One Brown Mouse

[ottistoys]

:(:(:(I was up in Ned.on tue.and spoke with Katheen.She said she is closing the disp. on Aug 31.:(:(:(:(

[denverbear]

:(:(:(I was up in Ned.on tue.and spoke with Katheen.She said she is closing the disp. on Aug 31.:(:(:(:(

sad real sad....what reason did she give for her going to close down?

[ottistoys]

The paper work involved to stay legal went into wanting to know alot of personal info which she does not want to provide.She also mentioned the dept.of rev,wants to install cameras in each disp.

[SprngsCaregiver]

The paper work involved to stay legal went into wanting to know a lot of personal info which she does not want to provide.She also mentioned the dept.of rev,wants to install cameras in each disp.

LOL but the pharmacies, which are serving up crap that is killing people, are fine. Gotta love it.

[HighPopalorum]

LOL but the pharmacies, which are serving up crap that is killing people, are fine. Gotta love it.

Actually, pharmacies are also required to have cameras.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Actually, pharmacies are also required to have cameras.

State cameras? Or just private cameras? I can understand them requiring private cameras.

[HighPopalorum]

State cameras? Or just private cameras? I can understand them requiring private cameras.

All private cameras. Liquor stores do as well. Our town also requires them to be in MMCs.

I do not believe Kathleen (or perhaps the OP mis-characterized her statement ) when she says the Department of Revenue wants to install cameras in every MMC. Or hell, maybe they want to but they won't. Kathleen is very.... colorful... and tends to spin exaggerated conspiratorial fantasies. I think it more likely that the DoR or Ned or B County is only requiring that cameras be installed for security reasons.

Still, if any other dispensary owners have heard from the Department of Revenue on this matter, let the rest of us know.

[HarvestHouse]

It's far too early to say what OBM will do. Lets just say the situation is in flux. I sure hope what ever happens Kathleen is successful, she deserves it. She is a true advocate and pioneer in the field, for mmj and hemp before that.

Big Ups to Kathleen!

[canaguy27]

The DOR wants either auditors coming by every two weeks or access to cameras live feed 24/7. That is in the grow ops anyways. I bet dispensos are the same.

[copobo]

Big Ups to Kathleen!
:thumbsup:

[HighPopalorum]

The DOR wants either auditors coming by every two weeks or access to cameras live feed 24/7. That is in the grow ops anyways. I bet dispensos are the same.

The numbers don't add up... They've only asked for 27 employees, including administrators, and $2 million. Visiting every grow site and MMC in the state every two weeks is not possible. I really think there has to be more (or less) to this story. That seems like a strange thing for the DoR to do, but I don't know why it would be all that objectionable.

[onebrownmouse]

[QUOTE= That seems like a strange thing for the DoR to do, but I don't know why it would be all that objectionable.[/QUOTE]

Highpopalorum--Not that objectionable? :( What kind of American are you? No other business is the US has 24/7 live feed cameras that are recording and watched by ANY government agency. Talk about big brother. But hey, that's okay with you. Wanna buy a dispensary?

Matt Cook, the leading king pin at the dept of rev., has stated numerous times both publicly and privately that there WILL be cameras in ALL dispensaries and grows.

The state constitution protects CAREGIVERS- NOT medical marijuana centers.

To clear up FACTS

This is THE MOST INTRUSIVE, UN AMERICAN license application ANY AMERICAN has ever been asked to fill out. Ask ANY attorney who has read it if they themselves would sign it for ANY reason. And if they lie to you and say yes, hell, offer them your dispensary and ask them to follow through. It won't happen.

The state 'medical marijuana center' (an entity NOT protected in the Colorado Constitution Article 18 section 14) application requires owners to give up ALL state and federal privacy rights. Your signature means you also give up your right to un warranted searches and seizures. Owners must list ALL assets including private accounts, stocks, bonds and shares that have NOTHING to do with one's dispensary, AND childrens names, ages and address of residence. Owners must list all tattoos, piercings, scares and birthmarks. Owners must even provide a copy of their high school diploma.

This 'application' is REALLY a VOLUNTARY SIGNED CONFESSION saying one is BREAKING FEDERAL LAW and one gives them a nice neat organized list of their assets, including where HHS can find your children, that the feds will conveniently seize. Who needs more than 27 employees when the owners do all the work for them and then voluntarily sign it over AND pay them a fee on top of it.

And since one gives up their rights of privacy, the CO dept of rev. can send it over to the feds whenever they want. And if you are clueless to the fact that the feds will ruin your life, read what happened last week:

DEA Flouts Medical Marijuana Ordinance By Raiding First Applicant

DEA Flouts Medical Marijuana Ordinance By Raiding First Applicant | NEWS JUNKIE POST (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/07/10/dea-flouts-medical-marijuana-ordinance-by-raiding-first-applicant/)

Kathleens colorful? What I am is a NON pharmaceuticly sedated American.

Only an idiot would 'apply'. Or a pharmaceutical company (or someone like Josh Stanley, Peace in Medicine, Budding Health) who has bought their way in.

READ HB1284. It re-categorizes MMJ from schedule 1 (no known medical use) to schedule 2, which sounds maybe positive that the government is going to acknowledge it has medical value (aside from the federal patent 6630507 on cannabis or the federal medical program that has been mailing pot through the mail to patients for over 30 years). HOWEVER-read what schedule 2 drugs are. They are drugs that CAN ONLY BE DISPENSED BY PHARMACIES--NOT MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS ( things created by the CO Dept of Rev., which HAVE NO PROTECTION in STATE or FEDERAL law).

to read more on the Federal cannabis patent::(

Medical Marijuana,US Government holds key patents for Marijuana as drug treatment,US Patent 6630507 (http://www.babelation.com/content/medical-marijuanaus-government-holds-key-patents-marijuana-drug-treatmentus-patent-6630507)

The BIG BOYS have taken over and the mom and pop can kiss it goodbye.

[TurboALLWD]

Join the army of caregivers! :thumbsup: I hate to see one of the very few good dispensaries out there get taken down by the government, and thats exactly whats happened. The only difference is this dispensary is doing it on their own terms, much rather see it go like this than like what just happened in cali with the DEA.

You're edibles were the only edibles I thought were actually worth buying out of the 10-15 different dispensaries I tried. So many people vouched for you're edibles I just had to drive all the way up into the mountains to try some. And the bachlava was more than highly potent, it was delicious! Well worth the money imo. :jointsmile: The other dispensaries edibles wouldn't even produce a noticable buzz , especially the freebie the releaf center gave me for being a first time customer.

[neversummer]

Kathleen you are my hero!

Live free or die trying!

[ottistoys]

Kathleen I will miss you !!! :(


Peace

[HighPopalorum]

You would certainly know more than I, but I don't believe you when you say the DoR wants to monitor your business 24/7. I believe you are exaggerating. I meant that it is not objectionable to have to install cameras for security reasons. (tons of businesses are required to do so - pharmacies, liquor stores, banks, etc etc.) The reason why this is required is because these businesses, like yours, are more likely than others to attract crime.


This is THE MOST INTRUSIVE, UN AMERICAN license application ANY AMERICAN has ever been asked to fill out.

An exaggeration.


READ HB1284. It re-categorizes MMJ from schedule 1 (no known medical use) to schedule 2

No it doesn't. That is a federal classification.


The state constitution protects CAREGIVERS- NOT medical marijuana centers.

Source this, please. It certainly isn't in Amendment 20, which I just reread. Amendment 20 provides some exceptions to criminal law for patients and caregivers, but no exceptions to civil liability, or privacy, or local regulation, or health codes or any of the other stuff you're complaining about. Besides, you're not a caregiver, but a MMC. (If you don't want to be regulated, do as Turbo suggests and become a caregiver.)You should have to pay taxes as well as comply with other state and local ordinances like other businesses do. We can disagree about what the state can reasonably require of you in terms of fees, private information and compliance. We may not have found the perfect level of regulation, but we're getting there. Challenge the law in court if you don't like it, and perhaps some of the hard edges will be knocked off.

EDIT2: I like your medicine, though.

[onebrownmouse]

Join the army of caregivers! :thumbsup: I hate to see one of the very few good dispensaries out there get taken down by the government, and thats exactly whats happened. The only difference is this dispensary is doing it on their own terms, much rather see it go like this than like what just happened in cali with the DEA.

You're edibles were the only edibles I thought were actually worth buying out of the 10-15 different dispensaries I tried. So many people vouched for you're edibles I just had to drive all the way up into the mountains to try some. And the bachlava was more than highly potent, it was delicious! Well worth the money imo. :jointsmile: The other dispensaries edibles wouldn't even produce a noticable buzz , especially the freebie the releaf center gave me for being a first time customer.


We are ALL covered as legal caregivers under the Colorado Constitution Article 18 Section 14. If we weren't we would ALL be in jail right now. Our senators and legislature have sold us out and UN constitutionally altered the constitution language by limiting the number of people we can care give for.

[onebrownmouse]

This is, from the mouth of the best MMJ attorneys, the most intrusive application language in the country.

I understand schedule 1 and two and 3 and 4 are all federal classifications. But CO and OR have reclassified them in their state language.

First off it isn't called Amendment 20--it is Article 18 Section 14 of the CO constitution. It was Amendment 20 when it was on the ballot. The voters passed it. Some other future initiative will be called Amendment 20.

"Besides, you're not a caregiver, but a MMC. (If you don't want to be regulated, do as Turbo suggests and become a caregiver.)You should have to pay taxes as well as comply with other state and local ordinances like other businesses do" High P.

Another sheep misleading the rest. If I was not a caregiver I would be in jail. Everyone with more than 5 patients would be. When the state passes regulation that creates MMC's I can only be an MMC if I apply. I have not chosen to apply as I will not apply for something NOT COVERED in the CO constitution.

I have paid taxes, even before the state said it was required. Because No shit, every retail sale requires taxes. Zoning is the way caregivers can be legally regulated. I suppose you agree with the unconstitutional local banns, another thing that will be proven in the court of law.

"We can disagree about what the state can reasonably require of you in terms of fees, private information and compliance." High P

If you actually consulted an informed attorney, the fee's can be whatever the dept of rev wants. We do not have control or 'rights' on fees. Yes, we can say they are outrageous.

[TheReleafCenter]

Kathleen, you may want to be careful... we've heard operating after August 1st if you don't apply could put you at risk.

Good luck to you. :hippy:

[onebrownmouse]

and I have them.

How about the dept of rev installs 24/7 webcams in your house, High P? You clearly seem fine with BIG BROTHER watching your every move.

[onebrownmouse]

State cameras? Or just private cameras? I can understand them requiring private cameras.

State cameras.

[TheReleafCenter]

The other dispensaries edibles wouldn't even produce a noticable buzz , especially the freebie the releaf center gave me for being a first time customer.

The free cookies we give out are for people of all tolerance levels. We got skewered for having free edibles that were too strong by the Denver Chronicle. You should try the mountain medicine bars/caramels/lozenges. I'll put them up against anything.

[TheReleafCenter]

and I have them.

How about the dept of rev installs 24/7 webcams in your house, High P? You clearly seem fine with BIG BROTHER watching your every move.

And no one is talking about how you have to sign over your POWER OF ATTORNEY to the state for TWO YEARS.

[pfunk211]

Welcome to the forums, Kathleen.

i think your edibles are the bee's knees, too (especially those delicious pink and blue candies ;) )

fight the power!

[SprngsCaregiver]

This is, from the mouth of the best MMJ attorneys, the most intrusive application language in the country.

I understand schedule 1 and two and 3 and 4 are all federal classifications. But CO and OR have reclassified them in their state language.

First off it isn't called Amendment 20--it is Article 18 Section 14 of the CO constitution. It was Amendment 20 when it was on the ballot. The voters passed it. Some other future initiative will be called Amendment 20.

"Besides, you're not a caregiver, but a MMC. (If you don't want to be regulated, do as Turbo suggests and become a caregiver.)You should have to pay taxes as well as comply with other state and local ordinances like other businesses do" High P.

Another sheep misleading the rest. If I was not a caregiver I would be in jail. Everyone with more than 5 patients would be. When the state passes regulation that creates MMC's I can only be an MMC if I apply. I have not chosen to apply as I will not apply for something NOT COVERED in the CO constitution.

I have paid taxes, even before the state said it was required. Because No shit, every retail sale requires taxes. Zoning is the way caregivers can be legally regulated. I suppose you agree with the unconstitutional local banns, another thing that will be proven in the court of law.

"We can disagree about what the state can reasonably require of you in terms of fees, private information and compliance." High P

If you actually consulted an informed attorney, the fee's can be whatever the dept of rev wants. We do not have control or 'rights' on fees. Yes, we can say they are outrageous.
Where can I get one of these applications?


State cameras.
I've actually heard this from a couple different people but I have no proof, and it wasn't me first hand, so I left it alone.

[HighPopalorum]

Where can I get one of these applications?


Here. (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Rev-Enforcement/RELayout&cid=1251575120096&pagename=REWrapper)

re: cameras

Time will tell I guess? I'll [un]happily stand corrected the first time a dispensary owner points out a government-owned camera to me. We only have to wait two weeks.

[onebrownmouse]

And no one is talking about how you have to sign over your POWER OF ATTORNEY to the state for TWO YEARS.

Clearly if you re read this thread NO ONE mentions power of attorney.

It's a no wonder we are where we are at. Education not regulation.

[onebrownmouse]

Where can I get one of these applications?


I've actually heard this from a couple different people but I have no proof, and it wasn't me first hand, so I left it alone.

the application can be found on the link off of Cannabis Therapy Institute dot com

Call king pin Matt Cook and ask him yourself about the cameras.

[HighPopalorum]

Ed: NM!

[Zedleppelin]

Good for you Kathleen. I think all dispensary owners should refuse to fill out their invasive forms in protest and everyone should just ignore 1284.

[TheReleafCenter]

Good for you Kathleen. I think all dispensary owners should refuse to fill out their invasive forms in protest and everyone should just ignore 1284.

The penalties of ignoring 1284 will be pretty harsh.

[cologrower420]

This is an excellent article, I haven't seen it elsewhere.

It does mention the webcams in dispensaries, but the writer also used mattcook as a source, so I'm unclear where that language is in the legislation that discusses camera's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/business/27pot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business

[HighPopalorum]

Shit, maybe Kathleen is right on this one. (re: cameras) That article makes it appear so, at least. I'd be very interested to know where said cameras will be installed, at whose expense, what agencies have access and under what circumstances. Patient confidentiality is protected explicitly by A20, and this would seem a de facto, if not de jure, breach if the cameras are placed in areas where patients are recorded.

[denverbear]

so what I want to know is if liquor stores and stores like walgreens etc. subject to the same camera Bull sheet since they are all the same in my eyes.
big brother is going to be watching all of us sooner then later....
camera's in lights and camera's in bathrooms sure to follow...with listening devices hidden in walls and bedrooms...
I might be over over thinking here but not by much.

[copobo]

I was in Releaf the other day, they said they had camera going offsite, and that they (the city or state?) could access them on request.

perhaps the camera requirement is just that the tapes are stored for some period of time? That's standard in a bunch of industries...but I don't know that it is government mandated or that they must provide warrantless access.

what do they think they are going to see on the cameras? people selling cannabis?! the cameras certainly aren't going to provide 100% coverage at any site. what's to accomplish, but intimidation and more cost?

[TheReleafCenter]

They haven't accessed our cameras yet, we set up online backup/offsite storage to be compliance with Denver's ordinance.

[canaguy27]

I have spoken to people that have contacted cook. They will have cameras EVERYWHERE to monitor EVERYTHING. or you can get audited 2x a week.

But, as well all know Cook says one thing to this person and another to someone else.

[Ebbandflowian]

Releaf your cameras that you have set up now are at denvers request???

[SprngsCaregiver]

Here. (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Rev-Enforcement/RELayout&cid=1251575120096&pagename=REWrapper)(edit: MMJ disp. ap)

re: cameras

Time will tell I guess? I'll [un]happily stand corrected the first time a dispensary owner points out a government-owned camera to me. We only have to wait two weeks.

Ok so lets compare the MMJ application to the application for a pharmacy. http://www.dora.state.co.us/pharmacy/bus/PDOapplication.pdf

Then for a pharmaceutical wholesale license. http://www.dora.state.co.us/pharmacy/bus/WHIapplication.pdf

You really don't see a problem here?

Note this on the wholesale application.

During the licensing process â?? and depending on the specific application â?? the Division will ask whether you have ever been disciplined in any state, arrested, charged, convicted, or pled guilty to a crime. An arrest, subsequent criminal conviction, or disciplinary action is not an automatic disqualification from licensure. Instead, the appropriate board or program will look at the facts surrounding the criminal conduct and disciplinary action to determine whether you are fit for licensure.
But when it comes to distributing a plant you're SOL.
I don't have any felonies so I'm not just a bitter drug dealer, but apparently if I was just a bitter drug dealer there is always the possibility of selling pharmaceuticals.

[TheReleafCenter]

Releaf your cameras that you have set up now are at denvers request???

No, Denver just requires that we back up off site. No government agency has ever asked to see our cameras, save for the DPD when there was an attempted burglary. Our security footage led to the arrest of three men who had broken into several Denver dispensaries.

[onebrownmouse]

[quote=HighPopalorum]Shit, maybe Kathleen is right on this one. (re: cameras) That article makes it appear so, at least. I'd be very interested to know where said cameras will be installed, at whose expense, what agencies have access and under what circumstances. Patient confidentiality is protected explicitly by A20, and this would seem a de facto, if not de jure, breach if the cameras are placed in areas where patients are recorded.[/QUOTE

You clearly type to see yourself type, because most things you say are wrong or anti American and anti freedom.

Call Matt Cook and ask him yourself or call any reputable attorney who has talked to Matt Cook or the MMBusiness Alliance or Cannabis Therapy Institute and quit guessing out loud. Your ignorance misleads others. But maybe thats your game. Maybe your not on our team. Maybe your job is to mislead.

At whose expense? The MMC's of course. It will come out of the list of fee's to run and monitor the program that get created per HB1284 in the next year. -AGAIN--it is not called amendment 20 once we voted on it. It's Section 18 Article 14 of the CO Constitution.

The cameras will be in every (not protected by the CO Constitution) MMC on the cannabis, clones and the money and at every grow for a MMC. Patient confidentiality has been thrown to the wind as all sales will be recorded with a swipe of a statewide card system that goes to the dept of rev. along with the video as patients have to pay for their purchases. What patients buy and from where will be recorded. Confidential medical records aren't even a right in CO as attorneys have told me they are a privilege and can be stomped on. Before you reply that I am full of shit or exaggerating or conspiratorial -- look it up.

HB1284 and SB109 are un constitutional, un American, un just and just plain evil.

[onebrownmouse]

Ok so lets compare the MMJ application to the application for a pharmacy. http://www.dora.state.co.us/pharmacy/bus/PDOapplication.pdf

Then for a pharmaceutical wholesale license. http://www.dora.state.co.us/pharmacy/bus/WHIapplication.pdf

You really don't see a problem here?

Note this on the wholesale application.

But when it comes to distributing a plant you're SOL.
I don't have any felonies so I'm not just a bitter drug dealer, but apparently if I was just a bitter drug dealer there is always the possibility of selling pharmaceuticals.

Thank you. Thank god ssome of us are still freedom fighting Americans.

[onebrownmouse]

Shit, maybe Kathleen is right on this one. (re: cameras) That article makes it appear so, at least. I'd be very interested to know where said cameras will be installed, at whose expense, what agencies have access and under what circumstances. Patient confidentiality is protected explicitly by A20, and this would seem a de facto, if not de jure, breach if the cameras are placed in areas where patients are recorded.

A20 doesn't exist -- It's Article 18 Section 14 of the CO Constitution.

And the constitution protects caregivers and patients. It was okay for you to tell me the other day that I was NOT a caregiver but an MMC --which is un constitutional and more BS and today your touting patient confidentiality is protected.

Interesting how some parts of the constitution you uphold and others you don't. Your clearly not on the team of fairness, justice or freedom for all.

[HighPopalorum]

And the constitution protects caregivers and patients. It was okay for you to tell me the other day that I was NOT a caregiver but an MMC --which is un constitutional and more BS and today your touting patient confidentiality is protected.

My reading of A20 indicates that the privacy of patients and caregivers is protected. What is at issue is whether you (in your capacity as OBM) are a caregiver or something different altogether. To my mind, commercial growers and retailers like yourself should be subjected to closer regulation because they are different than a caregiver who treats only a few patients. To allow large businesses with hundreds of patients and millions in revenue to operate outside of the state's regulatory system, as if they were the same as caregivers growing at home with less than five patients is folly. I do not see anything hypocritical or unconstitutional about that.

[cologrower420]

I think there are two types of MMC operators/owners in Colorado.

The first type is the big money operators with little to no experience with growing. Basically large scale big money operations. When I ask a MMC operator whether their extract is full or half melt hash, their response is telling.

For example, eric at hatch has no idea what the difference is between chemical, icewater or mechanical separation of different types of hash. In his ill informed opinion, he thinks all the hash he sells is full melt. Wrong. He loses credibility with me for that, so I would never trust him to sell clones or have other knowledge. Other people that fit this mold would be Budding Health in the tech center, the guy at santa fe and happy canyon, etc. They just don't know enough about their products and they still act like experts.

On the other side of the spectrum are places like wellspring and releaf, delta and CAM. The vast majority of their employees are knowledgable and care about the medicine. These are the types of people to buy clones from or otherwise seek knowledge.

I guess I'm trying to say that your attacks might be better suited to other people in this MMC arena, not releaf. They seem to be doing it 'right'. I'll still buy from any of the MMC's I've listed, but if I am seeking knowledge it's different. But I'm not really talking to you specifically, just the anti-MMC crowd.

Agree to disagree and all that.

[HighPopalorum]

I am NOT a commercial grower and never was.


How are you not a commercial grower? I assume you grow some or all of the medicine you retail in Nederland.



The courts will rule as they already have on limiting caregivers.

The courts will weigh in on that aspect of the law when it is challenged. That's their job, and I believe they will do it well. There are a number of challenges to parts of the new law, and more are on the way. I encourage you to mount your own legal campaign if you feel you have grounds. We should challenge laws we feel are unjust!

