It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by puntacometa
The big downside for patients and growers will be when the big dispensaries start squeezing their growers for price reductions. This will create two scenarios, neither one of them good.
1. If the price drops and the dispensary isn't moving enough product to roll over a large quantity every day, then the grower will have the choice of either cutting back on his crew and certain expensive overhead items like nutes and HID lights or taking a huge hit to his margins, at which point it may not make sense to continue as a grower. I'm really going to have a problem with my name being associated with mediocre/crappy pot. A big grow is a huge amount of work and I may just say fuck it.
2. The dispensaries that survive will be like Sams Clubs and Monsanto/Archer Daniels Midland will be the only ones supplying their product.
Price is the problem already, as an independent grower I see my product on the shelf as A grade but yet they only want to pay me 800.00 a qp and when they sell it by the grm they are selling for almost 1600.00, if I was selling bunk or even b grade it would be more acceptable. The big boys got the independents by the balls and they take advantage of us every day all day, but now those days will soon be over as Romers bill is going through and the small shops and independent growers will soon be gone, now the market belongs to the politicians and the Cali money hogs. It is so sad how the nice folks of Colorado welcomed the set ups from Cali and now as usually they have paid off our politicians and secured the industry for their profit and the sad thing is we let them, Coloradans have been fucked over yet again.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
I'm so confused by what I read now regarding the "squeezing" of growers. Everyone wanted dispensaries to lower prices at the end of last year and the industry responded. Now everyone is worried that caregivers are not making as much as they can off of their grow.
Were dispensaries supposed to just eat the cost of lowered prices on their own?
The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klonzinc
The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.
yup but talk about helping people out?i don't see how this romer bill will do anything to lower costs.all i can say is all you people that thought this was no biggie guess what get ready for brick weed at insane prices.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klonzinc
The problem I see with the disps. that buy my product is they pay me 800.00 a qp but still sell my product as A grade without a price change, so I take a cut and they do not lower the price, and thier bottom line increases and the patient does not see a break. This is pure GREED.
Dont give it to them for $800, there's plenty of dispensaries out there. I still get a thousand for mine but a lot of them out there will not pay over $900 for anything anymore and are more concerned about the cost than quality, those are the ones that end up with shitty meds.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klonzinc
Price is the problem already, as an independent grower I see my product on the shelf as A grade but yet they only want to pay me 800.00 a qp and when they sell it by the grm they are selling for almost 1600.00, if I was selling bunk or even b grade it would be more acceptable. The big boys got the independents by the balls and they take advantage of us every day all day, but now those days will soon be over as Romers bill is going through and the small shops and independent growers will soon be gone, now the market belongs to the politicians and the Cali money hogs. It is so sad how the nice folks of Colorado welcomed the set ups from Cali and now as usually they have paid off our politicians and secured the industry for their profit and the sad thing is we let them, Coloradans have been fucked over yet again.
A few months ago, I had a dispensary owner approach me with a grower's contract for well below $800.00 per qp. This is a big dispensary chain. The rationale was that they wanted to keep prices low for their paitents. I know for a fact that they did manage to sign up a few growers because the dispensary calls me when they run out of the meds their growers provide and they offer me a higher price......and they haven't lowered the price to their patients one bit.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
8 AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
9 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
10 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
11 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
12 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
13 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 OR A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
15 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
16 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
Page 57
The important word being SHALL. It is not permissive. It does not use the word MAY.
Patients will NOT be allow to shop around, obtain their green meds at any dispensary of their choice. They can ONLY buy from the dispensary where they are registered with the state.
This subject came up a number of times at the Senate, Local Gov & Energy Committee hearing on 4/28. The provision was not disputed, by Sens Romer, Spence, etc. If it was incorrect, they'd have jumped all over the testimony.
Sen. Romer, at the hearing, seemed to cast blame upon the Governor's office for all these anti-patient "imperfections" in the bill.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
so is there a sense that this crap is really going to pass?
will the legislator really fuck the patients like this?
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelnights
8 AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
9 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
10 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
11 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
12 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
13 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 OR A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
15 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
16 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
Page 57
The important word being SHALL. It is not permissive. It does not use the word MAY.
Patients will NOT be allow to shop around, obtain their green meds at any dispensary of their choice. They can ONLY buy from the dispensary where they are registered with the state.
This subject came up a number of times at the Senate, Local Gov & Energy Committee hearing on 4/28. The provision was not disputed, by Sens Romer, Spence, etc. If it was incorrect, they'd have jumped all over the testimony.
Sen. Romer, at the hearing, seemed to cast blame upon the Governor's office for all these anti-patient "imperfections" in the bill.
*sigh*
Sorry to be insulting, but you really should learn how to read legal language before freaking out about it. That passage is intended for patients who wish to designate a DISPENSARY (as opposed to a private caregiver) the PRIMARY (meaning that dispensary is their legal caregiver and thus gets their plant rights) dispensary where they will purchase meds. Nowhere in the bill does it say that a person may go to no other dispensaries than the one that is designated their primary caregiver. That would make no sense and would've been torn apart (or at least mentioned) by CTI or any number of panicked advocacy organizations sending out e-mails with incorrect information.
And yes, I am against the bill. But the above is not a concern to me in the least because if you understand the context in which it was written (as well as within the context of the current system wherein a patient can designate a PRIMARY caregiver but still get meds from other legal caregivers), it's clear that's not what it's saying.
Anyway... that's the political science education in me coming out after having had to read shittons of Supreme Court cases and other long-winded legal opinions and legislation. The language is somewhat vague in the bill and it's difficult to understand all aspects of a 72+ page monstrosity, but the above passage is fairly clear on the scheme of things.
Also, did you not read the clause before that one? A patient can choose to: a) grow their own medicine only, b) grow their own medicine while also having a private caregiver or getting it from a dispensary or c) sign up a single dispensary as their PRIMARY, making that dispensary act as their caregiver in the same sense that a private one would (allowing them to purchase meds elsewhere but getting their 6 plants). Seems pretty clear to me, and it makes sense (one of the few parts of the bill that I have absolutely no problem with).
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
so is there a sense that this crap is really going to pass?
will the legislator really fuck the patients like this?
well that 1 part passed 6-0 so they all seem to be getting a good bank roll going.
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMJinColorado
*sigh*
Sorry to be insulting, but you really should learn how to read legal language before freaking out about it. That passage is intended for patients who wish to designate a DISPENSARY (as opposed to a private caregiver) the PRIMARY (meaning that dispensary is their legal caregiver and thus gets their plant rights) dispensary where they will purchase meds. Nowhere in the bill does it say that a person may go to no other dispensaries than the one that is designated their primary caregiver. That would make no sense and would've been torn apart (or at least mentioned) by CTI or any number of panicked advocacy organizations sending out e-mails with incorrect information.
And yes, I am against the bill. But the above is not a concern to me in the least because if you understand the context in which it was written (as well as within the context of the current system wherein a patient can designate a PRIMARY caregiver but still get meds from other legal caregivers), it's clear that's not what it's saying.
Anyway... that's the political science education in me coming out after having had to read shittons of Supreme Court cases and other long-winded legal opinions and legislation. The language is somewhat vague in the bill and it's difficult to understand all aspects of a 72+ page monstrosity, but the above passage is fairly clear on the scheme of things.
it may be clear to you but im sure you are aware how leo works? if the language is vague in the least they will exploit the hell out of it.notice every new bill only touches on this or that but leaves alot open to interpretation.which is only good on their end most of the time.
