Are private sales still legal?

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

I would count that as an expense, however a Judge may not.

You're correct. Accounting 101: Payroll Expense or Operating Expense

[TheReleafCenter]

I would count that as an expense, however a Judge may not.

Even non profit organizations are allowed to compensate their employees, seems like you'd have a leg to stand on in court... so long as you weren't gouging.

[MakeSense]

Even non profit organizations are allowed to compensate their employees, seems like you'd have a leg to stand on in court... so long as you weren't gouging.

I hear that. I would not want to be the one that had to prove it though.
The whole concept is that Colorado is the only for profit model. And now
that regulation is being put in place and fees are being collected,
I doubt they will allow the profit or income as a care provider to be viable for an
extended period of time. Not to mention the fact that a patient is only allowed 2 oz. at
a time and there will be no legal outlet for the excess medicine period.

[GratefulMeds]

I guess 1284 is subject to interpretation. I'm happy to admit if I am wrong on something.

I won't ever buy medicine from someone I don't know, or someone who can't show me their redcard. I won't ever buy more than 2 ounces at a time.

In my opinion, patient to patient sales are legal, for me. I'm not trying to make a profit or sell to patients on craigslist.

Without looking into it, what was just quoted doesn't explicity state that patient to patient sales are illegal. I think sprngscrgvr is saying that because patient to patient sales aren't specificially and explicitly discussed in 1284/109, that we can safely assume that p2p is now illegal? I don't want to put words in that posters mouth, but I disagree.

Does the legislation ever say, 'patient to patient is illegal' or are we left to interpret ourselves?

edit: If a fellow patient is ever out of medicine, I would never tell them I won't share or provide them with the meds they need, just because I can't find some exact random text in a new bill/law.

Patient to Patient sales is a constitutional right :thumbsup:

[puntacometa]

Are you trying to get people arrested? You repeatedly give out incorrect info to people that could get them charged with a felony. Stop. Direct them to 1284 on Warren Edsons website and let them figure it out themselves if you are really trying to help. :wtf:

I've talked to Mr. Edson. From our discussion I came away with the idea that P2P isn't going to be legal. The intent of the law is to tax and regulate. If P2P can't be taxed and regulated, it's going to be considered in violation of 1284 by the DOR. You could always call the DOR. Ask for Louis Koske. He will have an opinion to share with you.

[Zedleppelin]

Warren Edson is anti patient, anti caregiver and nothing more than a lackey for the dispensaries. I wouldnt believe anything that assclown says.

[copobo]

Matt cook told me the DOR wasn't going to regulate caregivers, that this was the business of the DOH.

I agree with GM. P2P sales is a most basic right and key to access.

[puntacometa]

Warren Edson is anti patient, anti caregiver and nothing more than a lackey for the dispensaries. I wouldnt believe anything that assclown says.

Think about it. If you're selling, even to another registered patient, you're still dispensing.
dispense: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Whether it's constitutional or not, dispensing is regulated by 1284. Stopping P2P transactions (dispensing) would seem to be what 1284 is all about actually since it puts the grower/patients and non grower patients whose privacy they are trying to invade outside the reach of their cameras and fingerprint scanners and leaves it up to the grower/patients to obey the law, not sell or be in possession of more than two ounces of usable product and report their transactions to the non grower patients as income which would then be taxed, which the grower/patient is not going to do because then they will fall under the "caregiver" designation and if the patient the grower/patient sells to is not his patient, then he's in violation of 1284. These are not Warren Edson's words, they are my own opinions. I wouldn't mind at all if I was wrong.

[copobo]

Do we know of a case where patients trades 2oz's or less for money in CO and is arrested and successfully prosecuted?

[Zedleppelin]

Think about it. If you're selling, even to another registered patient, you're still dispensing.
dispense: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Whether it's constitutional or not, dispensing is regulated by 1284. Stopping P2P transactions (dispensing) would seem to be what 1284 is all about actually since it puts the grower/patients and non grower patients whose privacy they are trying to invade outside the reach of their cameras and fingerprint scanners and leaves it up to the grower/patients to obey the law, not sell or be in possession of more than two ounces of usable product and report their transactions to the non grower patients as income which would then be taxed, which the grower/patient is not going to do because then they will fall under the "caregiver" designation and if the patient the grower/patient sells to is not his patient, then he's in violation of 1284. These are not Warren Edson's words, they are my own opinions. I wouldn't mind at all if I was wrong.

I totally agree with you that under 1284 it is not legal, and obviously that was a big part of their intent with the bill, but the real issue is how the constitution is interpreted:

(b) Effective June 1, 2001, it shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any patient or primary care-giver in lawful possession of a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of marijuana, except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (8) of this section.

Assist has to mean provide, what else could it mean? I think one would have a very good chance of successfully making that argument in court and law enforcement knows it. You still see people openly 'assist other patients' on Craigslist and as far as I know nothing has happened to anyone. Obviously that doesnt mean it wont and and probably eventually will.

As far as Edson, he has a vested interest to interpret the law in the manner that benefits him the most. Within days after the passage of 1284 he was on Facebook arguing with Kathleen and a few other people on how great 1284 was and how being a caregiver growing in your home has always been illegal due to zoning regulations. I've also heard he helped craft 1284 or at least had some input to it so I take what he says with a grain of salt.