Can u help a brother out?

[MMAMark]

Hi guys. I'm new to the dailybuds forums and was curious if anyone out there can lead me in the right direction to get an honest deal in getting my MMJ card. There are SO many ads out there tellin ya... go here! Go there! I have no clue where to go! Some ads say the exam costs $150. And some even say as little as 60-70. I'm on a very fixed income due to my disability and want to make sure I'm not wasting any money by going to the "Brown Palace" of MMJ clinics! Any help, Brothers and sisters?!

[TheReleafCenter]

The best deals used to be if you assigned a center as your primary caregiver, but I don't know if anyone is still doing that. Most of the places you see advertised are actually legit, so it's about pricing it out. Make sure to ask if they will be taking your caregiver/primary center rights.

[MMAMark]

Thank you! I just have so limited funds, I wanna make sure I don't get hosed! Thanks:thumbsup:!

[cologrower420]

Thank you! I just have so limited funds, I wanna make sure I don't get hosed! Thanks:thumbsup:!

Make sure you know what you are signing, especially at discount places.

Basically, semi-ethical places are paying your fees and having you sign a contract to have them and only them be your caregiver for a year. That's crappy to do, so it's generally frowned upon.

I'm not sure, but weren't places like cannamed selling blocks of 'patients' to dispensaries so the dispensaries could increase patient count/inventory?

[TheReleafCenter]

They were, but SB109 changes how dispensaries and doctors can operate. No remuneration, etc.

[cologrower420]

They were, but SB109 changes how dispensaries and doctors can operate. No remuneration, etc.

Please tell me if I am wrong, because I'm not sure, and you most definitely have experience with this.

Pre 1284, if I was a large scale caregiver, I could simply pay a company for a block of patients.

As a patient, you can find places that will pay the state fees and such on your behalf, but you have to sign a contract with them, that you are designating them as your sole caregiver for a one year period.

These places will then sell your rights to someone like me, for $350 per patient. So I could buy a hundred patients whom I've never met, and immediately start growing for a hundred patients day one.

I have a problem with places such as this selling patient 'rights'. It screams of maximizing profits while screwing the state. Again, I don't think many large scale caregivers paid the state any tax on that revenue generated.

After 1284, these large scale caregivers are now illegal (like meth labs!). I think that's why there is so much anti-MMC vitriol here, because most of the audience here are the types of people likely to be affected by plant limits. I would assume you all are pissed that MMC's don't have a patient cap.

Or something. I could be totally wrong on everything I've posted, but this is how I understand things.

[TheReleafCenter]

It was always a dicey thing to do pre-1284, and those patients they purchased are basically worth nothing now if they don't do the change of primary center form.

Here's an article Westword did on us regarding NOT selling our patients and helping people out with bad caregivers:
Medical marijuana prescription: The Releaf Center offers a cure for patients with caregiver complaints - Denver News - The Latest Word (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/03/the_releaf_center_offers_a_cur.php)

[cologrower420]

It was always a dicey thing to do pre-1284, and those patients they purchased are basically worth nothing now if they don't do the change of primary center form.

Here's an article Westword did on us regarding NOT selling our patients and helping people out with bad caregivers:
Medical marijuana prescription: The Releaf Center offers a cure for patients with caregiver complaints - Denver News - The Latest Word (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/03/the_releaf_center_offers_a_cur.php)

I designated you as my primary on my first visit, and I didn't get my clone! Are you still doing that?

Also, I think the cannamed thing sucks because their business model thrives on low income patients, who need good access. Oh well.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Please tell me if I am wrong, because I'm not sure, and you most definitely have experience with this.

Pre 1284, if I was a large scale caregiver, I could simply pay a company for a block of patients.

As a patient, you can find places that will pay the state fees and such on your behalf, but you have to sign a contract with them, that you are designating them as your sole caregiver for a one year period.

These places will then sell your rights to someone like me, for $350 per patient. So I could buy a hundred patients whom I've never met, and immediately start growing for a hundred patients day one.

I have a problem with places such as this selling patient 'rights'. It screams of maximizing profits while screwing the state. Again, I don't think many large scale caregivers paid the state any tax on that revenue generated.

After 1284, these large scale caregivers are now illegal (like meth labs!). I think that's why there is so much anti-MMC vitriol here, because most of the audience here are the types of people likely to be affected by plant limits. I would assume you all are pissed that MMC's don't have a patient cap.

Or something. I could be totally wrong on everything I've posted, but this is how I understand things.

LOL gotta keep it up with the meth comment because you know it gets under people's skin being compared to tweakers? Real mature.

You keep caliming that caregivers with non compliant grows are no better than meth labs. Using your logic lets take a closer look at this under federal law. MMC's are now required to grow 70% of their medicine. You will attract federal attention at over 98 plants. So to stay compliant under federal law a MMC could only serve 16 or 17 patients. Otherwise MMC's are no better than a meth lab operators. Do you think any MMC's are only serving 16 17 people?

It's not the MMC's that people on here have a problem with. It's the government walking all over the constitution.

Oh and it was mainly big dispensaries buying patients (probably the same ones now lobbying for 1284) not private caregivers. Caregivers with good gear dont need to buy patients they come looking for you.

[copobo]

comparing growing herb to a meth lab, on any level, is complete bullshit.

be careful that the statements you make don't demean cannabis with false innuendo, perpetuating false stereotypes... especially if favoring your license and profit.

[SprngsCaregiver]

comparing growing herb to a meth lab, on any level, is complete bullshit.

be careful that the statements you make don't demean cannabis with false innuendo, perpetuating false stereotypes... especially if favoring your license and profit.

I couldn't agree more! I'm just sick of hearing that from this guy. So I flipped the script for him to show him how rediculous it sounds.

[cologrower420]

LOL gotta keep it up with the meth comment because you know it gets under people's skin being compared to tweakers? Real mature.

You keep caliming that caregivers with non compliant grows are no better than meth labs. Using your logic lets take a closer look at this under federal law. MMC's are now required to grow 70% of their medicine. You will attract federal attention at over 98 plants. So to stay compliant under federal law a MMC could only serve 16 or 17 patients. Otherwise MMC's are no better than a meth lab operators. Do you think any MMC's are only serving 16 17 people?

It's not the MMC's that people on here have a problem with. It's the government walking all over the constitution.

Oh and it was mainly big dispensaries buying patients (probably the same ones now lobbying for 1284) not private caregivers. Caregivers with good gear dont need to buy patients they come looking for you.

I have repeatedly posted, and repeatedly been attacked for this comment.

I have asked anyone here to post a response telling me how I am not correct in my interpretation of Colorado Law, using a very specific example.

I don't understand how you guys can't seem to comprehend what I am trying to say. I'm just having a discussion, and I am frustrated because no one, even YOU, seems to care about having a discussion. You guys came, you saw, you got offended, and now everything related to that has nothing to do with my point. I have not used any personal attacks, but I do question why you are acting like a troll. Why don't you just answer me? I have taken your criticisms, I don't mind you hating me, all I ask is for a coherent reponse. Are we ever going to get anywhere on this, or are you going to take the time to make a post just to insult me? It would take less time for you to spend to make a post to answer my question than it does to follow me around and post where I do whenever I mention meth.

My original point, ignoring whatever text I used in that very first post, was this: After 1284 and 109, it's my opinion that NON COMPLIANT, LARGE SCALE 99+ PLANT GROWS THAT GET BUSTED, WILL BE TREATED THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO GETS BUSTED OPERATING A METH LAB.

Now, if you can read and comprehend things, the only comparison I made from growing herb to meth deals directly with the ILLEGAL PART. How would these two DRUG CRIMES be prosecuted any differently moving forward?

I hope you can stop being insulted at being compared to a meth lab. I think you said you are a compliant caregiver, so I am not even sure why you are insulted, since I attempted to compare two situations that got busted, which you don't qualify for due being compliant. So, you'd never be in the position of getting busted, so why are you upset at this crowd being compared to a meth lab?

Surely you understand that I am a legal patient and it would seem silly to compare pot to meth, right?

I think you're still just offended at my original post, which I have attempted to explain to you several times. Why don't you just admit that? Replying to me that you hate that comparison is silly and it creates a lot of noise. Plus, it makes people post insults and doesn't further discussion.

edit: Will you please refer to my posts correctly? You are wrong when you state that I am comparing legal MMC's to meth labs. I was only trying to compare ALREADY BUSTED grows. So, please stop using that example, it's not what I even said.

[cologrower420]

LOL gotta keep it up with the meth comment because you know it gets under people's skin being compared to tweakers? Real mature.

You keep caliming that caregivers with non compliant grows are no better than meth labs. Using your logic lets take a closer look at this under federal law. MMC's are now required to grow 70% of their medicine. You will attract federal attention at over 98 plants. So to stay compliant under federal law a MMC could only serve 16 or 17 patients. Otherwise MMC's are no better than a meth lab operators. Do you think any MMC's are only serving 16 17 people?

It's not the MMC's that people on here have a problem with. It's the government walking all over the constitution.

Oh and it was mainly big dispensaries buying patients (probably the same ones now lobbying for 1284) not private caregivers. Caregivers with good gear dont need to buy patients they come looking for you.

You should stop referring to non compliant grows as 'caregivers', because I find it offensive. They are now breaking the law. I have no sympathy for those types of people, just like I have no sympathy for people who operate meth labs and get busted.

Can we please stay on topic? Everyone knows you hate herb being compared to meth. Now that you understand that wasn't the example I was using, can we move on? I'm trying to use specific examples and people can't keep up. Let's remember that I am talking about BUSTED grows, not compliant caregivers. Do you understand? I don't know why this is so difficult.

Also, I understand that MMC's do not have a patient cap, so they can grow six plants for unlimited patients, so your example doesn't quite work. Is it possible you don't fully understand the legislation and it's potential impacts?

Don't you realize the mods have been deleting our posts because you can't seem to remain civil and have a normal conversation?

[cologrower420]

comparing growing herb to a meth lab, on any level, is complete bullshit.

be careful that the statements you make don't demean cannabis with false innuendo, perpetuating false stereotypes... especially if favoring your license and profit.

It seems that you are disagreeing with me. It seems that you are saying a busted marijuana grow isn't as bad as a busted meth grow. That's fine, but then you also take the position that they will be treated differently in the courtroom right? What do you think?

In your opinion, what would a busted home grow be charged with? How would that be different than the charges the meth lab faces?

You say my argument (which you misquoted) is bullshit, so please tell me why. Thanks.

[TheReleafCenter]

I designated you as my primary on my first visit, and I didn't get my clone! Are you still doing that?

Also, I think the cannamed thing sucks because their business model thrives on low income patients, who need good access. Oh well.

The program was for people who wanted to remove their old caregiver and "assign themselves", or grow without a caregiver. We discontinued the program with 1284 coming into effect. If you assigned us we were growing for you and hence no clone.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I have repeatedly posted, and repeatedly been attacked for this comment.
Attacked?? LOL where did I attack you?


I have asked anyone here to post a response telling me how I am not correct in my interpretation of Colorado Law, using a very specific example.
Because they are serving medicine to patients with medical cards which Article 18 section 14 of the Colorado Constitution gives them permission to do.


I don't understand how you guys can't seem to comprehend what I am trying to say. I'm just having a discussion, and I am frustrated because no one, even YOU, seems to care about having a discussion. You guys came, you saw, you got offended, and now everything related to that has nothing to do with my point. I have not used any personal attacks, but I do question why you are acting like a troll. Why don't you just answer me? I have taken your criticisms, I don't mind you hating me, all I ask is for a coherent reponse. Are we ever going to get anywhere on this, or are you going to take the time to make a post just to insult me? It would take less time for you to spend to make a post to answer my question than it does to follow me around and post where I do whenever I mention meth.
No actually what you are doing is trolling. Proof you say? instead of just leaving your comment at... "After 1284, these large scale caregivers are now illegal" You feel the need to say "(like a meth lab!)". Why? Well IMO its either because you want to make caregivers look bad or you're just trying to piss people off.


Now, if you can read and comprehend things, the only comparison I made from growing herb to meth deals directly with the ILLEGAL PART. How would these two DRUG CRIMES be prosecuted any differently moving forward?Who's attacking who??



I hope you can stop being insulted at being compared to a meth lab. I think you said you are a compliant caregiver, so I am not even sure why you are insulted, since I attempted to compare two situations that got busted, which you don't qualify for due being compliant. So, you'd never be in the position of getting busted, so why are you upset at this crowd being compared to a meth lab? It seems that is your goal... To insult caregivers.


Surely you understand that I am a legal patient and it would seem silly to compare pot to meth, right?
Yet you continue to associate caregivers with meth cooks.


I think you're still just offended at my original post, which I have attempted to explain to you several times. Why don't you just admit that? Replying to me that you hate that comparison is silly and it creates a lot of noise. Plus, it makes people post insults and doesn't further discussion. I'm offended at you comparing a medical marijuana grower to a meth cook. It really has nothing to do with CG/MMC



edit: Will you please refer to my posts correctly? You are wrong when you state that I am comparing legal MMC's to meth labs. I was only trying to compare ALREADY BUSTED grows. So, please stop using that example, it's not what I even said.

Read my post again.. I was actually asking you to take a step back and look at the big picture. That big picture is that if an MMC is serving more than 16/17 patients they are no longer compliant under federal law. Now, I myself would never even dream of lumping them in with meth cooks but under your logic.. I'm sure you get the picture.

[TheReleafCenter]

In terms of federal prosecution, it probably wouldn't be much different. They're both schedule 1 drugs.

[SprngsCaregiver]

You should stop referring to non compliant grows as 'caregivers', because I find it offensive. They are now breaking the law. I have no sympathy for those types of people, just like I have no sympathy for people who operate meth labs and get busted.I actually said "caregivers with non compliant grows". Read it again.



Can we please stay on topic? Everyone knows you hate herb being compared to meth. Now that you understand that wasn't the example I was using, can we move on? I'm trying to use specific examples and people can't keep up. Let's remember that I am talking about BUSTED grows, not compliant caregivers. Do you understand? I don't know why this is so difficult.. You're the one who drug this thread off topic. Another attack huh?


Also, I understand that MMC's do not have a patient cap, so they can grow six plants for unlimited patients, so your example doesn't quite work. Is it possible you don't fully understand the legislation and it's potential impacts? Um actually the federal government will prosecute anything over 98 plants so it does work.



Don't you realize the mods have been deleting our posts because you can't seem to remain civil and have a normal conversation?
How am I not remaining civil?

[cologrower420]

In terms of federal prosecution, it probably wouldn't be much different. They're both schedule 1 drugs.

Why is it so hard for people who grow marijuana to admit this? This new legislation basically makes most pre1284/109 caregivers illegal under the eyes of the law?

That's where my methlab comment came from, but you knew that.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Why is it so hard for people who grow marijuana to admit this? This new legislation basically makes most pre1284/109 caregivers illegal under the eyes of the law?

That's where my methlab comment came from, but you knew that.

It also makes MMC's non compliant according to federal law. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[cologrower420]

I don't think I commented on MMC's operating outside federal drugs laws, I'm not sure why you're using the 16 patient count rule. All marijuana is illegal federally, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the 99plant max and MMC's only operating 16 patients.

I'm still not sure what your points are, we can't seem to get past you being insulted at me.

I don't really care.

If you consider the term 'caregiver' to include people currently non-compliant with state law, then we can't agree on much more. I would argue that your definition of caregiver needs to be updated with this new legislation. I'm just trying to be precise, you're acting like a child by insisting that all people who grow pot are automatically NOT ALLOWED to be bad people, such as someone who operates a meth lab.

I consider you to be a caregiver. If Bartkowicz got busted tomorrow, I wouldn't call him a caregiver, and I would caution you doing the same, due to all of the negativity surrounding this in Colorado right now. Do you also consider Bartkowicz to be a caregiver if he was busted tomorrow?

I'm just asking for us to be precise. Your assumptions and interpretations of what caregiver means are preventing you from getting passed that and having a simple conversation.

You're still pissed that I compared caregivers to meth labs. I still haven't seen you address anything related to these two examples. Now that I've spent 100 posts getting this example, would you mind answering it? You seem so enraged by the subject of the original post, I tried to tweak it to get the answer I was looking for, and you're still talking about my original comment and the exact words that I used.

We're passed the fact that we don't see eye to eye on what the word 'caregiver' means. I'm trying to get to how authorities will enforce this new legislation, etc. I'm not personally attacking you. I question that you comprehend my posts. That's not an insult. I could easily be doing it wrong, so don't be offended. That's why I have tried to give a few different examples, but it seems we're still on the original complaint, which is your assumption that I compared legal to illegal.

I am interested in comparing illegal to illegal. Do you understand? That's why these stupid posts get deleted.

I am asking and looking to have a discussion about a very specific thing. If you think I am trolling, I am trying to generate discussion about a topic that is important to me and others here, I assume.

For example, if you had simply got over your initial rage of thinking I called you growers meth heads, or something, and just posted your opinion, then I could have what I want, which is a lighthearted discussion or debate on current social policies. I'm bored at work. Instead, I try to have a discussion, you post what a moron I am for comparing 'meth lab operators' to caregivers. I always tried to set this example using a situation where two places got busted, presumably by the dea. A meth lab, and a guy growing 99+ plants. Both illegal in the eyes of state and federal drug laws.

Get it?

Here is the simple question: Would those two examples be treated the same, differently? Why?

I just used an example without the term caregiver, can I get an answer from you now?

[cologrower420]

It also makes MMC's non compliant according to federal law. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

MMC's, caregivers, and anyone else related to this industry has always been illegal and therefore not in compliance.

Why do you think I don't understand this?

Is it your opinion that if a caregiver is legal under Colorado law, then the illegality of the federal law doesn't apply?

I'm confused. Do you live your life as if state law trumps federal law? It seems like you are arguing that caregivers have been legal at some point in the past. They haven't because marijuana is still illegal. Do you disagree with that?

Are you aware that I also would never lump a state compliant caregiver or grow with a meth lab right? Do you understand that? I think you realize that I wasn't trying to make that distinction, you'll be nicer.

While we both can agree that most caregivers are definitely not on a level as a methlab operator, I am trying to make the point that to the authorities, non-compliant grow operations could be treated the same as methlabs, assuming we are discussing two examples where they have already been busted. I'm not commenting on the culture of either drug or anything like that.

[SprngsCaregiver]

If you consider the term 'caregiver' to include people currently non-compliant with state law, then we can't agree on much more. I would argue that your definition of caregiver needs to be updated with this new legislation. I'm just trying to be precise, you're acting like a child by insisting that all people who grow pot are automatically NOT ALLOWED to be bad people, such as someone who operates a meth lab.Why do you continue to insult me and then try to tell me I'm the one insulting you?


I consider you to be a caregiver. If Bartkowicz got busted tomorrow, I wouldn't call him a caregiver, and I would caution you doing the same, due to all of the negativity surrounding this in Colorado right now. Do you also consider Bartkowicz to be a caregiver if he was busted tomorrow? Yes, if he had paperwork to grow for all those patients he was a caregiver. znot a very smart one but, he was in no different possition than the government is putting all MMC's in. An illegal one.


I'm just asking for us to be precise. Your assumptions and interpretations of what caregiver means are preventing you from getting passed that and having a simple conversation. My interpretation of a caregiver comes from the Colorado Constitution article 18 section 14. Where do you get yours?


You're still pissed that I compared caregivers to meth labs. I still haven't seen you address anything related to these two examples. Now that I've spent 100 posts getting this example, would you mind answering it? You seem so enraged by the subject of the original post, I tried to tweak it to get the answer I was looking for, and you're still talking about my original comment and the exact words that I used. Illegal is illegal you know that. You just want to continue to insult people.


We're passed the fact that we don't see eye to eye on what the word 'caregiver' means. I'm trying to get to how authorities will enforce this new legislation, etc. I'm not personally attacking you. I question that you comprehend my posts. That's not an insult. I could easily be doing it wrong, so don't be offended. That's why I have tried to give a few different examples, but it seems we're still on the original complaint, which is your assumption that I compared legal to illegal.

I am interested in comparing illegal to illegal. Do you understand? That's why these stupid posts get deleted.
It's all illegal under federal law so if you're going to put non compliant growers in with the meth cooks they why arent you attaching MMC's also?


I am asking and looking to have a discussion about a very specific thing. If you think I am trolling, I am trying to generate discussion about a topic that is important to me and others here, I assume. Seems more like you just throwing around insults. Every chance you get you compare growers to meth labs. Why? my guess is to get under peoples skin.


For example, if you had simply got over your initial rage of thinking I called you growers meth heads, or something, and just posted your opinion, then I could have what I want, which is a lighthearted discussion or debate on current social policies. I'm bored at work. Instead, I try to have a discussion, you post what a moron I am for comparing 'meth lab operators' to caregivers. I always tried to set this example using a situation where two places got busted, presumably by the dea. A meth lab, and a guy growing 99+ plants. Both illegal in the eyes of state and federal drug laws. LOL rage.. One more time for you. Under the Colorado Constitution caregivers have no patient limit.


Get it? Yes and I've gone over this with you multiple times. Maybe you keep acting like nobody has discussed this with you because you know all the posts were deleted? I'm not real sure why you keep playing damsel in distress.


Here is the simple question: Would those two examples be treated the same, differently? Why? LOL wow lets try this again.... Yes they would both more than likely be treated the same. BUT so would MMC's because under federal law they will be operating illegally if they have more than 16 patients. Why you would the annology of a meth lab in the MJ field is just disturbing.

[SprngsCaregiver]

MMC's, caregivers, and anyone else related to this industry has always been illegal and therefore not in compliance.

Why do you think I don't understand this?

Is it your opinion that if a caregiver is legal under Colorado law, then the illegality of the federal law doesn't apply? The feds wont prosecute unless you are at 99+ So yes. Now the state is forcing MMC's to be non compliant federally with the 70% rule. That was my point.. You can go ahead and put the MMC's in with the non compliant growers because federally they are just that. I would never use your annology of the meth lab though.


I'm confused. Do you live your life as if state law trumps federal law? It seems like you are arguing that caregivers have been legal at some point in the past. They haven't because marijuana is still illegal. Do you disagree with that?Are you joking?


Are you aware that I also would never lump a state compliant caregiver or grow with a meth lab right? Do you understand that? I think you realize that I wasn't trying to make that distinction, you'll be nicer. Nicer? You're the one making the insults LOL


While we both can agree that most caregivers are definitely not on a level as a methlab operator, I am trying to make the point that to the authorities, non-compliant grow operations could be treated the same as methlabs, assuming we are discussing two examples where they have already been busted. I'm not commenting on the culture of either drug or anything like that. As could MMC's but why associate either with meth?????

[TheReleafCenter]

It also makes MMC's non compliant according to federal law. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Technically, any cultivation of marijuana is illegal under federal law, the penalty is just higher if you have more than 99 plants. Even if you're under 99, you can still be penalized, see the below link:

Medical Marijuana Advocates Protest Recent DEA Raids in MI & CA (Page 1) - Online Media Buzz - ASA Forum (http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=5612)

[SprngsCaregiver]

Technically, any cultivation of marijuana is illegal under federal law, the penalty is just higher if you have more than 99 plants. Even if you're under 99, you can still be penalized, see the below link:

Medical Marijuana Advocates Protest Recent DEA Raids in MI & CA (Page 1) - Online Media Buzz - ASA Forum (http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=5612)

From my experience the DEA will not prosecute if you have 98 or under. 99 is their magic number. (What they feel they can win with in court) Where did you read that any of these busts were under 98?

[SprngsCaregiver]

Technically, any cultivation of marijuana is illegal under federal law, the penalty is just higher if you have more than 99 plants. Even if you're under 99, you can still be penalized, see the below link:

Medical Marijuana Advocates Protest Recent DEA Raids in MI & CA (Page 1) - Online Media Buzz - ASA Forum (http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=5612)


I take that back... I did say 99+

[TheReleafCenter]

From my experience the DEA will not prosecute if you have 98 or under. 99 is their magic number. (What they feel they can win with in court) Where did you read that any of these busts were under 98?

That was poorly worded on my part. They busted someone at 99.

What is your experience with the DEA?

[SprngsCaregiver]

That was poorly worded on my part. They busted someone at 99.

What is your experience with the DEA?

I've been growing for a long time. I've seen alot of people/friends catch cases. I got lucky... Thats actually why I moved to CO.. To get away from the scene. But here I am lol.. Legal now though. Well according to the state. :jointsmile:

[cologrower420]

I've been growing for a long time. I've seen alot of people/friends catch cases. I got lucky... Thats actually why I moved to CO.. To get away from the scene. But here I am lol.. Legal now though. Well according to the state. :jointsmile:

I'm going to reply to your response to me, but I would like you to know a couple of things.

When you take a single question, sentence or statement from one of my posts and then reply to it, I feel as if you are taking it totally out of context sometimes. In the future, it would be very helpful if you would quote my entire post and reply accordingly. Maybe put asterisks or numbers (1) (2) etc to note what you are replying to. I feel like you are trolling me and taking each individual statement and analyzing that, which is hard for me to respond to. I don't think you are doing this intentionally, that's just how you're coming off to me.

I apologize if you feel that you are being insulted, but I don't personally think the statement, 'stop acting like a child' is an insult. It's a statement I used to describe your actions in a particular instance, not a personal attack. I guess we can agree to disagree, or I'll get warned from a mod. Again, apologies. I don't post here unless I feel I am in compliance with the posting rules. I got banned for a week for my first post here for an email infraction, so I am not interested, at all, in making a post that includes a personal attack. I hope that makes sense. I still appreciate you engaging me so far.

I'll respond to the rest when I get a moment.

edit: When I make a post, it would be helpful if you addressed everything I posted, instead of cherry picking individual statements to judge me on. I still feel as if you are ignoring questions that I have asked you multiple times. Thanks.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I'm going to reply to your response to me, but I would like you to know a couple of things.

When you take a single question, sentence or statement from one of my posts and then reply to it, I feel as if you are taking it totally out of context sometimes. In the future, it would be very helpful if you would quote my entire post and reply accordingly. Maybe put asterisks or numbers (1) (2) etc to note what you are replying to. I feel like you are trolling me and taking each individual statement and analyzing that, which is hard for me to respond to. I don't think you are doing this intentionally, that's just how you're coming off to me.

I apologize if you feel that you are being insulted, but I don't personally think the statement, 'stop acting like a child' is an insult. It's a statement I used to describe your actions in a particular instance, not a personal attack. I guess we can agree to disagree, or I'll get warned from a mod. Again, apologies. I don't post here unless I feel I am in compliance with the posting rules. I got banned for a week for my first post here for an email infraction, so I am not interested, at all, in making a post that includes a personal attack. I hope that makes sense. I still appreciate you engaging me so far.

I'll respond to the rest when I get a moment.

edit: When I make a post, it would be helpful if you addressed everything I posted, instead of cherry picking individual statements to judge me on. I still feel as if you are ignoring questions that I have asked you multiple times. Thanks.

How am I trolling? Wouldn't a good example of trolling be when you say "(like a meth lab!)" to get a reaction out of people?


In Internet slang, a troll is someone who tries to harass[1] by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

LOL ok one minute I'm analizing each individual statement and the next I'm cherry picking individual statements.

[cologrower420]

Why do you continue to insult me and then try to tell me I'm the one insulting you?

Yes, if he had paperwork to grow for all those patients he was a caregiver. znot a very smart one but, he was in no different possition than the government is putting all MMC's in. An illegal one.

My interpretation of a caregiver comes from the Colorado Constitution article 18 section 14. Where do you get yours?

Illegal is illegal you know that. You just want to continue to insult people.


It's all illegal under federal law so if you're going to put non compliant growers in with the meth cooks they why arent you attaching MMC's also?

Seems more like you just throwing around insults. Every chance you get you compare growers to meth labs. Why? my guess is to get under peoples skin.

LOL rage.. One more time for you. Under the Colorado Constitution caregivers have no patient limit.

Yes and I've gone over this with you multiple times. Maybe you keep acting like nobody has discussed this with you because you know all the posts were deleted? I'm not real sure why you keep playing damsel in distress.

LOL wow lets try this again.... Yes they would both more than likely be treated the same. BUT so would MMC's because under federal law they will be operating illegally if they have more than 16 patients. Why you would the annology of a meth lab in the MJ field is just disturbing.

The feds wont prosecute unless you are at 99+ So yes. Now the state is forcing MMC's to be non compliant federally with the 70% rule. That was my point.. You can go ahead and put the MMC's in with the non compliant growers because federally they are just that. I would never use your annology of the meth lab though.

Are you joking?

Nicer? You're the one making the insults LOL

As could MMC's but why associate either with meth?????

I'm going to post and reply to your entire post instead of taking it line by line. I'm lazy and I don't have the time to quote each thing you say, that's another reason I ask you to respond in one post. But do what you wish.

Again, I don't agree that the 'childish' comment was an insult, for the reasons I described. Sorry if we disagree.

Regarding Barkowitz or whatever his name is, wasn't he close to a school and still in violation of A20? I can't cite a source and it doesn't matter. Was he growing 6 plants per patient? I had heard (no source) that he was growing for higher-plant count patients, which is only a recommendation, not recognized by any legislation, only the board of health. Do you know if that's right or not?

If your interpretation of 'caregiver' comes from A20, then you need to get with the times and get familiar with current regulations. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse if you are arrested. Being compliant with state law prior to July 1st/before 1284/109 and being compliant with state law after, are two very, very different things. It seems as if you and all your growing friends want to operate normally and act as if these new laws don't apply to you. It's like you are offended at being referred to someone who is breaking the law. YOU say you are compliant so you're fine, but your friends who are still growing large amounts of pot are illegal, and will be treated accordingly. Did you read that article in the aurora sentinel? I would be freaking out if I were a non-compliant home grower right now. That's where the vitriol on this site comes from in my opinion on this issue, is from people who are realizing that an asshole at the department of revenue just made their entire operations illegal. I am okay with that, I am okay with this industry being regulated.

I feel sorry for places like releaf and wellspring, who are doing everything they can to remain compliant. If shit ever hits the fan, they are fucked first, not your buddies who continue to grow under the radar, OUTSIDE THE LAW. Screw your non-compliant buddies, I feel bad that the people who are paying and being compliant, are likely the first to get busted if it ever comes to that. It's a scary situation to be in, and they can only hope to use colorado law as an affirmative defense. But they stand better chance than any of your friends. Your friends, if busted, will be charged like methlab operators, while releaf will probably never be in trouble, since they ARE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW.

It's laughable that you get so upset with me over this issue. I hope you and your illegal noncompliant friends vote, and I hope your compliant legal caregivers vote too! I just wish more potheads voted! It should be a requirement to show proof of voting before you can complain about politics. I hope you don't feel like I am personally insulting you here. I don't know you, and I am only addressing 'you' as a compliant caregiver, which you've stated 'you' are. I am not accusing sprngscargiver of being non compliant or having non compliant friends, I am using the proverbial 'you' here. So please don't get personally offended if I say something to 'you' as a caregiver. I hope that makes sense in that I am trying desperately to only talk to you as a random anonymous legal state compliant caregiver. I am assuming you have non compliant friends. If you don't, then ignore that part of my post.

Regarding illegality. I think we both understand that marijuana is illegal under federal law. Let's get past that. We both understand that technically, everything pot related is technically illegal at the federal level, but might be legal at the state level. You seem to be ignoring that when you say growing is legal. It's not, so please stop being imprecise and inaccurate. If you are referring to state compliance, then please say so.

I have not been referring to MMC's as 'meth lab operators' for a few reasons. First, because that would be stupid. Second, MMC's are state compliant, meth lab operators are not. While MMC's, methlabs, and non compliant grows might all be illegal under federal law, they most definitely are and will be treated differently at the state level, hence my comparison. If you disagree then tell me why. I was only trying to discuss the penalties if arrested, I never tried or wanted to compare the grow process. I am only talking in a post-arrest example. I think it's clear that was my intent, and I will take credit for not being as clear and precise as I should have been, but I would like you to take credit for over reacting and being offended at being personally compared to a meth cook. Can we be friends?


Seems more like you just throwing around insults. Every chance you get you compare growers to meth labs. Why? my guess is to get under peoples skin.

I want to address this specific quote of yours. I would like you to explain to me what you feel insulted by. Do you think I broke the posting rules of this site? How? I have explained myself fully, please do the same or stop expecting it. You are exactly right that I compare 'growers' to meth labs, but you and I seem to disagree on what the term 'grower' means, so we can't get to the comparison until we agree on the definition of the term. So we're stuck until you open up and take this for what it's worth, which is a simple discussion on an internet forum. Stop getting upset. I'm not trying to get under people's skin. My current caregiver is growing 99+ plants, and I am trying to get a clear idea of how fucked I might be if he gets busted, since he has paperwork with my name. I certainly don't need any cops demanding to see my compliant grow. So you see, we are more alike than you seem to realize, so stop being so adversarial.

Regarding your 'colorado constitution' claim that non compliant growers are legal, they aren't. It's my opinion that 1284 and 109 trump whatever defense you are claiming. Please feel free to show me otherwise.

We keep going over this because there isn't any posts where this has been discussed that haven't been deleted. I'll continue to bring up these points until we get to a point where the insults stop and the posts stay, feel free to contribute to FOLLOWING THE RULES. Again, this might not apply to you personally, but it might apply to someone getting ready to post an insult to me. Make sense? If we get to a point where the insults stop, maybe we can actually get to a place where we can actually have a discussion on staying legal and compliant moving forward. I haven't made a post yet, so that's why they go in random places, such as places where you show up to insult me for that comment/non-comment.

I'm not sure what the damsel in distress comment meant, would you mind clarifying?

If we can FINALLY agree that non compliant growers and meth cooks would be treated the same if busted, then I will absolutely lump MMC's in the discussion. I haven't discussed MMC's because I don't care and it doesn't matter to me. If you feel the need to say 'MMC's, non compliant grows and meth cooks' instead of 'non compliant grows and meth cooks', that's fine, but it's repetitive and silly in my opinion.

Do you see why your 16/17 patient cap is silly? It's silly because it doesn't matter if you are growing 1 plant or a 1000 plants, it's all illegal under federal law. I am not interested in discussing at what point the feds bust you. I have a feeling if you get busted for something else and you have a single plant, you could get charged under federal drug laws. That's obviously an extreme example and very unlikely, but I am not discussing that, I am only trying to see things from an authority standpoint, in the context of 'under the eyes of the law'.

It is so silly to me that it's taken this long and this many words and posts to get to this point. So weird. I have a feeling there are more non-compliant growers who post here than I originally thought.

When you say the feds won't prosecute under 99 plants, where do you get your info? Can you please cite a source? Is this anecdotal evidence and nothing more? I don't know of a federal law that allows up to 99 plants. Can you please point me in the right direction? Are you talking about a state department of health reco for more than 6 plants? Because I don't believe the state department of revenue, which oversees medical marijuana now, would recognize a 99 cap for a single patient, assuming we are still discussing after arrest.

I'm glad that we can maybe finally agree on the penalties for a non compliant grow operation.

I'm confused. Do you live your life as if state law trumps federal law? It seems like you are arguing that caregivers have been legal at some point in the past. They haven't because marijuana is still illegal. Do you disagree with that?

No, I am not joking and I would like you to answer this question. It seems to me as if you are acting like being compliant with state law makes you exempt from being prosecuted federally. If you are making the argument that being state compliant makes you the last type of person busted, fine, I agree. But it's all still illegal federally. Do you disagree? Why do you give so much credibility to the state constitution?

I feel as if I have answer every one of your posts, and I would like you to extend me the same courtesy. But this is a random internet forum and I spent 30 minutes on this post, so I don't expect anything more, no worries.

I'm going to get high.

[cologrower420]

How am I trolling? Wouldn't a good example of trolling be when you say "(like a meth lab!)" to get a reaction out of people?



LOL ok one minute I'm analizing each individual statement and the next I'm cherry picking individual statements.

Jesus christ.

Yes, I feel that you are cherry picking an individual statement and responding to that. When people do that, sometimes, they can take that single statement and judge it or respond to it OUT OF CONTEXT. If you reply to a paragraph or whole idea, your reply has more value in my opinion.

Look at what you just did. You took two single statements and are trying to show that I am contradicting myself, I think. I'm still not sure.

I still stand by my assertion, that you take individual statements or ideas, that's cherry picking, and respond them individually, answering some or all of my ideas. In my opinion, when people 'troll' forums, they exist solely to interrupt a discussion, which I feel is what you are doing when you quote posts out of context. I'm sure you feel that my use of the word 'meth cook' when discussing this is trolling as well. We'll agree to disagree on that I guess. Can we move along?

Why is this so hard?

Do you think I am 'insulting' you here? I am just trying to get to a point we can agree on, so we can further the discussion. You're still on the meth comment.

If you disagree with my claim on the comparison of a busted meth lab to a busted pot grow, then tell me why. If you are offended at the idea of a pot grower being compared to a meth cook, legal or otherwise, that's not my position and you mis-read or mis-interpreted me initially. I have clarified my original statement many many times.

If you are accusing me of calling you names ('meth cook') or something, or if you are claiming that I am breaking the posting rules on this site, then make that assertion. Otherwise, stop complaining because you are offended at my choice of words, which is to use 'grower' as a reference to an illegal non compliant growing operation. I'm not really interested in making everyone happy with my choice of words. If that's the issue than say it. This isn't a personal attack, it's a preference, one that I don't care to entertain. I'm sorry if that makes you not want to engage me anymore. That's fine, someone else will eventually. It's not that I am trying to get a 'reaction' from people, I am trying to have a discussion. Trolls incite stuff like this, trolls don't incite discussions, which is what I'm attempting. If you think I am trolling than ignore me.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Jesus christ.

