Chris Romer: "The Department of Revenue will regulate it with guns,"

[palerider7777]

Romer seems to be the only one kicking up dust here. But since he's elected, I'm sure he'll have to hit the campaign trail soon. Maybe he'll get defeated. Who knows? I wonder how the other 14 state's MMJ laws are working?

Of all conservative states, Florida has actually begun to kick MMJ around. The seniors are especially enthusiastic about the prospects of medicating with pot.

I think Romer's idea is cute if not taken from some old Hollywood movie. But it sounds like Elliot Ness in a fedora and raincoat coming in with a tommy gun and cigar in mouth - "Alright yous darty guys..."

I'm obviously not taking Romer seriously - nor is anyone else...

1 of the biggest mistakes anyone could make in war is not taking you're opponent seriously....

[palerider7777]

I've been right next to you on ALL of this.

Our ENTIRE government, left/right, Dem/Rep, are ALL on a serious power trip. THEY all understand the ship is sinking, and as the saying goes,.. Better to rule in hell, then to serve in Heaven.

If you want to see what OUR country will be like in 20 years,... Take a gander at ANY small Mexican city. You see, It's far easier to collapse the US economy, then Merge us with Mexico. Then it is to improve Mexico's economy, to equal ours. The "official" plan is to create the North American Union (Which doesn't exist, just like the camps, Mass grave sites, and international tollway in Texas don't exist).

Add to that, while they destroy us. They can steal ALL our assets(Land, gold, silver, and of course our freedom). Time for a MASS re-election. Time for ALL new blood in "office". Once in,.. Time for serious pressure from the masses to CONTINUE to do OUR bidding. NOT the bidding of the Big Banker families, and "royalty". Those people are out for YOUR blood, and could care less about our well being.

OUT WITH THE "OFFICIALS"!

IN WITH THE PUBLIC SERVANTS!

people like you and i are few and far between. anyone that believes are gov has our best intrest at heart are living in the dream world, the gov has been brainwashing into them.

[Vancefish]

Quotes:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.":thumbsup:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us, by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."

Two of my favorites:

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

ALL of these, to this point, are quotes from Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
Benjamin Franklin

These nasty gangster style bills MUST be stopped. If this atrocity passes, just imagine the next one.

[lampost]

other 14 state's MMJ laws

Once we get 12 more states we'll have the majority and I'd think the Federal Government could no longer ignore MMJ!

[CannnaLady]

Romer seems to be the only one kicking up dust here. But since he's elected, I'm sure he'll have to hit the campaign trail soon. Maybe he'll get defeated. Who knows? I wonder how the other 14 state's MMJ laws are working?

Of all conservative states, Florida has actually begun to kick MMJ around. The seniors are especially enthusiastic about the prospects of medicating with pot.

I think Romer's idea is cute if not taken from some old Hollywood movie. But it sounds like Elliot Ness in a fedora and raincoat coming in with a tommy gun and cigar in mouth - "Alright yous darty guys..."

I'm obviously not taking Romer seriously - nor is anyone else...

he's actually running UNOPPOSED. which is why he's on his high horse.

[TheReleafCenter]

Thought Matt Brown did a good job of summing up what CTI missed on in their alert:

Hello everyone,

As many of you are aware, HB1284 and SB109 are back up for debate this week and there have been a number of inaccurate statements circling about these bills. To help set the record straight, I have prepared the following "Fact vs Fiction" comparing many things you may have heard about the dispensary bills with the facts behind those statements. Attached, you will find the most current versions of SB109, HB1284 and most importantly, the fiscal note for HB1284. This fiscal note is the official report of expected costs to HB1284, and it outlines the various fees that are proposed in HB1284. Complicating matters are a number of recent statements attributed to Sen. Chris Romer regarding additional restrictions he claims to be prepared to ADD to the current SB109 and HB1284, however these proposals have not yet even been put in writing, much less added to any official version of the two bills.

