hb10-1284 set to be voted on tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I think I can clarify this... but my usual caveat applies: I'm not a lawyer, just a reader.

You've conflated the rules for MMCs (dispensaries) and caregivers, which are treated differently in the bill. Dispensaries are not obligated to sell at cost. That rule only applies to caregivers. If you want to sell your harvest to a dispensary, you're going to have to have some legal relationship with them, and you're going to be taxed on the profits you make. If you want to sell it directly to your patients, you must do so at cost, but you don't have to keep records or pay taxes... I think. I'll reread it tonight.

What's not going to be OK any more is caregivers signing up patients so they can grow a lot of plants on their behalf and then selling that medicine for a profit to retailers.

---

I wouldn't worry about a caregiver not being able to be compensated fairly. Since they don't tell you how to determine cost here is how I'll do it. My billing rate is $40/hour... tweak that as necessary. Now just keep a journal and record your time in the growroom. 40 x 100 hours equals $4000. So if I came out with a little less than an elbow it should be about right! Of course you can also include the cost of clones/seeds, all supplies, electricity, hell maybe even a pro-rated portion of rent. You can get creative and this isn't really an issue.

So just figure out how much money you should get for your harvest, how much time you'll approx spend working on your grow, and set your billing rate accordingly. Bam! Getting paid just like before!

On another note, when would this bill become law? Would someone with a finished product ready in about 3-4 weeks still be able to sell to a dispensary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

it also says two or more caregivers can't join together to grow.

So, If someone is a caregiver for 5 people, and their spouse is a patient & wants to grow, is this not allowed? Does one of the pair lose patients?

What if we were both caregivers in the same house? Which patients get kicked to the street?

this bill looks like it's set up to set people up. Wait till you see what happens to the price of weed now. Holy shit.

There are about to be 20,000 more people at the grow store.

---

I agree Cocobo, The entire bill is set up with loopholes to bust people, growers and dispensaries. They cut out a couple things we (most of us) didn't like, but that doesn't make whats left any better!

I wanted to add, the most I can fit in the space I plan (or had planned) to grow in, is 12 plants. I can veg 12, and flower 12. Meaning I'm limited to four people including myself. I'd been thinking about finding a fifth person. However that person would just allow me to keep six bonsai moms and vary what I grew.

That person would also cut back even further, how much profit I might make. Because that person would ALSO get an entire plants outcome for free, Yet no plants were ever flowered or grown to harvest to have this persons 6 plants on hand.

I want to know how constitutional it is for them, to regulate me (who'd planned to help all involved) into failure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

On another note, when would this bill become law? Would someone with a finished product ready in about 3-4 weeks still be able to sell to a dispensary?

---

NO! Unless you are a registered grower or a dispensary, they CAN NOT buy from you!! This is why I'm angry about this! They are limited to buying only 30% from outside their own grows, and can ONLY buy from other government registered and licensed grows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

it also says two or more caregivers can't join together to grow.

So, If someone is a caregiver for 5 people, and their spouse is a patient & wants to grow, is this not allowed? Does one of the pair lose patients?

What if we were both caregivers in the same house? Which patients get kicked to the street?

this bill looks like it's set up to set people up. Wait till you see what happens to the price of weed now. Holy shit.

There are about to be 20,000 more people at the grow store.

---

yup with this bill thats 20,000 more people the leo and courts can now fuck with on top of everything else.

lets also not forget how this will fuck disabled people on ssi/ssd.that might try to turn a profit on the extras they had.

also with 2 oz usable at any givin time.they say the leo don't like this bill,,yea ok i bet they are jumping with joy.i bet they have a few people they have been watching that they just can't wait to pounce on when this goes in effect.

the way i see it this will drive alot of growers back underground.also this will force the rest that believe in the gov so much to protect them into the open.sounds like a perfect setup..

Hmmm...

So this will go into effect immediately? Didn't we have a bit of time on the last one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

Hmmm...

So this will go into effect immediately? Didn't we have a bit of time on the last one?

---

I think it just passed the House, but they will still have another vote in the senate.

THAT is my only hope at this point. Maybe they will change this, before whatever we get becomes law.:thumbsup:

It hasn't passed. It's been introduced and referred to committee. The first committee was the Judiciary committee, which it cleared on Monday. It goes to Appropriations next. After that it may go to the floor to be voted on, or maybe it will sink into nothingness, or maybe it will be moved to another committee. Long story short is the bill is still alive and it's still amendable. Eventually, after the committees are done with it, it might go before the House for a vote. After that, the Senate would need to vote on it as well. None of this will happen unless legislators push it.

I'm not the most astute legislative observer, but I think there's some danger of the next committee amending the bill to tax MMJ sales. Most of them are also on the budget committee. This session has been very tax heavy. That would be disastrous.

good god just let this fucker die a quiet death

otherwise, it's going to get litigated into nothingness, after a bunch of people lose their investments and their employees lose jobs, and the price of herb for patients goes through the roof.

our legislators loath us. we need to keep being the biggest thorn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

good god just let this fucker die a quiet death

otherwise, it's going to get litigated into nothingness, after a bunch of people lose their investments and their employees lose jobs, and the price of herb for patients goes through the roof.

our legislators loath us. we need to keep being the biggest thorn

---

yup loath to the highest order they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

It hasn't passed. It's been introduced and referred to committee. The first committee was the Judiciary committee, which it cleared on Monday. It goes to Appropriations next. After that it may go to the floor to be voted on, or maybe it will sink into nothingness, or maybe it will be moved to another committee. Long story short is the bill is still alive and it's still amendable. Eventually, after the committees are done with it, it might go before the House for a vote. After that, the Senate would need to vote on it as well. None of this will happen unless legislators push it.

I'm not the most astute legislative observer, but I think there's some danger of the next committee amending the bill to tax MMJ sales. Most of them are also on the budget committee. This session has been very tax heavy. That would be disastrous.

---

Thank you for the exact step it's in. That makes me feel a little better. At least there's time for it to change.:thumbsup:

I do not think that HB10-1284, should stop caregivers with 5 or fewer patients from selling to a dispensary! I also don't think the dispensary should be barred from buying from ANY small grower, who happens to grow a little extra. Is there even a legal method of ridding yourself of extra meds? You can't throw it away(a kid, or unlicensed person might find it), by law you can't sell it(if this passes).

The dispensary is the answer. Allow the dispensary owners to buy meds, when issues arise with a grow, from anyone. This increases variety. Plus gives the home growing patient a way to rid themselves of extras legally, AND help other patients by providing those extras. I think the dispensary owners know how to see if the buds you bring in are worth selling, without the states input! :D

I think this is infringing on small business. I'm not a huge grow operation and don't ever plan to be! I see no reason why this should be allowed to directly target me and my "patients".:( Yet still give plenty of leeway to the huge companies who WANT to enter this market.

I'm also against adding more taxes to this, FOR the state. The state already plans to let each city tax it as THEY see fit. However if they keep adding more and more state tax. It'll just make it more difficult, and more expensive for the patient. I'm really OK with the cities taxing it and doing with it, whatever they need. Thus penalizing cities who ban dispensaries, through not collecting that tax.:thumbsup:

They also have NO delivery written into this bill. It can only be sold on said premises, as the license was issued. So, immobile patients will be screwed! (unless they find a caregiver who's willing to get screwed.:D)

I think a lot about regulation, legislation and government and I agree with you that it initially hurts small businesses. It's easier for larger firms, or firms with more capital to adapt to new regulations - and in new industries, all regulations are new! Meanwhile, the little guys are shut down because they can't afford to conform, or because their business model is different. On the other hand, I know from experience that most of our [Democratic] legislators and elected officials are not effecting these regulations to fuck with us or to shut down retailers but because they are legitimately trying to fit dispensaries into the state's legal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I think a lot about regulation, legislation and government and I agree with you that it initially hurts small businesses. It's easier for larger firms, or firms with more capital to adapt to new regulations - and in new industries, all regulations are new! Meanwhile, the little guys are shut down because they can't afford to conform, or because their business model is different. On the other hand, I know from experience that most of our [Democratic] legislators and elected officials are not effecting these regulations to fuck with us or to shut down retailers but because they are legitimately trying to fit dispensaries into the state's legal system.

---

I would love for members of our Government to go out and start a business in this country. There are so many rules, regulations and requirements that it's quite overwhelming.

HB10-1284: Medical Marijuana Reform Bill Moves
Posted on 23 March 2010
Tags: HB10-1284, Marijuana, Medical Marijuana
By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Local municipalities would have a more difficult time banning retail medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within city limits under an amended medical marijuana reform bill passed by a House committee Monday.
The amended billâ??s passage was a victory for medical marijuana activists who argued that allowing cities to ban dispensaries, as described in the original bill, would force sick patients to travel great distances for their medicine. But the amendmentâ??s passage also sparked the ire of several conservative lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Srprings, who originally planned on voting in the favor of the bill, changed his vote to no after the amendment passed.
Brian Vicente of Sensible Colorado, a medical marijuana lobbying group, said that as he understands it, a city could still ban dispensaries through a citizen-initiated ballot item. A city could also heavily restrict where dispensaries are located through zoning.

PTSD amendment fails
The medical marijuana community was less enthusiastic about the narrow defeat of an amendment directing the Department of Health to conduct a hearing on whether Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a condition that could be treated with medical marijuana. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment publicly opposed the measure, saying in a press release â??There is no evidence of efficacy of marijuana for treatment of PTSD in the medical literature.â?� But supporters of the amendment pointed to a New Mexico medical committee advisory saying medical marijuana can be used to effectively treat PTSD.
â??Itâ??s unfortunate that legislators are hanging veterans out to dry and denying them access to a medicine that has been proved to be effective,â?� said Mason Tvert of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, a pro-medical marijuana group.

Other amendments voted on Monday include:
â?? An amendment banning the smoking of medical marijuana by patients was killed;
â?? An amendment allowing the consumption of food with medical marijuana within an area of a dispensary where marijuana isnâ??t being sold passed;
â?? An amendment allowing a caregiver to serve up to 16 patients in municipalities that have banned dispensaries passed;
â?? An amendment dedicating the first $2 million in tax revenue every year generated by medical marijuana towards substance abuse issues passed;
Levy said over the weekend that the multiple amendments should make the reform bill â?? which would create a medical marijuana licensing authority within the department of revenue, and allow for the creation of medical marijuana centers that, if they comply with a local jurisdictionâ??s zoning requirements, could sell medical marijuana to multiple patients â?? more palatable to the medical marijuana community.
Vicente agreed Monday that â??the bill is heading in the right direction.â?� But he remained opposed to the billâ??s requirement of having medical marijuana centers grow most of their own medical marijuana themselves.
â??We need to have a number of growers providing for dispensaries, not just one,â?� he said. â??We think that would help protect the supply of medicine for patients to ensure there is still diversities.â?�
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, district attorneys and doctors earlier this month voiced their opposition to the bill during a committee hearing. They argued that the measure would legitimize the retail dispensary model, which they see a backdoor way to legalize marijuana.
Levy said on Friday that the new amendments donâ??t address the law enforcement communityâ??s concerns.
â??Theyâ??re opposed to the very concept of the bill, so none of these amendments will remove their objections,â?� she said.
HB 1284 is the second medical marijuana reform bill to make its way through the Legislature this session. The first bill from Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, requires patients under the age of 21 to get a second doctorâ??s opinion before being able to obtain a medical marijuana card and forbids doctors from receiving money from medical marijuana dispensaries.
Denver City Council in January unanimously approved a bill that limits where dispensaries can be located, who can run them, and what safety measures dispensary owners must have in place. All of the bills seek to clarify Amendment 20, the measure approved by voters in 2000 that allows for seriously ill Coloradans to use medical marijuana.

I went to a three-hour forum today on MMJ and current CO law. A good bit of it was spent on question and answer regarding this bill. There were a lot of angry growers in the meeting. Brian Vicente, head of Sensible CO quoted liberally in this thread, explained that this was because dispensaries have an organized lobby in Denver while growers do not; this bill will protect dispensaries, but not growers. He pointed out that caregiver-to-caregiver sales (i.e. caregivers selling to a dispensary) is now a legal gray area. There have been prosecutions already. In his view, the bill is likely to pass in nearly its current form before May, and may become law in July. He hopes they will also add a cultivation license, by which growers could supply dispensaries, but he doesn't think it will happen. He said bluntly, that if you want to sell marijuana to a dispensary, you will need to become their employee, start a dispensary yourself ($5000+ fee), or possibly write some really creative contracting agreement that is likely to be disputed in court.

I also asked him if there were any provisions in the bill that would limit the rights of patients to use, grow or possess. He said that all the provisions that would have done so have now been removed, and that the bill couldn't do that anyway since our MMJ law is a constitutional amendment. He noted one exception that still needed to be removed: if you are a patient and have assigned someone else to be your caregiver, then a third party may not assign you as their caregiver. Brian said this was unconstitutional and would be removed or challenged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I went to a three-hour forum today on MMJ and current CO law. A good bit of it was spent on question and answer regarding this bill. There were a lot of angry growers in the meeting. Brian Vicente, head of Sensible CO quoted liberally in this thread, explained that this was because dispensaries have an organized lobby in Denver while growers do not; this bill will protect dispensaries, but not growers. He pointed out that caregiver-to-caregiver sales (i.e. caregivers selling to a dispensary) is now a legal gray area. There have been prosecutions already. In his view, the bill is likely to pass in nearly its current form before May, and may become law in July. He hopes they will also add a cultivation license, by which growers could supply dispensaries, but he doesn't think it will happen. He said bluntly, that if you want to sell marijuana to a dispensary, you will need to become their employee, start a dispensary yourself ($5000+ fee), or possibly write some really creative contracting agreement that is likely to be disputed in court.

---

that is confusing. because wouldn't it be legal if a card holder sold to a cardholder now matter if they are growing or a dispensary or whatever, especially if both sides are paying taxes and have the correct number of patients for quantity sold?

what's really frustrating is you can't find any information that walks you through what passed on the internet. if you see another group meeting/forum meeting could you post about it? i'd love to attend:)

I don't think there's any language in the Amendment that allows MMJ registry cardholders to sell medicine. It's my understanding of the law that unless you are a designated caregiver, selling marijuana remains illegal. Speaking in a general context and not to that issue, Brian today said that most of the commercial MMJ business is operating in a "spectrum of legality." He said that caregivers selling to their designated patients are at one end of that spectrum, and everything else is in a legal gray area. I gather that one reason for further legislation is to clarify unresolved issues.

The session was helpful, but also leaves questions dangling about whether or not small independent growers can be expected to get squashed by well financed dispensaries which can afford to rent big--excuse me-huge spaces (which they will have to be to grow enough to distribute to an estimated 100,000 patients statewide by year's end). Even with a 70/30 program, those dispensary ops will be big, unless they just start buying their grower's homes, heh.
As an experienced gardener, no kids or schedule , I'm in position to be part of this legitimately, really just having trouble finding a rental with an informed & "on board" landlord has been my only hangup in the cgiver dept. **Hint-looking for a place to rent in SW CO people, llord first patient on my cgiver list even better...
MJ has been a theraputic part of my life for over twenty years, and is a treasure to this world. Why is the Legislature so bent on making it so hard for independents, like me, to do something they love for a living? Oh, because I can't afford my own lobby group. Great. Let's hope for the best folks.

HPplrm, you have good points. What I got out of this was, there are still more questions every day that they have to reformulate amendments or strikes to answer. And the other thing I got was, the independent caregivers are seriously lacking a voice on that Hill in Denver!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheHighCountryM

HPplrm, you have good points. What I got out of this was, there are still more questions every day that they have to reformulate amendments or strikes to answer. And the other thing I got was, the independent caregivers are seriously lacking a voice on that Hill in Denver!

---

x2 to both points. I wanted to ask Brian about where the bill is heading and what the chances are for more amendments, but I didn't get the chance. The entire MMJ supply chain is a legal Bermuda Triangle. Regarding growers, it's frustrating because the anonymity that protects them makes them unable to organize a lobby and communicate their wishes to lawmakers, who are receptive at the moment. We need a cultivator's lobby, no doubt.

One other thing that came up multiple times in the forum was always, always, always pay your state and federal taxes on revenue from med sales.

FYI, High Country, our rep is on the health committee. I think this bill will go there, if it hasn't already.

[quote=HighPopalorum]x2 to both points. I wanted to ask Brian about where the bill is heading and what the chances are for more amendments, but I didn't get the chance. The entire MMJ supply chain is a legal Bermuda Triangle. Regarding growers, it's frustrating because the anonymity that protects them makes them unable to organize a lobby and communicate their wishes to lawmakers, who are receptive at the moment. We need a cultivator's lobby, no doubt.

I spoke for the Small Growers when the Judiciary Committee took public comments, I have also voiced my concerns to my Representative Claire Levy in private. I have been pissed about the Lobbyist that took control saying they represent the dispensaries when in reality it was a small group that has tried to manipulate the law to fit their business model. They sold out the small growers as well as the very small Mom & Pop dispensaries, for shame! How do I know this, because I was approached to be part of this effort but I declined and decided we would represent ourselves and the dozen or so small growers we work with on a daily basis.:mad::mad::mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

In the politest way possible, I'd like to point out that this isn't true. None of the charities mentioned pays seven figures. The Red Cross's board is volunteers. PETA's highest paid board member makes about $70,000. Unicef board members make six figures. It's likely they have other sources of income, but what you said wasn't even approximately true.

---

Volunteers...? Red cross executives make 200-400k a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Better Business Bureau

Chief Executive : Gail J. McGovern, President and Chief Executive Officer
Compensation*: $

Highest Paid Executive: Marsha Evans, Former President and Chief Executive Officer
Compensation*: $1,183,811

Chair of the Board: Bonnie McElveen-Hunter
Chair's Profession / Business Affiliation: President, Pace Communications

Board Size: 28

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNN MONEY

The chief executive of the American Red Cross, Gail J. McGovern, earned $467,252 in 2008.

---

....and PETA. Well they aren't living too shabby either.

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/x...ility/peta.jpg

Maybe you should do some research before just throwing my claims to the wind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Better Business Bureau

Total income $372,131,340
Program expenses $325,126,187
Fund raising expenses 30,823,838
Administrative expenses 11,161,336

Total expenses $367,111,361
Income in Excess of Expenses 5,019,979
Beginning net assets 30,728,049
Other Changes in Net Assets 2,790,313
Ending net assets 35,748,028
Total liabilities 75,913,395
Total assets $111,661,423

---

Unicef alone spends 11.1 million a year on salaries alone.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoCareMMJ

Volunteers...? Red cross executives make 200-400k a year.





....and PETA. Well they aren't living too shabby either.

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/x...ility/peta.jpg

Maybe you should do some research before just throwing my claims to the wind...



Unicef alone spends 11.1 million a year on salaries alone.....

---

+rep!

Thanks for saving me the time of digging up those numbers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1nicegrow

Hi,
Dont you just love seeing posts from dispencerys crying about the law changes...LOL...wonder if they realise that this is all because of them and there efforts to be to big for big profits.....I mean...how many small growers who grow for there own medical needs has been busted?...all the ones I seen so far were in violations of there counts not having patients to justifiy the counts and privit growers some of wich I know have been served warrents and searched after words the cops left empty handed as all was in order...its simple addition folks...and when patients finaly get sick of all the red tape these operations bring to the table for them to deal with maybe they will finaly stop going to these places and supporting them.

frankly I dont think any of those laws will do a thing to the patient sitting in there own home growing there own medicine...I think it only becomes relitive to the patient when they go outside of the rules and have 71 plants to 1 card...then they fall into the same catigory as the dispencerys...part of the problem rather then part of the salution....but this is just my opinion ....

---

well in a way it does hurt the small growers more than it does the shops.remember the 2oz limit? most growers on a small scale with say 6 to 12 plants grow more than that.also since it can only be on the plant so long b4 it will start to degrade and to recoop the money to grow it.they would rather be able to sell it to a shop the extras that they can't use because of the 2oz at a time bs rule.this will hurt them directly.if things in the bill don't change.

CCMMJ:

Although I'm happy to be corrected, I stand by what I said. The Red Cross's board is indeed volunteers, except for the head, who draws a salary. Being on the Board of Governors is accounted a high honor, although they draw no pay. PETA's highest paid board member is their attorney, who makes a bit over 70k. Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of PETA, makes $37000 and lives in a one-bedroom apartment. UNICEF board member salaries are in the low six figures. The new information you posted (a picture of PETA's headquarters, a statement showing UNICEF spends 11M on administrative costs, an edited BBB report) doesn't bear on anything I said. As far as I can tell, after a half hour's additional search, not a single board member of any of the charities you named makes seven figures, only one makes above half a million, and the rest are in the high five or low six-figure range.

I really don't mean to be rude or confrontational - it's just that I can in no way reconcile your statements regarding charity board member salaries with the truth. Last post on this subject for me since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Email me, if you like, at my nickname @gmail.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wb1996

Was I talking to you, I do not think so. Just because I believe in states
rights and a small federal government does not make me Glen Beck. But now that you have brought it up, that idiot glen want's to legalize marijuana and stands on the peoples side, and he is not a conservative he is a libertarian so why is that so bad? The fact is there are still a few good dems out there but not many. The Dems, just like the republicans, have been highjacked by progressives and that is why this country is falling apart. People love to talk about how our healthcare system is so fucked, but when you compare it to the rest of the world it is so much better than most. Yes we need to fix some things in the industry but giving all the power to Obama is a stoopid thing to do. That dumb ass has not kept one promise except pass some bull shit bill that forces me to buy insurance I do not want. When all these liberals try to tell me I must have something I do not want I big red flag goes up in my head. I tore my ACL in my knee a week ago and I am getting surgery next week so I am dealing with this issue right now and I will tell you one thing for sure I am glad I am in america to get my surgery. My dad is a doctor and he told me a funny story the other day. If this government controlled health care shit is so good then why did the Prime minister of Nova Scotia come to my dads practice to get operated on. He knows are system is better and that is why he came to the USA and payed out of pocket to get the best care in the world. If people keep fucking with our doctors we are going to be sorry. I am an independent myself and all I have to say is it is time for a third party.

---

the reason people throw around names like glen beck and others.is because people have been brain washed into thinking with blinders on.people like to label themselfs as a part of one group or another.im a dem,im a rep,im an independant so on.most that call themselfs an ind are more on the fence and really lean to 1 of the either sides more or less.so even tho someone says they are ind most are not in the true sense of the label.

now back to glen beck or whoever.lets say a person calls themselfs a ind but has mostly dem/lib views when ever something comes up that goes against a dem/lib view of things no matter if it was right to the tee they will lash out against it.why? because they feel it's an attack on them as it's not on the dem/lib side of things.

thats 1 way it works,then in the same respect of things say a person they like alot or someone that has views on things that are inline with their own. comes out and says i don't like so and so for whatever reason no matter what the bad guy says after that no matter how good or how right he could be they will still hold that hate for them.it's how most humans work,instead of breaking down what someone says per subject. they take 1 thing they don't like about the person and make everything about that.very simple minded way of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoCareMMJ

Volunteers...? Red cross executives make 200-400k a year.





....and PETA. Well they aren't living too shabby either.

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/x...ility/peta.jpg

Maybe you should do some research before just throwing my claims to the wind...



Unicef alone spends 11.1 million a year on salaries alone.....

---

agreed there is so much corruption in these so called"charities".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1nicegrow

Hi,
Dont you just love seeing posts from dispencerys crying about the law changes...LOL...wonder if they realise that this is all because of them and there efforts to be to big for big profits.....I mean...how many small growers who grow for there own medical needs has been busted?...all the ones I seen so far were in violations of there counts not having patients to justifiy the counts and privit growers some of wich I know have been served warrents and searched after words the cops left empty handed as all was in order...its simple addition folks...and when patients finaly get sick of all the red tape these operations bring to the table for them to deal with maybe they will finaly stop going to these places and supporting them.

frankly I dont think any of those laws will do a thing to the patient sitting in there own home growing there own medicine...I think it only becomes relitive to the patient when they go outside of the rules and have 71 plants to 1 card...then they fall into the same catigory as the dispencerys...part of the problem rather then part of the salution....but this is just my opinion ....

---

Hmm, although I think your somewhat correct about SOME of the dispensaries(the few supporting the lobby). Attacking Bryan, (whom I believe is against the state screwing the smaller growers), Isn't going to gain you any friends around here. I don't know Bryan extremely well. However I've visited his shop 10-12 times. The 4-5 when he was there he gave me great grow advise. When he wasn't there, either his mother(I think??) or his cousin helped me. Both of which are also great and helpful people.

Also one of the most interesting home grow operations I've ever seen was a guy who grew just for himself and some family members. He kept a number of small bonsai moms. Each week he'd cut 5 clones from the moms. Then move five rooted clones(from the previous week) into soil and put them directly into flower. Each week as he added 5 newly potted clones, he's move five completed plants from the other end of the box, and slide all the younger plants over toward the taller end of said flower box. This guy produced two ounces every week which covered all of his "patients" without ANY overgrowth to sell! Not one plant ever achieved 12 inches tall!

What do you think his total plant count might be??(you'd call it obviously illegal),.... It was 71. If you include all Moms and clones!

In the opposing corner, I COULD produce 9 pounds with JUST my three in flower. IF I let them veg long enough, and used the proper technics. Like this guy:

http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-gr...-bubblers.html

Thus I believe the entire plant count portion of our law is as much a load as the entire war on MJ.

