Patient collaboration and Grower certification

[colagal]

The question to Sensible Colorado (in response to their request for public input on regulations):
Does Sensible Colorado have an opinion regarding growers? Many of the dispensaries rely upon growers (who are separate from dispensaries) to help supply the meds due to supply and demand, but growers are restricted in what they can grow based upon their number of patients. Both the growers and the dispensaries have to show enough patient load (if you will) to justify the amount of product on hand.

It would help benefit all if there could be some way to have a collaboration between growers and dispensaries to share the patient load so as to legally justify the amount grown on both sides. As a grower, we have difficulties finding patients to justify our grow as the dispensaries gobble them up, but the dispensaries look to us to supply them more than we can legally grow, but are reluctant to share their patients. One dispensary has developed a membership agreement that gives growers an affirmative defense to some degree, but not as strong as if the grower were named as the primary caregiver.

Also, do you know about regulations or licensing that would require growers to meet a minimum standard of care as it pertains to growing practices - like being a "certified" grower?

Any thoughts on this are appreciated. Maybe this is something to be addressed as well in these regulations? Thank you.

The Response:

Under Colorado law there is no difference between a grower and a caregiver. Many caregivers that supply dispensaries have distribution agreements that help to address the concerns that you have outlined. Perhaps you and your customers could draft an agreement regarding your concerns.

Question to Dispensaries:

How do you cover your growers? Do you expect them to have enough patients to justify their grow and excess? What do you think about distribution or membership agreements?

Question Generally:

What do you think about growers being certified? A good thing? A bad thing?

colagal Reviewed by colagal on 10-30-2009. Patient collaboration and Grower certification The question to Sensible Colorado (in response to their request for public input on regulations): Does Sensible Colorado have an opinion regarding growers? Many of the dispensaries rely upon growers (who are separate from dispensaries) to help supply the meds due to supply and demand, but growers are restricted in what they can grow based upon their number of patients. Both the growers and the dispensaries have to show enough patient load (if you will) to justify the amount of product on Rating: 5

[senorx12562]

The question to Sensible Colorado (in response to their request for public input on regulations):
Does Sensible Colorado have an opinion regarding growers? Many of the dispensaries rely upon growers (who are separate from dispensaries) to help supply the meds due to supply and demand, but growers are restricted in what they can grow based upon their number of patients. Both the growers and the dispensaries have to show enough patient load (if you will) to justify the amount of product on hand.

It would help benefit all if there could be some way to have a collaboration between growers and dispensaries to share the patient load so as to legally justify the amount grown on both sides. As a grower, we have difficulties finding patients to justify our grow as the dispensaries gobble them up, but the dispensaries look to us to supply them more than we can legally grow, but are reluctant to share their patients. One dispensary has developed a membership agreement that gives growers an affirmative defense to some degree, but not as strong as if the grower were named as the primary caregiver.

Also, do you know about regulations or licensing that would require growers to meet a minimum standard of care as it pertains to growing practices - like being a "certified" grower?

Any thoughts on this are appreciated. Maybe this is something to be addressed as well in these regulations? Thank you.

The Response:

Under Colorado law there is no difference between a grower and a caregiver. Many caregivers that supply dispensaries have distribution agreements that help to address the concerns that you have outlined. Perhaps you and your customers could draft an agreement regarding your concerns.

Question to Dispensaries:

How do you cover your growers? Do you expect them to have enough patients to justify their grow and excess? What do you think about distribution or membership agreements?

Question Generally:

What do you think about growers being certified? A good thing? A bad thing?

The decision in Clendenin casts some doubt on the effectiveness of "affirmative defense" actions taken by dispensaries to try to help cover the growers. Short of an agreement with the patient(s), or photos of the grower cooking dinner for the patient, the grower's status just got a little more precarious. As to the idea of "certified" growers, who does the certifying and what are the standards to be, etc..? Without answers to these questions, no opinion. I can tell you that the idea of the government being involved at all on any level makes it unpalatable to me.

[colagal]

The decision in Clendenin casts some doubt on the effectiveness of "affirmative defense" actions taken by dispensaries to try to help cover the growers. Short of an agreement with the patient(s), or photos of the grower cooking dinner for the patient, the grower's status just got a little more precarious. As to the idea of "certified" growers, who does the certifying and what are the standards to be, etc..? Without answers to these questions, no opinion. I can tell you that the idea of the government being involved at all on any level makes it unpalatable to me.

Good idea about the cooking photos. I am thinking pot luck. What would constitute "do more to manage the health and well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition than merely supply marijuana?" Take their dogs for walkies? Seriously, I have driven my patients for their doctors appointment, and had some over for dinner - do I need to document this somehow? and notarized? Apparently that means more court cases to come thanks to Clendenin...

I agree, no one wants government involvement, but I think as this industry grows, regulations of some sort will follow...

[senorx12562]

Colagal, I think if you are performing those duties, you should already be designated as these people's caregiver, and if you aren't you should be having a conversation with them. If you're designated by enough people, I don't think you have to worry about the extent of duties performed for your patients, you can't be prosecuted by the State of CO. I agree that regulation is coming, but not until full legalization. This quasi-legal status of the present does not lend itself to regulation, which may be a blessing in disguise. Eventually the powers-that-be will realize that the only way to regulate or tax is to legalize.

[colagal]

Colagal, I think if you are performing those duties, you should already be designated as these people's caregiver, and if you aren't you should be having a conversation with them. If you're designated by enough people, I don't think you have to worry about the extent of duties performed for your patients, you can't be prosecuted by the State of CO. I agree that regulation is coming, but not until full legalization. This quasi-legal status of the present does not lend itself to regulation, which may be a blessing in disguise. Eventually the powers-that-be will realize that the only way to regulate or tax is to legalize.

Having enough people is certainly the key. Then the catch is having immediately available product in the event of a new patient or patients, as most probably don't want to wait 4-6 months. The irony in Clendenin's decision is that most patients probably don't care whether or not their provider (caregiver) is managing their well-being beyond meds anyway, eh?

[copobo]

please correct me if I am wrong in any of this but....

I've been very interested in this case, and from what I understand, Clendinin didn't have even 1 patient listing her as a caregiver or her own red card. She in no way, for any number of plants, was legal. She didn't have anything going for her except that she had sold to a real dispensary.

SO, it DOES take more than providing MJ to be considered a caretaker. It takes a prior registration with the state under a legal CO MMJ patient.

I really don't think this is about wiping asses and I think the reason they left this so unclear is to instill fear, while the amendment still exists, and nothing has really changed for any legal patients or caregivers or growers.

the sky. is not. falling.

just my opinion.

[palerider7777]

please correct me if I am wrong in any of this but....

I've been very interested in this case, and from what I understand, Clendinin didn't have even 1 patient listing her as a caregiver or her own red card. She in no way, for any number of plants, was legal. She didn't have anything going for her except that she had sold to a real dispensary.

SO, it DOES take more than providing MJ to be considered a caretaker. It takes a prior registration with the state under a legal CO MMJ patient.

I really don't think this is about wiping asses and I think the reason they left this so unclear is to instill fear, while the amendment still exists, and nothing has really changed for any legal patients or caregivers or growers.

the sky. is not. falling.

just my opinion.

are you saying she did'nt even have a mmj card from the state?

as far as having to be/do more for a patient then what does that mean?how much more care are they talking about besides supplying the meds to them?cook them dinner,bathe them?many people that have a card are'nt on there death bed infact far from it so what extra care do they need?

ok then if a caregiver was to sell to a shop so they inturn could sell it how in the world could one ever provide this extra care to the end user of the meds?

[colagal]

as far as having to be/do more for a patient then what does that mean?how much more care are they talking about besides supplying the meds to them?cook them dinner,bathe them?many people that have a card are'nt on there death bed infact far from it so what extra care do they need?

I think the key word in the caregiver definition is "debilitating", which I think some people think means bed-ridden - which in that case would be a severe debilitation - however, it is a pretty general term indicating depleted strength...but only as it pertains to certain debilitating conditions as defined by the State. Helping someone improve their quality of life beyond supplying medicine could be almost anything depending upon the person. As far as I am concerned, once my doc gives me pills for whatever ails me, I am good. I don't need any more care, except from my family.

I've been very interested in this case, and from what I understand, Clendinin didn't have even 1 patient listing her as a caregiver or her own red card. She in no way, for any number of plants, was legal. She didn't have anything going for her except that she had sold to a real dispensary.

Ms. Clendenin apparently suffered from migraines and probably was a registered patient. If she had some kind of personal contact/interaction with the patients who received her meds through a dispensary, maybe she could have established an affirmative defense as a caregiver...?

This brings me back to my original concern regarding dispensaries and growers. I am thinking if the dispensaries were able to arrange some kind of meeting between the growers and the dispensary's patients (something like a meet and greet) then that would certainly help show personal contact as well as doing more...

[colagal]

Colagal, I think if you are performing those duties, you should already be designated as these people's caregiver, and if you aren't you should be having a conversation with them. If you're designated by enough people, I don't think you have to worry about the extent of duties performed for your patients, you can't be prosecuted by the State of CO.

Here is another twist: we had patients that we went out of our way to do more than provide MM. Took them to their doctor, had them over for dinner, helped them move, provided them with free samples to see what meds were effective, bought their dog doggy treats, and even built some steps so they wouldn't fall coming out of their trailer....

Once they moved they unceremoniously and abruptly dropped us as their caregiver because they could get their meds for $100/oz. We offered them a 2 or 1 option (buy one get one free) to keep them as patients, but.....Apparently the only (and most important) care they really needed was financial assistance...which is probably an important consideration for most MM patients.

[senorx12562]

Amendment 20 seems to have been designed to favor patients growing their own medicine and care-giver/growers, not a wholesale/grower retail/care-giver arrangement. Therefor most growers end up as outlaws and care-givers who aren't also growers can't get enough product to sell. What would be the situation, I wonder, if I had 30 patients for whom I was growing and who had designated me, then the cops show up at my door with a warrant, and find 90 veg plants and 90 flowering plants. Then suppose they call the CDPHE and check the records of all of my patients, only to find that half have changed their care-giver with NO notice to me.
At this point, any grower with half a brain is going to stay as far under the radar as possible, in fact acting exactly as they would have prior to amendment 20. The risks aren't even all that different, and the retail price of medicine reflects that. Now the City of Denver and the State legislature have raised the hue and cry for more regulation, which they are going to find very difficult. Growers who have to stay underground in order to not risk jail are not going to comply with any attempts to regulate them or even the barest attempt to have some form of registration/certification if it requires disclosing what they are up to, at least I wouldn't.