we need patients + caregivers advocacy

[copobo]

there needs to be a political action group with just the patients and small caregivers interests in mind.

it doesn't seem like anyone is doing that.

it's the businesses that are represented... cuz that's where the $$ is.

copobo Reviewed by copobo on 07-07-2010. we need patients + caregivers advocacy there needs to be a political action group with just the patients and small caregivers interests in mind. it doesn't seem like anyone is doing that. it's the businesses that are represented... cuz that's where the $$ is. Rating: 5

[GratefulMeds]

We do have that site we talked about up now, but I have been busy with so much lately just to stay in the game I have not had time for much else. But soon I should have more time to devote to the cause.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[HighPopalorum]

Other than the five patient limit, there really is no regulation or oversight of patients and caregivers.... so what's the point? What would the group advocate?

Besides, the interests of patients, caregivers and dispensary owners like GM here are not identical.

[Zedleppelin]

Other than the five patient limit, there really is no regulation or oversight of patients and caregivers.... so what's the point? What would the group advocate?

How about the fact that A20 was written specifically for patients AND caregivers, yet 1284 gives dispensaries a monopoly over it all at the cost of caregivers and patients? What was the point of making a law that says dispensaries can make a profit and caregivers cannot? Now they're attacking caregivers with kids. Everything we've seen from Chris in Highlands Ranch to the North Metro Task Force's nazi like tactics are all designed to get rid of caregivers, one of the few things A20 supposedly protects. The intent is to get rid of caregivers, plain and simple, and if we dont fight this now we're fucked. Once again it all comes down to who has the most money and it is exactly why we got screwed to begin with. I agree with copobo, we need to organize and fast. One problem is growers are the most paranoid of the bunch and for the most part have remained silent.

[Colodonmed]

How about the fact that A20 was written specifically for patients AND caregivers, yet 1284 gives dispensaries a monopoly over it all at the cost of caregivers and patients? What was the point of making a law that says dispensaries can make a profit and caregivers cannot? Now they're attacking caregivers with kids. Everything we've seen from Chris in Highlands Ranch to the North Metro Task Force's nazi like tactics are all designed to get rid of caregivers, one of the few things A20 supposedly protects. The intent is to get rid of caregivers, plain and simple, and if we dont fight this now we're fucked. Once again it all comes down to who has the most money and it is exactly why we got screwed to begin with. I agree with copobo, we need to organize and fast. One problem is growers are the most paranoid of the bunch and for the most part have remained silent.

A person whom I trust to be truthfull and was in the infused product business until recently attended a meeting with a group of individuals to discuss strategy after the passing of 1284. Several dispensaries and infused products folks were represented at this meeting and one of the top folks there, did not get her name but she claimed to have been involved with the mmj movement since it's inception displayed a flow chart in which " centers " were at the top, then the growers alongside the infused product people, and off to the side with no connection in the flow were the caregivers as defined by ammendment 20. A question was asked why the caregivers were off to the side on their own and the reply was basically " We are not too concerned with them as they will be phased out in a few years " not verbatim but the meaning is /was there.

Zep, you are right about the Amendment being for the patient/caregiver and the resulting monopolies that 1284 is creating. Patients rights are not going to matter if this movement continues on it's current path. Everyone will be forced back undeground or required to obtain their medicine from a select group of very wealthy dispensary owners and their cronies. IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME FOLKS

[cologrower420]

How about the fact that A20 was written specifically for patients AND caregivers, yet 1284 gives dispensaries a monopoly over it all at the cost of caregivers and patients? What was the point of making a law that says dispensaries can make a profit and caregivers cannot? Now they're attacking caregivers with kids. Everything we've seen from Chris in Highlands Ranch to the North Metro Task Force's nazi like tactics are all designed to get rid of caregivers, one of the few things A20 supposedly protects. The intent is to get rid of caregivers, plain and simple, and if we dont fight this now we're fucked. Once again it all comes down to who has the most money and it is exactly why we got screwed to begin with. I agree with copobo, we need to organize and fast. One problem is growers are the most paranoid of the bunch and for the most part have remained silent.

Based on your last sentence, it would seem obvious that the people who were the most vocal got what they wanted. Maybe if all of these small scale growers would have been more pro-active instead of now being reactive, we wouldn't be here.

It's silly to attempt to make changes to legislation or repeal or whatever, and it's even more silly to discuss it like it's a viable option.

It would be better worth our time if we discussed how to get compliant with current legislation, not change it.

For example, let's try to save these small scale basement grows. Let's assume the caregiver lives alone, owns the property, is a patient, and has 5 patients. With a 6 plant cap, that's 30-36 plants max that this grower can have.

Under 1284, can't plant counts be increased to 24 or 50 or something? Why can't that caregiver who grows the super chronic just find 5 patients with really high plant count limits? I don't know what the number is, but let's say 50. 5 patients would be 250 plants, which seems to cover all the bases of these small scale growers, those who didn't want to marry an MMC or pay the offsite license. Wouldn't that be an option to keep the small grow compliant, save the license fees?

[Zedleppelin]

Based on your last sentence, it would seem obvious that the people who were the most vocal got what they wanted. Maybe if all of these small scale growers would have been more pro-active instead of now being reactive, we wouldn't be here.

Thats exactly what happened.

It's silly to attempt to make changes to legislation or repeal or whatever, and it's even more silly to discuss it like it's a viable option.It would be better worth our time if we discussed how to get compliant with current legislation, not change it.

This is just plain ridiculous. The man who sits back, does nothing and conforms becomes a puppet to special interests. Next year will be more legislation to control caregivers and it will go on until they are gone.

For example, let's try to save these small scale basement grows. Let's assume the caregiver lives alone, owns the property, is a patient, and has 5 patients. With a 6 plant cap, that's 30-36 plants max that this grower can have.

Under 1284, can't plant counts be increased to 24 or 50 or something? Why can't that caregiver who grows the super chronic just find 5 patients with really high plant count limits? I don't know what the number is, but let's say 50. 5 patients would be 250 plants, which seems to cover all the bases of these small scale growers, those who didn't want to marry an MMC or pay the offsite license. Wouldn't that be an option to keep the small grow compliant, save the license fees?

First off nothing in 1284 changes for caregivers as far as plant count goes. All it states is that the Dept of Health will recognize higher recommendations for 'centers' and it states it can be used as an affirmative defense which is the way its always been under A20. Doesnt mean the cops will follow it and you will not get charged, it means you can use it as a defense in a trial $30,000 later.

Secondly, even with a higher plant count what do you plan on doing with your extra meds?

[HighPopalorum]

The way I saw and see the matter is this: caregivers cannot run a for-profit business because that would entail regulation, inspection, taxes etc. It's better this way without any of those kinds of oversight. I like that patients have all three options: for-profit retail, non-profit small growers, or self production. I also like the fact that caregivers can grow without ever seeing the face of a DPHE inspector, a cop, or a revenoor. That seems to me to be the intent of A20. (although I'm glad we also allow dispensaries!)

[donnadanko]

there needs to be a political action group with just the patients and small caregivers interests in mind.

it doesn't seem like anyone is doing that.

it's the businesses that are represented... cuz that's where the $$ is.

Grasshopper here......ok seriously why don't one of you guys start a group?
I mean your on here everyday, you have passion and you all like debating.
I think copobo or zedlep or even highpop could do?

I guess if you just don't want to, I can understnd that.

[Zedleppelin]

The way I saw and see the matter is this: caregivers cannot run a for-profit business because that would entail regulation, inspection, taxes etc. It's better this way without any of those kinds of oversight. I like that patients have all three options: for-profit retail, non-profit small growers, or self production. I also like the fact that caregivers can grow without ever seeing the face of a DPHE inspector, a cop, or a revenoor. That seems to me to be the intent of A20. (although I'm glad we also allow dispensaries!)

I'm not so sure caregivers will never see an inspector. Caregivers are now required to register with the Dept of Revenue so you will no longer be in a database that is off limits to law enforcement. Is that something you trust? I dont, not in this present climate.