It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !

[michaelnights]

HB 10-1284 Sec. 2. 25-1.5-106 (6)(f) limits patients to a single, insecure source for buying their medicine.

This single clause is the link-pin to defeating HB 10-1284.

If a patient wants to BUY their medicine at a â??licensed medical marijuana center,â?� they must chose one and note that one dispensary on their ID application or renewal form. This becomes their single and only legal source for BUYING medical cannabis in CO. There is no exception nor lawful means in the bill to change your single registered dispensary until the next year's application.

* What if your chosen dispensary stops growing of your strain of medicine? TOUGH!

* What if they have a crop failure? TOUGH !

* What if they simply run out of the variety needed on the day it's needed? TOUGH!

* What if a patient must move across state? TOUGH!

* What if the bud tender insists upon a date with a patient before selling them their medicine? TOUGH !

This horribly abusive law leaves patients with no other lawful option to BUY their medicine.

That punishes and brings great misery to patients. It's a patients rights issue. Issues of patients right have HUGE support and this is the most important one.

A Monopoly in the Making

A small number of wealthy dispensary owners are lobbying to create a monopoly by recruiting/capturing patients and legally prevent them from shopping anywhere else.

If this clause stays in the bill, even if caregivers get all the issues they wish, they are still screwed. It will be extremely difficult to impossible for a caregiver or smaller dispensaries to compete and stay in business in this new market.

If we can get the Senate to strike this single clause from HB 10-1284, we can prevent a small handful of wealthy, mega-dispensaries from monopolizing the half billion dollar mmj industry in CO.

If patients are allowed to shop for and BUY their medicine at any dispensary of their choice, caregivers can obtain a state license to compete. At which point it simply comes down to the price of a license.

If we can remove this single clause it unravels the bill.

25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) IS A PATIENT ISSUE

It's difficult to oppose reform that 'supposedly' even has the "support of industry." Lobbying against changes in the existing bill as being harmful to caregivers is a loser. It's not going to make a difference. Many in the legislature see that as a money issue important to 'drug dealers' charging patients far to much for their medicine. It's a loser.

THIS MUST BE A PATIENT ISSUE.

If we turn this into a fight for patients rights, for the "truly sick and dying" NO ONE can or will object and they will strike the clause from the bill.

HAMMER the term "truly sick and dying" and kill 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) or live with Sen. Romer as a god!

COPY AND PASTE EMAILS:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

[GratefulMeds]

HB 10-1284 Sec. 2. 25-1.5-106 (6)(f) limits patients to a single, insecure source for buying their medicine.

This single clause is the link-pin to defeating HB 10-1284.

If a patient wants to BUY their medicine at a â??licensed medical marijuana center,â?� they must chose one and note that one dispensary on their ID application or renewal form. This becomes their single and only legal source for BUYING medical cannabis in CO. There is no exception nor lawful means in the bill to change your single registered dispensary until the next year's application.

* What if your chosen dispensary stops growing of your strain of medicine? TOUGH!

* What if they have a crop failure? TOUGH !

* What if they simply run out of the variety needed on the day it's needed? TOUGH!

* What if a patient must move across state? TOUGH!

* What if the bud tender insists upon a date with a patient before selling them their medicine? TOUGH !

This horribly abusive law leaves patients with no other lawful option to BUY their medicine.

That punishes and brings great misery to patients. It's a patients rights issue. Issues of patients right have HUGE support and this is the most important one.

A Monopoly in the Making

A small number of wealthy dispensary owners are lobbying to create a monopoly by recruiting/capturing patients and legally prevent them from shopping anywhere else.

If this clause stays in the bill, even if caregivers get all the issues they wish, they are still screwed. It will be extremely difficult to impossible for a caregiver or smaller dispensaries to compete and stay in business in this new market.

If we can get the Senate to strike this single clause from HB 10-1284, we can prevent a small handful of wealthy, mega-dispensaries from monopolizing the half billion dollar mmj industry in CO.

If patients are allowed to shop for and BUY their medicine at any dispensary of their choice, caregivers can obtain a state license to compete. At which point it simply comes down to the price of a license.

If we can remove this single clause it unravels the bill.

25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) IS A PATIENT ISSUE

It's difficult to oppose reform that 'supposedly' even has the "support of industry." Lobbying against changes in the existing bill as being harmful to caregivers is a loser. It's not going to make a difference. Many in the legislature see that as a money issue important to 'drug dealers' charging patients far to much for their medicine. It's a loser.