However a number of the dispensaries are against ending their ability to buy from anyone they choose. Personally I'd like to see a list of which dispensary owners ARE supporting this lobby. I have a hard time believing Bryan would support them, but it would be nice to know which places are actually TRYING to screw the little guys so I could bad mouth the right ones!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

However a number of the dispensaries are against ending their ability to buy from anyone they choose. Personally I'd like to see a list of which dispensary owners ARE supporting this lobby.

---

I would like to see that list as well. Who ARE the dispensaries lobbying against us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

I would like to see that list as well. Who ARE the dispensaries lobbying against us?

---

Go talk with Josh Stanley at Peace and Medicine or Matt Brown they have a list I am sure!:mad::mad::mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

CCMMJ:

Although I'm happy to be corrected, I stand by what I said. The Red Cross's board is indeed volunteers, except for the head, who draws a salary. Being on the Board of Governors is accounted a high honor, although they draw no pay. PETA's highest paid board member is their attorney, who makes a bit over 70k. Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of PETA, makes $37000 and lives in a one-bedroom apartment. UNICEF board member salaries are in the low six figures. The new information you posted (a picture of PETA's headquarters, a statement showing UNICEF spends 11M on administrative costs, an edited BBB report) doesn't bear on anything I said. As far as I can tell, after a half hour's additional search, not a single board member of any of the charities you named makes seven figures, only one makes above half a million, and the rest are in the high five or low six-figure range.

---

The POINT I was making that you can run a NPO and still make a 7-figure salary, I just named the top 3 most recognizable non profits. There is a ridiculous amount of "NPO's" that have salaries just the same. Here are a few just for you to get the idea.

Quote:

---

Top 10 executive compensation packages at big non-profits in 2008:

1. Partners HealthCare System James Mongan, CEO $3,421,870
2. Museum of Modern Art Glenn Lowry, director $2,710,607
3. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Steven Altschuler, CEO $2,371,282
4. New York University John Sexton, president $1,385,339
5. Columbia University Lee Bollinger, president $1,380,035
6. University of Pennsylvania Amy Gutmann, president $1,279,819
7. Yale University Richard Levin, president $1,200,583
8. Johns Hopkins University William Brody, president $1,198,964
9. University of Southern Calif. Steven Sample, president $1,161,721
10. Metropolitan Opera Assoc. Peter Gelb, GM $1,158,296

Highest-paid non-profit employees

Top 10 employee compensation packages at big non-profits in 2008:

Organization Highest-paid employee2 Total comp.1

1. Yale University David Swensen, chief investment officer $4,389,727
2. University of Southern Calif. Pete Carroll, head coach, football $4,386,652
3. Columbia University David Silvers, clinical professor of dermatology $3,738,419
4. Duke University Mike Krzyzewski, head coach, men's basketball $3,705,909
5. Cornell University Zev Rosenwaks, professor obstetrics and gynecology $3,392,417
6. University of Chicago James Madara, vice president medical affairs $2,870,997
7. New York University James Grifo, professor obstetrics and gynecology $2,867,596
8. University of Pennsylvania Ralph Muller, CEO, University of Pennsylvania Health System $2,518,232
9. Stanford University John Powers, president Stanford Management Co. $2,429,757
10. Princeton University Andrew Golden, president, Princeton University Investment $2,091,425

Note: Other non-profit organizations may pay their executives more than executives listed here. 1 = may include base salary, bonus, incentive pay earned over several years, retirement, health insurance, housing, or other payments. 2 = other than CEO; Source: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palerider7777

the reason people throw around names like glen beck and others.is because people have been brain washed into thinking with blinders on.

---

Wow, even that sounds like Glenn Beck! Sensational bullshit with no basis in reality.

Nice try though. People mention Glenn Beck because he's a fucking pandering nutjob. And he convinces people who can't think for themselves (wink, wink) of preposterous ideas.

The problem in this country is not any one individual, its the system. It doesn't work. Our government has proven that it is actually run by lobbyists, and "for the people" should read as "for the corporations".

On another note, has anyone seen John Stewart do Glenn Beck? I about shit my pants the other night I was laughing so hard!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

Wow, even that sounds like Glenn Beck! Sensational bullshit with no basis in reality.

Nice try though. People mention Glenn Beck because he's a fucking pandering nutjob. And he convinces people who can't think for themselves (wink, wink) of preposterous ideas.

The problem in this country is not any one individual, its the system. It doesn't work. Our government has proven that it is actually run by lobbyists, and "for the people" should read as "for the corporations".

On another note, has anyone seen John Stewart do Glenn Beck? I about shit my pants the other night I was laughing so hard!

