HB10-1284-So growers......what just happened?

I'm hearing a one year statewide moratorium with the caveat that an existing grower must now be affiliated with a dispensary....only one dispensary, whereas, a dispensary can contract with many growers.

I'm hearing this from a third party who I consider to be a good source of info. If this is true, it certainly restricts the options of growers. I'm thinking it will also drive down prices, which will in turn, reduce the amount of money that growers are willing to invest in the pricier systems and nutrients. It will be interesting to see how this sorts itself out and what it does to the price/quality equation and to those businesses downstream who support this industry.

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

The bill is at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_eng.pdf

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

---

If the rest must be purchased from another dispensary, then wouldn't the independent grower need to lose his/her independence and be growing for some dispensary or another in order to remain a grower......either that or get licensed as a dispensary?

Quote:

---

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

---

Interesting how they pass laws that are puntitive and senseless in the context of this particular issue.

Quote:

---

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

---

Cost of cultivation......overhead as defined by actual grow expenditure, including fixed infrastructure costs like greenhouses and security systems and ongoing overhead items like fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides and utilities? Caregiving services.....my time and expertise?? Sounds to me like they will need to audit each caregiver monthly.

Quote:

---

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

---

You mean those same dispensaries who want to ........... oops.....sorry.....better not piss 'em off now. ;)

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

Quote:

---

Granted, I have no law degree but this morning I sat down and read all 49 pages of HP1284. I felt it was necessary for me to read it myself so that I do not fall into that Fox news mentality of thinking and just believe what others have told me. I read a article that lists Matt Brown's take on what is fact and fiction about this bill, and I also read Releaf's comments about the misinformation from CTI, so it was time to read it myself and then ask specific questions. I ask you the community what your take is on some of this.

I am far from being fluent in legalese so that might contribute to my concern on some of these item. These first few are about licenses for businesses not patients.

My question here is this. Is it only criminal history that defines moral character? I sure hope our politicians do not make that determinations.
16 12-43.3-307. Persons prohibited as licensees. (1) (a) A LICENSE
19 (II) A PERSON WHOSE CRIMINAL HISTORY INDICATES THAT HE OR
20 SHE IS NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER;
21 (III) A CORPORATION, ANY OF WHOSE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR
22 STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER;
23 (IV) A LICENSED PHYSICIAN MAKING PATIENT
24 RECOMMENDATIONS;
25 (V) A PERSON EMPLOYING, ASSISTED BY, OR FINANCED IN WHOLE
26 OR IN PART BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHOSE CRIMINAL HISTORY INDICATES
27 HE OR SHE IS NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION SATISFACTORY
28 TO THE RESPECTIVE LICENSING AUTHORITY;

30 (VII) A PERSON LICENSED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE WHO,
31 DURING A PERIOD OF LICENSURE, FAILS TO
This I believe is a $5000 surety bond:
(A) PROVIDE 1 A SURETY BOND OR FAILS TO FILE ANY TAX RETURN
2 WITH A TAXING AGENCY;
3 (B) PAY ANY TAXES, INTEREST, OR PENALTIES DUE;
4 (C) PAY ANY JUDGMENTS DUE TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY;
Better pay student Loans
5 (D) REPAY GOVERNMENT-INSURED STUDENT LOANS; OR
6 (E) PAY CHILD SUPPORT;

Could not help but notice that Misdemeanor here:
7 (IX) A PERSON WHO HAS DISCHARGED A SENTENCE IN THE FIVE
8 YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE APPLICATION DATE FOR A
9 CONVICTION OF A FELONY OR A MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO ANY STATE
10 OR FEDERAL LAW REGULATING THE POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF
11 MARIJUANA OR OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
12 18-18-102 (5), C.R.S.;

I am sure this provision will create issues. It hurts the small grower. The growers who have pride in their small grows. I think many dispensaries are business people not growers:
6 (4) NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (3) OF
7 THIS SECTION, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSEE MAY PURCHASE NOT
8 MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL ON-HAND INVENTORY OF
9 MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM ANOTHER LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
10 CENTER IN COLORADO. A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER MAY SELL NO
11 MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL ON-HAND INVENTORY TO
12 ANOTHER COLORADO LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSEE.

Now this is a real concern. By saying that the licensee to furnish information as IT considers necessary for a proper audit must be more specific. My medical records may be among those records need to determine legal transactions. Am I protected?

7 12-43.3-701. Inspection procedures. (1) EACH LICENSEE SHALL
8 KEEP A COMPLETE SET OF ALL RECORDS NECESSARY TO SHOW FULLY THE
9 BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE LICENSEE, ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE OPEN
10 AT ALL TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS FOR THE INSPECTION AND
11 EXAMINATION OF THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY OR ITS DULY
12 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY
13 REQUIRE ANY LICENSEE TO FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS IT CONSIDERS
14 NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ARTICLE AND MAY
15 REQUIRE AN AUDIT TO BE MADE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS
16 ON SUCH OCCASIONS AS IT MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY BY AN AUDITOR TO
17 BE SELECTED BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL LIKEWISE
18 HAVE ACCESS TO ALL BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE LICENSEE, AND THE
19 EXPENSE THEREOF SHALL BE PAID BY THE LICENSEE.
20 (2) THE LICENSED PREMISES, INCLUDING ANY PLACES OF STORAGE
21 WHERE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS GROWN, STORED, CULTIVATED, SOLD, OR
22 DISPENSED, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE STATE OR LOCAL
23 LICENSING AUTHORITIES AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS, DURING ALL
24 BUSINESS HOURS AND OTHER TIMES OF APPARENT ACTIVITY, FOR THE
25 PURPOSE OF INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION. FOR EXAMINATION OF ANY
26 INVENTORY OR BOOKS AND RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY THE
27 LICENSEES, ACCESS SHALL BE REQUIRED DURING BUSINESS HOURS. WHERE
28 ANY PART OF THE LICENSED PREMISES CONSISTS OF A LOCKED AREA, UPON
29 DEMAND TO THE LICENSEE, SUCH AREA SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
30 INSPECTION WITHOUT DELAY, AND, UPON REQUEST BY AUTHORIZED
31 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OR LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE
32 LICENSEE SHALL OPEN THE AREA FOR INSPECTION.

Under unlawful exceptions is another issue. Again how are patients in public housing or in situations where consumption is difficult or impossible at their own home.

8 12-43.3-901. Unlawful acts - exceptions. (1) EXCEPT AS
9 OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON:
10 (a) TO CONSUME MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN A LICENSED MEDICAL
11 MARIJUANA CENTER, AND IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A MEDICAL
12 MARIJUANA LICENSEE TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO BE CONSUMED
13 UPON ITS LICENSED PREMISES; EXCEPT THAT EDIBLE MEDICAL
14 MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS MAY BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES
15 PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-43.3-402 (2)

9 (c) TO PROVIDE PUBLIC PREMISES, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, FOR
10 THE PURPOSE OF CONSUMPTION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN ANY FORM;
11 EXCEPT THAT EDIBLE MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS MAY BE
12 CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-43.3-402 (2)

So much is wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. Why should it be illegal for a caregiver to assist in caring for their patient? Heave forbid that people actually work together to give better service to their patients.

7 (5) Primary caregivers. (a) A PRIMARY CAREGIVER MAY NOT
8 DELEGATE TO ANY OTHER PERSON HIS OR HER AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE
9 MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A PATIENT NOR MAY A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
10 ENGAGE OTHERS TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A
11 PATIENT.
12 (b) TWO OR MORE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS SHALL NOT JOIN
13 TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

I guess this is to stop family grows:
12 (c) A PATIENT WHO HAS DESIGNATED A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR
13 HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY NOT BE DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 FOR ANOTHER PATIENT.

Does this really state that the State Health Agency can deny or revoke my card because of a physician's violation? Who determines when and if these violations occur?

3 (b) THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY DENY A PATIENT'S OR
4 PRIMARY CAREGIVER'S APPLICATION FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION
5 CARD OR REVOKE THE CARD IF THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY, IN
6 ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24,C.R.S., DETERMINES THAT THE
7 PHYSICIAN WHO DIAGNOSED THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL
8 CONDITION, THE PATIENT, OR THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER VIOLATED SECTION
9 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THIS SECTION, OR THE
10 RULES PROMULGATED BY THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY PURSUANT TO THIS
11 SECTION; EXCEPT THAT A PATIENT'S APPLICATION OR REGISTRY
12 IDENTIFICATION CARD MAY ONLY BE DENIED OR REVOKED BASED ON A
13 PHYSICIAN'S VIOLATION THAT IS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A MEDICAL
14 MARIJUANA RECOMMENDATION.

Well sorry to be so long winded. Hopefully some of you can add to the discussion. I really doubt any of this can possibly get off the ground, after all I have been waiting for my card since they received my recommendation on November 8, 2009. If they can not even get cards out in a timely manner I fail to see how they can get something this complicated going at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenster

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

---

It may well be off the ground whether it is really capable of achieving level flight or not. Looks like the administration of this program is going to be handled by the department of revenue rather than the CDPHE.

