Dispensaries = unlimited grow rights

[TheReleafCenter]

Met w/ the lawyer today, and from what we understand... you can grow whatever you want to as a dispensary under 1284.

Patients are out. Dispensaries are no longer caregivers. You just have to prove where you got what you got and who it went out the door to. The number of patients you serve will (likely) determine how much money you have to pay to the state. I say likely because it's not clear whether there will be a sliding scale or not.

Was this everyone else's understanding of the bill?

[canaguy27]

Are you not weary of the FEDs?

[TheReleafCenter]

My understanding is that they're looking for people who aren't in compliance with state law.

[canaguy27]

My understanding is that they're looking for people who aren't in compliance with state law.

I saw Jared Polis question AG Holden about that, but it still bothers me. I guess I'm too used to the old ways. I haven't been through the whole bill, but will offer input in a few days.

Was there anything in there that stood out the most?

[TheReleafCenter]

Primarily that dispensaries with an optional grow license can grow as many plants as they can account for, same for edibles manufacturers. That doesn't strike me as the intent of the voters at all, but it makes it easier for them to keep busy doing busts on non-dispensary grows.

[canaguy27]

so can you contract these grows out or what is the structure of it looking like? I'm just curious bc I might have to solidify my relats with a few shops.

[puntacometa]

Met w/ the lawyer today, and from what we understand... you can grow whatever you want to as a dispensary under 1284.

Patients are out. Dispensaries are no longer caregivers. You just have to prove where you got what you got and who it went out the door to. The number of patients you serve will (likely) determine how much money you have to pay to the state. I say likely because it's not clear whether there will be a sliding scale or not.

Was this everyone else's understanding of the bill?

So will you be able to inventory more tha 2oz per patient?

[TurboALLWD]

So will you be able to inventory more tha 2oz per patient?


someone on icmag said


In CO HB1284 it says that doctors' recommendations for additional plants will now be honored so theoretically if it all ends up standing as written now then that would ease the LEO side of it.


Can anyone verify this? :D

[canaguy27]

In CO HB1284 it says that doctors' recommendations for additional plants will now be honored so theoretically if it all ends up standing as written now then that would ease the LEO side of it.

They have always been honored, but the burden of proof is on you to prove why you need that many.

Is that going to change?

[TurboALLWD]

They have always been honored, but the burden of proof is on you to prove why you need that many.

Is that going to change?

I was under the impression that the state did not recognize doctors rec's for higher plant counts. It could be proven in court, but it's not in amendment 20.

If in fact hb1284 recognizes doctors recommendations for higher plant counts. Then their really leaving it up to the doctors to decide, I somehow doubt they would do this, which is why I'm asking for someone to verify this guys claim.

I haven't seen a new copy of the bill but I'm waiting for it like others are.

[cowgirl1]

Dispencaries will still have to watch out for the feds... No joking here my uncle is a DEA. Not on the best of speaking terms but I did get the impression from him that once they dispencaries start growing their 70% "large plant count" they are going to step in on a few of them and let the people of colorado realize that the DEA is still around and it is still against Federal law to grow marijuana no matter what any state says. Federal law always rules over state laws

[copobo]

i'm pretty sure this is it
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0C6B6577EC6DB1E8872576A80029D7E2?open&file=1284_rer.pdf

[michaelnights]

From my read of the new law, I too believe that MMC's are allowed an unlimited number of plants, they are no longer tied to the 6 plants mentioned in the constitution, as long as their grow accounts for 70% . . .

However, due to the Federal 99 plant limit, I would still want to be compliant with the constitutions and be reluctant to grow more than 6 plants X the number of patients registered with a MMC.

As an infused products mfger growing their own, they doesn't have any patients . . . goodness, what do they say to the DEA agent knocking at the door? Yes, officer, I have a contract with my buddy at MMC XYZ. In this case, I wouldn't let a spouting seed take me over a 99 plant count. I feel edible bakers are at the greatest risk of all.

As per patients with a doctor's recommendation for a plant limit higher than 6, that's mentioned in the constitution as part of a patient's affirmative defense. All that was required of a patient was to show an inquiring LEO your doctor's recommendation showing your paperwork lists more than 6 plants.

This changes in the new law. Now, if you have more than 6 plants, to quality for your affirmative defense, you must wave your federal HIPA rights and make your health records a public record. Which means, the LEO can now arrest a patient with over 6 plants and tell them to work it out with a judge.

[Colodonmed]

just read he bill from the link provided above and on page 53 ( I believe ) the 6 plant plus 2 oz. limit is there for mmc's per patient, unless I missed something else somewhere and also further down it gives the dept. of health the power to re-define a primary caregivers role to more than just providing medicine, and as I read it, as a patient applies for the red card they are to state if they will grow and use a mmc or caregiver, wont grow but will use a mmc or caregiver, or just grow their own and not rely on a mmc or caregiver. Does that restrict a patient to only the designated mmc or caregiver? If so, stand by for the price to skyrocket folks, I do not see how prices could come down if a mmc can only provide for patients that have designated the center as their " provider ", I am curious as to others understanding of this.

[COzigzag]

Does that restrict a patient to only the designated mmc or caregiver?

Page 59 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0C6B6577EC6DB1E8872576A80029D7E2?Open&file=1284_rer.pdf:

(c) ONLY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER WITH AN OPTIONAL
18 PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED
19 PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES
20 CULTIVATION LICENSE, OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER
21 PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR
22 PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.

I would interpret this to mean the patient can still purchase from a caregiver or a dispensary.

[Colodonmed]

Page 59 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0C6B6577EC6DB1E8872576A80029D7E2?Open&file=1284_rer.pdf:

(c) ONLY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER WITH AN OPTIONAL
18 PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED
19 PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES
20 CULTIVATION LICENSE, OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER
21 PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR
22 PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.

I would interpret this to mean the patient can still purchase from a caregiver or a dispensary.
I agree, a patient will still be able to purchase from a caregiver or dispensary, but my question is can they buy / obtain their medicine ONLY from the designated center / caregiver established when submitting the application for the registry. As the scenario currently allows any red card holder to shop pretty much anywhere that will let them in to spend their cash, my take is that a patient is only allowed to obtain from their designated source, otherwise why is the language included in the bill that requires a patient to state when making application for the registry if they growing or mmc or caregiver for their medicine, basically stating where you will obtain your medicine. It is very grey in my opinion and am sure it is to be challenged, but upon the Gov's signing it will be the law until overturned. Also, with a caregiver required to keep the patients registry # on file for leo, makes me think that eventually the regulators may come sniffing around a caregivers place to check for compliance as well, then what, check the patients premises to make sure they are in compliance too? I know I may be coming across as paranoid, but remember there is a reason for specific language in the bill and that makes me all the more wary.

[Colodonmed]

I agree, a patient will still be able to purchase from a caregiver or dispensary, but my question is can they buy / obtain their medicine ONLY from the designated center / caregiver established when submitting the application for the registry. As the scenario currently allows any red card holder to shop pretty much anywhere that will let them in to spend their cash, my take is that a patient is only allowed to obtain from their designated source, otherwise why is the language included in the bill that requires a patient to state when making application for the registry if they growing or mmc or caregiver for their medicine, basically stating where you will obtain your medicine. It is very grey in my opinion and am sure it is to be challenged, but upon the Gov's signing it will be the law until overturned. Also, with a caregiver required to keep the patients registry # on file for leo, makes me think that eventually the regulators may come sniffing around a caregivers place to check for compliance as well, then what, check the patients premises to make sure they are in compliance too? I know I may be coming across as paranoid, but remember there is a reason for specific language in the bill and that makes me all the more wary.
In fact they way I read the above language, even the patient to patient trading, selling, sharing etc... appears to be banned as it reads " OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER
21 PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR
22 PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.

Again a very grey area but remember the law was written for control of mmj, not for you and I - the patient

[GratefulMeds]

The Infused Product People are the real winners with this bill, since they can contract with as many centers as they want and can grow as much as they want. Go Cheesecake!

[Colodonmed]

The Infused Product People are the real winners with this bill, since they can contract with as many centers as they want and can grow as much as they want. Go Cheesecake!
I like cheesecake too!!, Hey GM as a dispensary owner yourself, how do you read the bill in respect to " open shopping " will dispensaries / mmc's be able to provide to any red card holder or only those that have designated the center / dispensary as their source?

[GratefulMeds]

I like cheesecake too!!, Hey GM as a dispensary owner yourself, how do you read the bill in respect to " open shopping " will dispensaries / mmc's be able to provide to any red card holder or only those that have designated the center / dispensary as their source?

I am still unclear on that, I am getting a second opinion tonight.

[colagal]

Met w/ the lawyer today, and from what we understand... you can grow whatever you want to as a dispensary under 1284.

Patients are out. Dispensaries are no longer caregivers. You just have to prove where you got what you got and who it went out the door to. The number of patients you serve will (likely) determine how much money you have to pay to the state. I say likely because it's not clear whether there will be a sliding scale or not.

Was this everyone else's understanding of the bill?

Doesn't make sense. Why would the fee paid to the state be based upon patient load if dispensaries are no longer caregivers and patients are out? Patients are what? Customers? Dispensaries have to track how many customers they have?

[TheReleafCenter]

Doesn't make sense. Why would the fee paid to the state be based upon patient load if dispensaries are no longer caregivers and patients are out? Patients are what? Customers? Dispensaries have to track how many customers they have?

If they went to a scaled model, then yes. The issue is that the Department of Revenue has to set their budget based on how much the program will cost to implement. So the more patients a dispensary serves, the higher the cost to check where all the meds went.

You can shop at multiple dispensaries if you want to. Patients can also grow for themselves as well as name a caregiver.

The registry will honor higher plant counts, but again, it's incumbent on the patient to prove they need those higher plant counts.

My issue with the whole DEA debate is this: if the state is taking money from medical marijuana dispensaries, doesn't that make them an accessory?

[COzigzag]

Look at the definition of "medical use" in Amendment 20:

(b) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a physician or physicians, as provided by this section.

HB10-1284 did not redefine this and it actually refers to "medical use" in this bill.

Unless, of couse, I missed it somewhere.

:D

[Colodonmed]

If they went to a scaled model, then yes. The issue is that the Department of Revenue has to set their budget based on how much the program will cost to implement. So the more patients a dispensary serves, the higher the cost to check where all the meds went.

You can shop at multiple dispensaries if you want to. Patients can also grow for themselves as well as name a caregiver.

The registry will honor higher plant counts, but again, it's incumbent on the patient to prove they need those higher plant counts.

My issue with the whole DEA debate is this: if the state is taking money from medical marijuana dispensaries, doesn't that make them an accessory?
Hi Releaf, with all due respect where did you read this. You can shop at multiple dispensaries? If a patient, caregiver and mmc still have to stay within the 6 plant 2 oz. limit why would a center agree to have a patient that grows for themselves as the plant limit remains unchanged, no matter who is growing it. If a center has a patient that designates the center as well as themselves for cultivation, the limit is still 6 plants and 2 oz. per patient. The current law under amendment 20 also allows for a patient to grow their own along with a caregiver but they still had to stay at the 6 plant limit, but now under 1284, the dept of rev. will now enforce that aspect in a very serious way I feel. That's my take after reading the bill ( if that is the final bill ) Peace to you!

[TheReleafCenter]

Hi Releaf, with all due respect where did you read this. You can shop at multiple dispensaries? If a patient, caregiver and mmc still have to stay within the 6 plant 2 oz. limit why would a center agree to have a patient that grows for themselves as the plant limit remains unchanged, no matter who is growing it. If a center has a patient that designates the center as well as themselves for cultivation, the limit is still 6 plants and 2 oz. per patient. The current law under amendment 20 also allows for a patient to grow their own along with a caregiver but they still had to stay at the 6 plant limit, but now under 1284, the dept of rev. will now enforce that aspect in a very serious way I feel. That's my take after reading the bill ( if that is the final bill ) Peace to you!

I heard that from our lawyer, Warren Edson, but upon searching the bill myself came across this:

"TO POSSESS MORE THAN SIX MEDICAL MARIJUANA PLANTS AND
3 TWO OUNCES OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR EACH PATIENT WHO HAS
4 REGISTERED THE CENTER AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY CENTER PURSUANT TO
5 SECTION 25-1.5-106 (6) (f), C.R.S.; EXCEPT THAT AMEDICALMARIJUANA
6 CENTER MAY HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE SIX-PLANT AND
7 TWO-OUNCE PRODUCT PER PATIENT LIMIT IF THE CENTER SELLS TO
8 PATIENTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND
9 TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT. IN THE CASE OF A PATIENT AUTHORIZED TO
10 EXCEED THE SIX-PLANT AND TWO-OUNCE LIMIT, THE CENTER SHALL
11 OBTAIN DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN THAT THE
12 PATIENT NEEDS MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT."

There may be a part that negates this. Warren is a lot smarter than I am. I'm waiting for an email back.

[Kartel]

Edson said you could shop somewhere else than your primary caregiver under 1284???

Interesting.