Yes, I feel that you are cherry picking an individual statement and responding to that. When people do that, sometimes, they can take that single statement and judge it or respond to it OUT OF CONTEXT. If you reply to a paragraph or whole idea, your reply has more value in my opinion.

Look at what you just did. You took two single statements and are trying to show that I am contradicting myself, I think. I'm still not sure.

I still stand by my assertion, that you take individual statements or ideas, that's cherry picking, and respond them individually, answering some or all of my ideas. In my opinion, when people 'troll' forums, they exist solely to interrupt a discussion, which I feel is what you are doing when you quote posts out of context. I'm sure you feel that my use of the word 'meth cook' when discussing this is trolling as well. We'll agree to disagree on that I guess. Can we move along?

Why is this so hard?

Do you think I am 'insulting' you here? I am just trying to get to a point we can agree on, so we can further the discussion. You're still on the meth comment.

If you disagree with my claim on the comparison of a busted meth lab to a busted pot grow, then tell me why. If you are offended at the idea of a pot grower being compared to a meth cook, legal or otherwise, that's not my position and you mis-read or mis-interpreted me initially. I have clarified my original statement many many times.

If you are accusing me of calling you names ('meth cook') or something, or if you are claiming that I am breaking the posting rules on this site, then make that assertion. Otherwise, stop complaining because you are offended at my choice of words, which is to use 'grower' as a reference to an illegal non compliant growing operation. I'm not really interested in making everyone happy with my choice of words. If that's the issue than say it. This isn't a personal attack, it's a preference, one that I don't care to entertain. I'm sorry if that makes you not want to engage me anymore. That's fine, someone else will eventually. It's not that I am trying to get a 'reaction' from people, I am trying to have a discussion. Trolls incite stuff like this, trolls don't incite discussions, which is what I'm attempting. If you think I am trolling than ignore me.

To be honest I'm done discussing this with you. I think the major point here that you're not getting is you should never associate anything MJ with meth.

[cologrower420]

To be honest I'm done discussing this with you. I think the major point here that you're not getting is you should never associate anything MJ with meth.

I see that is your main point. My main point was that people who get busted growing large scale marijuana grow operations (are you happy I don't use the term 'grower'?), will likely face the same sorts of penalties as someone who gets busted cooking meth.

I'm sorry that you are offended at being compared to someone you think is beneath you. Personally, I don't think that's right, but to each his own.

Since we can't agree on what the term 'caregiver' or 'grower' mean, then we can't really have a discussion on those subjects. If you are too offended at MJ being compared to meth, even in my extreme example, than it's pointless to continue.

I agree that it's tiresome and it's probably time to move on. However, I am still very curious what people are doing, whether they are compliant or not. You seem to have some knowledge, so I attempted to engage you.

I'm sorry again that you were offended, but I'm not going to stop using that comparison until someone shows me that I'm wrong. Just because you now carry the stigma of operating illegally (like a meth lab), don't get mad at me for highlighting that. I don't expect to make any friends with that comment of view. Again, I'm discussing the proverbial 'you', not you personally, and making general distinctions between those who are compliant and those who are not. I understand that you personally might be compliant. So if you don't mind, please don't respond if you see me make that comparison like you did in this thread, unless you are willing to engage in that discussion.

See you around buddy.

[Psycho4Bud]

Hi guys. I'm new to the dailybuds forums and was curious if anyone out there can lead me in the right direction to get an honest deal in getting my MMJ card. There are SO many ads out there tellin ya... go here! Go there! I have no clue where to go! Some ads say the exam costs $150. And some even say as little as 60-70. I'm on a very fixed income due to my disability and want to make sure I'm not wasting any money by going to the "Brown Palace" of MMJ clinics! Any help, Brothers and sisters?!

So what does all this recent posting bullshit have to do with this thread? Knock it off!!!! Keep the posts to the topic.:mad:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[cologrower420]

So what does all this recent posting bullshit have to do with this thread? Knock it off!!!! Keep the posts to the topic.:mad:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

I only posted this topic in other threads (deleted ones probably) because I thought new people couldn't make new threads.

[FarmerSteve]

This thread was all at once some Bullshit of the highest order, somewhat hard to watch (like a vasectomy) and mildly entertaining. :thumbsup:

I'm proud of the coherency, grammar, and overall writing skill on display here.

Yea! More smart Pot Heads. :hippy:

[HighPopalorum]

Terrible thread. Some posters are too excitable to realize that not every post needs a response. Otherwise, the conversation becomes valueless as it spirals toward irrelevance. This thread started off worthless, so nothing was lost or gained, but still...

[boulderbud5525]

Terrible thread. Some posters are too excitable to realize that not every post needs a response. Otherwise, the conversation becomes valueless as it spirals toward irrelevance. This thread started off worthless, so nothing was lost or gained, but still...

read this post while looking in the mirror high pop. man, you really like to see yourself type.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I'm sorry again that you were offended, but I'm not going to stop using that comparison until someone shows me that I'm wrong. Just because you now carry the stigma of operating illegally (like a meth lab), don't get mad at me for highlighting that. I don't expect to make any friends with that comment of view. Again, I'm discussing the proverbial 'you', not you personally, and making general distinctions between those who are compliant and those who are not. I understand that you personally might be compliant. So if you don't mind, please don't respond if you see me make that comparison like you did in this thread, unless you are willing to engage in that discussion.

See you around buddy.

It's been explained to you a thousand times. So go ahead and keep trolling.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussionBut it's probably not going to make you to many friends.

[boulderbud5525]

someone needs to save cologrower420 from himself. he is going to type his little fingers right off.;)

[mustangwomyn]

he is going to type his little fingers right off.;)


LOL