Pest control products must be either registered or otherwise authorized in accordance with the Act. The Amending Regulations harmonize the regulation of the use of pest control products on marihuana for medical purposes with the regulation of pest control products generally in the PCPA. All pest control products that are available for use on marihuana must be in compliance with the PCPA.
There are no incremental costs associated with the administrative changes to remove the obligation for licensed producers to state their site address on product labels or with the amendments to the use of pest control products. These changes are likely to have a zero net effect on licensed producer costs. On the contrary, access to approved pest control products may have potential benefits by reducing the chances of crop failure due to pests.
And this is the " consultation" that probably led to the latest threat, cause they sure didn't consult with patients now did they?
Consultation
The changes to the MMPR made by the Amending Regulations are mostly in response to feedback received from stakeholders representing law enforcement and municipalities after the MMPR came into force. As part of the transition to the MMPR, Health Canada has conducted a series of outreach activities with stakeholders including licensed producer applicants. The amendment to the information required on the product label was in response to feedback from both applicants to become licensed producers and recently licensed producers. As well, during the application process, many licensed producer applicants and licensed producers indicated to Health Canada that they need to be able to use pesticides to deal with pests in order to mitigate the significant risk of crop failure. The changes to the requirements for the use of pest control products on marihuana are in response to this request and inconsistencies with the PCPA noted after the MMPR came into force.
Finally, the amendment extending the notification requirement addresses feedback from other levels of government, including municipalities, as well as law enforcement agencies across Canada. In particular, during briefings with law enforcement on the transition from the MMAR to the MMPR, police forces told Health Canada that there should be transition measures to further enhance the elimination of personal production when the MMAR is repealed.
And of course there will be some costs to patients but too bad
Benefits and Costs Section
The Amending Regulations are an important measure towards a successful transition to the new MMPR and the end of personal production. These regulations, for the most part, affect Program participants and licensed producers and have a low overall impact on Canadians. Health Canada will incur incremental costs to implement the Amending Regulations. Program participants may also incur costs. Licensed producers will not incur any incremental costs when the Amending Regulations are implemented but may benefit from some of the changes. The greatest benefit, however, would accrue in terms of health and safety effects from the destruction and removal of unauthorized marihuana from the homes of those individuals who are no longer permitted to possess or licensed to grow under the repealed MMAR.
Health Canada's incremental implementation costs will be up to approximately $400,000. This includes contract costs involved in mailing approximately 42,000 letters to Program participants. It also includes salary and operational costs associated with the retention of staff who would be primarily responsible for data entry and processing of returned notices. This staff will also be responsible for tracking, follow-up, compliance monitoring and reporting information for enforcement activities that may be undertaken.
Program participants are required to send a notice to Health Canada after the amending regulations are promulgated. These notices may be sent in a variety of ways including mail. The costs incurred by the Program participants would be dependent on the method of notification chosen. For example registered mail would incur a cost; however, email would not. The cost of destruction of marihuana, if any, exists under the 'status quo' and is not incremental to the Amending Regulations.
There are no incremental costs associated with the administrative changes to remove the obligation for licensed producers to state their site address on product labels or with the amendments to the use of pest control products. These changes are likely to have a zero net effect on licensed producer costs. On the contrary, access to approved pest control products may have potential benefits by reducing the chances of crop failure due to pests.
In summary, the total cost of implementation is not expected to exceed $500,000.
In addition, under section 66 of the MMPR, licensed producers are required to state their "site address" on the label on the immediate container for dried marihuana. Some licensed producers have pointed out that this requirement forces them to disclose the location of their operations to clients and members of the general public which, they believe, exposes their facilities to increased security risks. While the requirement to state the address of the licensed producer on the label is consistent with labelling practices for other controlled substances, such as morphine, these substances are typically dispensed from a pharmacy and show the address of the retailer (i.e. pharmacy) and not that of the manufacturer or wholesale distributor. Despite the fact that licensed producers have similar security requirements as those licensed to produce other narcotics, there is concern that the illegal widespread use of marihuana for recreational purposes may increase the risk that a licensed producer would be the target of crime if the production location is more generally disclosed. The Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Relating to Marihuana for Medical Purposes (the Amending Regulations) remove the obligation for the licensed producer to state their site address on the label and allow the licensed producer discretion in determining how their location information is disseminated.
Section 66: Paragraph 66(a) under the section is amended to remove the requirement to state the site address on the label of the immediate container for dried marihuana. Instead licensed producers are required to state a telephone number and email address with which they can be contacted. The amendment does not prohibit a licensed producer from stating their address on the product label for business or other reasons, if they see merit in doing so.
Section 1: A definition of pest control product has been added to this section of the MMPR to align with the definition for "pest control product" under the PCPA.
