Romer or Corry

[luge469]

it's not a sin to medicate. it isn't legal for recreational use.

if they want to have a sin tax, legalize it for rec use, and tax that differently then medical use..

Isn't that what I said? Until it is a legal recreational drug it should not be taxed. However when it it is legalized one can surely guess that it will be subject to all those "sin" taxes. Now I also think that medical marijuana should not be taxed.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I am trying a new strain of medicine!:jointsmile:

I guess that's 4 cents now

[HighPopalorum]

I think a further surtax is a bad idea. If this is a revenue issue, there are more comprehensive approaches that make more sense.

I believe there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the sales tax issue. On the one hand, much medicine in Colorado is subject to sales tax, including all natural medicines sold OTC. I am also sympathetic to the idea that when a business pays sales taxes, they become larger stakeholders in a community. On the other, many necessities like groceries, children's clothing, and prescription medicine are exempt from sales tax in some areas. For a certain tiny portion of patients, MMJ is a necessity and an argument against sales tax could be made on those grounds. Had I my 'druthers, I'd tax MMC sales it at the standard sales tax rate, and five-patient caregivers not at all. I oppose all surtaxes on marijuana that originate at the state level. I would oppose such an added tax in my own community, probably.

[copobo]

luge469...

didn't say I disagreed with you. lol

[luge469]

Very nice! Now that I have your attention I have another question that I have asked before on this forum but no reply....
I have heard about Romer and who not to vote for, but does any one know what candidates are pro-cannabis? I live in Aurora and the only say I have it seems is in the vote to allow dispensaries in town. It would be helpful to know who these people are so we can stand behind them. I realize it's 5 months away but....:smokin:

[TheReleafCenter]

Very nice! Now that I have your attention I have another question that I have asked before on this forum but no reply....
I have heard about Romer and who not to vote for, but does any one know what candidates are pro-cannabis? I live in Aurora and the only say I have it seems is in the vote to allow dispensaries in town. It would be helpful to know who these people are so we can stand behind them. I realize it's 5 months away but....:smokin:

I'd suggest sending an e-mail into the NORML PAC, they might give you some good suggestions. NORML PAC - NORML

I'd also suggest actually checking their non-cannabis politics. Rob McNealy is for MMJ, but in my opinion (and not the opinion of The Releaf Center) he has some fairly scary stances on other issues. It seems to be a popular fringe issue for a lot of the Tea Party/Libertarian candidates.

[cologrower420]

I think it's important to note that the pro-legal and pro-medical is both a small percentage of the overall population and an even smaller portion of the voting population.

Amendment 20 was passed in 1998. Good economy, nothing really going on at home. This was pre September 11th, before the terrorists' won, if only for a time.

There are still people who think pot is a drug, that drugs are bad, and they shouldn't be legalized in any form. Those people vote more often than 'our' crowd, and our legislators are mindful of that.

While the politicians tell us they are championing the rights of the poor and the little guys, they are also telling the bible thumpers that they won't allow drug dealers on street corners selling to kids.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to pay extra sales tax if it means remaining legal. That's absolutely an associated cost when I think of what I used to deal with. I don't agree with it, but if it means paying 6% to keep my dispensaries open and the general public at peace, then fine. It's a tiny, tiny price to pay to be able to have this kind of unprecedented access to medicine. see CL.

[Zedleppelin]

See, I completely disagree with that. The people that opened dispensaries, by and large, were people with experience that had grown for a while or had decent connections. The "20 year old punks" (I'm 27, not sure if that makes me a punk) are the ones that knew they'd make more money swindling a few patients into signing up with them so they could go to the dispensaries and making the real money.

A few years ago it was true that the people who opened dispensaries were experienced growers/users, but not when everything exploded. I have been on both sides, both dispensary owner and caregiver. When I had our dispensary most were low key and were not throwing it in the publics face. Most were ran by people you could trust and although there was a profit factor most were actually concerned about the patient. But then again most who had cards had truly legitimate issues. Then came the Obama Administration and its statement not to go after mmj and everything changed. People that had flooded the Cali market flocked here to capitalize and you had kids who didnt know better turning their houses into 300 plant grow rooms and a lot of them went on to open dispensaries. These are the ones that hired doctors, put up huge signs, and caused this fiasco to get out of control. Ever see The Kind Room or Boulder County Caregivers advertise that they had doctors on board? The whole thing turned into a clusterfuck of greed from both dispensaries and caregivers.

I understand why growers are upset, but I can't fathom why it's with MMC's in general. We were their bread and butter, and I'd dare say that 90% of them made their money off of wholesaling, not their patients.

Its the few Walmart wannabe dispensaries that people are upset with. Lets face it, they played a huge role in 1284. As far as the dispensaries being the caregivers bread and butter it was also the caregivers that were the dispensaries bread and butter. Most dispensaries would not have survived if it were not for caregivers and vice versa.

But I'll put this question back on you: out of all of the caregivers out there, what percentage do you think GENUINELY care about patients and AREN'T in this to make a buck?

Probably the same percentage as dispensary owners. 95% of the people in this regardless of what role they play are in it to make a buck, nothing wrong with that. But when it becomes based on greed then the problems start, and I see a lot more greed coming from the dispensary side. When I had my dispensary nothing ever sold for over $50 and never was a caregiver paid less than a grand for a QP unless there was more quantity involved and we still made decent money. Now I hear about a lot of these places offering $600 for QP's, are they lowering their prices on the retail end?

The last thing I want is for my patients to have to go to a caregiver who can rip them off without anyone ever knowing. If I put a jar of meds out covered in mold, people will spread the word. When we had a couple seeds in some great Master Kush a few months back, I came to the community and asked if there was a consensus on what to do with it. A caregiver sells a 70 year old cancer patient something crawling in mites and odds are no one ever knows.

Once again it works both ways. It is a lot harder for caregivers to find patients than it is for a center to find them and there is just as much incentive, if not more, to provide people with good quality meds. Yes I know there are tons of people growing crappy meds and it surprises me that anyone would sell them. Matter of fact I just grew 6 plants of a new strain that I wasnt happy with, no mold or anything like that, but I wasnt impressed. Last night I chopped them all and gave it all to one of my patients free, he'll probably get close to 2lbs but I would have not been happy selling it to any of my patients, but I have without a doubt seen much worse in dispensaries. I am not bashing the whole dispensary model, I know quite a few good ones, but I know a hell of a lot more bad ones.

[luge469]

I'd suggest sending an e-mail into the NORML PAC, they might give you some good suggestions. NORML PAC - NORML

I'd also suggest actually checking their non-cannabis politics. Rob McNealy is for MMJ, but in my opinion (and not the opinion of The Releaf Center) he has some fairly scary stances on other issues. It seems to be a popular fringe issue for a lot of the Tea Party/Libertarian candidates.

Thank you RC! I do not plan to vote on a candidate on just those principles but it is a good starting point on my decision! Though voting libertarian/independent since 1992, I don't know what good it has done.
I do not agree with any tax (except for sales tax) on Medical Marijuana. When it becomes legal for all adults recreationally, then I am sure it will be open to taxation; but it should be able to be purchased tax exempt when used as medicine. How hard would that be?:bonghit:

[TheReleafCenter]

The whole thing turned into a clusterfuck of greed from both dispensaries and caregivers.

I think that summed it up well. And for what it's worth, we try to give back as much as we can on here for the little free advertising we get for posting. It feels like centers get a lot more of the vitriol when there are very few people without blood on their hands in the business. And most of those who do won't be around much longer. Competition is getting tougher.

[cologrower420]

Zedleppelin: I appreciate your input here. However, you appear to be totally and completely biased against dispensaries, so I question your use of that word. I don't expect you to answer, but what kind of dispensary did you own? Did you have a storefront or location, how did you do business? It just seems to me that if you had any sort of investment in the MMC/dispensary side of things, you wouldn't post how you do. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, I'm genuinely curious where your viewpoints come from. I also understand that my question involves personal info, so I'm not really expecting a candid response.

I have a question for people who are against the 5 patient limit.

When old people see on the news, that the guy in highlands ranch had hundreds of plants, was close to a school, otherwise nowhere near compliance with A20, the old grey hairs freaked out. Those old fucks vote. How can our legislators ignore those people?

Now, politicians can answer them with 1284. Now, the law says those large scale illegal home grows are even more illegal.

Or something.