[Colodonmed]

I heard that from our lawyer, Warren Edson, but upon searching the bill myself came across this:

"TO POSSESS MORE THAN SIX MEDICAL MARIJUANA PLANTS AND
3 TWO OUNCES OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR EACH PATIENT WHO HAS
4 REGISTERED THE CENTER AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY CENTER PURSUANT TO
5 SECTION 25-1.5-106 (6) (f), C.R.S.; EXCEPT THAT AMEDICALMARIJUANA
6 CENTER MAY HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE SIX-PLANT AND
7 TWO-OUNCE PRODUCT PER PATIENT LIMIT IF THE CENTER SELLS TO
8 PATIENTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND
9 TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT. IN THE CASE OF A PATIENT AUTHORIZED TO
10 EXCEED THE SIX-PLANT AND TWO-OUNCE LIMIT, THE CENTER SHALL
11 OBTAIN DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN THAT THE
12 PATIENT NEEDS MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT."

There may be a part that negates this. Warren is a lot smarter than I am. I'm waiting for an email back.
I am no lawyer either so I just do the best I can and rely on them folks to set this thing straight for us, but that said I still think the relevant language in that paragraph is on lines 3 and 4 " for each patient who has REGISTERED THE CENTER as his or her primary center " good luck man! peace

[TheReleafCenter]

I agree with you, it seems crystal clear. Little miffed about this, hopefully Warren has something good to say. He didn't answer the bat phone...

[TheReleafCenter]

Edson said you could shop somewhere else than your primary caregiver under 1284???

Interesting.

(f) AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
2 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
3 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
4 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
5 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
6 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
7 OR A LICENSEDMEDICALMARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
8 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
9 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.

[Zedleppelin]

Edson also says caregiver to caregiver sales are illegal (before this bill) and sales to dispensaries are illegal. He is also saying it is illegal to grow in your house, I dont trust anything the guy says.

[Colodonmed]

(f) AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
2 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
3 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
4 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
5 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
6 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
7 OR A LICENSEDMEDICALMARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
8 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
9 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
If that is the final language of the bill, wow they were not kidding when Ritter said 80% of the dispensaries will be gone. That's what I have been referring to as far as a mmc surviving. That's why the regulators/auditors will be checking patient counts, plant counts, comparing harvests and anticipating harvests from the previous harvest(s) so they can ensure the 6 plant 2 oz limits and or the excess as allowed with a doctors certificate. This is where I can invision the big corporate owned mmc's as I cannot understand how a small mmc will be able to destroy their excess and still stay afloat and make any money without an astronomical rise in costs for the medicine. Man, I hope I am wrong by all means but I don't think so.

[GratefulMeds]

If that is the final language of the bill, wow they were not kidding when Ritter said 80% of the dispensaries will be gone. That's what I have been referring to as far as a mmc surviving. That's why the regulators/auditors will be checking patient counts, plant counts, comparing harvests and anticipating harvests from the previous harvest(s) so they can ensure the 6 plant 2 oz limits and or the excess as allowed with a doctors certificate. This is where I can invision the big corporate owned mmc's as I cannot understand how a small mmc will be able to destroy their excess and still stay afloat and make any money without an astronomical rise in costs for the medicine. Man, I hope I am wrong by all means but I don't think so.

all of this is a slippery slope designed to get cops in your grow rooms, it starts with dispensaries, then they will be checking to see if caregivers are compliant and finally the patients making sure you are not growing more then your plant count or have to much weight laying around. Bad law all around and shame on you all for considering to comply with it.

[TheReleafCenter]

I hear you, Mark, but we have too much invested here to just walk away. We've lowered prices three times since we've opened and reinvest everything back into the business or paying off loans.

@Zed: Warren has never told us caregiver to caregiver was illegal. Hmm. Interesting.

The way that he's reading this, I believe, is that your OPCL isn't tied to patient counts, just what you have in the center. That way a wholesaling model makes sense.

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

[quote=TheReleafCenter]I heard that from our lawyer, Warren Edson, but upon searching the bill myself came across this:

"TO POSSESS MORE THAN SIX MEDICAL MARIJUANA PLANTS AND
3 TWO OUNCES OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR EACH PATIENT WHO HAS
4 REGISTERED THE CENTER AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY CENTER PURSUANT TO
5 SECTION 25-1.5-106 (6) (f), C.R.S.; EXCEPT THAT AMEDICALMARIJUANA
6 CENTER MAY HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE SIX-PLANT AND
7 TWO-OUNCE PRODUCT PER PATIENT LIMIT IF THE CENTER SELLS TO
8 PATIENTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND
9 TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT. IN THE CASE OF A PATIENT AUTHORIZED TO
10 EXCEED THE SIX-PLANT AND TWO-OUNCE LIMIT, THE CENTER SHALL
11 OBTAIN DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN THAT THE
12 PATIENT NEEDS MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT."

