How many medical marijuana businesses want to get licensed--#'s released

[cologrower420]

And thats fine BUT why should the dispensaries be allowed to play by a different set of rules? Why should a clinic be allowed to profit and a caregiver not? Caregivers have to make an investment in both time and equipment and caregivers have to take a loss if something goes wrong. With no profit there is no recovering from a bad crop, theft, legal fees, etc.

Because they paid the licensing fees? Pay the fee, and you can enjoy not having a patient cap. If you aren't willing to play by the same rules that some others are, don't complain. Obviously there has always been an element of risk since anything pot related is still illegal federally. Now it seems like that element of risk might have increased along with the fees. If you don't want to play, you don't have to.

[Zedleppelin]

Because they paid the licensing fees? Pay the fee, and you can enjoy not having a patient cap. If you aren't willing to play by the same rules that some others are, don't complain. Obviously there has always been an element of risk since anything pot related is still illegal federally. Now it seems like that element of risk might have increased along with the fees. If you don't want to play, you don't have to.

Says you, Matt Brown and Chris Romer.

[cologrower420]

Says you, Matt Brown and Chris Romer.

We're going in circles. You hate the legislation and blame MMC's since they don't have a 5 patient cap. I asked you to back up your claim that the big MMC's (there are about a dozen) are responsible for the legislation, like they have the politicians in their pocket or something? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I'm really curious as to who is responsible for the 5 patient cap being in the law. You say it's the big bad MMC's, I just don't see it.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Releaf posted stats that there are only a tiny number of MMC's (a dozen maybe) who applied for the 300+patient licenses. That tells me that there aren't very many large scale operations, the same ones you blame for 1284/109. I don't believe that a dozen MMC's had that kind of power over elected officials. It's easier for me to explain the 5patient cap on the tax thing. It's a lot harder for caregivers to have large grows and keep 'screwing the goverment' by not paying taxes.

Ok so lets say a MMC only has 150 patients and they only run 3 plants per patient instead of 6. Thats 450 plants! You dont think that's large?
You don't think its possible that some big money MMC's had the kind of power over elected officials. Why? Because it happens in every other big money business? Look at "big pharm" they lobby tons of money to get their way. Look at the oil industry. Get real.
By your logic they are trying to put caregivers out of business for no reason. Does that make any sense? To me it makes ALOT more sense that they got paid to put caregivers out of business, or they are going to get paid because they have intrests in MMC's. Business as usual makes alot more sense if you think about it.

I am not interested in discussing what this legislation should have been or what it could have been or how this industry SHOULD have been reformed. I didn't see large scale private caregivers do much of anything to lobby against the 5 patient cap. I also haven't seen any information on a few key large scale large funded MMC's that lobbied and caused this legislation to be added. I'm happy to change my opinion, I just don't agree with you.

Then why do you keep taking little shots at caregivers and provoking this discussion??
I dont believe there were to many caregivers over 98 plants because that is a HUGE risk.

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence on who is responsible for the language that limits caregivers to 5 patients? As far as I have seen, mattcook has explained that away as a 'public policy decision' and won't say more than that. I am not sure who put those words in the legislation, can we find that out? Can we find out what that person's agenda was?

You don't see a problem with him not wanting to share this information? Why can't he just tell us.. "Oh, we're trying to put caregivers out of business because we don't want their tax money." That's using your logic anyways.

[HighPopalorum]

And thats fine BUT why should the dispensaries be allowed to play by a different set of rules? Why should a clinic be allowed to profit and a caregiver not?

You might ask the same about liquor stores vs. home brewers. The former are allowed to profit, but face strict oversight and regulation. The latter are not regulated, but they face restrictions on the size of their operations and stiff penalties if they are found to be selling their home brew commercially. This system works OK, IMO. (FWIW, I'm a home brewer, so that's just the example that comes to mind.)

A bad crop is a risk, for sure. As a patient, I wouldn't have a problem paying caregivers those costs up-front or on a bi-weekly basis, as long as I knew my caregiver personally and was sufficiently involved in decisions that affect my grow. Caregivers should not profit, but I do not mean to suggest they should absorb losses.

[HighPopalorum]

Regulation and revenue go hand in hand; closing down the revenue leak from MMCS to "caregivers" (I use the term loosely to describe these commercial growers) is part of systematizing that revenue stream. Revenue was a major motivator for this bill, and has been a major factor in every piece of legislation passed this session because of budget shortfalls. I concur entirely that cogrower doesn't seem to know very much, but you guys have your heads in the same hole if you believe tax revenue doesn't play a starring role in this little drama.

[copobo]

here's a little of the history, though very incomplete
Medical marijuana advocacy group implodes on the cusp of victory - Denver News - The Latest Word

compiling the history of 1284 would be an interesting project.

[Zedleppelin]

It's funny when people criticize but seem to be incapable of having a discussion on topics that are being talked about here. I, too, am entertained by this place, but probably for different reasons than you. It's kind of like turning the lights on and seeing the cockroaches run for cover.

So you feel patients/growers are cockroaches, grows are no different than meth labs, and caregivers are nothing more than drug dealers. Tell me again my not so dear friend, what kind of drugs did you sell in college?


EDIT: Nevermind, I see you got banned

[SprngsCaregiver]

I hope it's clear that when you respond to my posts, I will engage your response. If you ignore my posts, then I don't respond.

I guess I apologize if you feel that I am seeking you out or something, I hope that's not how you feel, I hope that's the other trolls talking. I genuinely appreciate your viewpoints, and while we probably won't agree on much, I think it's pretty cool that I have access to the opinions of people like yourself. I'm not about to act like an authority in this industry, and you seem to have some of that experience. You haven't come out and accused me of this, but others have, so I feel obligated to respond to it.

We disagree on who is positively and negatively affected by this legislation. I think the 5 patient cap is there for tax purposes, you think it's there to screw caregivers. I agree with you, I think we just disagree on who put that language in the bill.

The biggest reason why I blame this on the tax issue is because that's the only way criminals get caught. Look at Al Capone. The biggest reason he got busted is because he didn't pay his taxes, not because he was breaking the law! I feel that you are ignoring or downplaying the fact that uncle sam will always get his piece. Again, when you see reports of barkowitz-size operations, of course the tax guys will look into it. Did you expect anything else?

If it was the "tax guys" doing this why wouldn't they just regulate all the caregivers too? They would make more money. That's what they're all about, right?

I'm sure you're pissed because you probably operated a for profit business under the radar. With 1284/109, you can no longer make a profit and stay 'under the radar', that's why you are so upset about the 5 patient cap, regardless of where it came from. It's here though, so stop complaining that they should have done it this way, or they should have just enforced existing laws. They didn't, so get over it. That's why I don't understand why you can't get over discussing other alternatives like 'increased enforcement' and things, because that's not a real idea, in my opinion.

You keep assuming stuff about me and putting words in my mouth. Why?
How would I stay "under the radar" when I'm regestered, with the state, as peoples caregiver?
Don't tell me to stop complaining about a rule that goes against the state constitution. Maybe you don't understand this, but that is our duty as Americans.
"Screw it.. It's here just keep your mouth shut." What an attitude. Is that your agenda? To suppress the truth with disinformation?

[SprngsCaregiver]

So you feel patients/growers are cockroaches, grows are no different than meth labs, and caregivers are nothing more than drug dealers. Tell me again my not so dear friend, what kind of drugs did you sell in college?


EDIT: Nevermind, I see you got banned

I was wondering when that was going to happen. :thumbsup: