New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado

[Dietblonde]

Appeals court: "Caregiver" must do more than grow pot
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/29/2009 09:47:44 AM MDT

The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld the marijuana cultivation conviction of a Longmont woman, ruling that a person designated as a medical marijuana "caregiver" must do more than just supply the drug to patients.

In a special concurring opinion, Judge Alan Loeb wrote that Colorado's consitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana "cries out for legislative action."

The case involved a woman named Stacy Clendenin, who in 2006 was charged with cultivating marijuana in a Longmont home.

Clendenin argued that the marijuana she grew in the home was then distributed to authorized patients through marijuana dispensaries.

But the appeals court ruled that simply knowing that the end user of marijuana is a patient is not enough. Instead, the court said, a care-giver authorized to grow marijuana must actually know the patients who use it.

"We conclude that to qualify as a 'primary care-giver' a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana," the court ruled.

The ruling, if upheld on appeal, could change the process now in place to supply the burgeoning medical marijuana industry in Colorado â?? if the Colorado Legislature doesn't restrict it first.

Attorney General John Suthers applauded the decision.

"I am pleased to see the Court of Appeals' has provided legal support for our case that a caregiver, under Amendment 20, must do more than simply provide marijuana to a patient," Suthers said. "I also was pleased to see the assertion in the special concurrence that Amendment 20 'cries out for legislative action.' I could not agree more. I hope the legislature will act and create a regulatory framework that gives substance to the Court of Appeals' findings."

Rob Corry, who represented Clendenin, could not immediately be reached for comment. He had previously argued that by restricting the ability to grow marijuana for medical patients, the government would essentially be overruling the voters who approved medical marijuana in the first place.

State Sen. Chris Romer has said he plans to introduce some medical marijuana restrictions when the legislature convenes in January. But House Speaker Terrance Carroll has said he does not believe further regulation is a pressing issue in the state.

Dietblonde Reviewed by Dietblonde on 10-29-2009. New Regulations for Medical Marijuana in Colorado Appeals court: "Caregiver" must do more than grow pot The Denver Post Posted: 10/29/2009 09:47:44 AM MDT The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld the marijuana cultivation conviction of a Longmont woman, ruling that a person designated as a medical marijuana "caregiver" must do more than just supply the drug to patients. In a special concurring opinion, Judge Alan Loeb wrote that Colorado's consitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana "cries out for legislative action." The Rating: 5

[palerider7777]

looks like the ones that whine will soon be seeing how bad they just made it for themselfs.i would think with a ruling like this it will end up putting alot of shops outta biz.most shops buy most of there product from growers and leftover from caregivers.looks like this will put a stop to that.how so you ask? how would the grower ever meet the patients that buy from these shops? the shops are'nt using it.i guess the peeps that complain will soon find out how green the grass really is in the other side.say byebye to the 20 or 40+ strains to choose from in shops.if you have to have a close relationship with each patient shops will go under.they would only be able to grow for there patients?

also seems like that would stop peeps from buying from other peeps when they are out? how will they be able to do this when you have to be so close to the patient?and they never said exactly how close or what you have to do?im guessing the law will want us to be so close as to bath the patient and wipe there arse too?

all you peeps that whine all the time about price are you happy now? this would mean that you can't shop jump and pick and choose your own meds based on price.look for price hikes if this shit keeps on.and you thought the prices were high b4 lmao.most growers would rather go back underground.

but then again what do i know but keep the whining up and you will see where it gets you.the law is on your side lmao they love peeps like you as they can use that to work out harsher laws for us all.

i wonder why they don't make docs and meds sellers follow there patients home for a "closer" relationship? the fact is the atty gen hate us and you peeps that keep bitching is helping there cause not ours so good job all you guys.

[copobo]

was she really on paper anyone's caregiver or did she grow with no dr.'s note and no caregiver designation - just knowing the meds were going to registered patients?

[Dietblonde]

Palerider7(x4)....you are one angry stoner. chill out, bro. Things will be alright. In a few years you'll be able to go down to your local 7-11 and grab a pack of Marlboro Greens.

In the meantime, lets not turn this thread into another flame war.

[palerider7777]

Palerider7(x4)....you are one angry stoner. chill out, bro. Things will be alright. In a few years you'll be able to go down to your local 7-11 and grab a pack of Marlboro Greens.

In the meantime, lets not turn this thread into another flame war.

besides my lil rant did you read any of it?like if you can only service a "patient" that you know really really really well like fam how are shops going to supply the mass crowd as they do now?

[Dietblonde]

That's a great question...I really dont know. I'm going to see my caregiver probably tomorrow and ask him about it. I wonder if there are any loopholes in the new ruling. I wonder how it could be enforced? Is there any bite behind this thing.

I think you have valid concerns. I'd like to get the communities pulse on this.

[pfunk211]

it was my understanding that this particular case was "won" because she was arrested in 2006 and the clarification of the law that happened in denver a few months ago had not yet been addressed.
the state board *did* just vote against changing the definition of caregiver, right?!
as the law cannot be applied retroactively, she can't use the defense.
i'm not sure, but it's my opinion that this is an isolated case.
how can anyone prove how well anyone knows anyone else anyway?!?!

and palerider, as always, your negativity and poor spelling/grammar amaze me.

[pfunk211]

from the denver post, for what it's worth:


"Clendenin's attorney, Robert Corry, says he plans to appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

"This decision is quite limited and only applies to Stacy Clendenin and only applies to those who went to trial before July when the state board agreed that caregivers could simply provide marijuana," Corry said. "I am concerned that the court super-imposed California law on Colorado and I don't think California (medical marijuana) law is a shining star of success.""

[Dietblonde]

well then, that sure is a positive spin on things. hopefully nothing more comes of this.

[senorx12562]

This is how I read the case. Since the defendant was attempting to introduce evidence necessary to an affirmative defense, that means that the patients she was providing mj to had NOT designated her as their caregiver. If they had, prosecution of her would have been barred, and she would not have been in court. Therefor, the Court's definition of "caregiver" ONLY applies in a situation where the defendant has not been designated. The Court did not attempt to find out if a person who had been designated as a caregiver was "really" one. In addition, the department of health has explicitly defined caregiver to include someone who "merely" provides mj. Unfortunately for Ms. Clendenin, that rule came out subsequent to her prosecution and the Court declined to give it retroactive effect. If the case is to be appealed, the last word is yet to come from the Colo. Supreme Court. If, in the meantime, the community changes its actions to fit the ruling, the practical effect will probably be that more dispensaries will require that one designate them as one's caregiver in order to purchase medicine from them, and growers, to be safe, will need to grow no more plants than 6x the number of patient designations that they have. I've always assumed the latter to be true anyway. Warren Edson (a local atty) has always advised that if you are going to grow for a dispensary, have a "pizza party" or a meet and greet with the appropriate number of patients and create a notebook with all their personal info in it to document the "relationship" that the Court did not find here. Once you can introduce even a small amount of evidence that an affirmative defense is applicable (a standard which the Court here held as a matter of law that the defendant could not meet) then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not "medical" mj.