HB10-1284-So growers......what just happened?

[puntacometa]

I'm hearing a one year statewide moratorium with the caveat that an existing grower must now be affiliated with a dispensary....only one dispensary, whereas, a dispensary can contract with many growers.

I'm hearing this from a third party who I consider to be a good source of info. If this is true, it certainly restricts the options of growers. I'm thinking it will also drive down prices, which will in turn, reduce the amount of money that growers are willing to invest in the pricier systems and nutrients. It will be interesting to see how this sorts itself out and what it does to the price/quality equation and to those businesses downstream who support this industry.

puntacometa Reviewed by puntacometa on 04-22-2010. HB10-1284-So growers......what just happened? I'm hearing a one year statewide moratorium with the caveat that an existing grower must now be affiliated with a dispensary....only one dispensary, whereas, a dispensary can contract with many growers. I'm hearing this from a third party who I consider to be a good source of info. If this is true, it certainly restricts the options of growers. I'm thinking it will also drive down prices, which will in turn, reduce the amount of money that growers are willing to invest in the pricier systems Rating: 5

[Zedleppelin]

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

The bill is at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_eng.pdf

[puntacometa]

[QUOTE]

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

If the rest must be purchased from another dispensary, then wouldn't the independent grower need to lose his/her independence and be growing for some dispensary or another in order to remain a grower......either that or get licensed as a dispensary?

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

Interesting how they pass laws that are puntitive and senseless in the context of this particular issue.

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

Cost of cultivation......overhead as defined by actual grow expenditure, including fixed infrastructure costs like greenhouses and security systems and ongoing overhead items like fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides and utilities? Caregiving services.....my time and expertise?? Sounds to me like they will need to audit each caregiver monthly.

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

You mean those same dispensaries who want to ........... oops.....sorry.....better not piss 'em off now.

[Reenster]

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

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.

[puntacometa]

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

It may well be off the ground whether it is really capable of achieving level flight or not. Looks like the administration of this program is going to be handled by the department of revenue rather than the CDPHE.

Compassionate right brained caregiver.......meet the left brained bean counters. The time and expense it will entail just keeping up with this will necessitate a full time accountant and attorney. That's not necessarily a bad thing as most businesses have them, but for smaller operations it's going to be a tough transition and will likely drive them underground or out of business. In the meantime, it's time to start collecting horseshit for nutes. The money you used to be able to spend on boutique items may be needed for other things.

[GratefulMeds]

Ive read the revised bill and it doesnt say anything about dispensaries contracting with growers or vice versa and actually it says quite the opposite. What it does say is dispensaries must grow at least 70% of their own and the rest must be purchased from another dispensary. From what I understand the grow portion of a dispensary must be owned by the dispensary.

It also states anyone convicted of any drug felony EVER would be barred from having any ownership in a dispensary or a commercial grow. Any other felony conviction has to be more than 5 years old. So a rapist that was convicted 6 years ago could own a dispensary, whereas someone convicted 25 years ago for selling a joint would be barred forever.

Caregivers would be limited to 5 patients and must get fingerprinted and registered with the state along with a criminal background check. Anyone with a felony that is 5 years or less would be disqualified from being a caregiver. Caregivers must sell their medicine for the cost of of cultivation but can charge for caregiving services.

This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients.

The bill is at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_eng.pdf

I could not agree more with this Statement "This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients." I have been saying this and many times screaming it to ever would listen. Wake up people we have to defeat this bill, don't leave it to the other guy, because that "other guy" is busy selling us all out!

[COzigzag]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1284_ren.pdf

[palerider7777]

I could not agree more with this Statement "This is a bill written by the dispensaries to monopolize the market and to screw growers/caregivers/patients." I have been saying this and many times screaming it to ever would listen. Wake up people we have to defeat this bill, don't leave it to the other guy, because that "other guy" is busy selling us all out!

same here,they want to make it legal and illegal at the same time.only the big guy gets a chance all the small guys they want to go back underground so they can bust them.ohh looky what we have here mr leo guy says when the bill opens all records to them.look now we have a list lets go fuck with these small timers cause now we know who is in and who is out.and we know there not just going to stop doing their passion in life.....to them it will be best of both worlds the leo dept still get to fuck with people and the state can make up any fee and tax they want to rape everyone with.it's a win win for them lose lose for mmj.

people that are for this bill makes me wonder who's side they really are on....

[Jord0713]

Rob Corry » Blog Archive » Scorched Earth Victory: Senator Romer Pulls Crushing Regulations

Maybe Romer is suffering from a little short term memory loss...

[palerider7777]

I posted this yesterday on another thread so I thought I would just copy and paste it here. Not sure how much of this has been changed or removed but here are some of my concerns.

another problem i see with these types of bills are.1 looks like they are trying to push the growers into contracts with the shops like i said b4 trying to push the lil guy out of the loop.some might think this is great and all but think of this. say said shop is'nt doing things above board things the grower has no part of and said shop gets busted.guess what so will the contract grower as they"leo"will say it is all linked together since the grower is forced to be part of the bizz.that means if shop gets raided so does the grower.:wtf: