CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
More confusion for caregivers. Thank you HB 10-1284!
So, can a caregiver currently provide for more than 5 patients or NOT? I can't even imagine how long this rule-making hearing will take. All the caregivers I know have already dropped patients to get to their 5 limit. What a bunch of BS!
Colorado: Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry
The Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry
Care-givers
The Department is working to implement the provisions of H.B. 10-1284. That law contains a provision that limits a primary-caregiver to caring for no more than five patients unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Department plans to draft rules which will establish the criteria for "exceptional circumstances". Any proposed rules will first be taken to the Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, which is currently being created, for review and comment. A formal rule-making hearing before the state Board of Health is necessary to adopt such a standard. Until such time as the Board has adopted rules that establish the criteria for exceptional circumstances, it is the responsibility of the patient and his or her current primary care-giver to determine whether that primary care-giver will continue providing services to the patient.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
When it comes to compliance, sooner is always better.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Also, people can only present an affirmative defense if charged, so to prevent the initial charges, might as well follow the rules.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
When it comes to compliance, sooner is always better.
I agree...but!
I also know how much it cost to supply good meds to patients. For me personally, the money coming in is below the money going out. The 5-patient limit has really caused problems.
Caregivers will be forced to look at alternative revenue avenues or shut the operation down. This sentence simply opens up an avenue.
I can see where some caregivers could wildly increase patient count and use this sentence as justification.
This sentence is like having a child be 'responsible' for the cookie jar.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
Also, people can only present an affirmative defense if charged, so to prevent the initial charges, might as well follow the rules.
An affirmative defense is basically an excuse defense. Yes, I committed the crime and here is why...I have an CO MMJ license...The CO Constitution states I can do so...etc.
In this case, there is no 'crime' committed because there is no standard in place saying it is a crime.
HB 10-1284 states you can have more than 5 patients in exceptional circumstances. CDPHE is saying we have no standards to determine an exceptional circumstance so it's business as usual until the standards are set.
The CDPHE has not had a rule-making hearing on exceptional circumstances for having more than 5 patients.
The CDPHE is required to have a rule-making hearing before they can impose standards.
Since there are no standards in place, CDPHE is essentially telling caregivers/patients that they are responsible for determining if the caregiver/patient relationship will continue until such time as the standard is put in place.
They can't force a rule (standard) that doesn't exist yet. When will it exist...who knows?
Just another example of the cart before the horse.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by COzigzag
An affirmative defense is basically an excuse defense. Yes, I committed the crime and here is why...I have an CO MMJ license...The CO Constitution states I can do so...etc.
In this case, there is no 'crime' committed because there is no standard in place saying it is a crime.
HB 10-1284 states you can have more than 5 patients in exceptional circumstances. CDPHE is saying we have no standards to determine an exceptional circumstance so it's business as usual until the standards are set.
The CDPHE has not had a rule-making hearing on exceptional circumstances for having more than 5 patients.
The CDPHE is required to have a rule-making hearing before they can impose standards.
Since there are no standards in place, CDPHE is essentially telling caregivers/patients that they are responsible for determining if the caregiver/patient relationship will continue until such time as the standard is put in place.
They can't force a rule (standard) that doesn't exist yet. When will it exist...who knows?
Just another example of the cart before the horse.
I would be very concerned moving forward if I had a large scale grow, like barkowitz, and had more than 5 patients. People who are small scale don't have anything to worry about.
However, it's going to be VERY difficult for caregivers (5 patient max) to make any money unless they pay to play and become an MMC.
I know of a small MMC that is 3 growers, 50 patients, and top quality meds. All 3 from boulder, all 3 lifelong growers/hippy's, and they paid the licensing fee. This is the type of MMC that we agree should be around I think.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
I would be very concerned moving forward if I had a large scale grow, like barkowitz, and had more than 5 patients. People who are small scale don't have anything to worry about.
However, it's going to be VERY difficult for caregivers (5 patient max) to make any money unless they pay to play and become an MMC.
I know of a small MMC that is 3 growers, 50 patients, and top quality meds. All 3 from boulder, all 3 lifelong growers/hippy's, and they paid the licensing fee. This is the type of MMC that we agree should be around I think.
You keep bringing up Barkowitz.. You do know that was a very extreme case right? Most caregivers are smart enough, at least I hope, to stay under federal limits reguardless of state laws.
You also keep bringing up this "pay to play" BS. What ever happened to building your business from the ground up? Isn't that what America is about? "The American Dream"
I dont have 50k to drop for a dispensary that the DEA may come raid anytime they want.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
You keep bringing up Barkowitz.. You do know that was a very extreme case right? Most caregivers are smart enough, at least I hope, to stay under federal limits reguardless of state laws.
You also keep bringing up this "pay to play" BS. What ever happened to building your business from the ground up? Isn't that what America is about? "The American Dream"
I dont have 50k to drop for a dispensary that the DEA may come raid anytime they want.
When I say barkowitz specifically, I am generalizing large scale home grows which, assuming they don't pay the licensing fees for off-site grows, are illegal under 1284/109. That should be obvious, and I'm struggling to understand why you are the only one who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I guess you might be the only one to bother speaking up. If so, thank you. Sometimes my thoughts don't get to the keyboard very well.
I say barkowitz because it's easier to say that than to relate the general idea of large scale, now-illegal grows post 1284-109. If you want me to clarify that in every thread I post in, I will. But, it's repetitive and you should understand by now what I am talking about when I use that word. If we disagree on the definitions of a word, get over it, I'm not changing my vocabulary for some random on the internet. I don't expect you to change your ways on my behalf. I just hope we can move past the definitions/illegality problems that you and I have had in the past. This is entirely a different issue than what this thread is discussing, and concentrating on single words and sentences instead of broader ideas. Don't you see how your nit picking of my posts lowers the content quality of the threads? Get over it, please.
It's my position that the vast majority of caregivers (99% maybe?) are for-profit versus non-profit, and also had more than 5 patients/36 plants. It's the only way to NOT lose money. That's not a bad thing, but I guess we are gonna agree to disagree, because I would argue the VAST majority of grows are closer in scale to barkowitz (100's of plants?) versus myself (one plant in veg, few small clones). What's your opinion on that? How many plants and patients did you care for? Did you do it 'for the patient' and not make any profit, or were you 'for profit'? Did you pay sales tax or income tax on the revenue that you generated as a caregiver? Did you have a business?
That's why I say 'barkowitz' when I am referring to similar style, large scale, non-compliant, now-illegal home grow operations. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to people who are currently compliant, I'm trying to save words. I apologize if this post seems snotty, I'm busy today.
edit: regarding pay to play. I'm not happy about it, but if the only way we can operate and remain compliant (and make money) is to pay to play, then so be it.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
3 growers and 50 patients is OK by me but that >private< agreement shouldn't preclude MY constitutional rights as a patient, nor should "Revenue" be allowed as an excuse to preclude my rights as a patient.
And they won't! Face it, folks, though it technically may be outside this new and bogus law to sell to other patients there is really no way they can enfoce such a law. All you have to do is tell your friends to tell their friends that you have extra meds for $100 less than the ripsensary and go about business as always.
Fuck em. there was no provision in the law for dispensaries and they set em up and operated in the open anyway so do you really think they are gonna chase you down for selling bags to other patients who want a good deal?
Turnabout is fair play!
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhash
3 growers and 50 patients is OK by me but that >private< agreement shouldn't preclude MY constitutional rights as a patient, nor should "Revenue" be allowed as an excuse to preclude my rights as a patient.
And they won't! Face it, folks, though it technically may be outside this new and bogus law to sell to other patients there is really no way they can enfoce such a law. All you have to do is tell your friends to tell their friends that you have extra meds for $100 less than the ripsensary and go about business as always.
Fuck em. there was no provision in the law for dispensaries and they set em up and operated in the open anyway so do you really think they are gonna chase you down for selling bags to other patients who want a good deal?
Turnabout is fair play!
How were your rights as a patient affected by 1284/109? I would argue that your position that 'revenue' doesn't preclude your rights is incorrect as well, but I would hope hipop would engage you on that topic, I don't have the time nor background.
