Isn't the cart before the horse here? Growers to marry up to dispensories?

[rightwinger]

Regarding lawyers telling dispensories that they only have until July 1, 2010, (less than one month) to marry up with growers.

It CLEARLY states in the bill

That the state is responsible for:

Develop such forms, licenses, identification cards, and applications as are necessary or convenient in the discretion of the state licensing authority for the administration of this article or any of the rules promulgated under this article.

(Page 10 or if revised now around page 10.)

The problems I see with this--is not only does anyone have any forms that the State is required to produce--but dispensory owners still have no idea what the license fees will be. So they could marry up to growers that supply them and then decide (because of the state licensing fee) that they will be closing down. Not only that but their Lawyers will be contacting them again--once the State actually has the forms for them to fill out.

I think the Lawyers in this state have spotted a huge economic boom for themselves--putting out information to their clients that may not hold water in the coming months.

Your thoughts?

rightwinger Reviewed by rightwinger on 06-03-2010. Isn't the cart before the horse here? Growers to marry up to dispensories? Regarding lawyers telling dispensories that they only have until July 1, 2010, (less than one month) to marry up with growers. It CLEARLY states in the bill That the state is responsible for: (Page 10 or if revised now around page 10.) The problems I see with this--is not only does anyone have any forms that the State is required to produce--but dispensory owners still have no idea what the license fees will be. So they could marry up to growers that supply them and then decide Rating: 5

[HighPopalorum]

Well, when it comes to compliance, sooner is always better than later. I would guess lawyers are advising their MMC clients to try to get in compliance with 1284, even though many details are still lacking. This is the view of my attorney.

[FunkeeNuggz]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought 1284 stated 2 caregivers cannot join together for business. Maybe it was removed or I misread it but all this talk about joining together is confusing me.

[rightwinger]

Well, when it comes to compliance, sooner is always better than later. I would guess lawyers are advising their MMC clients to try to get in compliance with 1284, even though many details are still lacking. This is the view of my attorney.

Well--I have dealt with attorneys in my own small business (not marijuana) for over 30+ years--and I have become aware that many attorney's really do not understand the private sector business world and what goes on when it comes to State regulated licensed business'es. In my experience the state has always allowed for an extention of time for the proper forms to be filled out--and also time allowed for business'es to know the new laws so they are able to adjust to them.

(Less than one month after the signing of a bill is not acceptable.) Normally the state will give 9 months to a year for new regulations to be known to all--before they try and enforce new codes and regulations.

By right now marrying up to a dispensory that may or may not be open in the coming months would put the grower out of business also.

And as we have seen the State of Colorado has been 6-7 months behind in simply issuing medical marijuana permits. All of these other forms that they have not developed as yet--that they are responsible for making--may take just as long.

[rightwinger]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought 1284 stated 2 caregivers cannot join together for business. Maybe it was removed or I misread it but all this talk about joining together is confusing me.

Two caregivers under this bill are NOT allowed to join together. What we are talking about is the "optional" premise growing sites that are in this bill.

Under this bill dispensories must grow at least 70% of their medical marijuana. The other 30% is supposed to be purchased from another dispensory--LOL. As if one competitor is going to want to help another competitor stay in business? So for the dispensory owners to cover themselves on the additional 30% or more that they will need to keep their doors open to their patients--they can have an optional premise grow site--more than likely growers whom are already growing-either for themselves or as small time caregivers.

Again--the problem is--this bill requires that the STATE supply all of these forms. Yet, we have attorney's in mass telling dispensories owners to marry up to these optional grow sites--and giving them a "deadline" which is in the bill of July 1, 2010 or less than one month away. This without dispensories even knowing what the state licensing fees will be, etc. etc. Or whether they will be able to keep their dispensory open because of fees.

Legally--if the state has not produced the forms that they are required to do--then it cannot be enforced until they do--and then the time period be extended so businesse's can obtain the forms and send back.

I guess I equate all of this too--trying to jump a red-light and getting t-boned in the process.

[COzigzag]

How convenient for them! How is anybody supposed to get in compliance when nobody knows what "compliance" is at this point? This system is such a joke.

Summarized History for Bill Number HB10-1284
(The date the bill passed to the committee of the whole reflects the date the bill passed out of committee.)

02/05/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary + Appropriations
03/04/2010 House Committee on Judiciary Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
03/22/2010 House Committee on Judiciary Refer Amended to Appropriations
04/16/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
04/20/2010 House Second Reading Passed with Amendments
04/22/2010 House Third Reading Passed
04/23/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Local Government and Energy + Appropriations
04/27/2010 Senate Committee on Local Government and Energy Refer Amended to Appropriations
04/30/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to Senate Committee of the Whole
05/05/2010 Senate Second Reading Passed with Amendments
05/06/2010 Senate Third Reading Passed with Amendments
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Not Concur - Request Conference Committee
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Laid Over Daily
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Concur - Repass
05/11/2010 House Consideration of First Conference Committee Report result was to Reconsider
05/27/2010 Signed by the Speaker of the House
06/01/2010 Signed by the President of the Senate
06/01/2010 Sent to the Governor

[HighPopalorum]

Summarized History for Bill Number HB10-1284
(The date the bill passed to the committee of the whole reflects the date the bill passed out of committee.)

02/05/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary + Appropriations
03/04/2010 House Committee on Judiciary Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
03/22/2010 House Committee on Judiciary Refer Amended to Appropriations
04/16/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
04/20/2010 House Second Reading Passed with Amendments
04/22/2010 House Third Reading Passed
04/23/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Local Government and Energy + Appropriations
04/27/2010 Senate Committee on Local Government and Energy Refer Amended to Appropriations
04/30/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to Senate Committee of the Whole
05/05/2010 Senate Second Reading Passed with Amendments
05/06/2010 Senate Third Reading Passed with Amendments
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Not Concur - Request Conference Committee
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Laid Over Daily
05/11/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Concur - Repass
05/11/2010 House Consideration of First Conference Committee Report result was to Reconsider
05/27/2010 Signed by the Speaker of the House
06/01/2010 Signed by the President of the Senate
06/01/2010 Sent to the Governor

What are you trying to suggest or prove with this data?

[COzigzag]

What are you trying to suggest or prove with this data?

That this bill was just sent to the governor on June 1, 2010.

[copobo]

so... he now has to 7/1 to sign it? almost right when it goes into effect?

[throatstick]

this is what i have been saying,we don't know anything this bill was rushed they were in such a hurry to fuck us they did'nt even have any of it fig'd out."this shows me that all that voted for this to pass did'nt even look into it,didn't even ask these simple ???"now that it's done they will drag their feet.this is what should be in the lawsuits as well.i have never seen this done so quickly in any other case ever.how the fuck can you issue up a bill and not have anything on you're end setup then give a deadline you can't even uphold?

we as citizens of this state are going to stand for this slap in the face?i bet most patients will still vote for these cocksuckers come nov.thats how it seems to be so far in this country....well we have to pick 1 right? bs...