Quote Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
Why do you continue to insult me and then try to tell me I'm the one insulting you?

Yes, if he had paperwork to grow for all those patients he was a caregiver. znot a very smart one but, he was in no different possition than the government is putting all MMC's in. An illegal one.

My interpretation of a caregiver comes from the Colorado Constitution article 18 section 14. Where do you get yours?

Illegal is illegal you know that. You just want to continue to insult people.


It's all illegal under federal law so if you're going to put non compliant growers in with the meth cooks they why arent you attaching MMC's also?

Seems more like you just throwing around insults. Every chance you get you compare growers to meth labs. Why? my guess is to get under peoples skin.

LOL rage.. One more time for you. Under the Colorado Constitution caregivers have no patient limit.

Yes and I've gone over this with you multiple times. Maybe you keep acting like nobody has discussed this with you because you know all the posts were deleted? I'm not real sure why you keep playing damsel in distress.

LOL wow lets try this again.... Yes they would both more than likely be treated the same. BUT so would MMC's because under federal law they will be operating illegally if they have more than 16 patients. Why you would the annology of a meth lab in the MJ field is just disturbing.
Quote Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
The feds wont prosecute unless you are at 99+ So yes. Now the state is forcing MMC's to be non compliant federally with the 70% rule. That was my point.. You can go ahead and put the MMC's in with the non compliant growers because federally they are just that. I would never use your annology of the meth lab though.

Are you joking?

Nicer? You're the one making the insults LOL

As could MMC's but why associate either with meth?????
I'm going to post and reply to your entire post instead of taking it line by line. I'm lazy and I don't have the time to quote each thing you say, that's another reason I ask you to respond in one post. But do what you wish.

Again, I don't agree that the 'childish' comment was an insult, for the reasons I described. Sorry if we disagree.

Regarding Barkowitz or whatever his name is, wasn't he close to a school and still in violation of A20? I can't cite a source and it doesn't matter. Was he growing 6 plants per patient? I had heard (no source) that he was growing for higher-plant count patients, which is only a recommendation, not recognized by any legislation, only the board of health. Do you know if that's right or not?

If your interpretation of 'caregiver' comes from A20, then you need to get with the times and get familiar with current regulations. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse if you are arrested. Being compliant with state law prior to July 1st/before 1284/109 and being compliant with state law after, are two very, very different things. It seems as if you and all your growing friends want to operate normally and act as if these new laws don't apply to you. It's like you are offended at being referred to someone who is breaking the law. YOU say you are compliant so you're fine, but your friends who are still growing large amounts of pot are illegal, and will be treated accordingly. Did you read that article in the aurora sentinel? I would be freaking out if I were a non-compliant home grower right now. That's where the vitriol on this site comes from in my opinion on this issue, is from people who are realizing that an asshole at the department of revenue just made their entire operations illegal. I am okay with that, I am okay with this industry being regulated.

I feel sorry for places like releaf and wellspring, who are doing everything they can to remain compliant. If shit ever hits the fan, they are fucked first, not your buddies who continue to grow under the radar, OUTSIDE THE LAW. Screw your non-compliant buddies, I feel bad that the people who are paying and being compliant, are likely the first to get busted if it ever comes to that. It's a scary situation to be in, and they can only hope to use colorado law as an affirmative defense. But they stand better chance than any of your friends. Your friends, if busted, will be charged like methlab operators, while releaf will probably never be in trouble, since they ARE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW.

It's laughable that you get so upset with me over this issue. I hope you and your illegal noncompliant friends vote, and I hope your compliant legal caregivers vote too! I just wish more potheads voted! It should be a requirement to show proof of voting before you can complain about politics. I hope you don't feel like I am personally insulting you here. I don't know you, and I am only addressing 'you' as a compliant caregiver, which you've stated 'you' are. I am not accusing sprngscargiver of being non compliant or having non compliant friends, I am using the proverbial 'you' here. So please don't get personally offended if I say something to 'you' as a caregiver. I hope that makes sense in that I am trying desperately to only talk to you as a random anonymous legal state compliant caregiver. I am assuming you have non compliant friends. If you don't, then ignore that part of my post.

Regarding illegality. I think we both understand that marijuana is illegal under federal law. Let's get past that. We both understand that technically, everything pot related is technically illegal at the federal level, but might be legal at the state level. You seem to be ignoring that when you say growing is legal. It's not, so please stop being imprecise and inaccurate. If you are referring to state compliance, then please say so.

I have not been referring to MMC's as 'meth lab operators' for a few reasons. First, because that would be stupid. Second, MMC's are state compliant, meth lab operators are not. While MMC's, methlabs, and non compliant grows might all be illegal under federal law, they most definitely are and will be treated differently at the state level, hence my comparison. If you disagree then tell me why. I was only trying to discuss the penalties if arrested, I never tried or wanted to compare the grow process. I am only talking in a post-arrest example. I think it's clear that was my intent, and I will take credit for not being as clear and precise as I should have been, but I would like you to take credit for over reacting and being offended at being personally compared to a meth cook. Can we be friends?


Seems more like you just throwing around insults. Every chance you get you compare growers to meth labs. Why? my guess is to get under peoples skin.

I want to address this specific quote of yours. I would like you to explain to me what you feel insulted by. Do you think I broke the posting rules of this site? How? I have explained myself fully, please do the same or stop expecting it. You are exactly right that I compare 'growers' to meth labs, but you and I seem to disagree on what the term 'grower' means, so we can't get to the comparison until we agree on the definition of the term. So we're stuck until you open up and take this for what it's worth, which is a simple discussion on an internet forum. Stop getting upset. I'm not trying to get under people's skin. My current caregiver is growing 99+ plants, and I am trying to get a clear idea of how fucked I might be if he gets busted, since he has paperwork with my name. I certainly don't need any cops demanding to see my compliant grow. So you see, we are more alike than you seem to realize, so stop being so adversarial.

Regarding your 'colorado constitution' claim that non compliant growers are legal, they aren't. It's my opinion that 1284 and 109 trump whatever defense you are claiming. Please feel free to show me otherwise.

We keep going over this because there isn't any posts where this has been discussed that haven't been deleted. I'll continue to bring up these points until we get to a point where the insults stop and the posts stay, feel free to contribute to FOLLOWING THE RULES. Again, this might not apply to you personally, but it might apply to someone getting ready to post an insult to me. Make sense? If we get to a point where the insults stop, maybe we can actually get to a place where we can actually have a discussion on staying legal and compliant moving forward. I haven't made a post yet, so that's why they go in random places, such as places where you show up to insult me for that comment/non-comment.

I'm not sure what the damsel in distress comment meant, would you mind clarifying?

If we can FINALLY agree that non compliant growers and meth cooks would be treated the same if busted, then I will absolutely lump MMC's in the discussion. I haven't discussed MMC's because I don't care and it doesn't matter to me. If you feel the need to say 'MMC's, non compliant grows and meth cooks' instead of 'non compliant grows and meth cooks', that's fine, but it's repetitive and silly in my opinion.

Do you see why your 16/17 patient cap is silly? It's silly because it doesn't matter if you are growing 1 plant or a 1000 plants, it's all illegal under federal law. I am not interested in discussing at what point the feds bust you. I have a feeling if you get busted for something else and you have a single plant, you could get charged under federal drug laws. That's obviously an extreme example and very unlikely, but I am not discussing that, I am only trying to see things from an authority standpoint, in the context of 'under the eyes of the law'.

It is so silly to me that it's taken this long and this many words and posts to get to this point. So weird. I have a feeling there are more non-compliant growers who post here than I originally thought.

When you say the feds won't prosecute under 99 plants, where do you get your info? Can you please cite a source? Is this anecdotal evidence and nothing more? I don't know of a federal law that allows up to 99 plants. Can you please point me in the right direction? Are you talking about a state department of health reco for more than 6 plants? Because I don't believe the state department of revenue, which oversees medical marijuana now, would recognize a 99 cap for a single patient, assuming we are still discussing after arrest.

I'm glad that we can maybe finally agree on the penalties for a non compliant grow operation.

I'm confused. Do you live your life as if state law trumps federal law? It seems like you are arguing that caregivers have been legal at some point in the past. They haven't because marijuana is still illegal. Do you disagree with that?

No, I am not joking and I would like you to answer this question. It seems to me as if you are acting like being compliant with state law makes you exempt from being prosecuted federally. If you are making the argument that being state compliant makes you the last type of person busted, fine, I agree. But it's all still illegal federally. Do you disagree? Why do you give so much credibility to the state constitution?

I feel as if I have answer every one of your posts, and I would like you to extend me the same courtesy. But this is a random internet forum and I spent 30 minutes on this post, so I don't expect anything more, no worries.

I'm going to get high.