den of thieves

To dispensary owners: anyone having concerns regarding the "Associated Person &
Associated Key Medical Marijuana License Application?"

Since the supposed spirit of this application is "...because Colorado citizens want the industry and everyone involved in it free from even the hint of any corruption or deceit. Thatâ??s why we take our regulation of the industry very seriously, including the issuance of licenses", and furthermore, "If you pass our qualifications,you will be found suitable as an associated person/key that will allow you to work in the Medical Marijuana Industry. You should know that a Medical Marijuana license is a privilege, not a right ."

Gosh, I am glad our politicians are looking out for my best interests. Now I can feel assured that whenever I go to a dispensary, the people working there will have been deemed suitable by the higher powers. If only I could feel the same about the people who are making these determinations....

just wait 'till they have to take your picture with every purchase....then you'll really like our politicians

I really hope this gets overturned as I sure don't want my picture taken...and they don't take em when I go to a regular pharmacy, thats for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denverbear

I really hope this gets overturned as I sure don't want my picture taken...and they don't take em when I go to a regular pharmacy, thats for sure.

---

It certainly is becoming more invasive, which may be having the desired of elevating an already paranoid situation. I don't know of any other business that is subject to such scrutiny. But despite their best attempts, I don't think they will be successful in driving this industry into the abyss.

What I intended in this thread is what dispensary employee in their right mind would fill out this application? Look at the requirements, consents and authorizations to release information: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite...&ssbinary=true

I am already seeing dispensary employees quitting with no one stepping up to replace them. Who does that leave to run the store?

Wow!!! Just read through the application.... It is NUCKEN FUTS!!!!

Might as well send it to a publisher cause it's a detailed biography they're asking for.... No wonder people are leaving the biz.... I can only imagine how many lawyers were put together to complete this horrifying application.... Will be really hard finding people willing to submit all that info....

Vote Ron Paul 2012 and we won't have to worry about this chiz....

CGI::::::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CanGroIt

Vote Ron Paul 2012 and we won't have to worry about this chiz....

---

Of course we will. Ron Paul has nothing to do with this rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

What I intended in this thread is what dispensary employee in their right mind would fill out this application? Look at the requirements, consents and authorizations to release information: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite...&ssbinary=true

I am already seeing dispensary employees quitting with no one stepping up to replace them. Who does that leave to run the store?

---

Is that the form to be filled out by a simple employee? A budtender? The cleanup person? Damned invasive any way you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Of course we will. Ron Paul has nothing to do with this rule.

---

Maybe nothing to do with this "rule" directly BUT he is THE most outspoken politician on the subject of legalizing cannabis....which is why I like the guy....anyone is better than Obama at this point....

CGI::::::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

Is that the form to be filled out by a simple employee? A budtender? The cleanup person? Damned invasive any way you look at it.

---

Yep. All dispensary employees. More invasive than a proctology exam. But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world.

---

Congress has even less to do with this than Ron Paul....

Is that the form to be filled out by a simple employee? A budtender? The cleanup person? Damned invasive any way you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

Yep. All dispensary employees. More invasive than a proctology exam. But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world.

---

How in the hell did they get away with this!!?? What business is it of the State's to know a simple employee of a legal business's 10 year work history? Childrens inf.? Full financial disclosure? Past marital history? This is mind boggling? What other employee in the private sector needs to disclose to this level to the State???? Defense contractors? Pharmacies? Liquor stores? AMAZING!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Congress has even less to do with this than Ron Paul....

---

I use the term congressional loosely - referring to politicians. It doesn't invalidate the point. If you have something relevant to the point of the thread, let's here it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

Is that the form to be filled out by a simple employee? A budtender? The cleanup person? Damned invasive any way you look at it.




How in the hell did they get away with this!!?? What business is it of the State's to know a simple employee of a legal business's 10 year work history? Childrens inf.? Full financial disclosure? Past marital history? This is mind boggling? What other employee in the private sector needs to disclose to this level to the State???? Defense contractors? Pharmacies? Liquor stores? AMAZING!

---

Good questions. I think your response would be typical of most people. If other industries had to jump through these hoops, there would no doubt be such a backlash that the politicians involved would probably be made to walk the plank. This is just another way to undermine this business, not make it more viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CanGroIt

Maybe nothing to do with this "rule" directly BUT he is THE most outspoken politician on the subject of legalizing cannabis....which is why I like the guy....anyone is better than Obama at this point....

CGI::::::

---

"anyone is better than Obama" ????? Are you kidding? Take a look at Bachman's or Pawlenty's or Romney's stance on this subject. Bachman is so far right I wouldn't put is past her to send troops in to close the whole industry down. That woman is a wack job and so beholden to the Far Right Christian Wing she is pretty much inclined to toss the Constitution in the trash! Pawlenty used his veto power to prevent Medical MJ after the Minnesota Congress passed bills twice. Get real....

