If Growers were licensed...what then?

[colagal]

Thinking about the changes to the present legislation, there is proposed language, towit:

"... the new version would also allow for separate licenses for marijuana- growing facilities tied to dispensaries â?? which could sell a portion of what they grow to other dispensaries â?? and for marijuana product-makers."

Read more: Few on either side happy with proposed medical-marijuana licensing rules - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14517227#ixzz0hKE80SAH)

What do you suppose the license requirements might entail? Zoning? Construction? Documents/disclosures needed to establish dispensary tie-in? Caregiver relationships? And, I assume there will be a limit on the number of licenses given? A way to limit small growers?

Whatever comes down one thing is for certain, growers who want to be licensed will also be a lot more visible....and possibly vulnerable? I am not sure this proposal will make me want to do the happy dance or remain firmly hidden in the closet. Anxious to see the details...

[checkedout]

True that. I don't think they have thought about the cost associated with growing this fine plant. As a small grower I offset the cost by selling the excess to the dispensary, and still make very little if put into an hourly wage verse time spent. It just will not grow it self.

[HighPopalorum]

Whatever comes down one thing is for certain, growers who want to be licensed will also be a lot more visible....and possibly vulnerable?

Yeah, but we all crossed that bridge already when we registered with the state.

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

i heard that they want detailed accounting of where their mmj comes from. since this is the first mention of growers it may solidify at the local level people who are wholesalers only. however it doesnt appear they will go that direction.

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate

[colagal]

i heard that they want detailed accounting of where their mmj comes from. since this is the first mention of growers it may solidify at the local level people who are wholesalers only. however it doesnt appear they will go that direction.

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate

Not sure the intent, but it looks like a growing facility (if licensed) is either separate from a dispensary, or part of the dispensary but separately licensed?

I am guessing there are wholesale grow operations that are not covered, i.e., don't have enough patients to justify their grow? This new language may legitimize wholesalers under certain conditions?


Yeah, but we all crossed that bridge already when we registered with the state.

Certainly, caregivers are noted on the state registry, but this may allow that information to be more visible on a local level as well.

[palerider7777]

Yeah, but we all crossed that bridge already when we registered with the state.

well first off it's supposed to be sealed and no one can access our records.having to be licensed would open us up for all to see.ever heard of public records? to have a licence means your a biz doing biz which would then open you up to the irs "irs= FED" GET IT? so even if you wanted to do this legit the fed will know where every grow is at not just the shops.now this would'nt be a prob if the fed did'nt have such a hard on for mmj.i see this as a back door way to get mmj info on everyone.

ps just think of the fun thiefs would have on grow rooms yea thats using our heads.i guess some will just never wake up.wow

[HighPopalorum]

This new language may legitimize wholesalers under certain conditions?

Yeah. The reason why, in most industries, wholesalers are licensed separately from retailers is because it's necessary for the collection of sales tax. Since business to business sales are not taxed, the state needs to know which businesses sell retail and which sell to other businesses. The dispensaries will get a tax ID number, while the wholesalers get an exemption. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us, with six plants in our closets, won't be impacted at all, since we're neither required to be licensed as growers nor taxed.

[palerider7777]

Yeah. The reason why, in most industries, wholesalers are licensed separately from retailers is because it's necessary for the collection of sales tax. Since business to business sales are not taxed, the state needs to know which businesses sell retail and which sell to other businesses. The dispensaries will get a tax ID number, while the wholesalers get an exemption. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us, with six plants in our closets, won't be impacted at all, since we're neither required to be licensed as growers nor taxed.

yes this is true if your growing a small amount or any amount at all that only you use.but if you ever want to sell any of your extra meds then this would come into play. which in turn will leave the door wide open for the guy down the street to know what your doing.

[HighPopalorum]

yes this is true if your growing a small amount or any amount at all that only you use.but if you ever want to sell any of your extra meds then this would come into play. which in turn will leave the door wide open for the guy down the street to know what your doing.

The state license is absolutely confidential, unless the caregiver waives it. If local government wanted to license commercial growers they could also maintain confidentiality.I don't know if the legislation is a good idea... I haven't made up my mind. It settles all doubt about the legality of dispensaries, a major victory.

[colagal]

The state license is absolutely confidential, unless the caregiver waives it. If local government wanted to license commercial growers they could also maintain confidentiality.I don't know if the legislation is a good idea... I haven't made up my mind. It settles all doubt about the legality of dispensaries, a major victory.

Anything that is filed and recorded (like business licenses) are public records with very few exceptions (like personal or confidential information), which I doubt will include growing operations. Even though it looks somewhat encouraging for dispensaries, it does not seem so for growers who are some of the favorite targets of the Fed despite state regulations. I am naive in thinking that the Fed will ever come around...they (especially the DEA) are rabid in their crusade to eradicate the alleged evils of marijuana - just take a look at their website.

In as much as I would like to be open about growing without the attendant fear and paranoia, until some miracle occurs on the Fed level, I reckon it be prudent to stay low...the low-life.

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

Yeah. The reason why, in most industries, wholesalers are licensed separately from retailers is because it's necessary for the collection of sales tax. Since business to business sales are not taxed, the state needs to know which businesses sell retail and which sell to other businesses. The dispensaries will get a tax ID number, while the wholesalers get an exemption. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us, with six plants in our closets, won't be impacted at all, since we're neither required to be licensed as growers nor taxed.

the key issue with wholesaling is the plant count. they want them to have the patients to justify how many plants they can have. the problem...then is that they become caregivers and dipensaries not wholesalers. mobius stri[p with these idiots. i watch with intensity though so i can realize my dream;)

meded so you c an mededicate to mededitate

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

Anything that is filed and recorded (like business licenses) are public records with very few exceptions (like personal or confidential information), which I doubt will include growing operations. Even though it looks somewhat encouraging for dispensaries, it does not seem so for growers who are some of the favorite targets of the Fed despite state regulations. I am naive in thinking that the Fed will ever come around...they (especially the DEA) are rabid in their crusade to eradicate the alleged evils of marijuana - just take a look at their website.

In as much as I would like to be open about growing without the attendant fear and paranoia, until some miracle occurs on the Fed level, I reckon it be prudent to stay low...the low-life.


preach it!! you know they are just lurking on here and steps behind every day. TRAITORS.

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate

[copobo]

until mj is removed as a schedule I drug, the state legitimization is useless.

If the DEA wants to kick in your door, they will. And going legit is what's gotten at least 2 labs busted.

Don't stand up and have your grow counted, unless you like more excitement than most...

[HighPopalorum]

Don't stand up and have your grow counted, unless you like more excitement than most..


You are over reacting because you don't understand. No one has to register their grow except for dispensaries, who will be required to grow most of their own medicine. If you don't operate a medical marijuana center, you don't need the cultivation license. In fact, you can't even apply for it.

[colagal]

You are over reacting because you don't understand. No one has to register their grow except for dispensaries, who will be required to grow most of their own medicine. If you don't operate a medical marijuana center, you don't need the cultivation license. In fact, you can't even apply for it.

Except in the case of the new proposal, i.e., separate licenses for marijuana- growing facilities tied to dispensaries, whatever that means.


the key issue with wholesaling is the plant count. they want them to have the patients to justify how many plants they can have. the problem...then is that they become caregivers and dipensaries not wholesalers. mobius stri[p with these idiots. i watch with intensity though so i can realize my dream

This is the key, if the grower tie-in to the dispensary meant that the grower "shares" patients with the dispensary, then the grower would not have to be a caregiver per se, but licensed nonetheless. I just don't see the feasibility in dispensaries being able to grow 75-90% of their meds, edibles, etc., without some kind of contingency in the event demand exceeded supply, i.e., having access to growers. Can you imagine pharmacies manufacturing their meds? I would never go to Walgreens again, mostly because they would never have anything, not to mention that whatever they did have would be poop. :)

[copobo]

You are over reacting because you don't understand. No one has to register their grow except for dispensaries, who will be required to grow most of their own medicine. If you don't operate a medical marijuana center, you don't need the cultivation license. In fact, you can't even apply for it.

I do understand, thanks. We are talking about commercial growing. Guys that drop off extra meds to dispensaries. contract growers.

Do you really think licensing will save a grow from the feds if they feel like taking you out?

Do you think they wont be kicking in the doors of non-commercial growers to do some counting, to make sure they are getting their license money?

this is an Law Enforcement Bill, & don't you forget it!

[HighPopalorum]

We are talking about commercial growing. Guys that drop off extra meds to dispensaries. contract growers.

No... we're talking about dispensaries only. If you're not a dispensary, you don't have to apply for the cultivation permit. Neither of the groups you mention are covered by this provision.

[senorx12562]

Long before this proposal came out, it was obvious that no grower in their right mind would come forward in any manner. No background check through NCIC, no 1099s from dispensaries (and don't think that Federal law enforcement isn't keeping track of that through the IRS), no way, Jose! I am staying so far underground that I'll have to speak Mandarin. I even changed my avatar to suit. Just call me THE MOLE!

[copobo]

Just call me THE MOLE!

I hear ya. the thing I keep telling myself is, at this point, I'm in it for fun. As long as you don't go on TV and blabber about how much money you are going to make, keep the size within state limits... they are not going to be interested in home grows. there's just too many of us, and the publicity is bad.

I really think over time, this is all going to become more normal. There were no dispensaries a year ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and the progress is phenomenal. Knee jerk publicity whores in the legislature set out to be big and bad, and all of the legislation has weakened tremendously.

Dispensaries are here to stay, and supply and demand will require an underground market for growers to clinics & patient to patient if 1284 passes.

[TheReleafCenter]

The DEA doesn't seem interested in taking down large scale grows that have their patient information down. I believe, for the most part, if you are truly operating in clear compliance with Amendment 20, you are going to be just fine. If you're trying to grow 50 plants with the recommendation you paid your Doc an extra $200 for, that's a different story.

The main reason they want wholesaling is so they can follow the supply chain from grow to dispensary. It helps them identify black market/cartel activity if they can say "All of a sudden 30 shops have Blue Dream but no one is growing it in Colorado." Very big brotheresque; they want transparency on our side. It also makes it a lot easier for people who simply want to grow and not deal with patient acquisition or running a storefront.

The last time I read the house bill, I believe the language was that anyone can grow, but you need to be contracted by a dispensary. If you're under contract, you can serve that dispensary and one other with the remaining 25%. Turning this on it's head, any grower could simply stockpile to reach a level where they produce and sell what the market demands. If you had 100 lbs of the worst outdoor bud you could grow, that enables you to sell up to 25 lbs of anything else. Doesn't make sense.

[redtails]

As long as it's been medicinally "legal" there've been dispensaries...

[ColoradoCareMMJ]

It sure would make it easier for dispensaries so were not having to go through and deal with all of the paperwork associated with caregivers, change of caregiver, cancellation of caregiver. Its really beyond ridiculous.....

[ColoradoCareMMJ]

until mj is removed as a schedule I drug, the state legitimization is useless.

If the DEA wants to kick in your door, they will. And going legit is what's gotten at least 2 labs busted.

Don't stand up and have your grow counted, unless you like more excitement than most...

Actually what got them in trouble was the fact they were already operating and testing samples prior to applying for a liscense from the DEA.

[colagal]

The last time I read the house bill, I believe the language was that anyone can grow, but you need to be contracted by a dispensary. If you're under contract, you can serve that dispensary and one other with the remaining 25%. Turning this on it's head, any grower could simply stockpile to reach a level where they produce and sell what the market demands. If you had 100 lbs of the worst outdoor bud you could grow, that enables you to sell up to 25 lbs of anything else. Doesn't make sense.

Do you think that your (all dispensaries for that matter) vendors or growers will voluntarily want to expose themselves through having to obtain dispensary contracts and growers licenses so as to be "legitimate" and distinguish themselves from cartels? I think many growers, even the ones who have enough patients to justify their grow will, like Senorx says, stay hidden if they are smart. So, if many growers do decide to remain anonymous but still want to do business with you, will you be reluctant to do business with them?

[RockwellHG]

This quote from the article is interesting to me:

Geoff Blue, a state deputy attorney general, was equally upset at the bill, though for different reasons.

"The dispensary model will be abused, and people will be able to access marijuana through the dispensary model who should not be able to access it," he said.

:wtf:

This seems to be a common justification as to why there needs to be tighter regulations and new laws. Sure the current system gets abused some, but what is the net negative impact of that abuse? Do they think that tighter regs will lead to less abuse of the laws? lol - sounds like they just want more potential gotchas in the system for us to trip on.

[TheReleafCenter]

Do you think that your (all dispensaries for that matter) vendors or growers will voluntarily want to expose themselves through having to obtain dispensary contracts and growers licenses so as to be "legitimate" and distinguish themselves from cartels? I think many growers, even the ones who have enough patients to justify their grow will, like Senorx says, stay hidden if they are smart. So, if many growers do decide to remain anonymous but still want to do business with you, will you be reluctant to do business with them?

No, I definitely think there will be people who would rather stay in the shadows. But, let's take what the DEA says on face value; they're only going after grows that aren't in clear and unambiguous compliance with the state constitution. The state passes 1284 as a nod to the Feds, basically saying "We'll make it harder to grow here, you can prosecute everyone who doesn't want to comply." The Feds get to justify keeping their bloated budget because the bill drives more growers underground. The state gets to tout that they're protecting legal Colorado grows from the Feds. Win-win.

Growers who think they can "stay hidden" are probably kidding themselves. If 1284 passes, they know who is registered and who isn't. A lot of electric bills haven't picked up the attention they usually would because it's a pain for any agency to go after a grow in the status quo. On a state and federal level, agents have come out and said they have active investigations going on all over the place. Even the attempted busts of grows that are in compliance help them get more information on what to look for on the next raid.

And if the bill passes, we will only work with registered grows. We're built this business by 10 gallon buckets of blood, sweat and tears at a time. We've been in compliance with things that haven't even passed. It's for our, and our patients, sake that we operate legally. Even if what is legal happens to suck terribly.

@Rockwell: The biggest issue that keeps coming up on a societal level seems to be teenagers gaming the system and redistributing their meds. Parents have huge issues with a perceived ease of access that their kids have to marijuana. The recent study about marijuana leading to increased psychosis amongst teens don't help. They think that regulation will intimidate kids, hence fewer issues. I wouldn't want to go in front of some state panel if I was 18 to justify my card when the kid two desks over in homeroom has the bomb already. Think about it like a fake ID, though; everyone doesn't need one, just the one going into the liquor store.

And what we should all be talking about? When Geoff said that they will be putting up a ballot initiative to challenge the dispensary model altogether. Bad news.

@ColoradoCareMMJ: And Full Spectrum is still up and running. Just got some G13 and Grapefruit (over 8% CBD's!!!) tested the other day.

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

well first off it's supposed to be sealed and no one can access our records.having to be licensed would open us up for all to see.ever heard of public records? to have a licence means your a biz doing biz which would then open you up to the irs "irs= FED" GET IT? so even if you wanted to do this legit the fed will know where every grow is at not just the shops.now this would'nt be a prob if the fed did'nt have such a hard on for mmj.i see this as a back door way to get mmj info on everyone.

ps just think of the fun thiefs would have on grow rooms yea thats using our heads.i guess some will just never wake up.wow

po box my friend:D i ran two biz with a po box. average joes couldnt access without some sort of knowledge.

meded so you can mededicate to mededicate

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

until mj is removed as a schedule I drug, the state legitimization is useless.

If the DEA wants to kick in your door, they will. And going legit is what's gotten at least 2 labs busted.

Don't stand up and have your grow counted, unless you like more excitement than most...

to my understanding the AMA has downgraded the class of mj and now claims medicinal use. DEA will not comply...because besically thats all they have to do in life...arrest mj people. prisons full of people like you and i. well at least they get paid more that some sort of solace, thiefs:mad:

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

This quote from the article is interesting to me:

Geoff Blue, a state deputy attorney general, was equally upset at the bill, though for different reasons.

"The dispensary model will be abused, and people will be able to access marijuana through the dispensary model who should not be able to access it," he said.

:wtf:

This seems to be a common justification as to why there needs to be tighter regulations and new laws. Sure the current system gets abused some, but what is the net negative impact of that abuse? Do they think that tighter regs will lead to less abuse of the laws? lol - sounds like they just want more potential gotchas in the system for us to trip on.


this led to the END of the street market, now they want to bring it back. clearly , it was more profitable when they started the brand new jail project in downtown to arrest mj people. now it would appear they can no longer justify the cost of their finely built waste of tax payer money and bond issues. so now they want to untame the beast. let us make them suffer. "sorry deary no trip to italy this year those wretched stoners took all of our money" aaaawwww bleedin heart traitors...piss off mate.

meded so you can mededicate to mededitate

[HighPopalorum]

Good post by ReleafCenter. It's interesting to get a dispensary's perspective on these regulations. I agree that it will not be possible for growers to "stay in the shadows" if they want to sell to dispensaries; that's one of he things the bill set out to address. Although I live in a different part of the state, I appreciate your dispensary's policy of only buying from legal growers; to me, it's a selling point.

[colagal]

Good post by ReleafCenter. It's interesting to get a dispensary's perspective on these regulations. I agree that it will not be possible for growers to "stay in the shadows" if they want to sell to dispensaries; that's one of he things the bill set out to address. Although I live in a different part of the state, I appreciate your dispensary's policy of only buying from legal growers; to me, it's a selling point.

Other than Durango, do you have opinions regarding dispensaries in the western slope? Seems most of the reviews deal with the front range?


No, I definitely think there will be people who would rather stay in the shadows. But, let's take what the DEA says on face value; they're only going after grows that aren't in clear and unambiguous compliance with the state constitution. The state passes 1284 as a nod to the Feds, basically saying "We'll make it harder to grow here, you can prosecute everyone who doesn't want to comply." The Feds get to justify keeping their bloated budget because the bill drives more growers underground. The state gets to tout that they're protecting legal Colorado grows from the Feds. Win-win.

Growers who think they can "stay hidden" are probably kidding themselves. If 1284 passes, they know who is registered and who isn't. A lot of electric bills haven't picked up the attention they usually would because it's a pain for any agency to go after a grow in the status quo. On a state and federal level, agents have come out and said they have active investigations going on all over the place. Even the attempted busts of grows that are in compliance help them get more information on what to look for on the next raid.

And if the bill passes, we will only work with registered grows. We're built this business by 10 gallon buckets of blood, sweat and tears at a time. We've been in compliance with things that haven't even passed. It's for our, and our patients, sake that we operate legally. Even if what is legal happens to suck terribly.

@Rockwell: The biggest issue that keeps coming up on a societal level seems to be teenagers gaming the system and redistributing their meds. Parents have huge issues with a perceived ease of access that their kids have to marijuana. The recent study about marijuana leading to increased psychosis amongst teens don't help. They think that regulation will intimidate kids, hence fewer issues. I wouldn't want to go in front of some state panel if I was 18 to justify my card when the kid two desks over in homeroom has the bomb already. Think about it like a fake ID, though; everyone doesn't need one, just the one going into the liquor store.

Regarding grows, you may be representative of many dispensaries probably for the same reasons. It is a good point about the registration of growers who are also caregivers: a comparison between the caregiver list and the licensed grower list can be made. For example, the caregiver/growers not on the licensed grower list are either small (if they define small), not growing anymore, or are still growing. I suppose the not small but still growing could be potentially singled out.

Do you suppose the growers who want to remain hidden are your better growers? What effect (the hidden growers you will no longer do business with) will that have on your supply side if this legislation passes?

[HighPopalorum]

Other than Durango, do you have opinions regarding dispensaries in the western slope? Seems most of the reviews deal with the front range?


Nah. I've only been to front range and Durango-area dispensaries. I know Telluride has a few. Cortez, Bayfield and Pagosa all have either operating dispensaries or applications in. We have good growers here, and their locally-popular strains show up in the dispensaries regularly, which is nice. I know that some local dispensaries purchase medicine from the front range as well. Prices here are higher by 5-10% on all products, the selection is smaller, the quality range is the same.

[RockwellHG]

@Rockwell: The biggest issue that keeps coming up on a societal level seems to be teenagers gaming the system and redistributing their meds. Parents have huge issues with a perceived ease of access that their kids have to marijuana. The recent study about marijuana leading to increased psychosis amongst teens don't help. They think that regulation will intimidate kids, hence fewer issues. I wouldn't want to go in front of some state panel if I was 18 to justify my card when the kid two desks over in homeroom has the bomb already. Think about it like a fake ID, though; everyone doesn't need one, just the one going into the liquor store.

And what we should all be talking about? When Geoff said that they will be putting up a ballot initiative to challenge the dispensary model altogether. Bad news.


Ahh, good point. Almost all of my patients are over 30, many in their 50's+ so I didn't really consider that they were "thinking of the children."

[TheReleafCenter]

Regarding grows, you may be representative of many dispensaries probably for the same reasons. It is a good point about the registration of growers who are also caregivers: a comparison between the caregiver list and the licensed grower list can be made. For example, the caregiver/growers not on the licensed grower list are either small (if they define small), not growing anymore, or are still growing. I suppose the not small but still growing could be potentially singled out.

Do you suppose the growers who want to remain hidden are your better growers? What effect (the hidden growers you will no longer do business with) will that have on your supply side if this legislation passes?

The one potential issue is over who gets to do the raiding and how much information needs to be disclosed as a grow. If you have to put signage up designating your house as a grow and the licensing process is transparent to the public, the Feds have access to that info. If not, I doubt the state is going to pass that along unless they find themselves completely overwhelmed. Which they may. That's the worst part of this process... there is no hard and fast bill yet. We can only speculate.

I think, in terms of staying hidden, you'll have some going both ways. There are some amazing grows out there with serious financial backing that will be forced to go to dispensaries to protect their investments. Some will think they can duck the fees/contracts and try it the other way.

In terms of our supply side, it depends on what percentages they settle on. I think growers will have more incentive than ever to work with dispensaries and most would tell you they'd rather make one delivery than going to 20-30 dispensaries trying to unload it an ounce/QP at a time. We might lose some access to some great strains, but we'll also have more control over what we sell. Also, and I think this is an important point, there will be some 7 digit investments into grow operations once they're essentially sanctioned by the state. I know a few people who want to unload serious money but are scared to death because they don't have regulations yet. Wait 'til those grows get up and running, I have a feeling some state of the art nugs are going to be coming out soon.

[colagal]

The one potential issue is over who gets to do the raiding and how much information needs to be disclosed as a grow. If you have to put signage up designating your house as a grow and the licensing process is transparent to the public, the Feds have access to that info. If not, I doubt the state is going to pass that along unless they find themselves completely overwhelmed. Which they may. That's the worst part of this process... there is no hard and fast bill yet. We can only speculate.

I think, in terms of staying hidden, you'll have some going both ways. There are some amazing grows out there with serious financial backing that will be forced to go to dispensaries to protect their investments. Some will think they can duck the fees/contracts and try it the other way.

In terms of our supply side, it depends on what percentages they settle on. I think growers will have more incentive than ever to work with dispensaries and most would tell you they'd rather make one delivery than going to 20-30 dispensaries trying to unload it an ounce/QP at a time. We might lose some access to some great strains, but we'll also have more control over what we sell. Also, and I think this is an important point, there will be some 7 digit investments into grow operations once they're essentially sanctioned by the state. I know a few people who want to unload serious money but are scared to death because they don't have regulations yet. Wait 'til those grows get up and running, I have a feeling some state of the art nugs are going to be coming out soon.

Ironically, that is what I am worried about if grows are state sanctioned: big money will have a WalMart-like effect. Good for the dispensaries and patients (lower prices, good choices, consistent quality, etc.), but will no doubt put a lot of small growers out of business. That might make state and local government happy? LEO can concentrate its efforts...

I assume the state of the art nugs will be more consistent, better quality and lower priced? Maybe similar to Cali products that find their way here? But then, they are not so inexpensive.

[HighPopalorum]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

[colagal]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

That may be, but what I was alluding to earlier in this thread was this what appeared in the newspaper:

"... the new version would also allow for separate licenses for marijuana- growing facilities tied to dispensaries â?? which could sell a portion of what they grow to other dispensaries â?? and for marijuana product-makers."

This makes me think that a growing facility tie-in can be a facility separate from a dispensary. But then again, I could be wrong.

[TheReleafCenter]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

So my understanding is this:

Say you, High, had a grow. We could hire you to "manage" that grow and you would essentially be absorbed into The Releaf Center. I'm pretty sure this is what Matt Brown has been talking about. I have a feeling that dispensaries won't be required to own the property they grow on in the final draft because that gets in to some property rights issues they'd rather not eff with.

The problem comes in with Ordinance 39 in Denver, and similar statutes that many other cities are likely to adopt. Managers of a business/grow must be disclosed to the city. That may hamper dispensaries from taking on as many growers as they want, but they may decide that the two are separate entities entirely. Then it comes down to whether or not municipalities consider grows a part of the investment structure. So much is still unknown.

Does that make a little more sense?

[HighPopalorum]

This makes me think that a growing facility tie-in can be a facility separate from a dispensary. But then again, I could be wrong.

It's all in there... the facility can be physically separate, but must still be owned, leased or rented by the dispensary. There's a couple other complicated, non-impactful rules as well. 12-43.3-310(8)b.

EDT: Releaf posted while I was writing. That's my understanding as well. If I'm going to sell to a dispensary, I'm going to be their employee. There's lots of language in there as well about future occupational licensing, so I expect the cracks in the system will fill in over time as they write those regulations.

[Denvertoad]

Found this on another website. Helped me understand much of what's going on.


What follows is a detailed summary of Denverâ??s new Medical Marijuana regulations. These regulations become effective on 03-01-2010.



Medical Marijuana dispensary regulations stipulated by the Denver City Council:



â?¢ Nobody under the age of 18 is allowed on dispensary premises.



â?¢ Marijuana products and marijuana in cultivation cannot be visible from the outside the dispensary.



â?¢ A dispensary application carries a $2,000 fee, licensing of the dispensary costs $3,000, and criminal background checks for each owner are additionally charged at cost. Even dispensaries already in operation prior to the March 1st enactment date must pay these fees through the Denver Department of License & Excess.



â?¢ Anybody with 10% or more ownership interest in a dispensary is required to register with the Department of License & Excess as part of the dispensaryâ??s ongoing licensing requirements. Any individual who has been jailed on a felony conviction in the last 5 years may not be even a partial owner of a dispensary.



â?¢ Dispensaries must remit a written operating plan that includes: 1) A description of the products and services available, including special notation for food products, 2) A floor plan which describes the layout of the dispensary, including a depiction of where services other than the sale of Medical Marijuana will be occur, 3) A security plan that details 24-hour surveillance of the property and whether or not licensed security guards will be used.



â?¢ The Department of License & Excess must circulate all applications for dispensaries to the Department of Community Planning and Development, the Department of Finance, the Department of Environmental Health, the Denver Police Department, and the Denver Fire Department to determine whether the proposed dispensary is in full compliance with each department.



â?¢ The Department of License & Excess must run a criminal background check on each potential dispensary owner noted on the application, and then perform a full inspection of the proposed dispensary premises to determine compliance.



â?¢ All sales of Medical Marijuana must be orchestrated directly by the patientâ??s Primary Caregiver, and any delivery of the meds must be made by the patientâ??s Primary Caregiver.



â?¢ Dispensaries cannot reside within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare establishment, or residentially zoned area. And to limit the clustering of Medical Marijuana dispensaries in areas like South Broadwayâ??s â??Broadsterdamâ?� district, no two dispensaries can exist within 1,000 feet of each other.



� The ordinance requires Medical Marijuana patients to take their meds off-premises for use. The pot café atmosphere that has defined a number of Denver dispensaries will end with this requirement. Whole buds must be smoked elsewhere, and edible doses in the form of baked goods must be ingested off of dispensary grounds.



â?¢ Contact information for dispensary ownership must be on display â??conspicuouslyâ?� within the dispensary.



Ordinance #39 was adopted unanimously by the Denver City Council on January 11th, 2010. It will take full effect March 1st, 2010.

See a full PDF of the ordinance here.


News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine (http://www.420magazine.com/)
Source: Examiner.com
Author: Ian Cerveny
Copyright: 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
Contact: Contact Us
Website: Summary of Denver?s new Medical Marijuana regulations
__________________

[colagal]

So my understanding is this:

Say you, High, had a grow. We could hire you to "manage" that grow and you would essentially be absorbed into The Releaf Center. I'm pretty sure this is what Matt Brown has been talking about. I have a feeling that dispensaries won't be required to own the property they grow on in the final draft because that gets in to some property rights issues they'd rather not eff with.