THIS MUST BE A PATIENT ISSUE.

If we turn this into a fight for patients rights, for the "truly sick and dying" NO ONE can or will object and they will strike the clause from the bill.

HAMMER the term "truly sick and dying" and kill 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) or live with Sen. Romer as a god!

COPY AND PASTE EMAILS:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

I really think your on to something here. I will hammer this point home if I get a chance to speak Tuesday. thanks

[vegetabongrips]

I'm really bothered by many provisions of this bill.

But I'm more concerned by the public reaction, the hostility I encounter, from the general public.

They're still out there. Most of them never gave a crap either way, but some of those folks are...well, almost disturbed by how "in your face" this feels. Also there's the constant complaint about using medicinal marijuana as a ruse to get high.

It's troubling because these folks are just as impassioned as any other. And they're so happy at the idea that there'd be only "one stupid dispensary" they'd pass on their way to work than the dozen or so currently.

[palerider7777]

I really think your on to something here. I will hammer this point home if I get a chance to speak Tuesday. thanks

yes plz do so,also talk about how this will hurt the small time grower trying to help patients by keeping down costs.also talk about how we need these types of bills to help the mmj movement not give more rights to leo to use against us.

talk about how this bill as it is will help hurt mmj not help us.how it will expose private people that want to stay private and can open the doors to caregivers being robbed. if we have to apply for a biz lic tax id and so on to be a vendor there needs to be a way to hide our info and protect it from getting in public/leo's hands.

[puntacometa]

This becomes their single and only legal source for BUYING medical cannabis in CO.

Are you sure you are reading this correctly? It appears to me that a patient must designate a dispensary in the same way as they would designate a primary caregiver. If so, this wouldn't necessarily preclude them from buying from another dispensary unless there is language in there that specifically forbids it. I'm not saying youre wrong, just wondering if our legislators might be given the benefit of the doubt relative to not being totally corrupt, and/or clueless.

I've got an MMJ attorney looking this bill over right now. I'll be talking to him later this morning.

[puntacometa]

Are you sure you are reading this correctly? It appears to me that a patient must designate a dispensary in the same way as they would designate a primary caregiver. If so, this wouldn't necessarily preclude them from buying from another dispensary unless there is language in there that specifically forbids it. I'm not saying youre wrong, just wondering if our legislators might be given the benefit of the doubt relative to not being totally corrupt, and/or clueless.

I've got an MMJ attorney looking this bill over right now. I'll be talking to him later this morning.

I just got off the phone with my attorney. His interpretation of this agrees with mine...IOW....the bill does not restrict patients to shopping at only one dispensary. they designate a dispensary as their primary caregiver and then they can show their registraion card at any dispensary in the state and uy meds.

The big downside for patients and growers will be when the big dispensaries start squeezing their growers for price reductions. This will create two scenarios, neither one of them good.

1. If the price drops and the dispensary isn't moving enough product to roll over a large quantity every day, then the grower will have the choice of either cutting back on his crew and certain expensive overhead items like nutes and HID lights or taking a huge hit to his margins, at which point it may not make sense to continue as a grower. I'm really going to have a problem with my name being associated with mediocre/crappy pot. A big grow is a huge amount of work and I may just say fuck it.

2. The dispensaries that survive will be like Sams Clubs and Monsanto/Archer Daniels Midland will be the only ones supplying their product.

[Colodonmed]

agreed

[palerider7777]

I just got off the phone with my attorney. His interpretation of this agrees with mine...IOW....the bill does not restrict patients to shopping at only one dispensary. they designate a dispensary as their primary caregiver and then they can show their registraion card at any dispensary in the state and uy meds.

The big downside for patients and growers will be when the big dispensaries start squeezing their growers for price reductions. This will create two scenarios, neither one of them good.

1. If the price drops and the dispensary isn't moving enough product to roll over a large quantity every day, then the grower will have the choice of either cutting back on his crew and certain expensive overhead items like nutes and HID lights or taking a huge hit to his margins, at which point it may not make sense to continue as a grower. I'm really going to have a problem with my name being associated with mediocre/crappy pot. A big grow is a huge amount of work and I may just say fuck it.

2. The dispensaries that survive will be like Sams Clubs and Monsanto/Archer Daniels Midland will be the only ones supplying their product.

i don't see how any of this would cause prices to drop i see the exact opposite.

[TheReleafCenter]

I'm so confused by what I read now regarding the "squeezing" of growers. Everyone wanted dispensaries to lower prices at the end of last year and the industry responded. Now everyone is worried that caregivers are not making as much as they can off of their grow.

Were dispensaries supposed to just eat the cost of lowered prices on their own?

[puntacometa]

I'm so confused by what I read now regarding the "squeezing" of growers. Everyone wanted dispensaries to lower prices at the end of last year and the industry responded. Now everyone is worried that caregivers are not making as much as they can off of their grow.

Were dispensaries supposed to just eat the cost of lowered prices on their own?

I think this is more of a springtime phenomena. Indoor winter grows are expensive and a pain in the ass. Growers look forward to spring and summer so they can get their plants outside and grow big under the sun, unrestricted by the vertical and lateral confines of a flowering greenhouse and vegging room. They also hope the prices they get for their product will hold steady so they can budget the spring grow and try to offset the thousands of dollars they have spent on electricity from October through April/mid-May....plus...when mountain growers come out of hibernation they are hungry and cranky.
:cool:

[Klonzinc]

The big downside for patients and growers will be when the big dispensaries start squeezing their growers for price reductions. This will create two scenarios, neither one of them good.

1. If the price drops and the dispensary isn't moving enough product to roll over a large quantity every day, then the grower will have the choice of either cutting back on his crew and certain expensive overhead items like nutes and HID lights or taking a huge hit to his margins, at which point it may not make sense to continue as a grower. I'm really going to have a problem with my name being associated with mediocre/crappy pot. A big grow is a huge amount of work and I may just say fuck it.

2. The dispensaries that survive will be like Sams Clubs and Monsanto/Archer Daniels Midland will be the only ones supplying their product.

Price is the problem already, as an independent grower I see my product on the shelf as A grade but yet they only want to pay me 800.00 a qp and when they sell it by the grm they are selling for almost 1600.00, if I was selling bunk or even b grade it would be more acceptable. The big boys got the independents by the balls and they take advantage of us every day all day, but now those days will soon be over as Romers bill is going through and the small shops and independent growers will soon be gone, now the market belongs to the politicians and the Cali money hogs. It is so sad how the nice folks of Colorado welcomed the set ups from Cali and now as usually they have paid off our politicians and secured the industry for their profit and the sad thing is we let them, Coloradans have been fucked over yet again.

[Klonzinc]

I'm so confused by what I read now regarding the "squeezing" of growers. Everyone wanted dispensaries to lower prices at the end of last year and the industry responded. Now everyone is worried that caregivers are not making as much as they can off of their grow.

Were dispensaries supposed to just eat the cost of lowered prices on their own?

The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.

[palerider7777]

The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.

yup but talk about helping people out?i don't see how this romer bill will do anything to lower costs.all i can say is all you people that thought this was no biggie guess what get ready for brick weed at insane prices.

[Zedleppelin]

The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.

Dont give it to them for $800, there's plenty of dispensaries out there. I still get a thousand for mine but a lot of them out there will not pay over $900 for anything anymore and are more concerned about the cost than quality, those are the ones that end up with shitty meds.

[puntacometa]

Price is the problem already, as an independent grower I see my product on the shelf as A grade but yet they only want to pay me 800.00 a qp and when they sell it by the grm they are selling for almost 1600.00, if I was selling bunk or even b grade it would be more acceptable. The big boys got the independents by the balls and they take advantage of us every day all day, but now those days will soon be over as Romers bill is going through and the small shops and independent growers will soon be gone, now the market belongs to the politicians and the Cali money hogs. It is so sad how the nice folks of Colorado welcomed the set ups from Cali and now as usually they have paid off our politicians and secured the industry for their profit and the sad thing is we let them, Coloradans have been fucked over yet again.

A few months ago, I had a dispensary owner approach me with a grower's contract for well below $800.00 per qp. This is a big dispensary chain. The rationale was that they wanted to keep prices low for their paitents. I know for a fact that they did manage to sign up a few growers because the dispensary calls me when they run out of the meds their growers provide and they offer me a higher price......and they haven't lowered the price to their patients one bit.

[michaelnights]

8 AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
9 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
10 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
11 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
12 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
13 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 OR A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
15 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
16 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
Page 57

The important word being SHALL. It is not permissive. It does not use the word MAY.

Patients will NOT be allow to shop around, obtain their green meds at any dispensary of their choice. They can ONLY buy from the dispensary where they are registered with the state.

