see: Appeals court: "Caregiver" must do more than grow pot - The Denver Post
did she not have a caregiver designation, but argued she was one b/c she sold to dispensaries?
what do you think this means?
Printable View
see: Appeals court: "Caregiver" must do more than grow pot - The Denver Post
did she not have a caregiver designation, but argued she was one b/c she sold to dispensaries?
what do you think this means?
It looks as though she did have caregivership designation for the correct amount of patients to cover her plant number. Although the court has decided that she had not fulfilled enough of the requirements to meet the definition of primary caregiver. Leaving her above the legal plant count and being found guilty.
A Boulder County District Court judge ruled that because she hadn't met with all of the individuals in question, she couldn't claim to have been their primary caregiver.
Here is another good read from Safe Access Now
Quote:
Colorado Appeals Court Considers
Medical Marijuana Distribution
A Colorado appellate court is considering a medical marijuana case that may help define how the state's patients are to obtain their medicine. At issue is whether the state law's definition of a "caregiver" allows for the retail distribution of cannabis to authorized patients.
The appeal of the 2006 criminal conviction of Stacy Clendenin, a Longmont medical cannabis patient who had been growing cannabis for herself and a handful of other patients, comes on the heels of a Colorado Board of Health decision that rejected restrictions on how many qualified patients a medical marijuana caregiver can serve.
At trial, Clendenin was not allowed to call witnesses who her attorney says would have testified that she was providing medicine to them under state law. The trial judge ruled the witnesses inadmissible because Clendenin could not be considered the patients' caregiver.
Prosecutors argue that state law requires a caregiver to not only personally know the patients receiving the cannabis but also have "significant responsibility for managing the well being of a patient," which they say means "a relationship beyond providing marijuana." This narrow definition is precisely what the state Board of Health rejected in August, but attorneys for the state say the decision is not retroactive.
Clendenin's attorney, Robert Corry, told the appeals court that this definition is unreasonable, noting that it imposes a standard far in excess of what is expected of pharmacists who routinely distribute far more dangerous drugs.
Clendenin is also challenging the probable cause for the original search warrant in the case and arguing that the language in the state's medical marijuana statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Convicted in 2006 of five counts related to growing marijuana at her home, Clendenin was sentenced to unsupervised probation, but she wants her felony record cleared.
Since then, medical cannabis dispensaries have sprung up in communities across Colorado.
It will be interesting to see what happens from here on out due to this ruling.
Feijao
So was she basically a "wholesaler"???
she would have had to been like i said in another post this is not good at all.peeps that bitch about price now just u wait.if a shop can only sell what they grow "as in you have to know the patient and feed and wipe there asses for them".that will hurt the shops big time as they will only have so much on hand instead of being able to buy from other caregivers"growers".these peeps will soon find out what all there compassion talk is gunna get them.you think a caregiver would want to take on extra patients they don't know? how would the leo know your not going beyond the call of duty for your patients? what are there gunna be a "patient not happy hotline"? the courts are gunna use this bs "compassion"trip that these peeps are using to shove the mmj laws down our throat in the name of compassion.i see this as a first step for the atty gen to get a foot hold to do alot of dmg to our cause.he even hinted as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by trltrl
Actually, it appears that she DID NOT have the requisite designations of caregiver to cover the number of plants (44) she was growing. She was seeking to present an affirmative defense to the charge. If she had been designated as a caregiver on a sufficient number of patient forms, prosecution of her would have been barred completely, and she never would have been in court. Also important is that subsequent to her prosecution, the Colo. Dept of Health passed a regulation that apparently DOES define caregiver at least in part, as merely providing marijuana. The Court in this case declined to give said regulation retroactive effect. The Court also did not look behind a patient's designation to see if the defendant actually met the definition, the patients to whom the defendant provided marijuana had not designated her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feijao