Section 6: Subsection 6(2) is amended to indicate that the prohibition against the sale or provision of marihuana with "additives" in subsection 6(1) of the MMPR excludes a residue of a pest control product unless a maximum residue limit is specified for the product and that limit is exceeded. This change replaces the previous provision on maximum residue limits and is better aligned with the relevant sections of the PCPA in respect of maximum residue limits
Section 54: This section is amended to indicate that pest control products that are not registered but otherwise authorized under the PCPA may be used on marihuana for medical purposes in addition to those which are registered. The change ensures that pest control products which are otherwise compliant with the PCPA are available for use.
Paragraphs 66(d) of the English version contained the phrase "upper left corner" and was inconsistent with the French version of the same paragraph. The word "corner" is replaced by "quarter" to correct the error and be consistent with the French version
Section 92: Subparagraph 92(b)(iv) of the French version contains a use of the masculine when the feminine should be used. The word "duquel" is replaced with "de laquelle" to correct the grammatical error.
In addition, section 54 of the MMPR restricts the use of pest control products on marihuana only to products that were 'registered' under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). Under the PCPA, products undergo a premarket approval process to minimize the associated risks. Pest control products must be either registered or otherwise authorized in accordance with the Act. The Amending Regulations harmonize the regulation of the use of pest control products on marihuana for medical purposes with the regulation of pest control products generally in the PCPA. All pest control products that are available for use on marihuana must be in compliance with the PCPA.
There are no incremental costs associated with the administrative changes to remove the obligation for licensed producers to state their site address on product labels or with the amendments to the use of pest control products. These changes are likely to have a zero net effect on licensed producer costs. On the contrary, access to approved pest control products may have potential benefits by reducing the chances of crop failure due to pests.
And this is the " consultation" that probably led to the latest threat, cause they sure didn't consult with patients now did they?
Consultation
The changes to the MMPR made by the Amending Regulations are mostly in response to feedback received from stakeholders representing law enforcement and municipalities after the MMPR came into force. As part of the transition to the MMPR, Health Canada has conducted a series of outreach activities with stakeholders including licensed producer applicants. The amendment to the information required on the product label was in response to feedback from both applicants to become licensed producers and recently licensed producers. As well, during the application process, many licensed producer applicants and licensed producers indicated to Health Canada that they need to be able to use pesticides to deal with pests in order to mitigate the significant risk of crop failure. The changes to the requirements for the use of pest control products on marihuana are in response to this request and inconsistencies with the PCPA noted after the MMPR came into force.
Finally, the amendment extending the notification requirement addresses feedback from other levels of government, including municipalities, as well as law enforcement agencies across Canada. In particular, during briefings with law enforcement on the transition from the MMAR to the MMPR, police forces told Health Canada that there should be transition measures to further enhance the elimination of personal production when the MMAR is repealed.
And of course there will be some costs to patients but too bad
Benefits and Costs Section
The Amending Regulations are an important measure towards a successful transition to the new MMPR and the end of personal production. These regulations, for the most part, affect Program participants and licensed producers and have a low overall impact on Canadians. Health Canada will incur incremental costs to implement the Amending Regulations. Program participants may also incur costs. Licensed producers will not incur any incremental costs when the Amending Regulations are implemented but may benefit from some of the changes. The greatest benefit, however, would accrue in terms of health and safety effects from the destruction and removal of unauthorized marihuana from the homes of those individuals who are no longer permitted to possess or licensed to grow under the repealed MMAR.
Health Canada's incremental implementation costs will be up to approximately $400,000. This includes contract costs involved in mailing approximately 42,000 letters to Program participants. It also includes salary and operational costs associated with the retention of staff who would be primarily responsible for data entry and processing of returned notices. This staff will also be responsible for tracking, follow-up, compliance monitoring and reporting information for enforcement activities that may be undertaken.
Program participants are required to send a notice to Health Canada after the amending regulations are promulgated. These notices may be sent in a variety of ways including mail. The costs incurred by the Program participants would be dependent on the method of notification chosen. For example registered mail would incur a cost; however, email would not. The cost of destruction of marihuana, if any, exists under the 'status quo' and is not incremental to the Amending Regulations.
There are no incremental costs associated with the administrative changes to remove the obligation for licensed producers to state their site address on product labels or with the amendments to the use of pest control products. These changes are likely to have a zero net effect on licensed producer costs. On the contrary, access to approved pest control products may have potential benefits by reducing the chances of crop failure due to pests.
In summary, the total cost of implementation is not expected to exceed $500,000.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
IMO the biggest security threat for an LP is an RPIC or SPIC or APIC family member being kidnaped and held ransom until the vault has been cleared out and delivered.
I'm sure you've seen it on the news or perhaps in a movie where the bad guys take the bank managers family hostage, and makes the manager clear the vault out or they don't see their family again.