The problem comes in with Ordinance 39 in Denver, and similar statutes that many other cities are likely to adopt. Managers of a business/grow must be disclosed to the city. That may hamper dispensaries from taking on as many growers as they want, but they may decide that the two are separate entities entirely. Then it comes down to whether or not municipalities consider grows a part of the investment structure. So much is still unknown.

Does that make a little more sense?

Sort of, but I am pretty dense, anyway, since we are speculating, if High were absorbed as an employee, do you think High's grow location would have to be located in an area zoned for business or agricultural to meet the licensing requirements as a separate but related grow facility? Licensing may be a limiting factor...?

[palerider7777]

It's all in there... the facility can be physically separate, but must still be owned, leased or rented by the dispensary. There's a couple other complicated, non-impactful rules as well. 12-43.3-310(8)b.

EDT: Releaf posted while I was writing. That's my understanding as well. If I'm going to sell to a dispensary, I'm going to be their employee. There's lots of language in there as well about future occupational licensing, so I expect the cracks in the system will fill in over time as they write those regulations.
if this is the case then it would be set up like a sub contractor type of thing? being that the shop is the owner and im subbing my work to them?

[HighPopalorum]

if this is the case then it would be set up like a sub contractor type of thing? being that the shop is the owner and im subbing my work to them?

Your guess is as good as mine.

[HighPopalorum]

Sort of, but I am pretty dense, anyway, since we are speculating, if High were absorbed as an employee, do you think High's grow location would have to be located in an area zoned for business or agricultural to meet the licensing requirements as a separate but related grow facility?

There's nothing in the bill that says so, but those are the kinds of things that are handled with ordinances by local governments. The bill gives broad power to local government. Towns that want to make it difficult or impossible to operate a dispensary could certainly do so. FWIW, I think that last bit is a good thing.

[TheReleafCenter]

Sort of, but I am pretty dense, anyway, since we are speculating, if High were absorbed as an employee, do you think High's grow location would have to be located in an area zoned for business or agricultural to meet the licensing requirements as a separate but related grow facility? Licensing may be a limiting factor...?

I'm not sure what is happening in terms of zoning requirements, but I doubt they'll be any different than that of dispensaries. If only business/ag areas are used it makes it easier for them to identify grows that aren't in compliance. Additionally, it assuages fears that people may have over "the grow next door."

[colagal]

I'm not sure what is happening in terms of zoning requirements, but I doubt they'll be any different than that of dispensaries. If only business/ag areas are used it makes it easier for them to identify grows that aren't in compliance. Additionally, it assuages fears that people may have over "the grow next door."

Assuming local municipal ordinances require commercial or ag zoning (likely), then I would bet that the bulk of the existing growers are located in residential zones and would not in compliance. Either these growers move their grow to an approved zone if they want to do business with dispensaries (unlikely), or reduce their patient load so that they don't have to be licensed (unlikely), or find a gray area to keep in business (likely), or...?

Bottom line guess is that the approved legislation will probably keep the dispensary model, but limit where one can grow and how much can be grown. Not sure how much product dispensaries get comes from "home" growers, but if significant, then supply could be less thereby raising the price since demand will stay the same or even increase.

[Mississippi Steve]

My read is that they are using the same rules for a dispensory as they do for a liquer store. As far as the business end, there will be yearly state license fees, most likely an insurance requirement, state tax certificate, local business license, very stringent record keeping as you will probably be audited at least yearly by the state tax commission, monthly sales tax returns if applicable, federal taxes(income, business, etc), yearly inventory tax, and a host of other things. You would do well to find a really good accountant... this not gonna be cheap, but well worth it in the long run. It would be a really really good idea to incorporate the business for a couple of reasons...first and most importantly to protect yourself and your property, second you will pay the feds a hell of a lot less as a "c" corp than you will as a sole propriator. My accountant saved me around $8,000 a year in federal taxes alone, so I don't mind writing him that $675 check for his fees.
As a business owner in the real world for 14 years, I am telling you first hand that if you *ALWAYS* do the right things right, and charge what it takes to not just pay the bills, but also to make a small profit after all the bulls and salaries are paid. 10% of your net is a good target.
Before attempting to start *ANY* business, you need a minimum of $25,000 for start-up costs plus one years salary.
It would also be a good idea to take some business courses to learn the business of running a business.