which patient to kick to the curb?

In fact, I think that was a big torch that Senator Carroll was carrying.

Yet again, another reason to thank her for her support!


b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COzigzag

Link to Senate's Rerevised HB10-1284:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_rer.pdf


This is the only reference, page 53, in the rerevised HB10-1284 that specifically addresses "plants." This addresses MMJ Centers only:

(e) TO POSSESS MORE THAN SIX MEDICAL MARIJUANA PLANTS AND
TWO OUNCES OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR EACH PATIENT WHO HAS
REGISTERED THE CENTER AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY CENTER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 25-1.5-106 (6) (f), C.R.S.; EXCEPT THAT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CENTER MAY HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE SIX-PLANT AND
TWO-OUNCE PRODUCT PER PATIENT LIMIT IF THE CENTER SELLS TO
PATIENTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND
TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT. IN THE CASE OF A PATIENT AUTHORIZED TO
EXCEED THE SIX-PLANT AND TWO-OUNCE LIMIT, THE CENTER SHALL
OBTAIN DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN THAT THE
PATIENT NEEDS MORE THAN SIX PLANTS AND TWO OUNCES OF PRODUCT.

I listened to the Senate Chamber discussion on this bill and they even talked about a 30 plant limit but I don't see anywhere where it is actually in this bill or any other bill. I "think" the Senators were using the number 30 as a hypothetical situation when talking about a caregiver (not somebody who is a patient & caregiver) specifically.

I still think Amendment 20 stands on this. A patient can possess 6 plants total.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :D

---

I stand corrected; THANKS Zig! :thumbsup:

j

Honestly, I think the 5 ppcg is moot because Judge Naves has struck that down time after time. It's a number some unnamed DEA agent came up with off the top of his head.

It's the rest of the bad stuff I worry about.

b

How does the state plan on keeping track of all of these different caregivers,and who has how many patients.. They can't even get enough people to keep up with all the applications for mmj.. This is gonna be a mess:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justabloke

Honestly, I think the 5 ppcg is moot because Judge Naves has struck that down time after time. It's a number some unnamed DEA agent came up with off the top of his head.

It's the rest of the bad stuff I worry about.

b

---

It has only been struck down once and the judge based that decision on the fact that CDPHE did not follow proper procedure when they implemented the 5 patient rule. CDPHE then attempted to follow proper procedure by holding a hearing on it and after the hearing voted against it. It has never been tested in court based on Amendment 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkfingers

How does the state plan on keeping track of all of these different caregivers,and who has how many patients.. They can't even get enough people to keep up with all the applications for mmj.. This is gonna be a mess:wtf:

---

Oh that's easy funk...

They'll screw it up and waist our tax money just like they do everything.


b

when the popo show up and you have 40 plants and no grow license. not allot of paperwork needs to get done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

when the popo show up and you have 40 plants and no grow license. not allot of paperwork needs to get done.

---

Wrong... lots of paperwork needs to get done... Search warrant, Arrest warrant, Jail bond,... then we have all the court filings, charges, motions, interigation reports, police reports, probation reports...lots of paper....trial transcripts, case law, etc. etc.

You still get a free trip to jail.... just lots of paper....and it gives you something to read in jail too. :D

Wow, what a tough question. Very shitty to even be put in this situation.

what's the process to be considered for an appeal to the 5 patient limit?

we need a list of all the unanswered questions. if they are going to regulate, they need to provide the rules and the costs, or else they can't enforce.