what happened at the meeting today?

[HighPopalorum]

It makes perfect sense, and I agree with your assessment of the average patient.

If there's a schism, it's between people who favor legalization and those who oppose it, not between activists. Much of what we see (and what we all occasionally post) on this forum is internet wingnut bombast, rather than an indication of a schism dividing opinion within the MJ activist community. All of the policymakers and most of the stakeholders I've spoken with are divided not over whether MJ will be regulated, but on what form that regulation will take, what the right regulations are, and what is the minimal level of regulation that will ensure patient safety and orderly industry growth. There are a lot of opinions. There will be always be a fringe opposing all regulation, but they are to be dismissed as isolated cases... not elevated to "schism status." Either way, we're substantively in agreement.

[SprngsCaregiver]

Really? Rob Corry will represent any one of you free of charge. I'm still not sure what charges those consist of. Trust me, you'll find representation if the state releases your medical info.

Didn't Rob Corry also say he was going to fight 1284 in court because it was unconstitutional?

[TheReleafCenter]

It makes perfect sense, and I agree with your assessment of the average patient.

If there's a schism, it's between people who favor legalization and those who oppose it, not between activists. Much of what we see (and what we all occasionally post) on this forum is internet wingnut bombast, rather than an indication of a schism dividing opinion within the MJ activist community. All of the policymakers and most of the stakeholders I've spoken with are divided not over whether MJ will be regulated, but on what form that regulation will take, what the right regulations are, and what is the minimal level of regulation that will ensure patient safety and orderly industry growth. There are a lot of opinions. There will be always be a fringe opposing all regulation, but they are to be dismissed as isolated cases... not elevated to "schism status." Either way, we're substantively in agreement.

Maybe I'm too far down the rabbit hole. Between SAFER, NORML, CTI, Sensible, COMMR, MMIG, the Marijuana Party, et al, I rarely see activists discussing common ground where there would appear to be a great deal. I suppose you're correct, though... there will always be the fringe.

Didn't Rob Corry also say he was going to fight 1284 in court because it was unconstitutional?

Rob did represent Lacy Lee, free of charge as far as I can tell, and she was acquitted last week. If you're looking for Rob to overturn 1284, that's going to take money. They also said they were going to work with Matt Cook to see if he could implement fixes to 1284. Since those rules aren't in place yet, maybe they're holding off and using some discretion instead of hitting the panic button?

[senorx12562]

It makes perfect sense, and I agree with your assessment of the average patient.

If there's a schism, it's between people who favor legalization and those who oppose it, not between activists. Much of what we see (and what we all occasionally post) on this forum is internet wingnut bombast, rather than an indication of a schism dividing opinion within the MJ activist community. All of the policymakers and most of the stakeholders I've spoken with are divided not over whether MJ will be regulated, but on what form that regulation will take, what the right regulations are, and what is the minimal level of regulation that will ensure patient safety and orderly industry growth. There are a lot of opinions. There will be always be a fringe opposing all regulation, but they are to be dismissed as isolated cases... not elevated to "schism status." Either way, we're substantively in agreement.

Your implication that those for whom freedom is a top priority are on some "fringe" or "isolated cases" is condescending, arrogant and insulting, though perfectly consistent with most of the posts of yours I've seen thus far. I am not willing to trade freedom (in this case to grow or ingest what I want to) for the protection of the government. FROM the government maybe. I can and will take care of me and mine, and did not and will not ask for help from anyone else, especially via the government.

[HighPopalorum]

Sorry your feelings were hurt. It wasn't my intention to insult.

[canniwhatsis]

Can the state even collect taxes on something that is federally illegal?

In this case I believe the answer is YES, which puts me in a conundrum,.....


Come Tax season,..... do I claim my gross income from my patients even tho I haven't filed a DBA? Nor do I have a tax license.

YTD my "Profits" (Gross) are a whopping $300

I've actually made about $-1700 YTD on this little venture I happened to FALL into! I won't bore you with the background.

Tho there's a slow recovery, and promising future (So long as the tick turds on capital hill don't screw me first, and they are trying! )

One can claim "Hobbies" on they're taxes,... and thats how this started, and is STILL the level I'm on, even tho I'm in the "registry" listed as a caregiver.


None the less when I file, it's gonna go to the feds too right? :wtf:

How the F does that work out? :wtf:




Back on main topic,.... I think? :stoned:

Under A20 the patient has the right to choose they're Caregiver.

Seems to me that some of the new legislations are trying to define "Caregiver" as more like a "NP", My growing the meds that greatly improve the quality of life for my patients is now no longer enough? and I have to be a Cook and private Chauffeur too? :wtf:


Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong,.... and drop me Robb Corry's # too,.... I have a feeling I might need him in the future since I really don't want to cut all my girls down and have to tell my patients they have to go to MMC's

No Offence Relief, but my patients can't afford MMC prices for what they need.

[TheReleafCenter]

Ok, you bring up some good points in there. Let me see if I can clarify a couple things.

The legislature, via HB1284, asked the CDPHE for more feedback on what constitutes a caregiver. I'm not sure if I posted here, but the CDPHE then asked for feedback from the community. That comment period, I believe, has closed. Still waiting on word of what a caregiver means, but previous attempts to add wellness services etc have failed miserably in the past (both at the CDPHE and in court).

When they talk about not charging over cost, there are many ways to keep your costs wherever they are. You can charge for your time (whatever you feel it's worth), the amount of space you use for cultivation relative to your mortgage/rent, etc. You can say a prayer for their bag and charge for that. It's very open to interpretation.

Jessica is probably the easier Corry to contact: 303-260-6475. I take no offense at all, canniwhatsis. We've lobbied to keep caregivers free from additional services, to stop caregiver bans in Denver and more. I wish there were more caregivers out there and patients had better access to them. They're a vital part of this community and often do some of the hardest work for the least financial reward. We need more people like that.

[TheReleafCenter]

Your implication that those for whom freedom is a top priority are on some "fringe" or "isolated cases" is condescending, arrogant and insulting, though perfectly consistent with most of the posts of yours I've seen thus far. I am not willing to trade freedom (in this case to grow or ingest what I want to) for the protection of the government. FROM the government maybe. I can and will take care of me and mine, and did not and will not ask for help from anyone else, especially via the government.

Shouldn't people be protected from ingesting harmful substances? What do you think the government should have the right to protect you from?

[porone]

Shouldn't people be protected from ingesting harmful substances? What do you think the government should have the right to protect you from?

People can protect them selfs.Only crybaby sheeple would want to be told what how what and when.

Maybe the government should stick to protecting us from foreign enimies.The southern border might nead a little attention too.

People nead protection From the government

Those who sell tainted mj dont sell it for long nobody wants it.

Anything the government gets involved in ends up a mess.More government bigger mess

[Zedleppelin]

Shouldn't people be protected from ingesting harmful substances? What do you think the government should have the right to protect you from?

One could argue that a big mac is a harmful substance, a soda, deodorant, cell phones, and the list goes on and on.

1 in 2 people will develop cancer sometime in their lives whereas 50 years ago it was 1 in 10 (yet more than 50% of the population smoked cigarettes), diabetes is now an epidemic and just about every other major disease is striking a higher percentage of the population. Doesnt appear the govts attempt to protect us is working at all. But hey, at least the medical and pharmaceutical industries are making record profits.

The problem with our government is it works in the interest of those in a position of money and power, not the people it supposedly represents. Marijuana is a perfect example, it has been and still is labeled as a harmful substance by people with an interest in private prisons, alcohol companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. and millions of lives have been ruined by the govt 'protecting us' from it.

1284 was created for many reasons and the least of it was to protect or benefit consumers.