How many medical marijuana businesses want to get licensed--#'s released

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

are you gonna pop some seeds soon? do a first timers grow log?

---

I already know that I'm not doing it 'right'. I have a texas controller topping off a single bucket. It's absurd the amount of equipment I have invested. I'm your typical white boy who has the money to spend to get the best equipment. I've been trolling craigslist and caregivers and old friends for equipment.

Most growers would argue that the best stuff comes from soil. I got two clones from a guy, one soil and one hydro, and the hydro just took off. Seems easier to me to use hydro for the first time. I think I over fed the soil plant.

I didn't want to spend the money on seeds ($100-$300 for ten), so I bought a clone.

I am not interested in making a thread for you all to come and make fun of my grow. I am only interested in spending less money on medicine, and growing my own will help with that. It's pretty cool to be able to eventually smoke my own herb. It's going to be fun and interesting to deal with problems/pests/curing/harvesting etc. I took that soil plant and practiced clones, I got about 50. I have the best 12 in grodan cubes, waiting to see what the hell I am going to do next.

So no, I won't be starting a grow log. I have enough of a journal to keep track of at home.

I'm having trouble seeing the differences between nutrient deficiency versus over feeding, so I need a tds meter. For one plant. That's absurd, but it's an upgrade I'll need eventually, so might as well get it now. But any large scale grower would say, 'wtf are you doing with one plant, a texas controller, and a tds meter?' Or something.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them, I just don't wish to start a thread that's about me. That seems selfish, and I'm not trying to brag, I'm only trying to not kill my plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

If you are a caregiver, then you should only be providing medicine to your patients. If you are growing over on purpose, than you are for profit, that's the bottom line.

I will readily admit that at harvest time, most growers could easily be out of compliance. But unless your door gets busted down at that moment, it's pretty much a non-issue right?

I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree like you are, I'm just saying is it worth the trouble to get pissed over? Keep your 5 patients, don't flower more than 3 plants, and watch your yield if your crop is large.

---

Non issue? For who? What if?

LOL yeah you're right, who cares if the government keeps taking our freedoms. [/sarcasm]
Hell yes it's worth getting pissed over. I'm an American its my job to keep the government in check. Anymore people with your point of view and we'll be living in China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver

If all they wanted was taxes then they would have just required CAREGIVERS to pay taxes and regulated caregivers, not created a new entity the MMC.

Compitition? LOL To me it seems that's what Matt Cook and his buddies are trying to get rid of. I have nothing against compitition but why do I need to have +/- 50K to compete? To me it sounds like they are the ones afraid of compitition. Hence the put the caregiver out of business strategy.

---

They did require caregivers to pay taxes, because the old system didn't work. There weren't enough honest for-profit caregivers. There were too many barkowitz's operating and not paying taxes.

This has nothing to do with competition, and nothing to do with marijuana. It has everything to do with revenue generation for the state. Show me otherwise. You think mattcook cares about MMC's? He doesn't. His job is to generate revenue for the state of Colorado, and 1284/109 go a long way to create that revenue. I still don't understand why you don't think this is a tax issue.

If you take the license fee away, then MMC's are caregivers, right? So, can't we assume that the purpose of 1284/109 is revenue generation? Does it really change anything for patients? Not really, but it changes things for the growers who didn't pay taxes. That's my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver

Non issue? For who? What if?

LOL yeah you're right, who cares if the government keeps taking our freedoms. [/sarcasm]
Hell yes it's worth getting pissed over. I'm an American its my job to keep the government in check. Anymore people with your point of view and we'll be living in China.

---

I'm saying it is what it is, nothing we can do now but vote and deal with it, educate those among us who aren't educated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

They did require caregivers to pay taxes, because the old system didn't work. There weren't enough honest for-profit caregivers. There were too many barkowitz's operating and not paying taxes.

This has nothing to do with competition, and nothing to do with marijuana. It has everything to do with revenue generation for the state. Show me otherwise. You think mattcook cares about MMC's? He doesn't. His job is to generate revenue for the state of Colorado, and 1284/109 go a long way to create that revenue. I still don't understand why you don't think this is a tax issue.
If you take the license fee away, then MMC's are caregivers, right? So, can't we assume that the purpose of 1284/109 is revenue generation? Does it really change anything for patients? Not really, but it changes things for the growers who didn't pay taxes. That's my point.

---

No If you take the license fee away they are illegal growers. Look at the new aps. They have a section to assign a caregiver and a seperate section to assign a MMC. The purpose of 1284/109 was not revenue generation. Yes, you can try to spin it that way but if all they wanted was the tax money they would have just cracked down on regulating caregivers not created MMC's.

I think revenue generation was probably a major reason for this new legislation. Another reason was to give local authorities guidelines for regulating MMCs in their communities. Consumer protection, health and safety concerns, concern about fraud, and the public perception of the industry as "out of control" also contributed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

They did require caregivers to pay taxes, because the old system didn't work. There weren't enough honest for-profit caregivers. There were too many barkowitz's operating and not paying taxes.

This has nothing to do with competition, and nothing to do with marijuana. It has everything to do with revenue generation for the state. Show me otherwise. You think mattcook cares about MMC's? He doesn't. His job is to generate revenue for the state of Colorado, and 1284/109 go a long way to create that revenue. I still don't understand why you don't think this is a tax issue.

If you take the license fee away, then MMC's are caregivers, right? So, can't we assume that the purpose of 1284/109 is revenue generation? Does it really change anything for patients? Not really, but it changes things for the growers who didn't pay taxes. That's my point.

---

During the 1284 fiasco I spoke to Romer for over an hour and presented a plan to him about issuing ID cards with barcodes to caregivers and any dispensary transaction would require the card be swiped and the transaction would be recorded, that way they could keep track of all meds coming in and the caregiver would pay taxes. I explained the state would make a lot more taxing 10,000 growers than a few hundred dispensaries, not to mention keeping more people employed and more money being pumped into the economy. He flat out told me he wasnt interested in any plan that included caregivers surviving and his intent is to put them out of business.

I don't know why you constantly defend the actions of these tyrants but I can only surmise that you are out of touch with the reality of the situation or you have an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I think revenue generation was probably a major reason for this new legislation. Another reason was to give local authorities guidelines for regulating MMCs in their communities. Consumer protection, health and safety concerns, concern about fraud, and the public perception of the industry as "out of control" also contributed.

---

So you dont think they could have made more money & took care of public concerns if they required a caregiver over x ammount of patients to be licensed through the state and move into a commercial zone?

[edit] Or the example from ZedLeppelin above would probably work even better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

During the 1284 fiasco I spoke to Romer for over an hour and presented a plan to him about issuing ID cards with barcodes to caregivers and any dispensary transaction would require the card be swiped and the transaction would be recorded, that way they could keep track of all meds coming in and the caregiver would pay taxes. I explained the state would make a lot more taxing 10,000 growers than a few hundred dispensaries, not to mention keeping more people employed and more money being pumped into the economy. He flat out told me he wasnt interested in any plan that included caregivers surviving and his intent is to put them out of business.

I don't know why you constantly defend the actions of these tyrants but I can only surmise that you are out of touch with the reality of the situation or you have an agenda.

---

I'm not defending them, and I feel that's important to point out. 1284/109 limit my access to medicine, and I don't like that. I will likely be in a better position to grow in 6 months to a year, and I don't like the idea of keeping track of plant counts, wondering when my cuttings are considered plants etc. Please don't say that I am defending 'these tyrants'. I'm not out of touch either, please explain yourself if you're going to criticize me. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver

So you dont think they could have made more money & took care of public concerns if they required a caregiver over x ammount of patients to be licensed through the state and move into a commercial zone?

[edit] Or the example from ZedLeppelin above would probably work even better

---

It seems like you are saying that this industry needed reform, but the reform we got wasn't the right kind. I would agree to that I guess. That doesn't change that it's still on the books moving forward.

You (the proverbial one) seem to criticize dispensaries/MMC's and those who were willing to pay to play and actually get recognized as a legit business under the eyes of Colorado law, regardless of what's going on at the federal level.

Grandma and Mom and Dad and the general voting public saw the barkowitz arrest, they saw the undercover stories on how easy it is to obtain a card etc, and they called their legislators. It's my opinion that this legislation was created to reform the industry, and put the state in a better position to collect the revenue it was 'missing out' on. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for the language that this legislation carries, but I'm just sharing my opinion, and people are happy to point out if my logic is flawed.

I will absolutely agree with you that this legislation sucks, but it's just weird to me that you seem to be blaming large scale bankrolled MMC's for this legislation, and I fail to see the connection between those large MMC's (or whoever you seem to hate) and the 5 patient cap, for instance. I have yet to see any MMC's taking the position that they are 'in favor' of it. If you use the logic that since they don't have a cap then they are responsible for those who are affected by the cap, then I counter that they paid for that right, what did caregivers do? I don't feel that growing for profit, and not paying taxes, is a fundamental 'right', and a patient. I don't mind that there are rules and regulations in place. I vote, and I regularly contact my elected officials (and the unelected ones) if I have an issue on something. I can't do much more than that. Complaining on an internet forum is useless, instead we should be discussing how we can remain compliant moving forward. Calling this new legislation 'bad' doesn't change it, let's work on dealing with it until it changes.

Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

It seems like you are saying that this industry needed reform, but the reform we got wasn't the right kind. I would agree to that I guess. That doesn't change that it's still on the books moving forward.

---

First off let me say that I'm done trying to respond to your long posts without breaking them up into manageable sections.
Im saying if they were going to reform it they could have included the caregivers, who the people of Colorado voted in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

You (the proverbial one) seem to criticize dispensaries/MMC's and those who were willing to pay to play and actually get recognized as a legit business under the eyes of Colorado law, regardless of what's going on at the federal level.

I will absolutely agree with you that this legislation sucks, but it's just weird to me that you seem to be blaming large scale bankrolled MMC's for this legislation, and I fail to see the connection between those large MMC's (or whoever you seem to hate) and the 5 patient cap, for instance. I have yet to see any MMC's taking the position that they are 'in favor' of it. If you use the logic that since they don't have a cap then they are responsible for those who are affected by the cap, then I counter that they paid for that right, what did caregivers do? I don't feel that growing for profit, and not paying taxes, is a fundamental 'right', and a patient. I don't mind that there are rules and regulations in place. I vote, and I regularly contact my elected officials (and the unelected ones) if I have an issue on something. I can't do much more than that. Complaining on an internet forum is useless, instead we should be discussing how we can remain compliant moving forward. Calling this new legislation 'bad' doesn't change it, let's work on dealing with it until it changes.

Or something.

---

If you can't see the typical politics as usual I don't know what to tell you other than WAKE UP!!!!
Thats because I'm sure "large scale bankrolled MMC's" lobbied money to our wonderful politicians to have the law crafted this way or some politicians have intrests in this somehow.
Why would they come out and say that they agree with the caregiver 5 patient cap? What would be the benifit of that?
There is a reason they are tryoing their best to put caregivers out of business. What would you say that reason is?