Compassionate right brained caregiver.......meet the left brained bean counters. The time and expense it will entail just keeping up with this will necessitate a full time accountant and attorney. That's not necessarily a bad thing as most businesses have them, but for smaller operations it's going to be a tough transition and will likely drive them underground or out of business. In the meantime, it's time to start collecting horseshit for nutes. The money you used to be able to spend on boutique items may be needed for other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

The bill is at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_eng.pdf

---

I could not agree more with this Statement "This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients." I have been saying this and many times screaming it to ever would listen. Wake up people we have to defeat this bill, don't leave it to the other guy, because that "other guy" is busy selling us all out!:mad:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GratefulMeds

I could not agree more with this Statement "This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients." I have been saying this and many times screaming it to ever would listen. Wake up people we have to defeat this bill, don't leave it to the other guy, because that "other guy" is busy selling us all out!:mad:

---

same here,they want to make it legal and illegal at the same time.only the big guy gets a chance all the small guys they want to go back underground so they can bust them.ohh looky what we have here mr leo guy says when the bill opens all records to them.look now we have a list lets go fuck with these small timers cause now we know who is in and who is out.and we know there not just going to stop doing their passion in life.....to them it will be best of both worlds the leo dept still get to fuck with people and the state can make up any fee and tax they want to rape everyone with.it's a win win for them lose lose for mmj.

people that are for this bill makes me wonder who's side they really are on....

Rob Corry » Blog Archive » Scorched Earth Victory: Senator Romer Pulls Crushing Regulations

Maybe Romer is suffering from a little short term memory loss...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenster

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

---

another problem i see with these types of bills are.1 looks like they are trying to push the growers into contracts with the shops like i said b4 trying to push the lil guy out of the loop.some might think this is great and all but think of this. say said shop is'nt doing things above board things the grower has no part of and said shop gets busted.guess what so will the contract grower as they"leo"will say it is all linked together since the grower is forced to be part of the bizz.that means if shop gets raided so does the grower.:wtf:

I do not want to sound inflamatory but I sincerely feel that Matt Brown is not looking out for the best interest of the majority of the MMJ community. Its a shame and I fear unless we the community do not start becoming more involved we will be sorry.

It was not easy to sit and read 49 pages of this bill, but after reading Matt Brown 's fact and fiction about the bill, I felt compelled to check for myself. I found his fact vs fiction mostly accurate but it seemed to leave out alot of other major concerns.

There is so much wrong with this bill. They do not want to allow a community to impose an excise tax on MMJ because they said that they did not want to increase the cost to patients. I fail to see how all of this infrastructure can not translate to higher prices for all of us.

When it comes to dispensaries I still feel the patients will controll which places of business will succeed or fail. We do not need regulation. If a business fits a niche it will make it. The fact is this bill will hurt those of us that are trying to grow a little to defray costs of our medicine. I have 5 family members that are patients and with this new bill we would not be able to combine our grows and our resources. Right now I can sell a little of my crops here and there to a dispensary to help defray costs. This allows us to have some more variety in the strains we try. If we really like it we attempt to get a clone or seed of that strain. This will not longer be an option.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenster

I do not want to sound inflamatory but I sincerely feel that Matt Brown is not looking out for the best interest of the majority of the MMJ community. Its a shame and I fear unless we the community do not start becoming more involved we will be sorry.

It was not easy to sit and read 49 pages of this bill, but after reading Matt Brown 's fact and fiction about the bill, I felt compelled to check for myself. I found his fact vs fiction mostly accurate but it seemed to leave out alot of other major concerns.

There is so much wrong with this bill. They do not want to allow a community to impose an excise tax on MMJ because they said that they did not want to increase the cost to patients. I fail to see how all of this infrastructure can not translate to higher prices for all of us.

When it comes to dispensaries I still feel the patients will controll which places of business will succeed or fail. We do not need regulation. If a business fits a niche it will make it. The fact is this bill will hurt those of us that are trying to grow a little to defray costs of our medicine.

---

While reading this bill last night, my thoughts were drawn from the actual content of this mess to wondering HTF a bunch of legislators who are purportedly educated individuals (and supposedly in charge of our collective well being as a society) could possibly come up with such a tortured excuse for a total clusterfuck. I don't have time to specifically enumerate said clusterfucks at the moment, but they are so prevalent and there is so much contradiction and so many things nebulously addressed that it's amazing to me. Our educational system seems to have done our legislators a great disservice.

Hopefully this POS will be shitcanned as being unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

I have 5 family members that are patients and with this new bill we would not be able to combine our grows and our resources. Right now I can sell a little of my crops here and there to a dispensary to help defray costs. This allows us to have some more variety in the strains we try. If we really like it we attempt to get a clone or seed of that strain. This will not longer be an option.

---

This is how I got into it. I've got over 20 patients now. I know them all very well. They are my patients because they like what I do. My overage covers some pretty massive overhead....(try cranking 30 x 1000W HID's through a winter grow season some time). They are already calling me up with the "WTF is going on?" questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenster

I do not want to sound inflamatory but I sincerely feel that Matt Brown is not looking out for the best interest of the majority of the MMJ community. Its a shame and I fear unless we the community do not start becoming more involved we will be sorry.

It was not easy to sit and read 49 pages of this bill, but after reading Matt Brown 's fact and fiction about the bill, I felt compelled to check for myself."

---

These guys have been selling us out from the beginning "good ole Mat & Josh" selling out all the people that have been doing this for years, and have paid there dues in a unjust Drug War. Selling out the small guy that just wants a chance like anybody else. Selling out the small mom & pop dispensaries. For Shame!


[/QUOTE]
"When it comes to dispensaries I still feel the patients will controll which places of business will succeed or fail. We do not need regulation. If a business fits a niche it will make it. The fact is this bill will hurt those of us that are trying to grow a little to defray costs of our medicine. I have 5 family members that are patients and with this new bill we would not be able to combine our grows and our resources. Right now I can sell a little of my crops here and there to a dispensary to help defray costs. This allows us to have some more variety in the strains we try. If we really like it we attempt to get a clone or seed of that strain. This will not longer be an option.[/QUOTE]

Some regulation is going to happen, but it shouldn't happen at the cost of the patients, small growers & small dispensary models. If they go this route your choices of quality strains will be limited unless you want to go back to your underground grower. Which by the way I feel this is all about to keep the Criminal Justice Big Business Machine going. Law enforcement is scared of loosing their slush funds being filled by busting growers and dealers. Which they will amplify but forcing many of us back underground. Kill this Bill!:mad:

Totally agree about Matt Brown, he is and has been nothing more than a lackey for the big dispensaries.

As far as contracting for the dispensaries, I keep hearing this over and over yet everything I read in the bill suggests otherwise, can anyone shed some light on this?

BTW, the co-author of Amendment 20, Warren Edson, has been posting on another forum in support of this bill. :wtf:

It appears to me that the legislation is a setup for the longterm that will cater to the " Big Boys " that have the cash to back this crap. The days of the mom and pops will be ending but probably only in the metro communities where the big money is, so hopefully all the mom and pops that really have a patients well being in their interest will continue on in the small quaint mountain communities and the true patients can still rely upon them and they will thrive with our support. It's only a matter of time ( say 6 years ) as the bill is set for " sunset " in five years. That will allow the big boys ( tobacco ? ) to get their plan in place, get their grows going and bam, then we have " super store " style dispensaries. Good luck guys, stay small and out of the metro and hopefully your patient relationship will carry you forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Totally agree about Matt Brown, he is and has been nothing more than a lackey for the big dispensaries.

As far as contracting for the dispensaries, I keep hearing this over and over yet everything I read in the bill suggests otherwise, can anyone shed some light on this?

BTW, the co-author of Amendment 20, Warren Edson, has been posting on another forum in support of this bill. :wtf:

---

it's very simple if this bill stops shops from buying from growers when and how they want/need to thats where becoming part of their shop comes in.it says in the bill that shops will have to supply i think it said somewhere around 70+ % of their own meds.that leaves 30% to the small guy.which is not very much.so in order to deal with the shop more than that you would have to be like a sub of sorts under the shops umbrella.which btw opens you up to all kinds of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palerider7777

it's very simple if this bill stops shops from buying from growers when and how they want/need to thats where becoming part of their shop comes in.it says in the bill that shops will have to supply i think it said somewhere around 70+ % of their own meds.that leaves 30% to the small guy.which is not very much.so in order to deal with the shop more than that you would have to be like a sub of sorts under the shops umbrella.which btw opens you up to all kinds of shit.

---

the other 30% can only be bought by other centers, this cuts the small growers out completely and why is Warren supporting this? Because he is getting very well paid to support it "Mat, Josh & Friends" are making sure of that.:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palerider7777

it's very simple if this bill stops shops from buying from growers when and how they want/need to thats where becoming part of their shop comes in.it says in the bill that shops will have to supply i think it said somewhere around 70+ % of their own meds.that leaves 30% to the small guy.which is not very much.so in order to deal with the shop more than that you would have to be like a sub of sorts under the shops umbrella.which btw opens you up to all kinds of shit.

---

One of my patients just called to ask me if I was setting up my own dispensary since, according to his interpretation of the bill, a patient has to designate a dispensary and once this is done, he cannot shop at any other dispensary. I must have missed this one. Most of my product that is not distributed to my patients is purchased by one dispensary these days anyway and I will be this dispensary's designated grower under the new law but I want my patients to have as many choices as possible...not limit them to just the particular dispensary that is offering my product.

I don't have time to scour the bill right now to verify. Can anyone here who has read the bill verify this?
:wtf:

This is sickening, and the way I see it I have two options, move the hell out of here when they cut the real medical growers out, or stay and try to fight it with everyone else while hardly being able to pay the bills. If this shit passes here it's only a matter of time before they start taking the rights away from other medical states. I really believe it needs to stop here in Colorado. The people are not raising enough hell, they are informed poorly and don't even know the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Caregivers and patients need more lawyers and lobbyists. We need to screw the big dispensaries that are screwing us.

I'll never support them with my money, and I'm willing to bet most caregivers will never support them, it's the patients that need to be informed. Man I hope Romer and all of the others associated with these bills are voted out of office! It will only get better when these douchebags realize they'll lose their job if they go against the people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colodonmed

It appears to me that the legislation is a setup for the longterm that will cater to the " Big Boys " that have the cash to back this crap. The days of the mom and pops will be ending but probably only in the metro communities where the big money is, so hopefully all the mom and pops that really have a patients well being in their interest will continue on in the small quaint mountain communities and the true patients can still rely upon them and they will thrive with our support. It's only a matter of time ( say 6 years ) as the bill is set for " sunset " in five years. That will allow the big boys ( tobacco ? ) to get their plan in place, get their grows going and bam, then we have " super store " style dispensaries. Good luck guys, stay small and out of the metro and hopefully your patient relationship will carry you forward

---

This is going to drive this emerging industry underground.....the exact opposite effect that would seemingly be intended were we to have sane people drawing up legislation.

I'm already burrowing so fast my arms hurt. Note the avatar. Any body need some glasses?

Quote:

---

One of my patients just called to ask me if I was setting up my own dispensary since, according to his interpretation of the bill, a patient has to designate a dispensary and once this is done, he cannot shop at any other dispensary. I must have missed this one. Most of my product that is not distributed to my patients is purchased by one dispensary these days anyway and I will be this dispensary's designated grower under the new law but I want my patients to have as many choices as possible...not limit them to just the particular dispensary that is offering my product.

I don't have time to scour the bill right now to verify. Can anyone here who has read the bill verify this

---

puntacometa,

I tried to cut and paste the info you are looking for but it would not allow me to do it. but the info you are looking for is on pages 52-57. Specifically page 57 line 8-16. I hope this helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by milehighmediman

puntacometa,

I tried to cut and paste the info you are looking for but it would not allow me to do it. but the info you are looking for is on pages 52-57. Specifically page 57 line 8-16. I hope this helps.

---

Thanks for taking the time. So basically, this will track how "big" a dispensary is getting in order to flag them for special scrutiny.

PLEASE PLAN TO BE AT THE CAPITOL TUESDAY! BELOW IS A LIST OF CONTACT INFO FOR THE SENATE COMMITTEE.

Please read completely through to the bottom of this email.

CALL EVERYONE, SEND TO YOUR EMAIL LIST, WE NEED TO GATHER A CROWD THAT SENDS A MESSAGE TO THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS!!! THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR.....THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE, AND IT WILL BE TIME TO VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER!!! STARTING WITH ROMER AND MASSEY!!!

DO NOT PUT YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND, EVERYONE IS NEEDED TO STOP THIS BILL.........

WE NEED TO RATTLE THEIR CAGE!!!

IT IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO TESTIFY!!! ARRANGE CARPOOLING, WEAR GREEN, OPPOSING SIGNS ARE OK UNTIL THE SENATE CHAMBERS.

PLEASE MAKE THIS YOUR MISSION FOR MONDAY TO CALL THEIR OFFICES. WRITE EMAILS THIS WEEKEND. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT SENT EMAILS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CHANGE IT TO ADDRESS THE SENATORS!!!

RING THE PHONES, FAX, EMAIL..........FLOOD THE CAPITOL AGAINST THIS MONOPOLISTIC OUTRAGEOUS, WALK ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION BILL. ROMER DOESN'T SEEM TO THINK THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS, THE LAW MAKERS (THAT EVERYONE VOTED FOR) SAY THEY CAN REGULATE AROUND THE CONSTITUTION.

THIS IS THE FINAL TIME FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST HB10-1284

THEY REDUCED THE CAREGIVERS TO 5 PATIENTS. ROMER IS SAYING THE
FEE FOR A DISPENSARY AND GROW OPERATION WILL BE AT LEAST $50,000.00
STARTING 7-1-2011 (SEE YOUTUBE CLIP) YouTube - Senator Chris Romer! Marijuana! Auditors! Guns! Best Friends!!!!

A STATEWIDE MORATORIUM WILL BE PUT IN PLACE STARTING 7-1-2010
NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO OPEN A DISPENSARY ANYWHERE IN THE STATE FOR 1 YEAR.

DURING THIS TIME THE REVENUE DEPT. WILL FIGURE OUT HOW MANY ARMED AUDITORS
THAT THEY WILL BE IN DISPENSARIES, GROW OPERATIONS AND CAREGIVER LOCATIONS EVERY 5-7 DAYS!!!

THIS INDUSTRY HAS NOT PROVEN THAT IT MUST HAVE "MILITIA GESTAPO ENFORCEMENT"

SEE YOUTUBE CLIP below:

YouTube - Senator Chris Romer! Marijuana! Auditors! Guns! Best Friends!!!!




Subject: Josh Stanley's testimony 3-04-10

click on link and slide it to 2 minutes 45 seconds, he sets up what he is going to say.
He says it at the 3:40 mark. He's a snitch!!!
and an ass kisser to Romer and Massey!

He has also changed the name from Peace and Medicine to Healthy Bud and has opened 3 more
dispensaries. He's still a SNITCH!!! Whatever he wants to call his Dispensaries!!!

SPREAD THE WORD TO VENDORS

This will take the efforts of everyone!!!
Thank you for your efforts!

Sincerely,
Kimberly Matteo, N.D., M.H.
303-835-2743

Thank you Laura @ The Cannabis Therapy Institute for the following Important Information!!!





----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Cannabis Therapy Institute <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, April 23, 2010 9:07:28 PM
Subject: Senate Committee Hearing on HB1284 on Tuesday

Please copy and repost this announcement.

Medical Cannabis Day of Action

Senate Local Government Committee
Hearing on HB1284
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 80201

11am-12pm: Grassroots Lobbying Tours of the Capitol
Grassroots lobbying tours led by community organizers from Mile High NORML
and the Colorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers will leave from the
Cafeteria in the Basement at 11am and 12 noon. This will be an opportunity
to lobby senators before the hearing begins. See Mile High NORML's
grassroots lobbying demonstration video:
YouTube - Cannabis Activist Grassroots Lobbying Tour Lead by Miguel Lopez, Mile High NORML

2:00 pm: Hearing on HB1284
Senate Local Government Committee
Old Supreme Court Chambers
Second Floor, North End, State Capitol Building
The south entrance is handicapped accessible.

*** Please arrive early to sign up to testify. ***

Sign-up inside the Old Supreme Court Chambers
Attire: Dress to Impress
Provisions: Bring food and water, as the hearing may last a while.

ACTION ALERT: HEARING ON HB1284
This is your *last chance* to give public testimony on House Bill 1284, a
bill designed to destroy the current medical marijuana program in Colorado.

We are also urging you to CALL and EMAIL the Senate Local Government
Committee Members (see below.)

HB1284 is now a 72-page monstrosity that allows the Department of Revenue
to control the licensing and all standards of medical marijuana "centers."
On April 22, the bill passed the full House by a vote of 39 to 23. The bill
requires a dispensary to get a state license, a local license and a
cultivation license. A state license might cost up to $50,000, according to
Senator Chris Romer, one of the bill's sponsors. Most dispensaries will not
be able to comply with the requirement to cultivate 70% of their medicine
onsite.

HB1284 creates Medical Marijuana Enforcement Investigators, who could
investigate the center any time it is open, or appears to be open. They do
not need a search warrant, but they would have police powers to enforce all
Colorado laws. Senator Romer has said that dispensaries could expect an
auditor to be at their clinic every 5 to 7 days.
YouTube - Senator Chris Romer! Marijuana! Auditors! Guns! Best Friends!!!!

HB1284 is fraught with problems. CTI proposes that the state instead set up
a commission to study the issue and introduce a sensible bill next year, to
make sure this complicated issue gets addressed properly.

HB1284 now moves on to a public hearing in the Senate Local Government
Committee, scheduled for Tuesday, April 27.

*This will be the last opportunity to give public testimony on the bill*

*CAREGIVERS TAKE ACTION*
Caregivers are urged to rally their patients to attend this hearing at the
Capitol. Forward this action alert to your email list and post it on your
website.

*LISTEN ONLINE*
You listen online to the Old Supreme Court Chambers.
ColoradoChannel.net Homepage

*ANALYSES*
Click here to read a more detailed analysis of HB1284 from two attorneys.

Attorney Danyel Joffe's Action Alerts on HB1284
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute....l.joffe.13.pdf
Medical Marijuana

Attorney Lauren Davis' Action Alert on HB1284
Cannabis Therapy Institutue - Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) Research, Education and Advocacy in Colorado

Click here to read the latest version of HB1284 from the General Assembly
webpage:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_ren.pdf

*CALL AND EMAIL*

URGENT - URGENT - URGENT

Contact these Committee members by phone and email. Be *polite* and
professional. Ask them to vote No on HB1284 and instead form a Commission
of patients, caregivers, lawmakers and law enforcement that will draft a
bill that will work, instead of pushing through a 72-page regulatory
nightmare that will force all but the richest dispensaries out of business.

*Senate Local Government Committee Members*

Sen. Gail Schwartz (D-Snowmass), Chair
District 5 (Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale,
Mineral, Pitkin, Rio Grande and Saguache Counties)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4871
E-mail: [email protected]

Sen. Joyce Foster (D), Vice-Chair
District 35 (Arapahoe and Denver Counties)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4875
E-Mail: [email protected]

Sen. Bill Cadman (R)
District 10 (El Paso County)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-2737
E-mail: [email protected]

Sen. Mary Hodge (D)
District 25 (Adams County)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4855
E-Mail: [email protected]

Sen. Ken Kester (R)
District 2 (Baca, Bent, Crowley, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas,
Otero and Pueblo Counties)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4877
E-Mail: [email protected]

Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R)
District 15 (Larimer County)
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol Phone: (303)866-4853
E-Mail: [email protected]

Sen. Linda Newell (D)
District 26 (Arapahoe and Jefferson County)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4846
E-mail: [email protected]

COPY AND PASTE EMAILS:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

Send us copies of any letters you send.

---
Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
P.O. Box 19084
Boulder, CO 80308
Phone: 877-420-4205
Web: Cannabis Therapy Institutue - Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) Research, Education and Advocacy in Colorado
Email: [email protected]

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters,
Unsubscribe from our Newsletters

To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit
Update your preferences

Forward a Message to Someone
Forward a Message to Someone

I also agree that Brown and CMMR are lobbying for the big boys. It is a shame. Just wait until they push to far and impale themselves.

Fox news mentality? Whomever wrote that just lost credibility with half of the audience by starting with a polarizing comment like that

I just emailed all the Senators a letter containing my concerns. I plan to call each of their offices Monday.

Just curious if other people are actually doing something.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COzigzag

I just emailed all the Senators a letter containing my concerns. I plan to call each of their offices Monday.

Just curious if other people are actually doing something.

:)

---

I emailed last week, but still need to call. I doubt theres many people actually doing something about it.

i have as well.:thumbsup:

Over the past year, medical marijuana has consumed Colorado's news headlines and political debates. But with an estimated 100,000 patients now legally authorized to use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions, a handful of lawmakers threaten to dismantle a transparent dispensary system in favor of constitutionally-suspect regulations that could embolden a now-distressed black market.

We remain cautiously optimistic that the cloud of Prohibition will continue to clear. Repeatedly, courts have sided with patients in litigation surrounding medical marijuana rights. Voters, too, continue to express support for an emerging medical marijuana marketplace where transactions occur in well-lit, safe, taxable, environments instead of darkened back alleys, as they did in the decades before Colorado voters first approved medical marijuana in 2000.

While opponents mock this thriving industry and impugn patients' motives, six in ten voters continue to support medical marijuana rights. Notably, pro-medical marijuana sentiment runs strong even in the most unanticipated of places. In nursing homes across Colorado, terminally-ill residents use marijuana as an alternative to the haze of highly addictive narcotics.

While the state's economy continues to flounder, legislators have spent hundreds of hours over the last four months formulating proposals that could dismantle the state's system of retail dispensaries. Sen. Chris Romer, a Denver Democrat also running for Mayor, proposes Senate Bill 109 and House Bill 1284. As he explained it recently, the legislation would establish an army of "auditors with guns" to meet his goal of putting "well over 50 percent" of Colorado's legal marijuana businesses "out of business."

The proposals come after Senator Romer previously posted on this site that his efforts to establish a complex regulatory structure for medical marijuana were "now over."

Even more concerning, a handful of our fellow Republicans have now signed onto a ballot measure that would prohibit caregivers from making any profit whatsoever. If approved by legislators, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 could appear on this November's ballot. It would ask voters to amend the Colorado Constitution to exclude retail sale or commercial cultivation of medical marijuana from constitutional protections, while also establishing overly cumbersome entitlements governing caregiver-patient relationships.

Patients will face an uphill battle and must band together to counter the special interests and establishment voices that seem to disfavor dispensaries. While Colorado's largest newspaper, The Denver Post, has established an excellent medical marijuana advertising section that has pumped much needed revenue into its coffers, ColoradoCannabisCorner.com, it uses its editorial page to bash dispensaries. A recent editorial argued that "dispensaries are never even mentioned in the medical marijuana constitutional amendment." Another Post editorial called legal retail medical marijuana a "farce" and "hypocrisy."

This assertion despite the Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14(2)(d)'s specific reference to "acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana." If "dispensing" marijuana is explicitly contemplated, then a dispensary must reasonably be considered legal.

Marijuana is the only legal industry in America that endures such brazen threats from elected and opinion elites. If a politician had said that he plans to put "well over 50 percent" of all, say, supermarkets, out of business, would he suffer from voters?

Colorado House Bill 1284 and Senate Bill 109 would realize Senator Romer's dream of putting "well over half" out of business with requirements that no other business sector need satisfy. For example, the current version of HB 1284 purports to allow local governments to ban the exercise of this constitutional right to the medical use of marijuana. This would subject constitutional rights to government approval, when the principal purpose of constitutional rights is to protect vulnerable or unpopular minorities against the majority. Popular things don't need constitutional protection; pitchfork-wielding mobs are not screeching to ban Mom and apple pie. Although medical marijuana remains popular statewide, there remain geographically-isolated pockets of irrational prejudice and NIMBY-ism relating to medical marijuana. Medical marijuana patients are the new despised minority; typical arguments recycle emotional Segregationist canards of "property values," "increased crime," and "we must protect the children," none of which have any empirical support.

HB 1284 requires the state to go, hat in hand, to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and request that the federal DEA "reschedule" marijuana from a Schedule I substance to a Schedule II substance. Lately here, the DEA's favorite pastime has been to laugh in Colorado's face when it comes to medical marijuana. However, in this instance, the DEA's inevitable laughter at Colorado's rescheduling request would be justified, since HB 1284 somehow ignores that it is the U.S. Congress, not the DEA, which sets the schedules for drugs. Before requesting the DEA to do something it cannot do, the Colorado Legislature should keep its own house in order, and reschedule marijuana away from Schedule I in its own State-level classification, Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-18-203.

HB 1284 requires that all officers, directors, stockholders, and employees be of "good moral character and reputation." What organization could comply with such a sweeping and vague requirement? Probably not even Focus on the Family, or the Colorado State Legislature for that matter. HB 1284 requires those in the medical marijuana business to repay all student loans and have no outstanding judgments due to any government agency, such as a parking ticket.

HB 1284 irrationally requires that retailers themselves cultivate no less than 70% of their supply offered to customers, and that no wholesalers can exist. If such a requirement applied to supermarkets, i.e., that the supermarket must grow 70% of the wheat for the bread on the shelves, and that every farmer growing the wheat must also be a retailer, it would put both farmer and supermarket out of business, stuck in an infinite loop of government "auditors with guns" tracking every last minutiae of the production chain.

HB 1284 also attempts to resurrect the notorious limit of five patients per caregiver, an unconstitutional limit which the Colorado Health Department illegally adopted and was enjoined by a court from enforcing. How can a caregiver function with any economies of scale if limited to five patients?

If these proposals become law and the government puts "well over half" of dispensaries out of business, would the production, sale, purchase, and use of marijuana end? Of course not. It would simply go back underground, back to unsafe darkened alleys, un-taxable, with no quality control.

And those who need it the most, the 75-year-old grandmother in a wheelchair, would suffer in the black market. Try as the government might to repeal the laws of supply and demand, marijuana will always be grown, sold, and consumed.

Let's hope legislators can understand even more basic economies of scale. With 100,000 voters now registered as patients and another couple million who believe strongly in medical marijuana rights, lawmakers should think twice before dismantling the dispensary industry.


Huffington Post

Rob Corry needs to do a little more fact checking. Congress set up the schedules and defined what each schedule means (and then didn't define what "abuse" means even tho a drug must have a propensity for "abuse" to be classified) but I digress -- it is the DEA who chooses which drug goes where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegetabongrips

Rob Corry needs to do a little more fact checking. Congress set up the schedules and defined what each schedule means (and then didn't define what "abuse" means even tho a drug must have a propensity for "abuse" to be classified) but I digress -- it is the DEA who chooses which drug goes where.

---

Uhhh....thats what Corry said:

'However, in this instance, the DEA's inevitable laughter at Colorado's rescheduling request would be justified, since HB 1284 somehow ignores that it is the U.S. Congress, not the DEA, which sets the schedules for drugs.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Uhhh....thats what Corry said:

'However, in this instance, the DEA's inevitable laughter at Colorado's rescheduling request would be justified, since HB 1284 somehow ignores that it is the U.S. Congress, not the DEA, which sets the schedules for drugs.'

---

Well, true, what he says is correct but he says it with a tone of "haha those stupid fscks will be going to the DEA to try to get marijuana reclassified but it's the congress which sets the schedules" which is a very wrong tone, and the overall message just ain't right either.

Okay, so yes congress sets the schedules.

However, they are NOT approaching the dea about changing the schedule, but about changing which schedule marijuana falls into.

Which...is the DEAs job.

The bill is sending them to the appropriate authority.

Can you say, "tilting at windmills?"