This subject came up a number of times at the Senate, Local Gov & Energy Committee hearing on 4/28. The provision was not disputed, by Sens Romer, Spence, etc. If it was incorrect, they'd have jumped all over the testimony.

Sen. Romer, at the hearing, seemed to cast blame upon the Governor's office for all these anti-patient "imperfections" in the bill.

[copobo]

so is there a sense that this crap is really going to pass?

will the legislator really fuck the patients like this?

[MMJinColorado]

8 AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
9 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
10 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
11 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
12 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
13 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 OR A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
15 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
16 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
Page 57

The important word being SHALL. It is not permissive. It does not use the word MAY.

Patients will NOT be allow to shop around, obtain their green meds at any dispensary of their choice. They can ONLY buy from the dispensary where they are registered with the state.

This subject came up a number of times at the Senate, Local Gov & Energy Committee hearing on 4/28. The provision was not disputed, by Sens Romer, Spence, etc. If it was incorrect, they'd have jumped all over the testimony.

Sen. Romer, at the hearing, seemed to cast blame upon the Governor's office for all these anti-patient "imperfections" in the bill.
*sigh*
Sorry to be insulting, but you really should learn how to read legal language before freaking out about it. That passage is intended for patients who wish to designate a DISPENSARY (as opposed to a private caregiver) the PRIMARY (meaning that dispensary is their legal caregiver and thus gets their plant rights) dispensary where they will purchase meds. Nowhere in the bill does it say that a person may go to no other dispensaries than the one that is designated their primary caregiver. That would make no sense and would've been torn apart (or at least mentioned) by CTI or any number of panicked advocacy organizations sending out e-mails with incorrect information.

And yes, I am against the bill. But the above is not a concern to me in the least because if you understand the context in which it was written (as well as within the context of the current system wherein a patient can designate a PRIMARY caregiver but still get meds from other legal caregivers), it's clear that's not what it's saying.

Anyway... that's the political science education in me coming out after having had to read shittons of Supreme Court cases and other long-winded legal opinions and legislation. The language is somewhat vague in the bill and it's difficult to understand all aspects of a 72+ page monstrosity, but the above passage is fairly clear on the scheme of things.

Also, did you not read the clause before that one? A patient can choose to: a) grow their own medicine only, b) grow their own medicine while also having a private caregiver or getting it from a dispensary or c) sign up a single dispensary as their PRIMARY, making that dispensary act as their caregiver in the same sense that a private one would (allowing them to purchase meds elsewhere but getting their 6 plants). Seems pretty clear to me, and it makes sense (one of the few parts of the bill that I have absolutely no problem with).

[palerider7777]

so is there a sense that this crap is really going to pass?

will the legislator really fuck the patients like this?

well that 1 part passed 6-0 so they all seem to be getting a good bank roll going.

[palerider7777]

*sigh*
Sorry to be insulting, but you really should learn how to read legal language before freaking out about it. That passage is intended for patients who wish to designate a DISPENSARY (as opposed to a private caregiver) the PRIMARY (meaning that dispensary is their legal caregiver and thus gets their plant rights) dispensary where they will purchase meds. Nowhere in the bill does it say that a person may go to no other dispensaries than the one that is designated their primary caregiver. That would make no sense and would've been torn apart (or at least mentioned) by CTI or any number of panicked advocacy organizations sending out e-mails with incorrect information.

And yes, I am against the bill. But the above is not a concern to me in the least because if you understand the context in which it was written (as well as within the context of the current system wherein a patient can designate a PRIMARY caregiver but still get meds from other legal caregivers), it's clear that's not what it's saying.

Anyway... that's the political science education in me coming out after having had to read shittons of Supreme Court cases and other long-winded legal opinions and legislation. The language is somewhat vague in the bill and it's difficult to understand all aspects of a 72+ page monstrosity, but the above passage is fairly clear on the scheme of things.

it may be clear to you but im sure you are aware how leo works? if the language is vague in the least they will exploit the hell out of it.notice every new bill only touches on this or that but leaves alot open to interpretation.which is only good on their end most of the time.

[MMJinColorado]

The language is so clear as to be almost explicit, which is rare with legislation. The clause existing before the one in question makes this whole freak out moot. Any lawyer with half a brain would shred a dumbass cop trying to argue otherwise. I share your healthy skepticism about the motives of our elected officials as well as the LEO, but in this particular instance, I believe it to be unfounded.