[Psycho4Bud]

I wish we had these issues to bitch about in Wisconsin.:rolleyes:

NOW lets get to the grit of the situation. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE!!! IF you can't debate an issue without having to tell somebody to go fuck themselves or throw petty insults don't waste your time typing! Warnings are past out.....then a short ban...then longer and longer bans till WE say screw this shit and do it for life.

Personally, I'd just state that I didn't agree with reasons, log out and find something else to do that didn't piss me off. Hell, piss fests are deleted so why waste the time?

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[cologrower420]

I wish we had these issues to bitch about in Wisconsin.:rolleyes:

NOW lets get to the grit of the situation. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE!!! IF you can't debate an issue without having to tell somebody to go fuck themselves or throw petty insults don't waste your time typing! Warnings are past out.....then a short ban...then longer and longer bans till WE say screw this shit and do it for life.

Personally, I'd just state that I didn't agree with reasons, log out and find something else to do that didn't piss me off. Hell, piss fests are deleted so why waste the time?

Have a good one!:thumbsup:
Please don't take this as a personal attack, I'll do my best.

You are a moderator here, and you don't even bother to spell or grammar check your posts? Obviously some people don't care about that sort of stuff so it's not that big of a deal, but your reasons for deleting posts are explained by 'Personally, I'd just state that I didn't agree with reasons, log out and find something else to do that didn't piss me off. Hell, piss fests are deleted so why waste the time?' I don't even know what that means.

My point is, it would be beneficial to you as a mod on this site, if you took some time to actually post what is and what is not allowed to be posted. Discussions get heated sometimes, and sometimes people don't understand where others are coming from or what their reasons are, so they get questioned. I feel like you don't know or don't care enough to attempt to make the distinction. If you made it clear on what you delete and what you don't, I'm certain posters (like me) would try to make your job as a mod easier by not posting things you'll delete. Right now, I am not sure why you delete what you do and why you let slide the things you do. I am new here, so I assume you are pretty busy deleting nonsense. If you delete the stuff you do in this thread, I can't imagine how busy you must be in other places.

I respect you as a moderator on this site, but I just wish I had a better idea of what you personally don't want to see on this board. I don't really post elsewhere, and I am not interested in pissing anyone off. I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with anyone either, so I wonder why you say you delete those posts. If you deleted my posts because you thought I was engaging in a 'pissing contest', then make a post in that thread or something.

I apologize if this post pisses you off, I am trying to get a clear picture of what is and is not allowed on this board, to make both of our lives here easier. Feel free to delete it.

[Psycho4Bud]

Forgot to use the ieSpell......oh well, shit happens.

As for the forums guidelines they are posted in most forums with a sticky. Problem is that most people don't bother to read them over:
http://boards.cannabis.com/colorado-co/185674-messageboard-rules.html

When people, not you, resort to throwing insults instead of debating an issue it is deleted. Posts that use quotes from this sort of piss fest are also deleted until the thread is clean. Wish I could edit posts but that's not an option for me as a moderator here so all content ends up being deleted.

By the way, I can definitely tell the difference between a heated debate and "FUCK OFF DBAG".

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[cologrower420]

Forgot to use the ieSpell......oh well, shit happens.

As for the forums guidelines they are posted in most forums with a sticky. Problem is that most people don't bother to read them over:
http://boards.cannabis.com/colorado-co/185674-messageboard-rules.html

When people, not you, resort to throwing insults instead of debating an issue it is deleted. Posts that use quotes from this sort of piss fest are also deleted until the thread is clean. Wish I could edit posts but that's not an option for me as a moderator here so all content ends up being deleted.

By the way, I can definitely tell the difference between a heated debate and "FUCK OFF DBAG".

Have a good one!:thumbsup:
I appreciate your response, and I didn't think about your nonability to edit posts so you have to delete quoted posts etc. I have a feeling that's why most of these posts are deleted.

I have read the rules about posting, and I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can take those rules and apply them differently in different scenario's etcetera, and different mods are going to read and apply them differently as well.

You don't have to reply, I see why you delete the way you do.

[TheReleafCenter]

I didn't think I used any personal insults... could you tell me why my message was removed?

[HighPopalorum]

I didn't think I used any personal insults... could you tell me why my message was removed?

For quoting Turbo's post, which was a personal attack on me and was removed by the mods?

[TheReleafCenter]

Sigh... was looking forward to his response.

[SprngsCaregiver]

How are you not a commercial grower? I assume you grow some or all of the medicine you retail in Nederland.



The courts will weigh in on that aspect of the law when it is challenged. That's their job, and I believe they will do it well. There are a number of challenges to parts of the new law, and more are on the way. I encourage you to mount your own legal campaign if you feel you have grounds. We should challenge laws we feel are unjust!

When you call a grower a "commercial grower" it's an insult. It's basically like telling them they dont care about their product and they just grow for quantity.

Just my :twocents:

[cologrower420]

When you call a grower a "commercial grower" it's an insult. It's basically like telling them they dont care about their product and they just grow for quantity.

Just my :twocents:

People need to realize that you are just using a different word than you, it's not an insult. If you don't want people to use that word to describe you, then request them to say it differently. It's wrong to judge them if they don't know they are offending you. Plus, aren't 'commercial growers' assumed to be compliant with state law, while 'growers' can be assumed to be breaking the law, and nothing more than drug traffickers, no better than someone operating a meth lab?

That's the whole stigma with this new legislation, is that the people who paid to play, started commercial grows and are compliant with state law, are now somehow the bad guys who don't care.

It's an absurd position to take, one that people who don't have intimate knowledge question the industry as a whole. I feel that if the antiMMC people realized that their criticism hurts themselves as much or more as those they hate.

[cologrower420]

i edited your response because I don't want my post to be deleted like yours will. Please remain civil.

I've already stated that I don't know anyone at releaf. I live south.

In my opinion, people who are no longer compliant with state law, the 'caregivers' or large scale home grows or whatever name you want them to have, are going to be treated in the same way as meth lab operators, with good reason. If you aren't willing to remain compliant with state law, then you are breaking the law. The law recognizes caregivers, and large scale home grows are no longer recognized as caregivers.

Go ahead and stop referring to yourselves as such, because in the eyes of the law, you are no better than a meth addict operating a lab. I agree with your position that pot should be legal, but you need to recognize that pot isn't legal, and that's what we have to consider moving forward.

Think about it like this. The guy in highlands ranch, who was obviously non compliant, is getting treated like someone who operated a meth lab, probably worse. That's my point. Get insulted all you want, but most of you guys who have been growing privately didn't get compliant, so you are back to being illegal. That's what you all are mad about.

In my opinion, there is absolutely top quality herb at MMC's. I think your opinion that MMC's can't have quality meds is weird. Do you seriously take the position that MMC's can't possibly carry good product? Don't you realize that some of your caregiver buddies signed on with MMC's?

What is your position on caregivers who married up to MMC's? Do they automatically go from growing 'fire' to growing 'cali dispensary bud'?

Do you understand that california is a non-profit collective design? Why would quality be high if there is no profit motive? Do you see why our state's for profit rules create the incentive for top quality?

I hope this isn't considered personal, it's not.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I've already stated that I don't know anyone at releaf. I live south.

In my opinion, people who are no longer compliant with state law, the 'caregivers' or large scale home grows or whatever name you want them to have, are going to be treated in the same way as meth lab operators, with good reason. If you aren't willing to remain compliant with state law, then you are breaking the law. The law recognizes caregivers, and large scale home grows are no longer recognized as caregivers.

Go ahead and stop referring to yourselves as such, because in the eyes of the law, you are no better than a meth addict operating a lab. I agree with your position that pot should be legal, but you need to recognize that pot isn't illegal, and that's what we have to consider moving forward.

