Printable View
Dispencaries will still have to watch out for the feds... No joking here my uncle is a DEA. Not on the best of speaking terms but I did get the impression from him that once they dispencaries start growing their 70% "large plant count" they are going to step in on a few of them and let the people of colorado realize that the DEA is still around and it is still against Federal law to grow marijuana no matter what any state says. Federal law always rules over state laws
i'm pretty sure this is it
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_rer.pdf
From my read of the new law, I too believe that MMC's are allowed an unlimited number of plants, they are no longer tied to the 6 plants mentioned in the constitution, as long as their grow accounts for 70% . . .
However, due to the Federal 99 plant limit, I would still want to be compliant with the constitutions and be reluctant to grow more than 6 plants X the number of patients registered with a MMC.
As an infused products mfger growing their own, they doesn't have any patients . . . goodness, what do they say to the DEA agent knocking at the door? Yes, officer, I have a contract with my buddy at MMC XYZ. In this case, I wouldn't let a spouting seed take me over a 99 plant count. I feel edible bakers are at the greatest risk of all.
As per patients with a doctor's recommendation for a plant limit higher than 6, that's mentioned in the constitution as part of a patient's affirmative defense. All that was required of a patient was to show an inquiring LEO your doctor's recommendation showing your paperwork lists more than 6 plants.
This changes in the new law. Now, if you have more than 6 plants, to quality for your affirmative defense, you must wave your federal HIPA rights and make your health records a public record. Which means, the LEO can now arrest a patient with over 6 plants and tell them to work it out with a judge.
just read he bill from the link provided above and on page 53 ( I believe ) the 6 plant plus 2 oz. limit is there for mmc's per patient, unless I missed something else somewhere and also further down it gives the dept. of health the power to re-define a primary caregivers role to more than just providing medicine, and as I read it, as a patient applies for the red card they are to state if they will grow and use a mmc or caregiver, wont grow but will use a mmc or caregiver, or just grow their own and not rely on a mmc or caregiver. Does that restrict a patient to only the designated mmc or caregiver? If so, stand by for the price to skyrocket folks, I do not see how prices could come down if a mmc can only provide for patients that have designated the center as their " provider ", I am curious as to others understanding of this.
Page 59 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_rer.pdf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Colodonmed
(c) ONLY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER WITH AN OPTIONAL
18 PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED
19 PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES
20 CULTIVATION LICENSE, OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER
21 PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR
22 PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.
I would interpret this to mean the patient can still purchase from a caregiver or a dispensary.
I agree, a patient will still be able to purchase from a caregiver or dispensary, but my question is can they buy / obtain their medicine ONLY from the designated center / caregiver established when submitting the application for the registry. As the scenario currently allows any red card holder to shop pretty much anywhere that will let them in to spend their cash, my take is that a patient is only allowed to obtain from their designated source, otherwise why is the language included in the bill that requires a patient to state when making application for the registry if they growing or mmc or caregiver for their medicine, basically stating where you will obtain your medicine. It is very grey in my opinion and am sure it is to be challenged, but upon the Gov's signing it will be the law until overturned. Also, with a caregiver required to keep the patients registry # on file for leo, makes me think that eventually the regulators may come sniffing around a caregivers place to check for compliance as well, then what, check the patients premises to make sure they are in compliance too? I know I may be coming across as paranoid, but remember there is a reason for specific language in the bill and that makes me all the more wary.Quote:
Originally Posted by COzigzag
In fact they way I read the above language, even the patient to patient trading, selling, sharing etc... appears to be banned as it reads " OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HERQuote:
Originally Posted by Colodonmed
21 PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR
22 PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.
Again a very grey area but remember the law was written for control of mmj, not for you and I - the patient
The Infused Product People are the real winners with this bill, since they can contract with as many centers as they want and can grow as much as they want. Go Cheesecake!
I like cheesecake too!!, Hey GM as a dispensary owner yourself, how do you read the bill in respect to " open shopping " will dispensaries / mmc's be able to provide to any red card holder or only those that have designated the center / dispensary as their source?Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulMeds
I am still unclear on that, I am getting a second opinion tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colodonmed