Caregivers, what are you offering patients?

[SGMeds]

Well, it is actually a lot less "grey" now. I would be SUPER wary of trying to protect yourself with the "interpretations" possible pre-1284. For instance and more to the point:

"(2) IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO BUY, SELL, TRANSFER, GIVE AWAY, OR ACQUIRE MEDICAL MARIJUANA EXCEPT AS ALLOWED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE."

Let's start with you're quotation from page 39...

I'll grant you that "'Person' means a natural person...." from page 5 of the defs... so that in effect includes patients & CG's.

I'll also grant that "Article" is likely referring to the entirety of the Act vs just the section covering MMC's & Licensees... meaning it includes the patients & CG's too.


However, I would like for you to consider the following quotations from 1284...

1. "The General Assembly further declares that it is unlawful under State law to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell medical marijuana, except in compliance with the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions in Section 14 of Article 18 of the State Constitution and this Article or when acting as a Primary Caregiver in compliance with the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions of Section 25-1.5-106 CRS." Page 2.

~~ This is at the very beginning of the new Act (1284). It defers back to S14A18 (which I will get to shortly)... and the amended S25-1.5-106, which is also in 1284 & typed below...


2. "(1) Legislative declaration. (a) The General Assembly hereby declares that it is necessary to implement rules to ensure that patients suffering from legitimate debilitating medical conditions are able to safely gain access to medical marijuana and to ensure that these patients:
(I) Are not subject to criminal prosecution for their use of medical marijuana in accordance with Section 14 of Article 18 of the State Constitution, this section, and the rules of the State Health Agency; and
(II) Are able to establish an Affirmative Defense to their use of medical marijuana in accordance with Section 14 of Article 18 of the State Constitution, this section, and the rules of the State Health Agency." Pages 42-43.

~~ these quotations are mostly to show how 1284 defers back to S14A18 of the Constitution + clearly shows exception for the "medical use" of MMj by patients & caregivers.


Okay... now we have to go back to S14/A18 & get to the definition of "medical use", which is...

"the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a physician or physicians, as provided by this section."

~~ this clearly allows for quite a bit of interaction between patients & caregivers. And 1284 clearly affords protections for the "medical use" as it directly pertains to patients & CG's.


Furthermore, 1284 goes on to state...

"A Patient-Primary Caregiver arrangement secured pursuant to this paragraph (e) shall be strictly between the patient and the potential primary caregiver...." Page 47.

The previous clause makes illegal any non-Center transfer of meds outside of this 6 person caregiver/patient group. This is blk/wht, not grey.

As for the "transfer/trade outside," the aforementioned clause seems to explicitly prohibit this.

No sir... we already show, just by logically following along, that the Patient-CG relationship (including sales) is outside of the scope of 1284, except as 1284 is consistent with S14A18 of the Constitution. And that allows for "medical use", which includes sales.

But to further support this, 1284 goes on to state...

"(I) ... except that the act of supplying medical marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia, by itself, is insufficient to constitute 'significant responsibilit for managing the well-being of a patient'...." Page 44.

~~ this is saying a CG has to provide more than just selling mmj... to provide services, if you will +...

"(d) A Primary Caregiver may not charge a Patient more than the cost of cultivating or purchasing the medical marijuan, but may charge for caregiver services." Pages 46-47.

~~ now, this is closer to black & white... well, not really, but you can see that you didn't have it black & white either ;-)

This is why the new laws are so detrimental for patient access and for the legal protection of real, professional cannabis caregivers. Sorry to burst your bubble but this is why everyone REALLY needs to critically read and understand the new laws and regulations.

I'll agree with this all the way around...
~ the new laws are detrimental... didn't prioritize patient access at all
~ you too should critically read the entire law... it isn't just one quotation that makes an Act. You must read through the entire piece & cross reference where necessary. Don't just take another person's simplification & paraphrase of the Act... even a lawyer's.



[quoteA legally conservative read narrows the scope of the legal caregiver/patient distribution (whether monetized or not) from the interpreted Amend 20 understanding to a closed network of caregiver and immediate patient.

~~ yes & no... imho... it does 'close' the relationship between the patient & CG... from the State, as quoted before. This is good.

~~ it says nothing about limiting the rights set forth in S14A18 of the Constituion regarding "medical use"... which is so broadly defined that they were between a rock & hard place (the legislators). Sure they would've completely shut down sales between patients & cg's... if they could simply throw out the Constitution! Which they can't, so patient & cg relations are between them & only them... and a patient/cg can assist any other diagnosed person in medical use of mmj, protected from criminal prosecution as quoted before in this post.




EDIT~ don't know what happened to my formatting... so bolded quotations from HokuLoa...??? Sorry... long as is ;-)

 

[Skunkmiester]

Nice read man, it does look as though they contradict each other at some point, but then try to find some way to narrow the scope, but again still fail to eliminate the actual transaction between a patient and a cg since it is considered private. So does that mean a patient and a disp relationship is not private since they are no longer considered a cg? Oh and they will have cameras with a live feed going to the DOR, guess that makes privacy a bit hard.

 

[Skunkmiester]

Who is calling anyone ignorant? We are trying to have a debate and argue our respective interpretations and opinions. Who says you are giving up what right? Just because we all have different interpretations doesn't make the most favorable one for the grower or patient to be the correct one. Some of us don't have time to go to every meeting and read every detail. I have read through 1284 many times, and damn near memorized A20, I've also gone to as many local meetings as I can. However, did I go to law school? Did I spend years defending people over little discrepancies in the wording of the law? No, thats what the professionals are for. Yes, everyone but Matt Cook is guessing, but don't you think someone more versed in the legal jargon and due process has a more valid guess and interpretation than we do? I understand, we don't like lawyers, they take our money when bad shit happens, and in most cases they tend to have slime-ball personalities...this is a product of capitalism. But the law's side has a million judges, lobbyists, politicians, liars, and lawyers on their side, carefully crafting every move and every word, do you really think we can hang up against that without an attorney or two on our side?

I don't think we are saying anything that preposterous? Just giving you some insight to what our attorneys have told us after paying money for consultations. If you don't want us sharing this information, let us know, I was just trying to add some "professional" advice instead of stoners' interpretations...

When you are in court standing in front of the judge, will you still guard your interpretation without an attorney present?

Most understandable, however like I posted, until Matt answers every single question for us all, it is guessing from all of us including lawyers. Not sure the legislatures even understand what they actually voted on. So any one of us knowledgeable industry vets need to be on the DOR board to help reg this industry when the time comes. And make it so we can thrive as a genuinely respected industry. Apologies, most in this industry are less than adequate in the realm of.......well anything at all much less politics and they tend to spew off at the cocksucker and make any and everyone in their inner circle, believing their absurdities, which most often then not are elaborate visions of grandeur which end up becoming a reality. Then we are left to re-educate and subsequently argue.

 

[SGMeds]

I agree skunk... the MMC's is what this Act is all about... what the super-majority of restrictions, exclusions, limitations & regulations regard... not the Patient-CG relationships.

Nothing is absolute... and the cops are certainly able to disagree w me... and the law.

Affirmative defense & Constitutional rights are no guarantee that others will respect this... aka the cops.

They can still put a boot to the back of your neck & arrest you & entirely fuk up your life... even though you may be 'right' and have a 'winning' case... they still fukd you.

And the DOR & Cook, though they are clearly not regulating the CG & patients, may still in fact try. No guarantees.


Nothing is black & white... nothing relating to mmj at the very least.

It seems to me that an oversimplified view to take, but accurate, is that the 'old' way of dispensary operations is the 'new' way of CG-patient sales/relationships. EXCEPT they (the legislators) tried to make our CG mini-dispensary to be super-mini in that we can only grow for 5 patients... though assist other diagnosed people with 'medical use of mmj'... this includes those beyond the 5 growing for... while having additional services constituting 'significant' responsibility for the patient. In a nutshell ;-)


Fukn eh people... we establish the mores of our society that influence the attitudes & behaviors we commit. It might not be 'easy', but if we stick to this interpretation... it will in fact become our reality. I promise you... if we do this on a one by one basis, all of us, this will become the 'norm'.

 

[SnowGro]

FWIW
Having read a good volume of law, MMJ, building, and code in general.
If the intention is to outlaw something,
The words shall not are always used.

Paraphrase - MMJ 'entities' shall not form a co-op.
Is in the law.
Patients shall not enter into any transaction with a party who is not their primary caregiver.
Is not in the law.
A caregiver shall not transfer medication to any party who is not their assigned patient.
Is not in the law.

