New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfunk211
it was my understanding that this particular case was "won" because she was arrested in 2006 and the clarification of the law that happened in denver a few months ago had not yet been addressed.
the state board *did* just vote against changing the definition of caregiver, right?!
as the law cannot be applied retroactively, she can't use the defense.
i'm not sure, but it's my opinion that this is an isolated case.
how can anyone prove how well anyone knows anyone else anyway?!?!
and palerider, as always, your negativity and poor spelling/grammar amaze me.
i knew if you popped up you would have sum stupid shit to say very simple minded you are.you talk about my spelling yet you say
spelling.grammar AMAZE me? should'nt that be amazes me? wow looks like you yourself need lessons too?sounds like your telling me to amaze you instead?you and jazz must already have one of those "real"close relationships that they are talking about huh?
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
In a special concurring opinion, Judge Alan Loeb wrote that Colorado's consitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana "cries out for legislative action."
Attorney General John Suthers applauded the decision.
"I am pleased to see the Court of Appeals' has provided legal support for our case that a caregiver, under Amendment 20, must do more than simply provide marijuana to a patient," Suthers said. "I also was pleased to see the assertion in the special concurrence that Amendment 20 'cries out for legislative action.' I could not agree more. I hope the legislature will act and create a regulatory framework that gives substance to the Court of Appeals' findings
this was posted yesterday 09 not 06 seems they do infact or would like to use this as a witch hunt?since in fact the vote that happened a few months back was clearly shot down why would these 2 still say it crys for action?
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by palerider7777
In a special concurring opinion, Judge Alan Loeb wrote that Colorado's consitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana "cries out for legislative action."
Attorney General John Suthers applauded the decision.
"I am pleased to see the Court of Appeals' has provided legal support for our case that a caregiver, under Amendment 20, must do more than simply provide marijuana to a patient," Suthers said. "I also was pleased to see the assertion in the special concurrence that Amendment 20 'cries out for legislative action.' I could not agree more. I hope the legislature will act and create a regulatory framework that gives substance to the Court of Appeals' findings
this was posted yesterday 09 not 06 seems they do infact or would like to use this as a witch hunt?since in fact the vote that happened a few months back was clearly shot down why would these 2 still say it crys for action?
If you read the opinion, you will find that Judge Loeb is talking about the fact that many transactions under the law, while legal for a patient or a "designated caregiver," are illegal for the supplier. This is in fact true, and is why the dispensaries are having a hard time keeping up with demand. The judge is right that it "cries out" to be fixed, but the idea that the legislature might be charged with the task doesn't thrill me.
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by senorx12562
If you read the opinion, you will find that Judge Loeb is talking about the fact that many transactions under the law, while legal for a patient or a "designated caregiver," are illegal for the supplier. This is in fact true, and is why the dispensaries are having a hard time keeping up with demand. The judge is right that it "cries out" to be fixed, but the idea that the legislature might be charged with the task doesn't thrill me.
i guess it depends on how the judge means it for there side or ours? maybe he is pro meds?
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
More likely, like most judges, he's pro clear rules. Most judges like clarity in rules governing our behavior, and that sensibility is offended by rules like amendment 20, that are unclear and/or contradictory.
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
I would have to be one to agree that crystal clear rules is the best for everyone operating in the MMJ field.
Feijao
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
quote from WARREN EDSON ::
I am just saying that if you do not offer wellness services as part of your "caregiving" package, you could be arrested tomorrow if you grow or distibute to others. The DA's could start filing cases tomorrow using the new definition without any legislation at all.
Warren Edson, Esq.
1490 Lafayette St., Suite 407
Denver, CO. 80218
(303) 831-8188
warrenedson.com
QUTOE FROM BRETT BARNEY ::
I concur with Warren on this matter. I think the decision is clearly indicative of the collective mind of the appellate panel, and how they will treat any future appeals, at least until the legislature acts. The Court?s specific holding in Clendenin was that ?to qualify as a ?primary caregiver?, a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana.? Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Court does not go on to say exactly how much more is required to be a ?primary caregiver? and therefore does little to help us understand to what extent one must be involved in the patients care regimen to be protected by the affirmative defense. What is clear is that those whose only service provided to a patient involves supplying medicine will be subject to prosecution, and will be unlikely to be permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the affirmative defense in a manner that will be successful. This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction at the trial court level, but on appeal, one can expect this result. At the trial level, the court acts as the finder of fact, and based on the facts presented, determines whether the defendant is entitled to present the affirmative defense at trial. The Appeals panel found no error in the Boulder trial court?s conclusion that Clendenin?s lack of personal relationship with her patients precluded her from asserting the defense, so from this decision, we can take away two pieces of knowledge; 1) caregivers should know their patients personally, and 2) they should be involved in the patients care in a way that involves more than ?merely supplying a patient ?with marijuana.?
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feijao
quote from WARREN EDSON ::
I am just saying that if you do not offer wellness services as part of your "caregiving" package, you could be arrested tomorrow if you grow or distibute to others. The DA's could start filing cases tomorrow using the new definition without any legislation at all.
Warren Edson, Esq.
1490 Lafayette St., Suite 407
Denver, CO. 80218
(303) 831-8188
warrenedson.com
QUTOE FROM BRETT BARNEY ::
I concur with Warren on this matter. I think the decision is clearly indicative of the collective mind of the appellate panel, and how they will treat any future appeals, at least until the legislature acts. The Court?s specific holding in Clendenin was that ?to qualify as a ?primary caregiver?, a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana.? Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Court does not go on to say exactly how much more is required to be a ?primary caregiver? and therefore does little to help us understand to what extent one must be involved in the patients care regimen to be protected by the affirmative defense. What is clear is that those whose only service provided to a patient involves supplying medicine will be subject to prosecution, and will be unlikely to be permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the affirmative defense in a manner that will be successful. This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction at the trial court level, but on appeal, one can expect this result. At the trial level, the court acts as the finder of fact, and based on the facts presented, determines whether the defendant is entitled to present the affirmative defense at trial. The Appeals panel found no error in the Boulder trial court?s conclusion that Clendenin?s lack of personal relationship with her patients precluded her from asserting the defense, so from this decision, we can take away two pieces of knowledge; 1) caregivers should know their patients personally, and 2) they should be involved in the patients care in a way that involves more than ?merely supplying a patient ?with marijuana.?
As I've said elsewhere however, this holding only applies to cases where the defendant seeks to rely on the affirmative defense, not the bar to prosecution also contained in the Amendment, at least until a case comes down with that fact situation.
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
That's the way I read this sumbitch. Did the courts just replace random harassment by the DEA with our own State and County law enforcement? Where I live on the Western Slope the local constabulary resembles a military unit; assault weapons in cop cars, sinister SWAT type black uniforms, and in numbers that seem to far outweigh the need for traffic enforcement and the occasional petty crimes that occur here. Garfield County Deputies have been known to kick down doors in full riot gear over a simple child welfare matter. That same department is being sued by the ACLU for torture in the new County Jail, now massively outsized relative to our population. I want to be a part of this industry, but not if it means giving our good ol' boy redneck sheriff permission to justify his miserable existance at my expense. Now our Constitutional Ammendment becomes a political football, where only those who operate outside the law will be able to make a profit?
Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado
Preach on, brother Joe6Pack. I agree with you, man. Well articulated! Yes, state and local authorities have taken it upon themselves to pick up the slack where the federal government left off.
Why the fuck does Garfield County need SWAT teams and riot gear? Nothing ever happens there! Does the police department get too much funding, or are they just reaping all the benefits of drug interdiction?
When did "protect and serve" become "law enforcement"? We're moving towards a police state. I think one solution is to have a bureau that polices the police, because the excessive force/brutality/harassment (tasing, beating, shooting unarmed civilians, sexual assaults, lying under oath, intimidation, etc) is getting way out of control. The ACLU can only do so much. Who else ain't tired of this shit?