I was going to let that bullshit pass, but glad to see AllenScott fielded that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

To dispensary owners: anyone having concerns regarding the "Associated Person &
Associated Key Medical Marijuana License Application?"

Since the supposed spirit of this application is "...because Colorado citizens want the industry and everyone involved in it free from even the hint of any corruption or deceit. Thatâ??s why we take our regulation of the industry very seriously, including the issuance of licenses", and furthermore, "If you pass our qualifications,you will be found suitable as an associated person/key that will allow you to work in the Medical Marijuana Industry. You should know that a Medical Marijuana license is a privilege, not a right ."

Gosh, I am glad our politicians are looking out for my best interests. Now I can feel assured that whenever I go to a dispensary, the people working there will have been deemed suitable by the higher powers. If only I could feel the same about the people who are making these determinations....

---

You also have to understand that this is like the Better Business Bureau or the lawyers bar association. All it takes is money to be on the list. It guarantees NOTHING. Its just all part of the game of separating you from some of your hard earned money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

You also have to understand that this is like the Better Business Bureau or the lawyers bar association. All it takes is money to be on the list. It guarantees NOTHING. Its just all part of the game of separating you from some of your hard earned money.

---

I have to wonder about the validity of your statement Killerweed. It is stated there are qualifications to pass to work in the industry. What are these qualifications? If they are using the information from the license application to see if a prospective employee meets them and can therefore determine who a business employs this is a whole lot more than paying to be on a list don't you think? It seems outrageous and un-american for the state to have the final say on who a private business employs past the requirement of nondiscrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

"anyone is better than Obama" ????? Are you kidding? Take a look at Bachman's or Pawlenty's or Romney's stance on this subject.....

---

Yes, I know those three oppose mmj, which is why I said, "he is THE most outspoken politician on the subject of legalizing cannabis....".

I apologize for generalizing and not specifying who would be better than Obama....:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I was going to let that bullshit pass, but glad to see AllenScott fielded that one.

---

You can get off your knees now....;)


CGI::::::

I have one of those licenses hanging around my neck right now. The application took a while as did waiting to get fingerprinted etc, but casino dealers are subject to the same background checks from the DOR. Pharmacists are educated and licensed as well.

There is no rule coming that require an MMC to take a picture of someone at the time of purchase. We have surveillance equipment that is sufficient to do that.

For the patients that come to Denver Relief, not that much is going to change. The cameras have always been there.

We will be weighing our meds on an approved and certified scale that is connected to our POS system, but that doesn't really effect their experience.

Most of the changes are requirements about labeling, packaging, signage for restricted areas, camera angles, and transportation manifests.

I don't like the regulations. My job would be a lot easier without them, but they aren't evil in the way some people suggest. It just is.

This is how it is in America today and if we want to continue to exist as businesses in the future we have to get the Trojan Horse into the castle,but it's not time to jump out just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

I have to wonder about the validity of your statement Killerweed. It is stated there are qualifications to pass to work in the industry. What are these qualifications? If they are using the information from the license application to see if a prospective employee meets them and can therefore determine who a business employs this is a whole lot more than paying to be on a list don't you think? It seems outrageous and un-american for the state to have the final say on who a private business employs past the requirement of nondiscrimination.

---

But this is based on whether its a level playing field, its not. Its very easy to grease palms in any business or government agency. I've done it in the past. All it takes is a mutually agreed price. Everything is open to corruption, its one of the rules of capitalism. Everything is for sale at the right price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

I have to wonder about the validity of your statement Killerweed. It is stated there are qualifications to pass to work in the industry. What are these qualifications? If they are using the information from the license application to see if a prospective employee meets them and can therefore determine who a business employs this is a whole lot more than paying to be on a list don't you think? It seems outrageous and un-american for the state to have the final say on who a private business employs past the requirement of nondiscrimination.

---

The only requirements are a criminal background check, disclosing arrests, and no back taxes or outstanding student loans.

They do not decide whether an employee is qualified for the job or not. The owner or person in charge of hiring still does that.

"but casino dealers are subject to the same background checks from the DOR. Pharmacists are educated and licensed as well." How about janitors at the casino? Cooks? As I understand it this application is for any one working at a MMC. Correct?


"There is no rule coming that require an MMC to take a picture of someone at the time of purchase. " No, not a picture. An image recorded on a DVR and saved for MMED or LEO to review at any time for any reason will be fine. And that DVR will need to interface with MMED real-time monitoring as well. Correct me if I am wrong.


"I don't like the regulations. My job would be a lot easier without them, but they aren't evil in the way some people suggest. It just is." Evil,no. Intrusive as hell? Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

The only requirements are a criminal background check, disclosing arrests, and no back taxes or outstanding student loans.

They do not decide whether an employee is qualified for the job or not. The owner or person in charge of hiring still does that.

---

Then why in the hell are they asking for a year of bank statements, children's inf., spouses, financial statements, past residency, etc. for a simple employee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

Then why in the hell are they asking for a year of bank statements, children's inf., spouses, financial statements, past residency, etc. for a simple employee?

---

I have worked for Denver Relief since it was created as a delivery service over 2 years ago and I have a "support license" which is 75 instead of 250 and means that I don't manage employees or work frequently with the product itself. Our main budtender has the support license as well.

The only people who have been required to apply for the "Key employee license" with the requirements that you speak of are owners and managers that deal directly with the product in quantity on a daily basis.

The support license has a different shorter application and only requires arrest records and 5 years of residency information.

Honestly, I don't know why they take that information, but I know that our employees didn't have any issues getting their badges.

I imagine, the reason they take financials and everything is because it is their task to ensure that black-market "criminals" aren't getting into the industry.

Back taxes and child support were some of the biggest issues I heard preventing people from getting their license.

I'll admit, its a bitch, but I think marijuana decrim and legalization is worth it and I see regulation as a step in the right direction even when I don't really agree with the rules.

I asked you cologal if the license application in the link you posted was required of ALL employees and you responded:

"Yep. All dispensary employees. More invasive than a proctology exam. But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world."

It would appear you were not correct in your response. There is a "Support Employee Occupational License Application" on the forms page:

Department of Revenue - Enforcement Group:Forms

This is the information required for a simple employee to be licensed. It's not nearly as inquisitive as the "Key Employee Occupational License Application" for owners and managers. I should have checked your information myself before getting so angry.

Thanks DenverRelief for the redirection.

sorry. double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

I asked you cologal if the license application in the link you posted was required of ALL employees and you responded:

"Yep. All dispensary employees. More invasive than a proctology exam. But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world."

It would appear you were not correct in your response. There is a "Support Employee Occupational License Application" on the forms page:

Department of Revenue - Enforcement Group:Forms

This is the information required for a simple employee to be licensed. It's not nearly as inquisitive as the "Key Employee Occupational License Application" for owners and managers. I should have checked your information myself before getting so angry.

Thanks DenverRelief for the redirection.

---

Thank you. I stand corrected. I should also have checked in more detail when this was presented to me as the form needed for support employees before I started ranting away. I apologize.

Teachers in CO have to submit fingerprints. It seems to me that would be sufficient to keep criminals out of key positions in this industry. It also seems silly to subject owners and investors in cannabis businesses to higher scrutiny than teachers and other school employees. Just my .02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Teachers in CO have to submit fingerprints. It seems to me that would be sufficient to keep criminals out of key positions in this industry. It also seems silly to subject owners and investors in cannabis businesses to higher scrutiny than teachers and other school employees. Just my .02.

---

yea. with all the wasted effort on employee checks and life histories, they could have spent much more time on product testing and safety. They should start regulating clergy who get to have contact our kids, too... a FAR greater risk than cannabis!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

I imagine, the reason they take financials and everything is because it is their task to ensure that black-market "criminals" aren't getting into the industry.

Back taxes and child support were some of the biggest issues I heard preventing people from getting their license.

I'll admit, its a bitch, but I think marijuana decrim and legalization is worth it and I see regulation as a step in the right direction even when I don't really agree with the rules.

---

What a joke. The only difference between dispensary owners and 'black market criminals' is dispensaries paid a lobbying group and fucked everyone in the process. No wonder you think its a step in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenScott

I asked you cologal if the license application in the link you posted was required of ALL employees and you responded:

"Yep. All dispensary employees. More invasive than a proctology exam. But then we are dealing with a lot of congressional buttholes who are bending over backwards to make life difficult for the mmj world."

It would appear you were not correct in your response. There is a "Support Employee Occupational License Application" on the forms page:

Department of Revenue - Enforcement Group:Forms

This is the information required for a simple employee to be licensed. It's not nearly as inquisitive as the "Key Employee Occupational License Application" for owners and managers. I should have checked your information myself before getting so angry.

Thanks DenverRelief for the redirection.

---

As I read the Support Employee Form and looking at the Investigation Authorization To Release Information, one is still waiving confidentiality rights regarding finances and taxes, as well as allowing investigation into all other "relevant" information and facts to "their" satisfaction. That and background checks are still a lot more an invasive scrutiny even as a lowly support employee as compared to a bartender, or a teacher or clergy or....and will no doubt discourage some who have nothing to hide.

Of course teachers have background checks too, but that process is initiated by filling out a fingerprint card, which also includes a physical description. I don't see why the same process isn't sufficient for owners and investors of cannabis-based businesses. I don't disagree with the idea of background checks, but the application should be trimmed. As a consumer my only interest is to keep the criminals out of the business, and that could be accomplished without the unnecessary collection of private data from these applicants.

well put DenverRelief !!!