Think about it like this. The guy in highlands ranch, who was obviously non compliant, is getting treated like someone who operated a meth lab, probably worse. That's my point. Get insulted all you want, but most of you guys who have been growing privately didn't get compliant, so you are back to being illegal. That's what you all are mad about.
Reguardless of what you state it is obvious you have intrests

No what we are mad about is having to drop patients. Why? Because these patients are going to have to find ANOTHER COMPLIANT caregiver or go get crappy meds from a dispensary.

Consider this... Good caregivers we're never out to make a killing off their patients, usually giving away meds. Making enough to get by but not making a killing like most of the "drug dealers" gone center. You are assuming that all dealers are undergound still. LOL I know a couple in the springs alone that have turned into dispensaries. But, they don't know the first thing about growing. They were "dealers". I've only lived in CO for 5 years I'm sure some of the lifers know of more.

The way you are trying paint caregivers as all the drug dealers is false. Alot of the dealers moved on to dispensaries because they had the $$

Not all drug dealers have fellonies you know! :D

[cologrower420]

I have been fully outspoken about my use, my history, etc. I am not scared to post my name or anything like that.

My only agenda is getting access to quality, affordable medicine. That's it.

You, however, seem to have another agenda entirely. Why don't you disclose your biases before you insult others or call them names.

This is my point. Non compliant caregivers aren't going away, they are going back under ground.

If you wanted to pay the money, you non-compliant caregivers could get legal. You chose not to, and now you are operating outside the law. This is something that I'm certain you all don't like, and it's easy to 'blame' and attack MMC's, I guess everyone needs an enemy.

I'm just trying to point out that hating or directing your vitriol at MMC's is wrong, and in my opinion, it's totally ignorant for someone to say that MMC's don't carry quality meds, because most do. Your biased make you hate MMC's, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you should at least announce your biases and not play behind your anonymous internet account. MMC's put themselves out there, you non-compliant home growers refuse to come out of the shadows, and now you get to deal with those repercussions with 1284 and 109.

Get yourselves motivated to have fresh legislation that removes the 5 patient limit, and everyone is happy. But you all are going to be the ones to do it, and you're facing a tough battle. Your energy should be directed somewhere other than MMC's.

My opinion.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I don't care, but moderators delete posts that contain personal attacks. I'm not offended at you calling me ignorant, but a mod might.

Regarding your post, I think it's relevant to post where you stand, instead of calling me names.

How are non-compliant home grows any different than meth labs, in the eyes of the law?

Are you a non-compliant grower? Are you pissed that 1284 now puts you on the level as a meth lab?

edit: I am purposely playing devil's advocate, and I certainly don't agree that growers are on an even scale with meth labs.

Does anyone who disagrees care to take a position that non-compliant caregivers are now just as illegal as meth labs? Anyone? Or is everyone just going to tell me I'm stupid without adding anything to the discussion?
Actually now you are spinning what you said... You said...

Plus, aren't 'commercial growers' assumed to be compliant with state law, while 'growers' can be assumed to be breaking the law, and nothing more than drug traffickers, no better than someone operating a meth lab?
Is it not true that commercial growers have to follow the same rules as far as counts other than the 5 patient rule? Why would you automatically assume that they are compliant and that a caregiver/grower is not?? What if the center has more plants than they are supposed to?

To answer your questions about me..
I'm fully compliant.
I don't feel that leo will treat non compliant caregivers any different than non compliant dispensaries. I also don't feel they will treat either anywhere near to how they would treat a meth lab. I feel that was just a rediculous assumption by you to try to make caregiver/growers look like the bad guy.

Do you think for a second that they are not going to be visiting registered caregivers houses?

[cologrower420]

You are comparing caregivers to meth labs and you question others motives? I think you slipped, your covers been blown.

Would you mind taking two minutes to stop trolling and post a coherent response? I mean obviously you disagree, and you understand that I'm trying to play devil's advocate, so you obviously know this isn't my mindset.

And yes, in the eyes of the law, non-compliant caregivers will be treated like meth labs. I use the highlands ranch guy as a specific example. Do you have a response to that?

Would you care to stop trolling long enough to add something to the discussion?

[cologrower420]

Actually now you are spinning what you said... You said...

Is it not true that commercial growers have to follow the same rules as far as counts other than the 5 patient rule? Why would you automatically assume that they are compliant and that a caregiver/grower is not?? What if the center has more plants than they are supposed to?

To answer your questions about me..
I'm fully compliant.
I don't feel that leo will treat non compliant caregivers any different than non compliant dispensaries. I also don't feel they will treat either anywhere near to how they would treat a meth lab. I feel that was just a rediculous assumption by you to try to make caregiver/growers look like the bad guy.

Do you think for a second that they are not going to be visiting registered caregivers houses?
Thank you for taking the time to post intelligently.

First, I am just playing devil's advocate, and I am only referring to large scale home grows that are now out of compliance with state law and therefore illegal. Again, I am thinking of an example like the guy in highlands ranch, not a small scale caregiver.

I am assuming that any MMC still open is compliant with vertical integration, licensing fees et cetera. I don't have a problem with some sort of enforcement of those laws, but I have a problem with cameras, auditors, etc.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am referring only to large scale grows, people who didn't marry up to an MMC. Let's assume a hundred plants? I don't even know what would be considered a large scale grow like that. I'm referring about caregivers who might have been totally compliant who just had lots of patients so they can have large grows. Those are the people who are against 1284. The people who want to grow but not pay the fees, licenses etc.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I have been fully outspoken about my use, my history, etc. I am not scared to post my name or anything like that.

My only agenda is getting access to quality, affordable medicine. That's it.

You, however, seem to have another agenda entirely. Why don't you disclose your biases before you insult others or call them names.

This is my point. Non compliant caregivers aren't going away, they are going back under ground.

If you wanted to pay the money, you non-compliant caregivers could get legal. You chose not to, and now you are operating outside the law. This is something that I'm certain you all don't like, and it's easy to 'blame' and attack MMC's, I guess everyone needs an enemy.

I'm just trying to point out that hating or directing your vitriol at MMC's is wrong, and in my opinion, it's totally ignorant for someone to say that MMC's don't carry quality meds, because most do. Your biased make you hate MMC's, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you should at least announce your biases and not play behind your anonymous internet account. MMC's put themselves out there, you non-compliant home growers refuse to come out of the shadows, and now you get to deal with those repercussions with 1284 and 109.

Get yourselves motivated to have fresh legislation that removes the 5 patient limit, and everyone is happy. But you all are going to be the ones to do it, and you're facing a tough battle. Your energy should be directed somewhere other than MMC's.

My opinion.

My only agenda is to keep you from trying to make me look like a criminal.

I'm compliant. Why are you insinuating that I'm not compliant? Under ground? I'm registered with the state. LOL

[cologrower420]

My only agenda is to keep you from trying to make me look like a criminal.

I'm compliant. Why are you insinuating that I'm not compliant? Under ground? I'm registered with the state. LOL

I'm not accusing you of a crime, I am simply using the proverbial 'you'. You just seem to come from a position of knowledge.

I am discussing non compliant grows, not any specific situation, and I don't know you so I am certainly not suggesting you are non compliant, sorry about that. Just discussing what this legislation means and why people on this site are so pissed off.

I see where you are coming from, that registering with the state poses potential problems. I agree that caregivers shouldn't have to register.

Surely you understand the dynamic that with all these news reports on abuse of the application process, large scale busts, etc. Of course the old people who vote called for reform, it sucks that no one stuck up for you caregivers. It really seems like you got the shaft.

[HighPopalorum]

Springs,

As a caregiver who is being forced to drop patients, what do you think is a good solution? The state has chosen to draw the line at five patients. Should the limit be raised to ten patients? Should the limit be discarded?

[TurboALLWD]

Sigh... was looking forward to his response.

Nobody cares that you use to deal with crappy caregivers all the time, no matter how many times ya say it. Does that mean you can go posting everywhere that caregivers don't care about their patients? NO, and it's bad for you're business. What kind of business owner would be ignorant enough to bad mouth potential customers? YOU! But hey, when you have a strong hold in a monopoly that the govt doesn't even regulate the pricing in, it doesn't really matter if the caregivers and their excess patients shop at your shop.

I just wonder why you're the only "center" bad mouthing caregivers, whether its that they don't have normal operating hours, don't deliver on time, have shitty meds, deliver out of their car etc, etc. Are you hurting for business that bad where you feel the need to bad mouth caregivers on the radio as well? Dealers, my bad, thats the word you were using instead. I don't get it, nor do i really care, just want to let the people know you're true colors. I'm gonna hang out at ICMAG for a while, I suggest you take their advice and go back to weed maps. The people there have already caught on and would like to know why theres so much anti-grower sentiment coming from you. :rastasmoke:

[HarvestHouse]

well this thread has gone nowhere. To rewind. Best of luck and wishing her success in all her endeavors. Kathleen is a true advocate from "back in the day". Big Ups, Again.

[Psycho4Bud]

See what I mean now cologrower420? You questioned the rules in here and I explained them and even gave a link to the guidelines but STILL people have to push the limits. Well, have fun all because I'll be back later to take the action promised. I do thank you though for being the civil one...;)

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[cologrower420]

See what I mean now cologrower420? You questioned the rules in here and I explained them and even gave a link to the guidelines but STILL people have to push the limits. Well, have fun all because I'll be back later to take the action promised. I do thank you though for being the civil one...;)

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

I feel like I am going out of my way to remain polite, and I really hope you save the most posts that you can.

I would really like to continue discussing topics like this, I just wish we could control the noise, but this might be a fitting death for this thread.

I'm still waiting for a coherent response from someone with different views. Oh well.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I'm not accusing you of a crime, I am simply using the proverbial 'you'. You just seem to come from a position of knowledge.

I am discussing non compliant grows, not any specific situation, and I don't know you so I am certainly not suggesting you are non compliant, sorry about that. Just discussing what this legislation means and why people on this site are so pissed off.

I see where you are coming from, that registering with the state poses potential problems. I agree that caregivers shouldn't have to register.

Surely you understand the dynamic that with all these news reports on abuse of the application process, large scale busts, etc. Of course the old people who vote called for reform, it sucks that no one stuck up for you caregivers. It really seems like you got the shaft.

I actually have no problem regestering, as long as it's confidential, I dont think many caregivers do. It makes it a legitimate business.
Federal law is my worry and the state giving up the info. That's why alot of people refuse to fill out the new dispensary application. You have to release confidentiality. So if the federal stance changes again you will be getting raided by the DEA if you are at 99+ plants.

What I have a problem with is being limited in how much business I can do and who I can do business with. What am I supposed to do with extra meds? If dispensaries can trade between each other why cant caregivers? Or why cant caregivers sell extra meds to dispensaries or other legal patients?
I could understand if they took the stance of...
Look we dont want over X ammount of plants in a residntial grow once you get to that level you need to look into getting a commercial building. That's not how it is though.. You have to be a "center". There is no building your business from the ground up. You either have 50-100k or you don't. Even if I did have it I wouldn't fill out that application until the federal government reschedules the classification of cannibis. Good luck to those who did.

Then I come to one of the places I get to vent my frustrations and see garbage like this.

Plus, aren't 'commercial growers' assumed to be compliant with state law, while 'growers' can be assumed to be breaking the law, and nothing more than drug traffickers, no better than someone operating a meth lab?
Maybe you meant to say 'noncompliant growers". But if you are going to call out one of the mods for not proof reading and grammical errors I would assume you're checking yours. So to me it was you trying to mislead people and now trying to spin it.

[HighPopalorum]

What I have a problem with is being limited in how much business I can do and who I can do business with.What am I supposed to do with extra meds? If dispensaries can trade between each other why cant caregivers? Or why cant caregivers sell extra meds to dispensaries or other legal patients?

There's an interesting dynamic playing out. Commercial growers (or retailers, or MMCs or whatever word you choose) like Kathleen want the freedom to operate without state regulation, as caregivers do. Meanwhile, you and other caregivers want patient and plant counts removed so they can serve an unlimited number of patients, as MMCs do. Each group wants to enjoy the benefits of the other, but is not willing to accept the limitations. Irony.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Springs,

As a caregiver who is being forced to drop patients, what do you think is a good solution? The state has chosen to draw the line at five patients. Should the limit be raised to ten patients? Should the limit be discarded?

Missed this...

My solution would be... Ok caregivers you can only grow 36 plants in a residential grow after that you need to look into a commercial building. Why cant caregivers expand their business? Why are we limited to 5 patients? Why are we limited to distrubuting to only those 5 patients when "centers" aren't? I can understand neighbors not wanting to see tons of people going in and out of your house all day thats why I say keep the 36 plant reg for residential. But, again.. Why cant caregivers expand their business?
It's unconstitutional if you ask me.

[cologrower420]

I actually have no problem regestering, as long as it's confidential, I dont think many caregivers do. It makes it a legitimate business.
Federal law is my worry and the state giving up the info. That's why alot of people refuse to fill out the new dispensary application. You have to release confidentiality. So if the federal stance changes again you will be getting raided by the DEA if you are at 99+ plants.

What I have a problem with is being limited in how much business I can do and who I can do business with. What am I supposed to do with extra meds? If dispensaries can trade between each other why cant caregivers? Or why cant caregivers sell extra meds to dispensaries or other legal patients?
I could understand if they took the stance of...
Look we dont want over X ammount of plants in a residntial grow once you get to that level you need to look into getting a commercial building. That's not how it is though.. You have to be a "center". There is no building your business from the ground up. You either have 50-100k or you don't. Even if I did have it I wouldn't fill out that application until the federal government reschedules the classification of cannibis. Good luck to those who did.

Then I come to one of the places I get to vent my frustrations and see garbage like this.

Maybe you meant to say 'noncompliant growers". But if you are going to call out one of the mods for not proof reading and grammical errors I would assume you're checking yours. So to me it was you trying to mislead people and now trying to spin it.

I absolutely meant non-compliant growers.

Since you are registered as a caregiver, that's the term I use when referring to legal, registered caregiver grows. However, I think it's an important difference in making grammar errors or using words that are easily interchangable, depending on the audience.

If you'd like me to refer to you as a grower, I'm totally okay with that. However, since your registered with the state as a 'caregiver', I'm more likely to use that when referring to you. I see how you are insulted by that, I'll try to choose my words better.

I guess when I hear 'grower' after 1284, I think of that term as a non registered, non compliant caregiver. The term grower, to me, brings with it the underground, illegal scene. That's just me and my background and life experience. I have never been around a large scale grow, even a compliant before but maybe not compliant now grows. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or piss anyone off. I appreciate posts from people who are also willing to engage in discussions. I'll do my best to refer to you and your friends as growers. I'm simply explaining my position.

I also think it's relevant to point out that I was just playing devil's advocate, so there isn't anything to spin or anything like that. I think.

[cologrower420]

Missed this...

My solution would be... Ok caregivers you can only grow 36 plants in a residential grow after that you need to look into a commercial building. Why cant caregivers expand their business? Why are we limited to 5 patients? Why are we limited to distrubuting to only those 5 patients when "centers" aren't? I can understand neighbors not wanting to see tons of people going in and out of your house all day thats why I say keep the 36 plant reg for residential. But, again.. Why cant caregivers expand their business?
It's unconstitutional if you ask me.

I think we should remember that 1284 and 109 are going to raise large amounts of income for the state. Limiting private growers (since they don't want to pay taxes on that income and stay under the radar) and not limiting MMC's (since they have the ability to pay-to-play) probably maximizes the potential income for the state, since large scale home grows that are non-compliant have a lot more to lose.

It's certainly going to be interesting moving forward.

Hopefully, caregivers can come together and try to find middle ground, some form of regulation.

Do large scale caregivers even pay taxes on the money they make from selling to patients before 1284?

[SprngsCaregiver]

There's an interesting dynamic playing out. Commercial growers (or retailers, or MMCs or whatever word you choose) like Kathleen want the freedom to operate without state regulation, as caregivers do. Meanwhile, you and other caregivers want patient and plant counts removed so they can serve an unlimited number of patients, as MMCs do. Each group wants to enjoy the benefits of the other, but is not willing to accept the limitations. Irony.

From what I understand Kathleen was a caregiver that expanded into a commercial building because of the popularity of her goods. I dont know her I'm just going off what I've heard from others. If this is true though I wouldn't classify her as a MMC. I would still classify her as a caregiver. She never filled out the MMC application. She said so in this thread. I dont blame her either.. IMO you're crazy if you fill out that application before the feds change thier stance on marijuana.

[cologrower420]

From what I understand Kathleen was a caregiver that expanded into a commercial building because of the popularity of her goods. I dont know her I'm just going off what I've heard from others. If this is true though I wouldn't classify her as a MMC. I would still classify her as a caregiver. She never filled out the MMC application. She said so in this thread. I dont blame her either.. IMO you're crazy if you fill out that application before the feds change thier stance on marijuana.

I agree. Hopefully places that are genuinely doing good things, like releaf, wellspring, pure, etc won't be harrassed too much. Hopefully they remain transparent and compliant, that's all they can do. I respect them for it, and I will absolutely give them my business in the future.

[SprngsCaregiver]

There's an interesting dynamic playing out. Commercial growers (or retailers, or MMCs or whatever word you choose) like Kathleen want the freedom to operate without state regulation, as caregivers do. Meanwhile, you and other caregivers want patient and plant counts removed so they can serve an unlimited number of patients, as MMCs do. Each group wants to enjoy the benefits of the other, but is not willing to accept the limitations. Irony.

I also think you are mistaken. I dont believe Kathleen had a problem being registered with the state, wanted to work "without state regulation" or wanted to dodge taxes. It was the whole waiving of confidentiality that she and others are having a problem with.
What this means is if the feds change their stance that the state can legally give them all your information.
Alot of people seem to be forgetting that marijuana is still a class 1 drug according to the DEA.

[HighPopalorum]

Missed this...

My solution would be... Ok caregivers you can only grow 36 plants in a residential grow after that you need to look into a commercial building. Why cant caregivers expand their business? Why are we limited to 5 patients? Why are we limited to distrubuting to only those 5 patients when "centers" aren't? I can understand neighbors not wanting to see tons of people going in and out of your house all day thats why I say keep the 36 plant reg for residential. But, again.. Why cant caregivers expand their business?
It's unconstitutional if you ask me.

We're cross posting at each other, lol. The thread is so off topic, but we should continue this.

Would you be willing to accept increased regulation as the size of your business increased? Zoning is only part of the pie: health and safety inspection, occupational licensure, taxation, building code compliance would all have to apply. Of course, you realize also that at some point, as your business grows, we have to pull the trigger on local government regulation and oversight as well. Currently you don't need the town or county's permission to be a caregiver. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the business cannot be grown organically. There seems to be quite a disconnect between a caregiver operating at maximum capacity and a center. That sucks. Maybe you're right and we need some kind of ladder for your business to climb.

However, here's another perspective I use most of the time: The point of the law, all our medical marijuana laws, is to protect the integrity of the patient: to allow her to access medicine free of legal consequence, to maintain her confidentiality, to ensure her safety. That's why centers face regulation: to make sure they aren't scumbags rigging the scales, misusing her personal information, or selling her moldy medicine. She could also grow for herself, or find a trusted person (you) to grow for her. If you want to operate not merely as that trusted associate, but as a business, then you should accept the same regulations centers do and offer the same guarantees.

[SprngsCaregiver]

We're cross posting at each other, lol. The thread is so off topic, but we should continue this.

Would you be willing to accept increased regulation as the size of your business increased? Zoning is only part of the pie: health and safety inspection, occupational licensure, taxation, building code compliance would all have to apply.Of course, and I can guarantee most would as long as we're not waiving our right to confidentiality. I don't think that most caregivers want to fly under the radar of the state and local law inforcment. It's that most are afraid of the DEA.

Of course, you realize also that at some point, as your business grows, we have to pull the trigger on local government regulation and oversight as well. Currently you don't need the town or county's permission to be a caregiver.What do you mean?
I'm sympathetic to the argument that the business cannot be grown organically. There seems to be quite a disconnect between a caregiver operating at maximum capacity and a center. That sucks. Maybe you're right and we need some kind of ladder for your business to climb.

However, here's another perspective I use most of the time: The point of the law, all our medical marijuana laws, is to protect the integrity of the patient: to allow her to access medicine free of legal consequence, to maintain her confidentiality, to insure her safety. That's why centers face regulation: to make sure they aren't scumbags rigging the scales, misusing her personal information, or selling her moldy medicine. She could also grow for herself, or find a trusted person (you) to grow for her. If you want to operate not merely as that trusted associate, but as a business, then you should accept the same regulations centers do and offer the same guarantees.

Who in the state is qualified enough to know if a dispensary is selling moldy, bug infested goods? Or how about those dispensaries that get these things and use harsh chemicals to get rid of them. How would your average inspector know what to look for?
I've worked in construction for 20 years and believe me some of the state/city inspectors dont give a crap. So the whole bad medicine thing works both ways.

[ottistoys]

What happened to One Brown Mouse closing ?????

Kathleen good KARMA to you.:thumbsup:

[HighPopalorum]

What do you mean?


re: local government
Well, for example, in my city, center operators must pay a $500 occupational license fee, as well as a one-time $875 application fee and some other minor fees to cover the cost of background checks and business permits. As a caregiver, you don't have to pay any of that stuff or operate under the oversight of town inspectors.



Who in the state is qualified enough to know if a dispensary is selling moldy, bug infested goods? Or how about those dispensaries that get these things and use harsh chemicals to get rid of them. How would your average inspector know what to look for? I've worked in construction for 20 years and believe me some of the state/city inspectors dont give a crap. So the whole bad medicine thing works both ways.

It does work both ways, but at least centers and their grow sites will be inspected by several different state and local agencies. Inspectors are spotty at best, but that is not an argument against inspections. As a patient, I find safety inspections, background checks, felony prohibitions and health code compliance compelling reasons to shop at a dispensary. I like that they will be required to list inorganic ingredients. You could certainly provide those assurances to your customers, by allowing them to inspect your grow and your personal background, but you are not obligated to do so as centers will be.

[Psycho4Bud]

23 posts deleted.....probably 4 warnings and one ban. This thread is now clean.:D

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[SprngsCaregiver]

re: local government
Well, for example, in my city, center operators must pay a $500 occupational license fee, as well as a one-time $875 application fee and some other minor fees to cover the cost of background checks and business permits. As a caregiver, you don't have to pay any of that stuff or operate under the oversight of town inspectors.



It does work both ways, but at least centers and their grow sites will be inspected by several different state and local agencies. Inspectors are spotty at best, but that is not an argument against inspections. As a patient, I find safety inspections, background checks, felony prohibitions and health code compliance compelling reasons to shop at a dispensary. I like that they will be required to list inorganic ingredients. You could certainly provide those assurances to your customers, by allowing them to inspect your grow and your personal background, but you are not obligated to do so as centers will be.

I have no problem with paying taxes, allowing the inspectors to do their thing or paying business license fees. I do have a problem with the state releasing my information to the feds who still believe I'm committing a crime. I also have a problem with the state trying to limit the ammount of business I can do.
I also have a problem with state run cameras if that actually goes through.

[SprngsCaregiver]

What happened to One Brown Mouse closing ?????

Kathleen good KARMA to you.:thumbsup:

I feel for her. I think she is a wise woman for not filling out that application! So yeah +1 on the good Karma. :jointsmile:

[HighPopalorum]

I do have a problem with the state releasing my information to the feds

What makes you think that the state is giving information about centers to the feds? If police procedural novels have taught me anything, it's that the locals treat the feds like mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them only shit!

[boulderbud5525]

there are numerous incidents (montana, cali,michigan) where local law enforcement, usually a pissed off sheriff who hates the weed, has called the feds on someone growing. It's all about privacy and don't think for a minute that the kind of really personal info the state wants will remain out of the feds hands. if they want it they know who, locally, will assist them in getting it.

[SprngsCaregiver]

What makes you think that the state is giving information about centers to the feds? If police procedural novels have taught me anything, it's that the locals treat the feds like mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them only shit!
They may not be now but with the new MMC apps you waive your confidentiality. What happens when the feds change their stance?

Go to youtube and look at the dea medical marijuana raids and tell me what the sheriff and local law inforcement are doing. Standing there watching.

[HighPopalorum]

They may not be now but with the new apps you waive your confidentiality. What happens when the feds change their stance?

You get busted. That's what happens. It's a risk we all run, even patients.

[onebrownmouse]

I wish we had these issues to bitch about in Wisconsin.:rolleyes:

NOW lets get to the grit of the situation. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE!!! IF you can't debate an issue without having to tell somebody to go fuck themselves or throw petty insults don't waste your time typing! Warnings are past out.....then a short ban...then longer and longer bans till WE say screw this shit and do it for life.

Personally, I'd just state that I didn't agree with reasons, log out and find something else to do that didn't piss me off. Hell, piss fests are deleted so why waste the time?

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

I see, someone can personally attack me, someone who does not know me can publicly accuse me of being a commercial grower, a federal crime and and I should sit here and take it? Yeah that's fair. Slander is okay, telling the person off for slandering you in a public manner isn't okay. Falsely accusing someone you don't know of a federal crime is okay.

[onebrownmouse]

What makes you think that the state is giving information about centers to the feds? If police procedural novels have taught me anything, it's that the locals treat the feds like mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them only shit!

Clearly you have NOT READ the application. Clearly.

One will give up ALL privacy rights under state and federal law.
One will sign over their power of attorney rights to the CO Dept of Rev.
One will be signing a confession to a federal crime, with NO protection for MMC's in the CO Constitution which includes a neat little list of all one's assets, including children--which almost doesn't matter since one's power of attorney will be in the hands of the CO dept of rev.

Lets examine one sentence on two of the release forms:

"Any information contained within my application, contained within any financial or personal record or otherwise found, obtained, or maintained by the Investigative Agencies, "(notice it's plural) " shall be accessible to law enforcement agents of this or any other state, the government of the United States, or any foreign country."

Are you kidding me? What is amazing and Un American is that about EVERY sentence of the 22 pages will make a true American sick to their stomach.

[onebrownmouse]

There's an interesting dynamic playing out. Commercial growers (or retailers, or MMCs or whatever word you choose) like Kathleen want the freedom to operate without state regulation, as caregivers do. Meanwhile, you and other caregivers want patient and plant counts removed so they can serve an unlimited number of patients, as MMCs do. Each group wants to enjoy the benefits of the other, but is not willing to accept the limitations. Irony.

AGAIN you FALSELY call me a commercial grower! Where is the justice in this? When will these slander posts be deleted? Is Cannabis.com permitting slander?

And it's clear you High P do not read the newspapers or the application or your a federal agent. One of my MAJOR problems with the language in 1284 is that it requires caregivers who have storefronts to grow WAY TOO MANY PLANTS for me ( or most) to feel safe from the feds.

Targeting dispensaries (http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-2476-way-to-go-government-trying-to-shake-down-and-st.html)

"Most dispensary owners are caregivers for dozens or even hundreds of patients, and if they were forced to grow enough marijuana to supply 70 percent of their patients, the number of plants could grow quite high. Kathleen Chippi, owner of Nederland dispensary One Brown Mouse, says she serves 1,500 patients and thinks that requirement will expose her to federal raids, which tend to target grows with more than 100 plants.

â??Theyâ??re forcing us to have enough plants to supply 1,500 patients,â?� Chippi says. â??Iâ??m frightened of the fact that Iâ??m going to be forced to grow. I personally have less than 99 plants. Iâ??m not going to go above 99 plants, because the federal government is going to come bust me. ... Theyâ??re setting us all up to be out of federal compliance.â?�

[onebrownmouse]

People who care. People who have pride in their medicine. People who personally know and deal directly with patients. We are ALL patients, ourselves.

But the new language KILLS that entire program, as caregivers who have 1-2 ounces to donate in our direction will now be treated like criminals.

This is good for NO ONE!

And has anyone read 1284. There is one nice neat sentence, I believe in section g (off the top of my head), that says cannabis will no longer be considered schedule 1 ( no medical use) but Schedule 2 (meds that can only be distributed at PHARMACIES)

Figure it out--There will be no approved MMC's, as the pharmacies and BIG MONEY WIN. The mom and pop loses, all their rights, their power of attorney, their assets, their kids and their freedom.

CO constitution does NOT PROTECT MMC's, only caregivers and patients. And there is no limit in the constitution for caregivers. The state has created an UNPROTECTED ENTITY and whats you to sign up for it.

[onebrownmouse]

President Obama's nomination of Michele Leonhart to be permanent head of the DEA is a trial balloon - a test of strength and resolve.

The nomination of a ruthless prohibitionist is a test of whether he takes himself seriously when he says that the federal government is going to stop wasting time, money and people on medical marijuana raids in states where it is legal. It is, more significantly, a test of whether he takes the drug reform movement seriously.

And the only way he will take us seriously is if we write now --http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5663/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3771--telling President Obama to replace Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart with someone who respects the rights of the ill and vulnerable.

If you have received appeals from our allies in drug policy reform, please send those along as well as ours.

Every email they receive counts.

Obama's pandering to the prohibitionists is a trial balloon.

We need to shoot it full of lead.

Thank you,

Neill Franklin
Executive Director
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm tired of cleaning up bullshit in the same thread day after day. This one is closed and a warning to all; personal attacks are NOT allowed on this site and also, if you call somebody a Fed in here you BETTER have the facts to post!:mad:

Ya know, Colorado "should" be one of the easiest forums in here to moderate and it's actually one of the hardest falling behind Politics. Seems there is allot of the good ol' "divide and conquer" going on with the state laws and how they effect dispensary's as compared to care-givers. Ya think maybe they set it up like that for a reason? Crooked politicians work in devious ways.

Just try to keep it civil and remember, this is about the person that needs m.j. just to get by on a daily basis. :twocents:

Have a good one!:thumbsup: