CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion

[COzigzag]

More confusion for caregivers. Thank you HB 10-1284!

So, can a caregiver currently provide for more than 5 patients or NOT? I can't even imagine how long this rule-making hearing will take. All the caregivers I know have already dropped patients to get to their 5 limit. What a bunch of BS!

Colorado: Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry

The Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry

Care-givers

The Department is working to implement the provisions of H.B. 10-1284. That law contains a provision that limits a primary-caregiver to caring for no more than five patients unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Department plans to draft rules which will establish the criteria for "exceptional circumstances". Any proposed rules will first be taken to the Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, which is currently being created, for review and comment. A formal rule-making hearing before the state Board of Health is necessary to adopt such a standard. Until such time as the Board has adopted rules that establish the criteria for exceptional circumstances, it is the responsibility of the patient and his or her current primary care-giver to determine whether that primary care-giver will continue providing services to the patient.

COzigzag Reviewed by COzigzag on 08-04-2010. CDPHE Caregiver/Patient Limit Confusion More confusion for caregivers. Thank you HB 10-1284! So, can a caregiver currently provide for more than 5 patients or NOT? I can't even imagine how long this rule-making hearing will take. All the caregivers I know have already dropped patients to get to their 5 limit. What a bunch of BS! Colorado: Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry The Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry Care-givers Rating: 5

[HighPopalorum]

When it comes to compliance, sooner is always better.

[cologrower420]

Also, people can only present an affirmative defense if charged, so to prevent the initial charges, might as well follow the rules.

[COzigzag]

When it comes to compliance, sooner is always better.

I agree...but!

I also know how much it cost to supply good meds to patients. For me personally, the money coming in is below the money going out. The 5-patient limit has really caused problems.

Caregivers will be forced to look at alternative revenue avenues or shut the operation down. This sentence simply opens up an avenue.

I can see where some caregivers could wildly increase patient count and use this sentence as justification.

This sentence is like having a child be 'responsible' for the cookie jar.

[COzigzag]

Also, people can only present an affirmative defense if charged, so to prevent the initial charges, might as well follow the rules.

An affirmative defense is basically an excuse defense. Yes, I committed the crime and here is why...I have an CO MMJ license...The CO Constitution states I can do so...etc.

In this case, there is no 'crime' committed because there is no standard in place saying it is a crime.

HB 10-1284 states you can have more than 5 patients in exceptional circumstances. CDPHE is saying we have no standards to determine an exceptional circumstance so it's business as usual until the standards are set.

The CDPHE has not had a rule-making hearing on exceptional circumstances for having more than 5 patients.

The CDPHE is required to have a rule-making hearing before they can impose standards.

Since there are no standards in place, CDPHE is essentially telling caregivers/patients that they are responsible for determining if the caregiver/patient relationship will continue until such time as the standard is put in place.

They can't force a rule (standard) that doesn't exist yet. When will it exist...who knows?

Just another example of the cart before the horse.

[cologrower420]

An affirmative defense is basically an excuse defense. Yes, I committed the crime and here is why...I have an CO MMJ license...The CO Constitution states I can do so...etc.

In this case, there is no 'crime' committed because there is no standard in place saying it is a crime.

HB 10-1284 states you can have more than 5 patients in exceptional circumstances. CDPHE is saying we have no standards to determine an exceptional circumstance so it's business as usual until the standards are set.

The CDPHE has not had a rule-making hearing on exceptional circumstances for having more than 5 patients.

The CDPHE is required to have a rule-making hearing before they can impose standards.

Since there are no standards in place, CDPHE is essentially telling caregivers/patients that they are responsible for determining if the caregiver/patient relationship will continue until such time as the standard is put in place.

They can't force a rule (standard) that doesn't exist yet. When will it exist...who knows?

Just another example of the cart before the horse.

I would be very concerned moving forward if I had a large scale grow, like barkowitz, and had more than 5 patients. People who are small scale don't have anything to worry about.

However, it's going to be VERY difficult for caregivers (5 patient max) to make any money unless they pay to play and become an MMC.

I know of a small MMC that is 3 growers, 50 patients, and top quality meds. All 3 from boulder, all 3 lifelong growers/hippy's, and they paid the licensing fee. This is the type of MMC that we agree should be around I think.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I would be very concerned moving forward if I had a large scale grow, like barkowitz, and had more than 5 patients. People who are small scale don't have anything to worry about.

However, it's going to be VERY difficult for caregivers (5 patient max) to make any money unless they pay to play and become an MMC.

I know of a small MMC that is 3 growers, 50 patients, and top quality meds. All 3 from boulder, all 3 lifelong growers/hippy's, and they paid the licensing fee. This is the type of MMC that we agree should be around I think.

You keep bringing up Barkowitz.. You do know that was a very extreme case right? Most caregivers are smart enough, at least I hope, to stay under federal limits reguardless of state laws.

You also keep bringing up this "pay to play" BS. What ever happened to building your business from the ground up? Isn't that what America is about? "The American Dream"
I dont have 50k to drop for a dispensary that the DEA may come raid anytime they want.

[cologrower420]

You keep bringing up Barkowitz.. You do know that was a very extreme case right? Most caregivers are smart enough, at least I hope, to stay under federal limits reguardless of state laws.

You also keep bringing up this "pay to play" BS. What ever happened to building your business from the ground up? Isn't that what America is about? "The American Dream"
I dont have 50k to drop for a dispensary that the DEA may come raid anytime they want.

When I say barkowitz specifically, I am generalizing large scale home grows which, assuming they don't pay the licensing fees for off-site grows, are illegal under 1284/109. That should be obvious, and I'm struggling to understand why you are the only one who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I guess you might be the only one to bother speaking up. If so, thank you. Sometimes my thoughts don't get to the keyboard very well.

I say barkowitz because it's easier to say that than to relate the general idea of large scale, now-illegal grows post 1284-109. If you want me to clarify that in every thread I post in, I will. But, it's repetitive and you should understand by now what I am talking about when I use that word. If we disagree on the definitions of a word, get over it, I'm not changing my vocabulary for some random on the internet. I don't expect you to change your ways on my behalf. I just hope we can move past the definitions/illegality problems that you and I have had in the past. This is entirely a different issue than what this thread is discussing, and concentrating on single words and sentences instead of broader ideas. Don't you see how your nit picking of my posts lowers the content quality of the threads? Get over it, please.

It's my position that the vast majority of caregivers (99% maybe?) are for-profit versus non-profit, and also had more than 5 patients/36 plants. It's the only way to NOT lose money. That's not a bad thing, but I guess we are gonna agree to disagree, because I would argue the VAST majority of grows are closer in scale to barkowitz (100's of plants?) versus myself (one plant in veg, few small clones). What's your opinion on that? How many plants and patients did you care for? Did you do it 'for the patient' and not make any profit, or were you 'for profit'? Did you pay sales tax or income tax on the revenue that you generated as a caregiver? Did you have a business?

That's why I say 'barkowitz' when I am referring to similar style, large scale, non-compliant, now-illegal home grow operations. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to people who are currently compliant, I'm trying to save words. I apologize if this post seems snotty, I'm busy today.

edit: regarding pay to play. I'm not happy about it, but if the only way we can operate and remain compliant (and make money) is to pay to play, then so be it.

[blackhash]

3 growers and 50 patients is OK by me but that >private< agreement shouldn't preclude MY constitutional rights as a patient, nor should "Revenue" be allowed as an excuse to preclude my rights as a patient.

And they won't! Face it, folks, though it technically may be outside this new and bogus law to sell to other patients there is really no way they can enfoce such a law. All you have to do is tell your friends to tell their friends that you have extra meds for $100 less than the ripsensary and go about business as always.

Fuck em. there was no provision in the law for dispensaries and they set em up and operated in the open anyway so do you really think they are gonna chase you down for selling bags to other patients who want a good deal?

Turnabout is fair play!

[cologrower420]

3 growers and 50 patients is OK by me but that >private< agreement shouldn't preclude MY constitutional rights as a patient, nor should "Revenue" be allowed as an excuse to preclude my rights as a patient.

And they won't! Face it, folks, though it technically may be outside this new and bogus law to sell to other patients there is really no way they can enfoce such a law. All you have to do is tell your friends to tell their friends that you have extra meds for $100 less than the ripsensary and go about business as always.

Fuck em. there was no provision in the law for dispensaries and they set em up and operated in the open anyway so do you really think they are gonna chase you down for selling bags to other patients who want a good deal?

Turnabout is fair play!

How were your rights as a patient affected by 1284/109? I would argue that your position that 'revenue' doesn't preclude your rights is incorrect as well, but I would hope hipop would engage you on that topic, I don't have the time nor background.

I have trouble with your ''fuck 'em'' attitude, and I hope there are more people like you out there, because I don't think that excuse would fly in court, when people with that attitude get busted. There was a grow with 64 plants that was busted recently. I would imagine that guy said, 'fuck em' as well. I also feel that you are hilariously mis-informed on MMC's etc, but I don't think you're ready to get into a serious discussion on that. fuck em, right?

'selling' meds to other patients isn't really legal. Is selling your vicodin or other prescription drugs legal?