If Growers were licensed...what then?

[colagal]

Good post by ReleafCenter. It's interesting to get a dispensary's perspective on these regulations. I agree that it will not be possible for growers to "stay in the shadows" if they want to sell to dispensaries; that's one of he things the bill set out to address. Although I live in a different part of the state, I appreciate your dispensary's policy of only buying from legal growers; to me, it's a selling point.

Other than Durango, do you have opinions regarding dispensaries in the western slope? Seems most of the reviews deal with the front range?

No, I definitely think there will be people who would rather stay in the shadows. But, let's take what the DEA says on face value; they're only going after grows that aren't in clear and unambiguous compliance with the state constitution. The state passes 1284 as a nod to the Feds, basically saying "We'll make it harder to grow here, you can prosecute everyone who doesn't want to comply." The Feds get to justify keeping their bloated budget because the bill drives more growers underground. The state gets to tout that they're protecting legal Colorado grows from the Feds. Win-win.

Growers who think they can "stay hidden" are probably kidding themselves. If 1284 passes, they know who is registered and who isn't. A lot of electric bills haven't picked up the attention they usually would because it's a pain for any agency to go after a grow in the status quo. On a state and federal level, agents have come out and said they have active investigations going on all over the place. Even the attempted busts of grows that are in compliance help them get more information on what to look for on the next raid.

And if the bill passes, we will only work with registered grows. We're built this business by 10 gallon buckets of blood, sweat and tears at a time. We've been in compliance with things that haven't even passed. It's for our, and our patients, sake that we operate legally. Even if what is legal happens to suck terribly.

@Rockwell: The biggest issue that keeps coming up on a societal level seems to be teenagers gaming the system and redistributing their meds. Parents have huge issues with a perceived ease of access that their kids have to marijuana. The recent study about marijuana leading to increased psychosis amongst teens don't help. They think that regulation will intimidate kids, hence fewer issues. I wouldn't want to go in front of some state panel if I was 18 to justify my card when the kid two desks over in homeroom has the bomb already. Think about it like a fake ID, though; everyone doesn't need one, just the one going into the liquor store.

Regarding grows, you may be representative of many dispensaries probably for the same reasons. It is a good point about the registration of growers who are also caregivers: a comparison between the caregiver list and the licensed grower list can be made. For example, the caregiver/growers not on the licensed grower list are either small (if they define small), not growing anymore, or are still growing. I suppose the not small but still growing could be potentially singled out.

Do you suppose the growers who want to remain hidden are your better growers? What effect (the hidden growers you will no longer do business with) will that have on your supply side if this legislation passes?

[HighPopalorum]

Other than Durango, do you have opinions regarding dispensaries in the western slope? Seems most of the reviews deal with the front range?

Nah. I've only been to front range and Durango-area dispensaries. I know Telluride has a few. Cortez, Bayfield and Pagosa all have either operating dispensaries or applications in. We have good growers here, and their locally-popular strains show up in the dispensaries regularly, which is nice. I know that some local dispensaries purchase medicine from the front range as well. Prices here are higher by 5-10% on all products, the selection is smaller, the quality range is the same.

[RockwellHG]

@Rockwell: The biggest issue that keeps coming up on a societal level seems to be teenagers gaming the system and redistributing their meds. Parents have huge issues with a perceived ease of access that their kids have to marijuana. The recent study about marijuana leading to increased psychosis amongst teens don't help. They think that regulation will intimidate kids, hence fewer issues. I wouldn't want to go in front of some state panel if I was 18 to justify my card when the kid two desks over in homeroom has the bomb already. Think about it like a fake ID, though; everyone doesn't need one, just the one going into the liquor store.

And what we should all be talking about? When Geoff said that they will be putting up a ballot initiative to challenge the dispensary model altogether. Bad news.

Ahh, good point. Almost all of my patients are over 30, many in their 50's+ so I didn't really consider that they were "thinking of the children."

[TheReleafCenter]

Regarding grows, you may be representative of many dispensaries probably for the same reasons. It is a good point about the registration of growers who are also caregivers: a comparison between the caregiver list and the licensed grower list can be made. For example, the caregiver/growers not on the licensed grower list are either small (if they define small), not growing anymore, or are still growing. I suppose the not small but still growing could be potentially singled out.

Do you suppose the growers who want to remain hidden are your better growers? What effect (the hidden growers you will no longer do business with) will that have on your supply side if this legislation passes?

The one potential issue is over who gets to do the raiding and how much information needs to be disclosed as a grow. If you have to put signage up designating your house as a grow and the licensing process is transparent to the public, the Feds have access to that info. If not, I doubt the state is going to pass that along unless they find themselves completely overwhelmed. Which they may. That's the worst part of this process... there is no hard and fast bill yet. We can only speculate.

I think, in terms of staying hidden, you'll have some going both ways. There are some amazing grows out there with serious financial backing that will be forced to go to dispensaries to protect their investments. Some will think they can duck the fees/contracts and try it the other way.

In terms of our supply side, it depends on what percentages they settle on. I think growers will have more incentive than ever to work with dispensaries and most would tell you they'd rather make one delivery than going to 20-30 dispensaries trying to unload it an ounce/QP at a time. We might lose some access to some great strains, but we'll also have more control over what we sell. Also, and I think this is an important point, there will be some 7 digit investments into grow operations once they're essentially sanctioned by the state. I know a few people who want to unload serious money but are scared to death because they don't have regulations yet. Wait 'til those grows get up and running, I have a feeling some state of the art nugs are going to be coming out soon.

[colagal]

The one potential issue is over who gets to do the raiding and how much information needs to be disclosed as a grow. If you have to put signage up designating your house as a grow and the licensing process is transparent to the public, the Feds have access to that info. If not, I doubt the state is going to pass that along unless they find themselves completely overwhelmed. Which they may. That's the worst part of this process... there is no hard and fast bill yet. We can only speculate.

I think, in terms of staying hidden, you'll have some going both ways. There are some amazing grows out there with serious financial backing that will be forced to go to dispensaries to protect their investments. Some will think they can duck the fees/contracts and try it the other way.

In terms of our supply side, it depends on what percentages they settle on. I think growers will have more incentive than ever to work with dispensaries and most would tell you they'd rather make one delivery than going to 20-30 dispensaries trying to unload it an ounce/QP at a time. We might lose some access to some great strains, but we'll also have more control over what we sell. Also, and I think this is an important point, there will be some 7 digit investments into grow operations once they're essentially sanctioned by the state. I know a few people who want to unload serious money but are scared to death because they don't have regulations yet. Wait 'til those grows get up and running, I have a feeling some state of the art nugs are going to be coming out soon.

Ironically, that is what I am worried about if grows are state sanctioned: big money will have a WalMart-like effect. Good for the dispensaries and patients (lower prices, good choices, consistent quality, etc.), but will no doubt put a lot of small growers out of business. That might make state and local government happy? LEO can concentrate its efforts...

I assume the state of the art nugs will be more consistent, better quality and lower priced? Maybe similar to Cali products that find their way here? But then, they are not so inexpensive.

[HighPopalorum]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

[colagal]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

That may be, but what I was alluding to earlier in this thread was this what appeared in the newspaper:

"... the new version would also allow for separate licenses for marijuana- growing facilities tied to dispensaries â?? which could sell a portion of what they grow to other dispensaries â?? and for marijuana product-makers."

This makes me think that a growing facility tie-in can be a facility separate from a dispensary. But then again, I could be wrong.

[TheReleafCenter]

By my reading of the bill there is no licensing of growers, or even a provision by which a dispensary might contract with one. What there is is an optional-premises cultivation permit that will only be issued to dispensaries, who can hire a manager to oversee their grow if they want to. The manager isn't the licensee, though, the dispensary is. The grow takes place at the dispensary or on other premises owned by the dispensary. If this bill passes, there will be a regulatory wall of separation between private caregivers and dispensaries - dispensary weed will all come from dispensary-associated grows; medicine from caregivers or from patients will not legally be sold in dispensaries.

So my understanding is this:

Say you, High, had a grow. We could hire you to "manage" that grow and you would essentially be absorbed into The Releaf Center. I'm pretty sure this is what Matt Brown has been talking about. I have a feeling that dispensaries won't be required to own the property they grow on in the final draft because that gets in to some property rights issues they'd rather not eff with.

The problem comes in with Ordinance 39 in Denver, and similar statutes that many other cities are likely to adopt. Managers of a business/grow must be disclosed to the city. That may hamper dispensaries from taking on as many growers as they want, but they may decide that the two are separate entities entirely. Then it comes down to whether or not municipalities consider grows a part of the investment structure. So much is still unknown.

Does that make a little more sense?

[HighPopalorum]

This makes me think that a growing facility tie-in can be a facility separate from a dispensary. But then again, I could be wrong.

It's all in there... the facility can be physically separate, but must still be owned, leased or rented by the dispensary. There's a couple other complicated, non-impactful rules as well. 12-43.3-310(8)b.

EDT: Releaf posted while I was writing. That's my understanding as well. If I'm going to sell to a dispensary, I'm going to be their employee. There's lots of language in there as well about future occupational licensing, so I expect the cracks in the system will fill in over time as they write those regulations.

[Denvertoad]

Found this on another website. Helped me understand much of what's going on.

What follows is a detailed summary of Denverâ??s new Medical Marijuana regulations. These regulations become effective on 03-01-2010.



Medical Marijuana dispensary regulations stipulated by the Denver City Council:



â?¢ Nobody under the age of 18 is allowed on dispensary premises.



â?¢ Marijuana products and marijuana in cultivation cannot be visible from the outside the dispensary.



â?¢ A dispensary application carries a $2,000 fee, licensing of the dispensary costs $3,000, and criminal background checks for each owner are additionally charged at cost. Even dispensaries already in operation prior to the March 1st enactment date must pay these fees through the Denver Department of License & Excess.



â?¢ Anybody with 10% or more ownership interest in a dispensary is required to register with the Department of License & Excess as part of the dispensaryâ??s ongoing licensing requirements. Any individual who has been jailed on a felony conviction in the last 5 years may not be even a partial owner of a dispensary.



â?¢ Dispensaries must remit a written operating plan that includes: 1) A description of the products and services available, including special notation for food products, 2) A floor plan which describes the layout of the dispensary, including a depiction of where services other than the sale of Medical Marijuana will be occur, 3) A security plan that details 24-hour surveillance of the property and whether or not licensed security guards will be used.



â?¢ The Department of License & Excess must circulate all applications for dispensaries to the Department of Community Planning and Development, the Department of Finance, the Department of Environmental Health, the Denver Police Department, and the Denver Fire Department to determine whether the proposed dispensary is in full compliance with each department.



â?¢ The Department of License & Excess must run a criminal background check on each potential dispensary owner noted on the application, and then perform a full inspection of the proposed dispensary premises to determine compliance.



â?¢ All sales of Medical Marijuana must be orchestrated directly by the patientâ??s Primary Caregiver, and any delivery of the meds must be made by the patientâ??s Primary Caregiver.



â?¢ Dispensaries cannot reside within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare establishment, or residentially zoned area. And to limit the clustering of Medical Marijuana dispensaries in areas like South Broadwayâ??s â??Broadsterdamâ?� district, no two dispensaries can exist within 1,000 feet of each other.



� The ordinance requires Medical Marijuana patients to take their meds off-premises for use. The pot café atmosphere that has defined a number of Denver dispensaries will end with this requirement. Whole buds must be smoked elsewhere, and edible doses in the form of baked goods must be ingested off of dispensary grounds.



â?¢ Contact information for dispensary ownership must be on display â??conspicuouslyâ?� within the dispensary.



Ordinance #39 was adopted unanimously by the Denver City Council on January 11th, 2010. It will take full effect March 1st, 2010.

See a full PDF of the ordinance here.


News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine
Source: Examiner.com
Author: Ian Cerveny
Copyright: 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
Contact: Contact Us
Website: Summary of Denver?s new Medical Marijuana regulations
__________________