Quote Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
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?
Sort of, but I am pretty dense, anyway, since we are speculating, if High were absorbed as an employee, do you think High's grow location would have to be located in an area zoned for business or agricultural to meet the licensing requirements as a separate but related grow facility? Licensing may be a limiting factor...?
colagal Reviewed by colagal on . If Growers were licensed...what then? Thinking about the changes to the present legislation, there is proposed language, towit: "... 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." Read more: Few on either side happy with proposed medical-marijuana licensing rules - The Denver Post What do you suppose the license requirements might entail? Zoning? Rating: 5