Also, I have just received word that the House plans to have second reading of HB1284 on the floor of the House tomorrow morning in general session. I have attached the official House calendar for this week, and it has HB1284 12th on the agenda for tomorrow morning. This hearing is not open to public comment, however a small viewing gallery is available at the Capital for those who wish to attend. The state also streams House sessions live online. To view tomorrow's House debate and vote on HB1284, go to: Colorado House 2010 Legislative Day 98.



Sen. Romer's SB109:

FICTION: SB109 would "destroy the confidentiality of the (medical marijuana) registry."

FACT: SB109 does nothing to impact the absolute confidentiality for patients and providers enshrined in Amendment 20. Opponents of SB109 attempt to connect the medical oversight provided by the Board of Medical Examiners in SB109 to a loss a patient privacy, despite no such link in the actual text of the bill. The section of SB109 dealing with referring a physician to the Board of Medical Examiners (SB109, pg 4, lines 6-16) specifically reiterates that the CDPHE medical marijuana registry is confidential. If the CDPHE suspects that a physician may be inappropriately writing MMJ recommendations, the CDPHE may use aggregate data contained in the registry to refer that doctor to the BME. This is a similar process to how physicians practicing other specialties would be referred to the BME for suspected inappropriate behavior.
Source: Senate Bill 10-109, page 4, lines 6-16





FICTION: SB109 would require all patients 18-23 to receive two independent opinions before being added to the MMJ registry.

FACT: Last Friday the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the conference committee report on SB109 and sent the bill back to conference committee to be reworked, specifically because of this new restriction. Amendment 20 is very clear on providing special rules for applicants under 18, in line with their legal status as a minor. Amendment 20 also draws a bright line for patients 18 and over and does not offer the ability for new rules to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of these adults aged 18-23. The General Assembly simply doesn't have the power to mandate more restrictive rules for a group of adults already covered by Amendment 20. The rejection by the House of this new restriction on 18-23 year olds shows that the legislature is not willing to pass such blatently disallowed restrictions on patient rights under Amendment 20.
Source: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...257655006BA657



Rep. Massey's HB1284 - Dispensary Regulations:

FICTION: This bill requires a $50,000 annual licensing fee.

FACT: Nowhere in this bill is anything close to a $50,000 fee mentioned, much less required. In the official Fiscal Note for HB1284 (attached), the official estimate is that a dispensary license would cost $1,800/yr and Department of Revenue expects to issue 1,100 of these permits in 2011. State fees must be based on actual expenses incurred in the process of administering these licenses, and there is no evidence to support anything close to a $50,000 fee per license. Sen. Romer did make comments at a number of recent events saying he wanted to ADD such a fee to the bill, but no language supporting a $50,000 fee appears anywhere in HB1284.
Source: Fiscal Note on HB10-1284, dated April 5, 2010, Table 1 on page 3.



FICTION: HB1284 seeks to eliminate 95% of dispensaries.

FACT: The current fiscal note estimates 1,100 licenses to be issued for the "Medical Marijuana Center" dispensary license. Unless there are close to 21,000 dispensaries operating statewide, nowhere near 95% would be closed down. More intuitively, it seems hard to believe that a $5/day fee is prohibitive enough to cause widespread closures of legitimate dispensaries. ($1,800 divided by 365 = $4.93/day)
Source: Fiscal Note on HB10-1284, dated April 5, 2010, Table 1 on page 3.



FICTION: Regulators will be in your dispensary every 5-7 days.

FACT: The official estimates contained in the Fiscal Note for HB1284 call for Department of Revenue to allocate 12 criminal investigators spread between 4 locations across the state. Additionally, DOR plans for 3 1/2 full-time auditors and just under 8 full-time administrative staff. Assuming 1,100 dispensary licenses, these 12 auditors would need to make 57,200 on-site inspections every year to visit each location about once a week. This would come to approximately 92 visits per inspector, per week. Assuming a 40 hour work week, each inspection would therefore have to take no more than 26 minutes including all travel time between locations. This analysis doesn't even include the estimated 800 total "optional premises" and "infused products" licenses. With those licensees included, weekly investigations of MMJ licenses could take no more than 16 minutes each, including all travel time.

Obviously, there is no way the Department could conduct weekly inspections like this. What is likely to happen is the exact same experience car dealers, tobacco licensees, lottery retailers, liquor licensees and casinos have with the Department of Revenue. Inspectors will be available to make random spot checks of licensees and more in-depth investigations will occur when suspicious behavior is detected.
Source: Fiscal Note on HB10-1284, dated April 5, 2010, chart on page 1; Table 1 on page 3; "Personal Services" on page 5;



FICTION: Law Enforcement will track patient purchases of their medicine.

FACT: No such system exists, nor does the actual text of HB1284 in any way authorize this level of tracking. Section 12-43.3-202 of HB1284 makes clear that the Department of Revenue must "Maintain the confidentiality of reports obtained from a licensee showing the sales volume or quantity of medical marijuana sold or any other records that are exempt from public inspection pursuant to state law."
Source: HB1284 - Preamended Version, page 9 lines 16-19; Section 12-43.3-202. Powers and Duties of State Licensing Authority, pages 8-13.



FICTION: Law Enforcement may conduct "Warrentless Searches" of dispensaries whenever they want.

FACT: HB1284 prohibits local law enforcement from having access to confidential disclosures to the Department of Revenue, and local law enforcement is not given any authority to search or seize anything at a dispensary without proper cause. If local law enforcement receives information that you are breaking other laws, they may investigate within the normal scope of their authority. Department of Revenue's authority only extends to their ability to spot check the books and records of a licensee to determine if illegal behavior, related to that license, are occuring. All other inspections and investigations must follow normal due process.
Source: HB1284 - Preamended Version, page 9 lines 16-20; page 12 line 24 through page 13 line 5.

[copobo]

if anyone feels good about either of these bills now, you are an idiot.

[Vancefish]

if anyone feels good about either of these bills now, you are an idiot.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

Even if Romer hasn't added the provisions he's talking about YET. The obvious plan is, To soon do so.

Plus, even if the Department of revenue won't have time to do ALL the proposed "inspections". It has the legal right to do so,.. Even if it's just to kill a little time, or because they don't like this guy, or that guy.

I've learned, through years of research. NOT to trust in unfair laws being to hard to enforce. If the law is passed, and is an unfair law. It will also be enforced unfairly! Thus it shouldn't pass in the first place.

This bill, and it's likely soon proposed additions (either way), impose unfair, unenforceable (except selectively), provisions. Thus this 1284 AND 109 NEED to fail!

Again, If it didn't, or doesn't harm anyone, physically, fiscally or emotionally?? Nor did anyone witness such an act of harm.

By your GOD given, US constitutional rights. NO laws were broken.

BTW (and just to be educational :thumbsup

THIS is what ALL jurists are supposed to decide. NOT if the person broke an unconstitutional law, But IF the person harmed anyone. Witnesses are just THAT,.. Witnesses to the harm, said person committed.

If all jurors did this in ALL cases. Law would be again set BY the people. NOT by the courts. Who today, ALWAYS instruct the jury on WHAT "law" exactly they are to vote on. Not on if a crime was actually committed.

This is why a court can overrule a law! So a jury can stop unjust enforcement of said "law".

[TheReleafCenter]

if anyone feels good about either of these bills now, you are an idiot.

I think Matt's point was more that a lot of the talk going on is fairly sensational and things that Romer wants to do he simply can't. Fees have to be inline with department expenditures, for example.

We can all agree that it's important for people to be educated on these issues, and that misinformation doesn't help anyone, right? The CTI does a lot of great work, but the info they released last week was misleading.

[Reenster]

Granted, I have no law degree but this morning I sat down and read all 49 pages of HP1284. I felt it was necessary for me to read it myself so that I do not fall into that Fox news mentality of thinking and just believe what others have told me. I read a article that lists Matt Brown's take on what is fact and fiction about this bill, and I also read Releaf's comments about the misinformation from CTI, so it was time to read it myself and then ask specific questions. I ask you the community what your take is on some of this.

I am far from being fluent in legalese so that might contribute to my concern on some of these item. These first few are about licenses for businesses not patients.

My question here is this. Is it only criminal history that defines moral character? I sure hope our politicians do not make that determinations.
16 12-43.3-307. Persons prohibited as licensees. (1) (a) A LICENSE
19 (II) A PERSON WHOSE CRIMINAL HISTORY INDICATES THAT HE OR
20 SHE IS NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER;
21 (III) A CORPORATION, ANY OF WHOSE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR
22 STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER;
23 (IV) A LICENSED PHYSICIAN MAKING PATIENT
24 RECOMMENDATIONS;
25 (V) A PERSON EMPLOYING, ASSISTED BY, OR FINANCED IN WHOLE
26 OR IN PART BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHOSE CRIMINAL HISTORY INDICATES
27 HE OR SHE IS NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION SATISFACTORY
28 TO THE RESPECTIVE LICENSING AUTHORITY;

30 (VII) A PERSON LICENSED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE WHO,
31 DURING A PERIOD OF LICENSURE, FAILS TO
This I believe is a $5000 surety bond:
(A) PROVIDE 1 A SURETY BOND OR FAILS TO FILE ANY TAX RETURN
2 WITH A TAXING AGENCY;
3 (B) PAY ANY TAXES, INTEREST, OR PENALTIES DUE;
4 (C) PAY ANY JUDGMENTS DUE TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY;
Better pay student Loans
5 (D) REPAY GOVERNMENT-INSURED STUDENT LOANS; OR
6 (E) PAY CHILD SUPPORT;

Could not help but notice that Misdemeanor here:
7 (IX) A PERSON WHO HAS DISCHARGED A SENTENCE IN THE FIVE
8 YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE APPLICATION DATE FOR A
9 CONVICTION OF A FELONY OR A MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO ANY STATE
10 OR FEDERAL LAW REGULATING THE POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF
11 MARIJUANA OR OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
12 18-18-102 (5), C.R.S.;

I am sure this provision will create issues. It hurts the small grower. The growers who have pride in their small grows. I think many dispensaries are business people not growers:
6 (4) NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (3) OF
7 THIS SECTION, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSEE MAY PURCHASE NOT
8 MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL ON-HAND INVENTORY OF
9 MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM ANOTHER LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
10 CENTER IN COLORADO. A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER MAY SELL NO
11 MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL ON-HAND INVENTORY TO
12 ANOTHER COLORADO LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSEE.

Now this is a real concern. By saying that the licensee to furnish information as IT considers necessary for a proper audit must be more specific. My medical records may be among those records need to determine legal transactions. Am I protected?

7 12-43.3-701. Inspection procedures. (1) EACH LICENSEE SHALL
8 KEEP A COMPLETE SET OF ALL RECORDS NECESSARY TO SHOW FULLY THE
9 BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE LICENSEE, ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE OPEN
10 AT ALL TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS FOR THE INSPECTION AND
11 EXAMINATION OF THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY OR ITS DULY
12 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY
13 REQUIRE ANY LICENSEE TO FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS IT CONSIDERS
14 NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ARTICLE AND MAY
15 REQUIRE AN AUDIT TO BE MADE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS
16 ON SUCH OCCASIONS AS IT MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY BY AN AUDITOR TO
17 BE SELECTED BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL LIKEWISE
18 HAVE ACCESS TO ALL BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE LICENSEE, AND THE
19 EXPENSE THEREOF SHALL BE PAID BY THE LICENSEE.
20 (2) THE LICENSED PREMISES, INCLUDING ANY PLACES OF STORAGE
21 WHERE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS GROWN, STORED, CULTIVATED, SOLD, OR
22 DISPENSED, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE STATE OR LOCAL
23 LICENSING AUTHORITIES AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS, DURING ALL
24 BUSINESS HOURS AND OTHER TIMES OF APPARENT ACTIVITY, FOR THE
25 PURPOSE OF INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION. FOR EXAMINATION OF ANY
26 INVENTORY OR BOOKS AND RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY THE
27 LICENSEES, ACCESS SHALL BE REQUIRED DURING BUSINESS HOURS. WHERE
28 ANY PART OF THE LICENSED PREMISES CONSISTS OF A LOCKED AREA, UPON
29 DEMAND TO THE LICENSEE, SUCH AREA SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
30 INSPECTION WITHOUT DELAY, AND, UPON REQUEST BY AUTHORIZED
31 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OR LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE
32 LICENSEE SHALL OPEN THE AREA FOR INSPECTION.

Under unlawful exceptions is another issue. Again how are patients in public housing or in situations where consumption is difficult or impossible at their own home.

8 12-43.3-901. Unlawful acts - exceptions. (1) EXCEPT AS
9 OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON:
10 (a) TO CONSUME MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN A LICENSED MEDICAL
11 MARIJUANA CENTER, AND IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A MEDICAL
12 MARIJUANA LICENSEE TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO BE CONSUMED
13 UPON ITS LICENSED PREMISES; EXCEPT THAT EDIBLE MEDICAL
14 MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS MAY BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES
15 PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-43.3-402 (2)

9 (c) TO PROVIDE PUBLIC PREMISES, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, FOR
10 THE PURPOSE OF CONSUMPTION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN ANY FORM;
11 EXCEPT THAT EDIBLE MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS MAY BE
12 CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-43.3-402 (2)

So much is wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. Why should it be illegal for a caregiver to assist in caring for their patient? Heave forbid that people actually work together to give better service to their patients.

7 (5) Primary caregivers. (a) A PRIMARY CAREGIVER MAY NOT
8 DELEGATE TO ANY OTHER PERSON HIS OR HER AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE
9 MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A PATIENT NOR MAY A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
10 ENGAGE OTHERS TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A
11 PATIENT.
12 (b) TWO OR MORE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS SHALL NOT JOIN
13 TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

I guess this is to stop family grows:

12 (c) A PATIENT WHO HAS DESIGNATED A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR
13 HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY NOT BE DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 FOR ANOTHER PATIENT.

Does this really state that the State Health Agency can deny or revoke my card because of a physician's violation? Who determines when and if these violations occur?

3 (b) THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY DENY A PATIENT'S OR
4 PRIMARY CAREGIVER'S APPLICATION FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION
5 CARD OR REVOKE THE CARD IF THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY, IN
6 ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24,C.R.S., DETERMINES THAT THE
7 PHYSICIAN WHO DIAGNOSED THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL
8 CONDITION, THE PATIENT, OR THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER VIOLATED SECTION
9 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THIS SECTION, OR THE
10 RULES PROMULGATED BY THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY PURSUANT TO THIS
11 SECTION; EXCEPT THAT A PATIENT'S APPLICATION OR REGISTRY
12 IDENTIFICATION CARD MAY ONLY BE DENIED OR REVOKED BASED ON A
13 PHYSICIAN'S VIOLATION THAT IS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A MEDICAL
14 MARIJUANA RECOMMENDATION.

Well sorry to be so long winded. Hopefully some of you can add to the discussion. I really doubt any of this can possibly get off the ground, after all I have been waiting for my card since they received my recommendation on November 8, 2009. If they can not even get cards out in a timely manner I fail to see how they can get something this complicated going at all.