There may be a part that negates this. Warren is a lot smarter than I am. I'm waiting for an email back:thumbsup: peace bitches

meded is a hell of a drug:D





may the better lawyer win:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

If they went to a scaled model, then yes. The issue is that the Department of Revenue has to set their budget based on how much the program will cost to implement. So the more patients a dispensary serves, the higher the cost to check where all the meds went.

You can shop at multiple dispensaries if you want to. Patients can also grow for themselves as well as name a caregiver.

The registry will honor higher plant counts, but again, it's incumbent on the patient to prove they need those higher plant counts.

My issue with the whole DEA debate is this: if the state is taking money from medical marijuana dispensaries, doesn't that make them an accessory?


have fun with that in the dea realm of fiction and incarcration. i'd imagine releaf dude at 20 to life with the next president...you have too much faith bro, in our traitorous scorpions whom only seek prison profits just like oil idiots who will not give it up for no reason. logic and reason out the window.

meded is a hell of a drug

[rightwinger]

So will you be able to inventory more tha 2oz per patient?

Yes in this bill--if a physician determines that a medical marijuana patient needs more than the 2 oz or more plants cultivated for them that the standard 6 plants--this bill allows for that.

I just read this entire bill--someone needs to index it for easy reference.

[rightwinger]

I hear you, Mark, but we have too much invested here to just walk away. We've lowered prices three times since we've opened and reinvest everything back into the business or paying off loans.

@Zed: Warren has never told us caregiver to caregiver was illegal. Hmm. Interesting.

The way that he's reading this, I believe, is that your OPCL isn't tied to patient counts, just what you have in the center. That way a wholesaling model makes sense.


The odd ball out in this bill. Correct me if I am wrong. I just read this entire bill and NO WHERE did I see that medical marijuana centers were required to be caregivers to their patients. In other words I did not read that a patient "had" to turn over their registration number to the mmc to be able to purchase medical marijuana from them?

Then on Page 5-18 (B) On or before September 1, 2010 a business or operation shall certify that it is cultivating at least 70% of the medical marijuana necessary for itâ??s operation.

Now how in the heck does a medical marijuana center "certify" that they are growing at least 70% of the mm--if they have no caregiver status--and no marijuana patients that have registed their medical marijuana center as their primary caregiver?

[Colodonmed]

I am curious as to how a mmc can actually certify that they are growing 70% of the medicine needed by their business. It would be difficult in my opinion as at least for the next few years I imagine the patient counts will fluctuate daily, with the health dept. stating they are processing about 300 per day right now, but that will increase alot when they hire the new employees in July. So how can a dispensary certify a number when that is a shifting number? What do you dispensary guys think about that, do your patient numbers change alot? Who in the hell develops rules that cannot be adhered to?

[rightwinger]

someone on icmag said




Can anyone verify this? :D


Here it is:

Page 65 (10) Affirmative defense--If a patient or primary caregiver raises and affirmative defense as provided by section 14 (4) (b) of Article XVIII of the State Constitution, the patientâ??s physician shall certify the specific amounts in excess of two ounces that are necessary to address the patientâ??s debilitating medical condition and why such amounts are necessary. A patient who asserts this affirmative defense shall waive confidentiality privileges retlated to the condition or conditions that were the basis for the recommendation. If a patient, primary caregiver, or physician raises an exception to the state criminal laws as provided in section 14 (2) (b) or (c) of articles XVIII of the state constitution, the patient, primary caregiver or physician waives the confidentiality of his or her records related to the condition or conditions that were the basis for the recommendation maintained by the state health agency for the medical marijuana program. Upon request of a law enforcement agency for such records, the state health agency shall only provide records pertaining to the individual raising the exception, and shall redact all other patient, primary caregiver, or physician identifying information.

[rightwinger]

I am curious as to how a mmc can actually certify that they are growing 70% of the medicine needed by their business. It would be difficult in my opinion as at least for the next few years I imagine the patient counts will fluctuate daily, with the health dept. stating they are processing about 300 per day right now, but that will increase alot when they hire the new employees in July. So how can a dispensary certify a number when that is a shifting number? What do you dispensary guys think about that, do your patient numbers change alot? Who in the hell develops rules that cannot be adhered to?


I am not a dispensory owner--but it would appear to me--that this is one of those clauses that cannot possibly be enforced. The question is 70% of what? 70% of gross sales--70% of the number of registered patients they have. It's not at all clear in this bill how the state will determine what 70% represents.

Then--the other problem I see--is if a medical marijuana center runs out of medical marijuana--they are only permitted to buy it from their competition-- another medical marijuana center. How many centers are willing to sell a product that takes many weeks to cultivate to another center--in the fear that they may also run out. I imagine that when a mmc gets these kind of calls from their competitors--begging for product--the very last thing they would want to do--is to help keep their competitors in business--LOL.

What are these mmc suppose to do when they run out--and can't find another center that is willing to sell them any? Just shut their doors to their patients--I guess?

[GratefulMeds]

I hear you, Mark, but we have too much invested here to just walk away. We've lowered prices three times since we've opened and reinvest everything back into the business or paying off loans.

@Zed: Warren has never told us caregiver to caregiver was illegal. Hmm. Interesting.

The way that he's reading this, I believe, is that your OPCL isn't tied to patient counts, just what you have in the center. That way a wholesaling model makes sense.

I myself I am becoming a plantiff so I am putting up what funds I have. I to have re invested every dime back into my biz. If 200 maybe 400 small dispensaries get together and kick in a grand to challenge this in court we can win or at least get some of the worst things in the bill struck down.
There is a reason all the little guys are getting screwed in this, we are easy targets. This bill has gone after the sick and the mom & pops because alone we are weak. But if we stand together we are mighty and cannot be silenced!
:thumbsup:

Reply |Beth McCann to me
show details 9:56 PM (9 hours ago)


Thanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I did support 1284 and as you know by now, it did pass. I believe the Dept. of Revenue and Health will be formulating rules which will develop more of the details so I encourage you to get involved in that process. Rep. McCann


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM, mark rose <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Representative,

How Can Anyone in the Legislation Vote yes on 1284 with this kind of Fraud in the Health Department.
CALL7 Investigation: State Has Millions In Uncashed Checks - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/23488571/detail.html)
To have over 5 million in funds laying around in unopened envelopes, funds that are supposed to be used to fund the State's Medical Marijuana Registry Exclusively! I believe this has been a conscious attempt by the directer of the Health Department to portray the Medical Marijuana Registry Program a Failure, to influence policy to fit his own political & moral agenda. I believe all involved in this should resign immediately. Again I urge you to urge your fellow Representatives to Vote No on HB-1284, you obviously do not have all the facts.

Sincerely,

Mark Rose RPSGT
Grateful Meds
Nederland Colorado
303 258 7703



--
Beth McCann
Colorado State Representative
House District 8
[email protected]
(303) 866-2959


Reply Forward

Beth McCannThanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I di...
9:56 PM (9 hours ago)

Reply |mark rose to Beth
show details 11:02 PM (8 hours ago)


Oh I am involved I will be a plantiff against the State based that it violates my constitutional rights, and has taken away my business. We hope to have our town also involved in this litigation.To think one fee works for everyone accross that State was silly. Sure it might work for Denver and the big metro areas, But that fee is burdensome to small town Colorado. I wouldn't brag on this acomplishment, best of luck with your re-election plans.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Rose RPSGT

[Colodonmed]

I am not a dispensory owner--but it would appear to me--that this is one of those clauses that cannot possibly be enforced. The question is 70% of what? 70% of gross sales--70% of the number of registered patients they have. It's not at all clear in this bill how the state will determine what 70% represents.

Then--the other problem I see--is if a medical marijuana center runs out of medical marijuana--they are only permitted to buy it from their competition-- another medical marijuana center. How many centers are willing to sell a product that takes many weeks to cultivate to another center--in the fear that they may also run out. I imagine that when a mmc gets these kind of calls from their competitors--begging for product--the very last thing they would want to do--is to help keep their competitors in business--LOL.