Am I a lawyer? No
Will this BS hold up in court? No
Would I get a statement on the record espousing these facts? Yes

 

[HokuLoa]

Man I refuse continue to get on here and argue with ignorance. You still have yet to post accurate documentation supporting your outlandish accusations. It says you cannot have a primary and be a primary. It never says anything about giving up a right if you choose to help others. This is absurd to be on different sides of the interpretation especially when one is taking the less favorable approach, way to go.There is no specifics to back up anything you are saying and I have every copy of all versions available to the public and I have been to the majority of the senate hearings and never heard on either side, of any of these absurdities as being included or wanting to be included.If you 2 have the same lawyer...you getting ripped off. Oh last keep in mind anyone other Matt Cook is just guessing.

Um, I'm not sure who you are addressing or what specifically you are taking exception to but I guess something I said? Well, to start I'm not sure why you seem so pissy. I thought we were simply having a civil convo for informational purposes. If differing opinions that don't support your viewpoint ruffle your feathers so much then maybe chatting on the interwebs is ill advised... Take it easy, no need for insults friend ;-)

That said, what statement(s) do you consider unsupported? Let us know as I'd happily respond if I knew what you took issue with. Hell, many of the legal restraints I see as now more clearly defined I also vehemently disagree with. I welcome quality legal arguments that affirm what I WISH the laws entailed, but that is not usually the case these days.

Anyway, deep breaths and take it easy. We're all here to help each other in this community. No reason to take our anger/frustration out on each other!

 

[Greenmopho]

Caregivers, what are you offering patients?

We're all here to help each other in this community. No reason to take our anger/frustration out on each other!

No way man, I'm soooo much better than everyone here, its obvious. Can't you see? My subjective interpretation unfounded on any personal legal knowledge is far superior to the opinions and interpretations of my peers...duh.

 

[HokuLoa]

Hey SGMeds, thanks for the well noted explanation! I'll try to do the same so others can follow along. I'm afraid I still disagree and I took the time to again read and dissect 1284 (and reference docs) to follow your train and see what I missed. My findings; reaffirmation of my position and I think I see where your interpretation diverges from my own. So let's explore and see if we can find a tad more clarity. So I'm going to take a walk through 1284 in order but I hope you forgive the absence of pg marks as I will provide enough (con)text to be obvious (and easily searchable)...

(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FURTHER DECLARES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL UNDER STATE LAW TO CULTIVATE, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, OR SELL MEDICAL MARIJUANA, EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS IN SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THIS ARTICLE OR WHEN ACTING AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 25-1.5-106, C.R.S.

So here we see that everyone's med use is defined/restricted by the content of S14A18 AND 1284. We also see that an exception is made for "primary caregivers" who are compliant with the "restrictions" etc of SECTION 25-1.5-106, C.R.S. This means it defers to S14A18 but not in a vacuum. The "and this article" means the further articulation of the law w/in 1284 has a legal standing all it's own that must be considered in conjunction with our constitution to determine what is "legal." However, our concern is with how this impacts the "caregiver." "Or" creates a separation of "primary caregivers" and hold them to compliance with SECTION 25-1.5-106, C.R.S (which is of course found w/in the article). So to be a legal PC one must comply with 1284, so...

25-1.5-106. Medical marijuana program - powers and duties of the state health agency..... (copying relevant sections only)

(2) Definitions. IN ADDITION TO THE DEFINITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 14 (1) OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "PRIMARY CAREGIVER" MEANS A NATURAL PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PATIENT OR THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN, WHO IS EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND HAS SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT WHO HAS A DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.

So this reiterates the PC definition. I highlight the beginning to elaborate why you cannot be your own caregiver and why when growing for yourself you are using your rights as a patient NOT as a caregiver. But I digress. This important understanding is that a PC must have "significant responsibility" for the patient.

(b) THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY PROMULGATE RULES REGARDING THE FOLLOWING:
(I) WHAT CONSTITUTES "SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT"; EXCEPT THAT THE ACT OF SUPPLYING MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PARAPHERNALIA, BY ITSELF, IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE "SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT";

Here we see that the responsibility necessary for legal caregiver/patient relations must extend beyond supplying meds. So at least for a PC and her 5 patients there must be an expanded care service not just meds.