Breaking into a facility is a bit of a stretch in my mind, but the security of key individuals homes is probably the weak link in the chain.
I'm sure you've seen it on the news or perhaps in a movie where the bad guys take the bank managers family hostage, and makes the manager clear the vault out or they don't see their family again.
Breaking into a facility is a bit of a stretch in my mind, but the security of key individuals homes is probably the weak link in the chain.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
wow leaf...thinking like the bad guys...very true though.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
What can I say, I grew up in the Jane Finch area of Toronto.
The registration was abolished....The ONE thing Harper did that was good. He could not have done it with a Minority though. Which is what he learned about in High school, that was how to be a complete moron and win being one. Look at me now Mofo's. I think the mandatory 6 month was put in place so he could rub it in the face of the ones he hated in school growing up. I'll put your kid in jail for growing a few in the back yard!!! 
Not to mention taking all your rights away while you watch and do nothing. Hair and blood along with breath samples can be taken from you. With out your consent.
LAW!!
Not to mention taking all your rights away while you watch and do nothing. Hair and blood along with breath samples can be taken from you. With out your consent.
LAW!!
cannadan
Well-Known Member
I found it quite funny that, somehow, I have become a safety problem for my neighborhood.....when I have alcoholic neighbors with 30 rifles and guns of all descriptions on one side of me....and my other neighbor raises poisonous snakes and large lizards in his shop behind the house...The registration was abolished....The ONE thing Harper did that was good. He could not have done it with a Minority though. Which is what he learned about in High school, that was how to be a complete moron and win being one. Look at me now Mofo's. I think the mandatory 6 month was put in place so he could rub it in the face of the ones he hated in school growing up. I'll put your kid in jail for growing a few in the back yard!!!
Not to mention taking all your rights away while you watch and do nothing. Hair and blood along with breath samples can be take from you. With out your consent.
LAW!!
I hope my neighbors will feel safe come march 31st....when i'm detoxing from my narcotic's.....
No shit. Like they will destroy all their trimmings? Not friggin likely. Maybe at the start? It won't continue though. Even LP's know it is all about CASH and nothing else.
Bubble Hash and BHO is extremely expensive on the black market. BHO can sell for 80/gram....bubble 20 all the way up.
YES occifer....we dispose of it in the trash with kitty littler like was told by HC. All Lp's do no?
Hey Al, garbage collection time. I bet they don't put cameras on their garbage. Hmmmmm The 'Bin' Man might be someone to get a hold of eh
Haven't heard about destroying trim any other way...anyone else?
Kootenaygirl
Active Member
Thanks Punky.....The government helps LP's like you helped me, "whatthefuck", I mean Whatfg, burying us in old dry reading really didn't back anything you said up.
Your sounding desperate to show something that clearly doesn't exist, why back yourself into a corner, do you honestly believe HC is helping anyone grow marihuana? Seriously?
I'll say it one more time for the old guy in the back row... "HC does not like marihuana or those that do." They have never helped anybody grow or obtain cannabis, ever!
I let your paste speak for itself, long and dry, with no LP ever getting help from HC, like you promised.
Why so bitter Whatfg, have I not shown you respect? I just think your wrong sometimes is all, grow up, agree to disagree. I can't help it if you have your head up your ass sometimes... Join the club, I've had to get help pulling mine out! Open minds is what we need to get through this cluster fuck storm created by none other than Health Canada. This is the one thing I have remained 100% right about, HC is the enemy, not your fellow patients or LP's.
Average joes are now getting to see the vitriol that HC has had for us, and that shit does not go over well with Canadians, another straw on the camels back... I forget who said it but I think we are gonna blow the doors off... not just open them... for our beloved cannabis flowers. BE FOR CANNABIS-------NOT AGAINST SOMETHING!
Your sounding desperate to show something that clearly doesn't exist, why back yourself into a corner, do you honestly believe HC is helping anyone grow marihuana? Seriously?
I'll say it one more time for the old guy in the back row... "HC does not like marihuana or those that do." They have never helped anybody grow or obtain cannabis, ever!
I let your paste speak for itself, long and dry, with no LP ever getting help from HC, like you promised.
Why so bitter Whatfg, have I not shown you respect? I just think your wrong sometimes is all, grow up, agree to disagree. I can't help it if you have your head up your ass sometimes... Join the club, I've had to get help pulling mine out! Open minds is what we need to get through this cluster fuck storm created by none other than Health Canada. This is the one thing I have remained 100% right about, HC is the enemy, not your fellow patients or LP's.
Average joes are now getting to see the vitriol that HC has had for us, and that shit does not go over well with Canadians, another straw on the camels back... I forget who said it but I think we are gonna blow the doors off... not just open them... for our beloved cannabis flowers. BE FOR CANNABIS-------NOT AGAINST SOMETHING!
