Quote Originally Posted by colagal
As noted by Palerider's references, these "bargaining chips" are so restrictive and unrealistic that it is choking the life out of the initial amendment passed by the voters.

If I understand these proposals correctly, what can a patient do if, for example, they were unsatisfied with the meds provided by the caregiver, or the patient is unhappy with their caregiver's caregiving, or the caregiver's crop was compromised in some fashion and not productive, or if the patient wants to change their caregiver? The patient cannot grow as a back up, and the patient cannot go to another caregiver/dispensary since that would constitute the primary caregiver delegating to or joining with another caregiver. What does that leave? The bad ol' days...

The legislators want this as restrictive as possible giving more ammo for LEO to step in the fray. Maybe I have misinterpreted and am doing a Chicken Little dance for no reason...
thats what it sounds like to me.they want to make to where u can only have 5 but then those patients can't just go to a shop to buy meds while there say...waiting on there caregivers meds to be rdy or whatever reason.that will put many shops out of biz in a flash..guess that will clear up these shop reviews on the borads here?

these people that are talking about being able to get oz's for 100$ are living in a dream world and if any of this passes we all will be.you think for a sec that shops being limited to only 5 patients to grow for will be able to stay in biz?oh thats right i forgot for each patient a caregiver grows for those plants make the caregiver 500,000 each my bad i forgot.thats about as dumb street talk as the "yea hydro is where you grow the plants under the water".

i guess this is what those peeps wanted so this is what they will get?