I have trouble with your ''fuck 'em'' attitude, and I hope there are more people like you out there, because I don't think that excuse would fly in court, when people with that attitude get busted. There was a grow with 64 plants that was busted recently. I would imagine that guy said, 'fuck em' as well. I also feel that you are hilariously mis-informed on MMC's etc, but I don't think you're ready to get into a serious discussion on that. fuck em, right?
'selling' meds to other patients isn't really legal. Is selling your vicodin or other prescription drugs legal?
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Anyone else smell a three way combo of troll, donuts and a side of bacon? :rastasmoke:
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
I think the bacon took top position ;)
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
I also feel that you are hilariously mis-informed on MMC's etc,
No actually you are the one that is "mis-informed".
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
No actually you are the one that is "mis-informed".
That's fine if you feel that way, but I back up my 'mis-information' with facts. I haven't seen you post anything more than anecdotal evidence and accusations of why you personally think MMC's are anti-caregivers and would ask for the specific language of a 5 patient cap.
When I look at why things are as they are, in this case the 5 patient cap, I look at the possible explanations. Assuming I'm not a moron, than I can safely use Occam's razor, taking from that 'the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one', would suggest to me, that the probably explanation for the 5 patient cap is because the dept of revenue/tax guy/mattcook wanted to ensure that people in this industry paid their taxes. It's apparent that you guys weren't paying your taxes, and this legislation ensures that moving forward.
It seems to be that your explanation of why the 5 patient cap exists is because X amount of large MMC's lobbied someone to remove large scale private caregivers from competition. You are ignoring the fact that caregivers likely did most of their business with MMC's, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that MMC's probably bought most of their super top shelf stuff from caregivers. You also chose to 'attack' and nitpick my choice of the number 12, instead of looking into the idea, which is YOURS, that some number of MMC's were responsible for the 5 patient cap. I don't understand why you choose to take tiny parts of my posts and respond to them. You have repeatedly posted that this is how you post, and that's fine, but if you want to use a different number than 12, fine. Do it. Can we move along?
The only person that benefits from 1284/109 is the state department of revenue. This legislation does NOTHING to protect MMC's or anything else. Don't you think, if the MMC's had nearly as much control as you imply, that they'd do more to protect themselves, such as NOT signing attorney rights and that sort of stuff?
Do you have an explanation as to why the MMC's would request the 5 patient cap and ignore the other privacy issues? In your opinion, why would MMC's think the 5 patient cap on caregivers is an important topic?
Please educate me if I don't see it. I have asked you again and again to clarify why you think MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, and I still haven't seen a response.
Criticize me all you want, I don't care. When you're ready to discuss this, let me know.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
That's fine if you feel that way, but I back up my 'mis-information' with facts. I haven't seen you post anything more than anecdotal evidence and accusations of why you personally think MMC's are anti-caregivers and would ask for the specific language of a 5 patient cap.
When I look at why things are as they are, in this case the 5 patient cap, I look at the possible explanations. Assuming I'm not a moron, than I can safely use Occam's razor, taking from that 'the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one', would suggest to me, that the probably explanation for the 5 patient cap is because the dept of revenue/tax guy/mattcook wanted to ensure that people in this industry paid their taxes. It's apparent that you guys weren't paying your taxes, and this legislation ensures that moving forward.
It seems to be that your explanation of why the 5 patient cap exists is because X amount of large MMC's lobbied someone to remove large scale private caregivers from competition. You are ignoring the fact that caregivers likely did most of their business with MMC's, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that MMC's probably bought most of their super top shelf stuff from caregivers. You also chose to 'attack' and nitpick my choice of the number 12, instead of looking into the idea, which is YOURS, that some number of MMC's were responsible for the 5 patient cap. I don't understand why you choose to take tiny parts of my posts and respond to them. You have repeatedly posted that this is how you post, and that's fine, but if you want to use a different number than 12, fine. Do it. Can we move along?
The only person that benefits from 1284/109 is the state department of revenue. This legislation does NOTHING to protect MMC's or anything else. Don't you think, if the MMC's had nearly as much control as you imply, that they'd do more to protect themselves, such as NOT signing attorney rights and that sort of stuff?
Do you have an explanation as to why the MMC's would request the 5 patient cap and ignore the other privacy issues? In your opinion, why would MMC's think the 5 patient cap on caregivers is an important topic?
Please educate me if I don't see it. I have asked you again and again to clarify why you think MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, and I still haven't seen a response.
Criticize me all you want, I don't care. When you're ready to discuss this, let me know.
Really? Where are your facts? Where have you proven that 1284 was written for tax purposes? Seems to me every one of your OPINIONS, not facts, have been stomped out yet you keep presenting them as valid arguments over and over and over and over.
You still haven't answered the question... If all they wanted was the tax money then why wouldnt they just crack down on taxing caregivers, instead of trying to eliminate them? They would obviously make more money in taxes.
[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
So the State raking in 7.3 million on licensing in a week isn't an example of Revenue? And them altering Amendment 20 and my right to not be prosecuted for selling to another patient also isn't linked to Revenue?
I smell a stinky drug-dealing dispensary owner here. Not bacon, troll, or donuts.
As if the dispensary folks didn't have a "fuck em' attitude when they set up shop? And really, if the po-po didn't bust these folks selling openly how will they track the behind-the-scenes sales the average patient will continue to make? I hate to tell ya, but selling pot is ILLEGAL whether you have a card or not in the eyes of the Fed so tryin to get all high and mighty is pretty ridiculous and shows how blinded many folks are these days who never wore those blinders before.
they sure aren't gonna fight this starting at the bottom, now are they? LOL
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
Really? Where are your facts? Where have you proven that 1284 was written for tax purposes? Seems to me every one of your OPINIONS, not facts, have been stomped out yet you keep presenting them as valid arguments over and over and over and over.
You still haven't answered the question... If all they wanted was the tax money then why wouldnt they just crack down on taxing caregivers, instead of trying to eliminate them? They would obviously make more money in taxes.
[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.
*Sigh*
When high level respected posters (like hipop) agree with me on this tax issue, that shows me that I am in a pretty good position with regards to my position/opinion on the root causes/explanations of the 5 patient cap.
I will address your question, but now I hold you to that same standard. If I address a question to you specifically, I expect you to answer it, since I am giving you the same respect, agreed?
You still haven't answered the question... If all they wanted was the tax money then why wouldnt they just crack down on taxing caregivers, instead of trying to eliminate them? They would obviously make more money in taxes.
Here is my answer to that question: I don't know why they didn't 'crack down' on those who weren't paying taxes. I guess I think A20 should have addressed that? It seems as if caregivers were operating under the assumption that if they didn't report the revenue as income, then they didn't have to pay taxes on it. It seems to me that the dept of revenue saw that caregivers were 'gaming the system' when they weren't receiving tax income they thought they should. I would explain 1284/109 as legislators creating rules for enforcement. They don't have to crack down on anything now, they don't have to 'increase enforcement' or 'crack down' on those not paying their share of taxes. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'cracking down on taxpayers'.
Now, let me ask you a question. Where do you stand with reform in this industry? Surely you'd agree that it's way too easy to get a doc reco, so the legislation addressed that and made it more difficult for recreational users to get a card. We agree so far? Surely, you'd also agree that roughly 99% of caregivers were NOT paying sales or income taxes on the revenue received from being a FOR PROFIT caregiver. Specifically, you are a caregiver. Do you pay income taxes on the revenue generated from your grow? Did your patients pay sales tax when you sold their meds to them? If the answer to those questions is no, then you are non-compliant, then I argue that 1284/109 go to great lengths to prevent illegal grows, 5 patient cap or not.
There. I have answered your questions, and I ask now that you follow up. You've posted that all of my opinions have been 'stamped out', but I disagree. You seem to just tell me that I'm wrong without explaining why. I am asking you to do that now. If you have the time to read and criticize my posts, then you should put the effort to explain to me why, instead of just saying I'm wrong. That's really lazy.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhash
So the State raking in 7.3 million on licensing in a week isn't an example of Revenue? And them altering Amendment 20 and my right to not be prosecuted for selling to another patient also isn't linked to Revenue?
I smell a stinky drug-dealing dispensary owner here. Not bacon, troll, or donuts.
As if the dispensary folks didn't have a "fuck em' attitude when they set up shop? And really, if the po-po didn't bust these folks selling openly how will they track the behind-the-scenes sales the average patient will continue to make? I hate to tell ya, but selling pot is ILLEGAL whether you have a card or not in the eyes of the Fed so tryin to get all high and mighty is pretty ridiculous and shows how blinded many folks are these days who never wore those blinders before.
they sure aren't gonna fight this starting at the bottom, now are they? LOL
Just totally lol if you are referring to me with the bolded.
blackhash, you seem like a nice person, but your posts are just so full of "OMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY FUCK THE FEDS" alarmism. I don't think it's needed. It should be obvious to anyone reading these threads that pot is illegal federally, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts.
Plus, the 7.3 million in revenue is a RESULT of 1284/109, not an excuse that it's bad. Do you understand this? I don't think the state would be enjoying that income if 1284/109 didn't pass, so I'm unsure of why you point out that this revenue is a reason to be anti 1284/109?
edit:[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.
We agree that lobbyist's can have an effect on legislation and how it's passed. Until you provide information that mattcook says, 'this is the reason for the 5 patient cap', then you think one thing and I think another as for the cause of the 5 patient cap. I think my reasoning is more likely, you still think it was the big bad dispensaries. Can you provide any information or explain to me why your explanation is more likely than mine? If you don't have proof (I don't), then please give me your opinion. We don't have to be wrong or right, we can disagree and still have a discussion. I don't understand why that seems so hard. You present your argument that MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, I present my argument that the state dept of revenue is more likely responsible for the 5 patient cap. People read the thread, they make their own opinion, and everyone is more informed than they were yesterday.
I don't know why you continue to think this is an us-versus-them battle or something. Let's all try to be aware of current legislation, regulations, rules and deadlines, and act accordingly. I don't expect to live my life the same way that you do, and I'm not telling you how to. I don't understand why we can't have an intelligent discussion on these subjects that we disagree on.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
Surely, you'd also agree that roughly 99% of caregivers were NOT paying sales or income taxes on the revenue received from being a FOR PROFIT caregiver.
Do you work at the Dept Of Revenue? If not what qualifies you to make this assertion? Why do you constantly separate caregivers from any other person that is self employed that may or may not be paying taxes? Please show me any documentation that shows caregivers are less likely to pay taxes than any other self employed person.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
in case anyone needs it, I had a hard time finding it at first.
Cannabis Forums Message Boards - Your Ignore List
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
there are many factors responsible for the 5 patient cap, 420.
however, I believe the blame for the changes @ hand falls directly on the shoulders of those patients who jumped on the bandwagon once they heard that Obama/Holder were holding back. Before this time, their need and belief of/for MMJ just wasn't great enough to step out on the limb for it as many did for the 9 years prior to the announcement.
During those 9 years there were no changes in the law nor was MMJ a hot topic/a newsworth item almost daily, nor was it a huge revenue source for the state.
Change has come. Change fostered by the presence of folks who really have no (balls to fight for legalization) reason to be in this program other than greed or deciet. I'm not singling you out on any count here, but if that thought hits your brain there may be a reason for it. :D just sayin':D
either way, life goes on and more change is sure to come. I for one will continue growing my 3 in flower (x 6) and will continue to do what I can (always have) to help others to stay out of the dispensaries and away from dispensary level pricing. :thumbsup:
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
I tried to do the ignore thing but it was too difficult following a thread because every other post was being ignored.
Essentially, ALL the threads were difficult to follow.
CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by COzigzag
I tried to do the ignore thing but it was too difficult following a thread because every other post was being ignored.
Essentially, ALL the threads were difficult to follow.
And this is the very reason why all this piss fest crap in this forum MUST come to an end.
Have a good one!:thumbsup:
