Quote Originally Posted by Kartel
I hope it did a lot of good for your ego to chide Matt for a crime you have committed as least as egregiously he did.

To be specific, the higher plant count section is pg 53 section e, not the pages you referred to. This amendment does far more than reiterate amendment 20. To quote 1284:



On the other hand, amendment 20 does not explicitly allow someone to possess more than 6 plants, it simply allows an affirmative defense:


Actually I wasn't trying to boost my ego or feel better by about myself, i was merely trying to clear up what he wrote so that others can have a better understanding of what exactly HB 1284 entails, not what Matt Brown thinks it entails.

For example, I am well aware of the fact that medical marijuana centers are now allowed under HB 1284 to have more than 6 plants and that the language used is far different from what is in Amend 20. however, if you notice that Matt wrote "Higher Plant Count" recommendations in excess of 6 plants now recognized by Health Department (page 65 line 25 - page 66 line 3) which is incorrect and why I listed the lines pertaining to caregivers on page 65. Caregivers and their patients are still restricted to the 6 plants, as listed in HB 1284:

(10) Affirmative defense. IF A PATIENT OR PRIMARY CAREGIVER RAISES AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 (4) (b) OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN SHALL CERTIFY THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF TWO OUNCES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION AND WHY SUCH AMOUNTS ARE NECESSARY. A PATIENT WHO ASSERTS THIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHALL WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVILEGES RELATED TO THE CONDITION OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION. IF A PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR PHYSICIAN RAISES AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 (2) (b) OR (c) OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR PHYSICIAN WAIVES THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF HIS OR HER RECORDS RELATED TO THE CONDITION OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION MAINTAINED BY THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY FOR THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM. UPON REQUEST OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR SUCH RECORDS, THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY SHALL ONLY PROVIDE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE INDIVIDUAL RAISING THE EXCEPTION, AND SHALL REDACT ALL OTHER PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR PHYSICIAN IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.


i apologize if i offended you or came off sounding like a jerk, that's the last thing i wanted to do. it's been a rough few weeks trying to figure out where to go from here and when i read matt brown's article in the westword it made me angry and i felt compelled to respond. sorry