What are these mmc suppose to do when they run out--and can't find another center that is willing to sell them any? Just shut their doors to their patients--I guess?
nor am I an owner or even affilliated with any dispensary,in fact I have only been in 4 dispensaries as I have a pretty good caregiver and my shopping experience at the dispensaries have not given me the best feelings. Just a curious patient with too much time on my hands I suppose. I am sure that all the points being brought up in these discussions will be included when seeking an injunction once this ridiculous bill becomes law. However I am in awe of the construction of the bill as the more I read the more I just shake my head and wonder how in the hell some of this language even got in there. It is becoming more and more evident how the crafters of the bill really did not take the time to research the requirements that they have attempted to place on the parties named in the bill. I can only scratch my head in disbelief and am looking forward to the legal challenges that are coming. Hopefully whatever judge this is in front of will issue an injunction and allow time for all these questions to be answered and or the bill to be ruled as unconstitutional. Peace

[GratefulMeds]

The odd ball out in this bill. Correct me if I am wrong. I just read this entire bill and NO WHERE did I see that medical marijuana centers were required to be caregivers to their patients. In other words I did not read that a patient "had" to turn over their registration number to the mmc to be able to purchase medical marijuana from them?

Then on Page 5-18 (B) On or before September 1, 2010 a business or operation shall certify that it is cultivating at least 70% of the medical marijuana necessary for itâ??s operation.

Now how in the heck does a medical marijuana center "certify" that they are growing at least 70% of the mm--if they have no caregiver status--and no marijuana patients that have registed their medical marijuana center as their primary caregiver?

They make us lie on paper, must be noterized.

[Colodonmed]

I myself I am becoming a plantiff so I am putting up what funds I have. I to have re invested every dime back into my biz. If 200 maybe 400 small dispensaries get together and kick in a grand to challenge this in court we can win or at least get some of the worst things in the bill struck down.
There is a reason all the little guys are getting screwed in this, we are easy targets. This bill has gone after the sick and the mom & pops because alone we are weak. But if we stand together we are mighty and cannot be silenced!
:thumbsup:

Reply |Beth McCann to me
show details 9:56 PM (9 hours ago)


Thanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I did support 1284 and as you know by now, it did pass. I believe the Dept. of Revenue and Health will be formulating rules which will develop more of the details so I encourage you to get involved in that process. Rep. McCann


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM, mark rose <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Representative,

How Can Anyone in the Legislation Vote yes on 1284 with this kind of Fraud in the Health Department.
CALL7 Investigation: State Has Millions In Uncashed Checks - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/23488571/detail.html)
To have over 5 million in funds laying around in unopened envelopes, funds that are supposed to be used to fund the State's Medical Marijuana Registry Exclusively! I believe this has been a conscious attempt by the directer of the Health Department to portray the Medical Marijuana Registry Program a Failure, to influence policy to fit his own political & moral agenda. I believe all involved in this should resign immediately. Again I urge you to urge your fellow Representatives to Vote No on HB-1284, you obviously do not have all the facts.

Sincerely,

Mark Rose RPSGT
Grateful Meds
Nederland Colorado
303 258 7703



--
Beth McCann
Colorado State Representative
House District 8
[email protected]
(303) 866-2959


Reply Forward

Beth McCannThanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I di...
9:56 PM (9 hours ago)

Reply |mark rose to Beth
show details 11:02 PM (8 hours ago)


Oh I am involved I will be a plantiff against the State based that it violates my constitutional rights, and has taken away my business. We hope to have our town also involved in this litigation.To think one fee works for everyone accross that State was silly. Sure it might work for Denver and the big metro areas, But that fee is burdensome to small town Colorado. I wouldn't brag on this acomplishment, best of luck with your re-election plans.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Rose RPSGT
Well stated Mark

[throatstick]

I myself I am becoming a plantiff so I am putting up what funds I have. I to have re invested every dime back into my biz. If 200 maybe 400 small dispensaries get together and kick in a grand to challenge this in court we can win or at least get some of the worst things in the bill struck down.
There is a reason all the little guys are getting screwed in this, we are easy targets. This bill has gone after the sick and the mom & pops because alone we are weak. But if we stand together we are mighty and cannot be silenced!
:thumbsup:

Reply |Beth McCann to me
show details 9:56 PM (9 hours ago)


Thanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I did support 1284 and as you know by now, it did pass. I believe the Dept. of Revenue and Health will be formulating rules which will develop more of the details so I encourage you to get involved in that process. Rep. McCann


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM, mark rose <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Representative,

How Can Anyone in the Legislation Vote yes on 1284 with this kind of Fraud in the Health Department.
CALL7 Investigation: State Has Millions In Uncashed Checks - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/23488571/detail.html)
To have over 5 million in funds laying around in unopened envelopes, funds that are supposed to be used to fund the State's Medical Marijuana Registry Exclusively! I believe this has been a conscious attempt by the directer of the Health Department to portray the Medical Marijuana Registry Program a Failure, to influence policy to fit his own political & moral agenda. I believe all involved in this should resign immediately. Again I urge you to urge your fellow Representatives to Vote No on HB-1284, you obviously do not have all the facts.

Sincerely,

Mark Rose RPSGT
Grateful Meds
Nederland Colorado
303 258 7703



--
Beth McCann
Colorado State Representative
House District 8
[email protected]
(303) 866-2959


Reply Forward

Beth McCannThanks for sending your thoughts. I am just getting caught up on emails. I di...
9:56 PM (9 hours ago)

Reply |mark rose to Beth
show details 11:02 PM (8 hours ago)


Oh I am involved I will be a plantiff against the State based that it violates my constitutional rights, and has taken away my business. We hope to have our town also involved in this litigation.To think one fee works for everyone accross that State was silly. Sure it might work for Denver and the big metro areas, But that fee is burdensome to small town Colorado. I wouldn't brag on this acomplishment, best of luck with your re-election plans.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Rose RPSGT

we need to make sure we remove people like beth.sounds like as she was typing the email she had her nose as high up in the air as she could.trash like this needs to go...

[GratefulMeds]

we need to make sure we remove people like beth.sounds like as she was typing the email she had her nose as high up in the air as she could.trash like this needs to go...

We will have a "Backlash Movement" that works to vote all these pompous a-holes out! They have not felt the wrath of the people for a long time but it's coming down fast! We will fight in the courts, the ballot boxes and the streets with civil disobedience this poker game is far from over!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[TheReleafCenter]

The odd ball out in this bill. Correct me if I am wrong. I just read this entire bill and NO WHERE did I see that medical marijuana centers were required to be caregivers to their patients. In other words I did not read that a patient "had" to turn over their registration number to the mmc to be able to purchase medical marijuana from them?

You're not wrong, but it's essentially two sides of the same coin. The "primary caregiver" is replaced by "primary center".

@GM: I think a lot of people are reluctant to open their pocketbooks after the CMMR debacle. Having strong leadership at the head of whatever organization chooses to fight this seems like the only way to garner real support.

[GratefulMeds]

You're not wrong, but it's essentially two sides of the same coin. The "primary caregiver" is replaced by "primary center".

@GM: I think a lot of people are reluctant to open their pocketbooks after the CMMR debacle. Having strong leadership at the head of whatever organization chooses to fight this seems like the only way to garner real support.

I appreciate that but it seems we are getting national interests that would like to kick down $$ for this fight. I will keep you posted on that.:thumbsup:

[TheReleafCenter]

National like ASA/NORML/etc, or what?

[GratefulMeds]

more like private funds from folks out of State sympathetic to our cause.

[TheReleafCenter]

more like private funds from folks out of State sympathetic to our cause.

Anything helps at this point. I really want to see what CTI's 10 lawyer panel has to say. For anyone who hasn't heard about the event:


Attorney Panel Discussion:
Medical Marijuana Law in Colorado

Monday, May 24, 2010
6:30pm - 9:00pm

Loews Hotels-Denver
4150 East Mississippi Ave., Denver, CO 80246

FREE and open to the public.

Ten Medical Marijuana Attorneys Unite for Panel Discussion

{Denver} -- The Cannabis Therapy Institute and the Medical Marijuana
Business Alliance will host a gathering of ten prominent Colorado medical
marijuana attorneys to discuss medical marijuana legal issues surrounding
the state's new medical marijuana laws. The attorneys will be encouraged to
unite to find unique and creative ways to tell the government just where
they are wrong on these new laws. The panel discussion will give each
panelist the opportunity to present their ideas on the best ways to for
businesses and patients to challenge or comply with the new laws, including
any litigation they are currently working on. The attorneys will also be
asked how the legal community can work together to help shape the future of
medical marijuana in Colorado to better serve the needs patients.

PANEL MEMBERS

* Clifton L. Black (Colorado Springs)
* Jessica P. Corry (Denver)
* Tae Darnell (Denver)
* Lauren C. Davis (Denver)
* Jeffrey Gard (Boulder)
* Richard Gee (Blackhawk)
* Charles T. Houghton, P.C. (Colo. Springs)
* Danyel Joffe (Denver)
* Craig Small (Boulder)
* Ann Toney, Lawyer (Denver)