Quote Originally Posted by michaelnights
8 AT THE TIME A PATIENT APPLIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE
9 CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRY, THE PATIENT SHALL INDICATE WHETHER THE
10 PATIENT INTENDS TO CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA,
11 BOTH CULTIVATE HIS OR HER OWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND OBTAIN IT
12 FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA
13 CENTER, OR INTENDS TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER A PRIMARY CAREGIVER
14 OR A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. IF THE PATIENT ELECTS TO
15 USE A LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER, THE PATIENT SHALL
16 REGISTER THE PRIMARY CENTER HE OR SHE INTENDS TO USE.
Page 57

The important word being SHALL. It is not permissive. It does not use the word MAY.

Patients will NOT be allow to shop around, obtain their green meds at any dispensary of their choice. They can ONLY buy from the dispensary where they are registered with the state.

This subject came up a number of times at the Senate, Local Gov & Energy Committee hearing on 4/28. The provision was not disputed, by Sens Romer, Spence, etc. If it was incorrect, they'd have jumped all over the testimony.

Sen. Romer, at the hearing, seemed to cast blame upon the Governor's office for all these anti-patient "imperfections" in the bill.
*sigh*
Sorry to be insulting, but you really should learn how to read legal language before freaking out about it. That passage is intended for patients who wish to designate a DISPENSARY (as opposed to a private caregiver) the PRIMARY (meaning that dispensary is their legal caregiver and thus gets their plant rights) dispensary where they will purchase meds. Nowhere in the bill does it say that a person may go to no other dispensaries than the one that is designated their primary caregiver. That would make no sense and would've been torn apart (or at least mentioned) by CTI or any number of panicked advocacy organizations sending out e-mails with incorrect information.

And yes, I am against the bill. But the above is not a concern to me in the least because if you understand the context in which it was written (as well as within the context of the current system wherein a patient can designate a PRIMARY caregiver but still get meds from other legal caregivers), it's clear that's not what it's saying.

Anyway... that's the political science education in me coming out after having had to read shittons of Supreme Court cases and other long-winded legal opinions and legislation. The language is somewhat vague in the bill and it's difficult to understand all aspects of a 72+ page monstrosity, but the above passage is fairly clear on the scheme of things.

Also, did you not read the clause before that one? A patient can choose to: a) grow their own medicine only, b) grow their own medicine while also having a private caregiver or getting it from a dispensary or c) sign up a single dispensary as their PRIMARY, making that dispensary act as their caregiver in the same sense that a private one would (allowing them to purchase meds elsewhere but getting their 6 plants). Seems pretty clear to me, and it makes sense (one of the few parts of the bill that I have absolutely no problem with).
MMJinColorado Reviewed by MMJinColorado on . It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID ! HB 10-1284 Sec. 2. 25-1.5-106 (6)(f) limits patients to a single, insecure source for buying their medicine. This single clause is the link-pin to defeating HB 10-1284. If a patient wants to BUY their medicine at a ??licensed medical marijuana center,? they must chose one and note that one dispensary on their ID application or renewal form. This becomes their single and only legal source for BUYING medical cannabis in CO. There is no exception nor lawful means in the bill to change Rating: 5