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
When big business, and don't kid yourself, this is big business, can go to the government and ask for accommodations and get them, (changing legislation is kinda big in my books) while at the same time the government threatens to give my personal info to the authorities, they are helping LP's. Did you read that drivel? It's new, not old. Maybe next time I won't make it convenient for you to reference.... but then that would probably just be a waste of time 'cause then you wouldn't read it. Yes, I totally think HC is helping to get this industry up and running as fast as it can. Stockpiling crap in case there is a shortage while expecting me to destroy any medicine I have and forcing me to swear I did destroy it. Allowing LP's to use pesticides so they are less prone to crop failure. Allowing LP's to keep their growing facilities secret. These are the newest accommodations. Get your head out of your ass.
Can't say I'm feeling the love from you Kgirl. I don't think I'm right about everything, but I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not. I had what I thought was a pretty open mind regarding this program until I read about all the people wringing their hands waiting for me to quit paying my mortgage or feeding my kids. Then my government rats me out, and still LP's are still waiting for my money to come rolling in. My head is not up my ass...I see this for exactly what it is - a money grab off the backs of the sick. I would wager that the already authorized LP's had something to do with the recent threats from HC. I know conspiracy theories and all, but the reality is, patients are not the focus of this program and can not afford what's being offered. Hell there are new patients on the forum already saying they won't be able to sustain this. So who is going to buy all of this great marihuana that's being grown for patients? I guess it will be all the new patients coming down the pipe that can't find a doctor to sign a bunch of different forms. There's your target market, not people like me that have a big script and no way to pay for it. You wanting to be an LP just feeds the monster, and I guess that indirectly makes wannabes and LP's the enemy. I told someone on here that I would shut up about small scale LP's but the more I read and see the more I'm convinced that any small scale operation will get eaten up by the big guys, especially when we finally go legal. And I actually like the idea of smaller outfits that may not need to use pesticides. I totally agree that not everyone can or wants to grow for themselves, and there is a place for standardized production. I just can't/won't support this model.
As a patient, I'm surprised you have to ask why I'm so bitter. I won't waste your time or mine answering that.
Can't say I'm feeling the love from you Kgirl. I don't think I'm right about everything, but I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not. I had what I thought was a pretty open mind regarding this program until I read about all the people wringing their hands waiting for me to quit paying my mortgage or feeding my kids. Then my government rats me out, and still LP's are still waiting for my money to come rolling in. My head is not up my ass...I see this for exactly what it is - a money grab off the backs of the sick. I would wager that the already authorized LP's had something to do with the recent threats from HC. I know conspiracy theories and all, but the reality is, patients are not the focus of this program and can not afford what's being offered. Hell there are new patients on the forum already saying they won't be able to sustain this. So who is going to buy all of this great marihuana that's being grown for patients? I guess it will be all the new patients coming down the pipe that can't find a doctor to sign a bunch of different forms. There's your target market, not people like me that have a big script and no way to pay for it. You wanting to be an LP just feeds the monster, and I guess that indirectly makes wannabes and LP's the enemy. I told someone on here that I would shut up about small scale LP's but the more I read and see the more I'm convinced that any small scale operation will get eaten up by the big guys, especially when we finally go legal. And I actually like the idea of smaller outfits that may not need to use pesticides. I totally agree that not everyone can or wants to grow for themselves, and there is a place for standardized production. I just can't/won't support this model.
As a patient, I'm surprised you have to ask why I'm so bitter. I won't waste your time or mine answering that.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Sorry gb...I didn't mean to take over your thread... I agree with your op that it will be just one more thing taxpayers will ultimately end up paying for. It will be the premiums that patients/clients of LP's pay for, and I can't see those being cheap given the nature of the beast.
cannadan
Well-Known Member
Hey Whatfg...just consider where this is coming from....they have been trying to discredit anyone who doesn't support LP's or MMPR...
when they have nothing of value to say,they always seem to interject with the personal attack....
take it for what it is worth.....nothing
ps I'm all for mandatory min sentences for health can employees who mess up and politicians who mess up....
how about 1 day in jail for every day you have been in office....
when they have nothing of value to say,they always seem to interject with the personal attack....
take it for what it is worth.....nothing
ps I'm all for mandatory min sentences for health can employees who mess up and politicians who mess up....
how about 1 day in jail for every day you have been in office....
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
Obviously kootanygirl has never actually needed medical marihuana as a last chance medication or she would not support LP's at all. I have exhausted all other medications for my illness and now under HC and Stephan Hitlers regime i can not afford what LP'S are charging and I will become a criminal over night if I continue to provide myself with medication that works for me. Oh yah and to add insult to injury just because I can not afford to buy from a legal producer they are going to give my name and address where me and my family live to law enforcement. Come on what kind of a Canada do we live in????