---

blah blah blah same ole shit......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

On another note, has anyone seen John Stewart do Glenn Beck? I about shit my pants the other night I was laughing so hard!

---

Yeah that was good and when he pulled out the chalkboard i lost it ....:jointsmile::jointsmile:

I like your stance!

Listen, if your a grower hoping to move surplus to dispensaries, all you have to do is one of two things.

1) Set up an LLC.

-or-

2) Become an "employee" for the dispensary.


Remember 99% of the law is interpretation.... :jointsmile::jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoCareMMJ

Listen, if your a grower hoping to move surplus to dispensaries, all you have to do is one of two things.

1) Set up an LLC.

-or-

2) Become an "employee" for the dispensary.


Remember 99% of the law is interpretation.... :jointsmile::jointsmile:

---

Only two issues I have with that Bryan are,.. I don't have $5000 to pay the state, let alone more to buy the security system with cameras (in MY house).

Second issue I have with the current bill is. Let's say I'm your "employee" (just as an example). I grow the maximum I can fit (12 plants in flower). Now as YOUR employee, growing in MY house. The state gets to just "drop by" and inspect MY house(your grow??) whenever they feel like it, because as far as they are concerned MY grow is YOUR property. By growing for you in my house. The state reserves the ability to search MY house whenever they feel the need.

Plus the law is currently unclear in one other area. It says any used paraphernalia on the property will constitute shutting the operation down. So as your employee, and my property being part of your grow operation. I can't legally medicate in MY house!

Then after I give my patients their meds. I'll be able to give you only the remainder, for you to sell. I'm still unclear as to what kind of yield I'll get.

Basically I think giving up my right to privacy, JUST so I can continue my small time operation. Is not right.

EVERY grower of their own meds, NEEDS the ability to legally dispose of excess meds! As I said before, with proper care of my plants, I COULD produce 12 pounds from just three plants(although I don't plan to do that:jointsmile:) I still don't think the state should tell YOU where to get the meds. By being allowed to buy from ANYONE, as you can in most other businesses. YOU would have greater variety. Persons who are unable to work, AND do grow their own, could make a couple extra dollars by helping grow a little extra here and there.

The way it is being written now. I have to sign away my rights to privacy(in my own home). Become an employee of a dispensary (essentially signing my grow over to you). Install a security system with cameras(in my house). PLUS, if I medicate IN MY HOUSE, I can loose it all.

PLEASE tell me I'm wrong! :D

(side note: Love ya Bryan :thumbsup:no offence, don't hate me for my thoughts!) LOL

if this shit is included in the final legislation, you just wait - their will be commercial "center-weed" and there will be grey market "caregiver-dank" because the dispensaries are going to have to be efficient in producing quantity if they want to pay the bills.

I want the full list of dispensaries that are behind these lobbying efforts - and YOU BET that info will come out. I want to know who the fat cats are that would shut out every home grower in the state, and the rest of the state should know as well.

Is Peace In Medicine the first on the list?

Who else?

Quote:

---

I still don't think the state should tell YOU where to get the meds. By being allowed to buy from ANYONE, as you can in most other businesses. YOU would have greater variety.

---

Just as an FYI, most consumable products (alcohol, medicine, food, for example) actually travel through very strictly-regulated supply chains. It's true that most other businesses can purchase stock from anywhere, but most other businesses similar to dispensaries can only purchase from a small group of licensed vendors. In the case of beer and alcohol, only from a distributor, which number about two dozen in this state. If I was making beer in my basement, I couldn't put it in a backpack and sell it to the local liquor store; those days are long gone.... and that option is about to be closed to commercial growers as well.

there is no need to lock in certain entities as the only legal suppliers. It's anti-competitive, keeps prices high, and supply limited. This serves no purpose other than to protect select dispensaries, and it has no business being in this bill.

the best thing our legislators could do, for the sake of their careers, is to just let the bill die.

If supply is further limited, there will be a crisis in a year if not sooner. With the resources we have now, all put together, without regulation, we are still in a shortage and the cost is prohibitive for patients that need larger quantities for extreme conditions.

Well as a dispensary owner I can tell you all I am not associated with any "lobbying" that may be happening. I haven't been contacted by anyone with those intentions and I support small growers. When most growers produce cannabis commercially they usually tend to put quantity over quality. I hope the laws change for the better, but it looks like more regulation is ahead...

-B