(5) Primary caregivers. (a) A PRIMARY CAREGIVER MAY NOT DELEGATE TO ANY OTHER PERSON HIS OR HER AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A PATIENT NOR MAY A PRIMARY CAREGIVER ENGAGE OTHERS TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO A PATIENT.

The first portion is relevant but more so the latter part. We see by this sales b/w caregivers is prohibited. Med acquisition for a patient is therefore only "legal" when a CG grows it OR when they engage in the other model, the "Center." At this point patient/patient sales are not really explicitly addressed.

c) ONLY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED
PAGE 45-HOUSE BILL 10-1284PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.

This pretty explicit. Cultivation/providing is limited to PCs for THEIR patients (not others) OR for the patient personally. While explicit, you may argue the expanded definition of "medical use"
and that argument may be very good. However, the intent of the law is fairly clearly defined in the article so I would not want to test it with LEO. LEO doesn't care and the validity of the med use interpretation can only really be tested in court. If that appeals to you then all the power to ya! For most of us, not going to court is MUCH more appealing!

(6) Patient - primary caregiver relationship. (a) A PERSON SHALL BE LISTED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR NO MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS ON THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM REGISTRY AT ANY GIVEN TIME; EXCEPT THAT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY ALLOW A PRIMARY CAREGIVER TO SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN DETERMINING WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE PROXIMITY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS TO THE PATIENT. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST OF HIS OR HER PATIENTS INCLUDING THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD NUMBER OF EACH PATIENT AT ALL TIMES.

Pretty clear cut. I reference to be thorough and to support my understanding of the 5 patient PC business as consistent with exercising one's own patient rights of cultivation simultaneously. IE seems like one can be a PC to 5 AND grow for themselves. Of course I'm not positive and I welcome support to the contrary.


So now let's bump back to pg39:

PART 9 UNLAWFUL ACTS - ENFORCEMENT
12-43.3-901. Unlawful acts - exceptions. (1) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON:

…
(2) IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO BUY, SELL, TRANSFER, GIVE AWAY, OR ACQUIRE MEDICAL MARIJUANA EXCEPT AS ALLOWED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.

Yes, "this article" refers to the entire Act. "Person" is defined and does refer to patients and caregivers. We see then that the patient and the caregiver are bound by the restrictions in the article regarding what you may term "medical use" that includes the trade/acquisition of meds. As we saw previously, the article DOES explicitly limit this "med use"/trade interaction to a closed distribution network of primary caregiver and 5 patients. All else (again, excepting the Center model) is deemed explicitly unlawful.

Given all the above, there is no support for "legal" sharing (monetized or not) of meds from caregiver to other patients OR for patients to other patients. Amend20 interpretation made that easily defensible but given the legal clarification of 1284 there reslly is FAR LESS interpretation possible. Now that said, clearly this is an issue (errr, inequity) worthy and likely of constitutional challenge but I'm concerned with what keep me OUT of court in the first place. My personal interpretation and feeling about what "should be," no matter how valid is really meaningless if it lands me in jail waiting to fight my point...

Where I think your believe diverges from mine is that you extracted the term "use" and tried to apply the definition of "medical use" to support your assertion. Read carefully though. "Medical use" as defined is included as you say by the reference of the applicability of S14A18. Remember though that it also applies all limitations/restrictions of 1284 for the patient and the "OR" defines a separation of primary caregivers who are held to the restrictions of 25-1.5-106 (and of course the entirety of the article). We already saw how this restricts sales/trade outside of the PC/patient relationship AND for the patient/grower to anyone else as well. So I don't see the wiggle room you are claiming. As said before, I welcome a differing opinion (especially a well supported one) but as of yet I find no substantial legal support for what I wish the law allowed.

Hey bottom line, all this is legally debatable. We are all swimming in murky waters and only by helping each other out will we safely navigate the obstacles.

Good luck and be safe!

 

[HokuLoa]

FWIW
Having read a good volume of law, MMJ, building, and code in general.
If the intention is to outlaw something,
The words shall not are always used.

True but I argue the "always." If the law is defined in document and says "it is unlawful," well that pretty much "outlaws" what is determined "unlawful." The "shall not" is hardly necessary in this context.

 

[Tr33]

Matt Cook has the last word, and he can change it whenever he pleases. fucker.

IMHO HokuLoa = dipshit J. Gard, sounds just like his post under his real name.

If not my bad, you write just like him and you are a n00b here, and a troll imho

you keep fishing for an argument.

 

[Skunkmiester]

Um, I'm not sure who you are addressing or what specifically you are taking exception to but I guess something I said? Well, to start I'm not sure why you seem so pissy. I thought we were simply having a civil convo for informational purposes. If differing opinions that don't support your viewpoint ruffle your feathers so much then maybe chatting on the interwebs is ill advised... Take it easy, no need for insults friend ;-)

That said, what statement(s) do you consider unsupported? Let us know as I'd happily respond if I knew what you took issue with. Hell, many of the legal restraints I see as now more clearly defined I also vehemently disagree with. I welcome quality legal arguments that affirm what I WISH the laws entailed, but that is not usually the case these days.

Anyway, deep breaths and take it easy. We're all here to help each other in this community. No reason to take our anger/frustration out on each other!

Moved past this a while ago, rock on though.

 

[SnowGro]

HokuLoa,

25-1.5-106. Medical marijuana program - powers and duties of the state health agency..... (copying relevant sections only)

(2) Definitions. IN ADDITION TO THE DEFINITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 14 (1) OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "PRIMARY CAREGIVER" MEANS A NATURAL PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PATIENT OR THE PATIENT'S PHYSICIAN, WHO IS EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND HAS SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT WHO HAS A DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.

Reads significantly different than the CRS I have been referring to.
Specifically, 2009 CRS. 25-1.5-106 does not even contain the word caregiver.

 

[HokuLoa]

IMHO HokuLoa = dipshit J. Gard, sounds just like his post under his real name.

If not my bad, you write just like him and you are a n00b here, and a troll imho

you keep fishing for an argument.

A response like that and I'm supposed to be the troll fishing for arguments?? WTF??

I posted a civil, well supported discussion in a friendly tone. I fail to see why you are so tweaked by what I posted. It just makes no sense. Seriously....

Yes, your bad. I'm not Gard and I do not know why you have a stink about him but that's between you and him. Not my problem. You might also consider that a new handle with few posts doesn't necessarily equate to "n00b." I've participated in this forum longer than you think. Frankly though, that's beside the point. Lumping insults and a "n00b" label on someone to try and undercut the validity of their knowledge is just a waste of time.

I get it, you think I'm wrong and that your personal legal game plan is tight. GREAT!! Go forth and be safe!! I've said all along I'd happily stand corrected. I'd RATHER be wrong! I have no intellectual attachment to my understanding of the law. My only concern is to know as much as possible and stay as safe as possible. Reading, interpreting, and discussing information is how we accomplish these goals. I have the luxury of a background in political science and law so it is a bit easier for me. So why the problem?? If you disagree why not just help me see where I'm wrong? I'm receptive so is it that hard?

 

[HokuLoa]

HokuLoa,
Reads significantly different than the CRS I have been referring to.
Specifically, 2009 CRS. 25-1.5-106 does not even contain the word caregiver.

Yup, CRS are amended in HB1284. Perhaps this is why some folks seem so confused?

 

[SGMeds]

HokuLoa~ i don't think you'r Gard, but if so, cool. personally enjoy argumentation... as long as civil & courteous. my tone is usually off... i am a self-proclaimed prick most of the time! if it came off as hostile, i apologize quite sincerely. but make no mistakes... i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the new law in detail... even if just an exercise between stoners... ;-) thank you!

btw... i respect tr33... good name in the community. don't think u 2 should start off wrong... seem like good peeps all the way around. it's the other fukrs & the law that is the real issue... stirring us all up, no doubt.




I'll get to the specifics of your response below... gotta run to the girls real quick. peace

 

[Skunkmiester]

Hok...I think the reason that a few are "pissy" is because you seem to be a well informed, maybe somewhat misguided person, that at first glance seem to be on the same page as the rest of us but with the exception of this matter. Which is a big matter. If you wholeheartedly believe in this model as being the right one, well, how are you going to revamp your gig you have had. This is to assume that you as a grower have been flowing with the same cannabis stream that has been running for decades which is, help others with giving them quality herb/meds and they give you dead presidents in exchange. Tell me how you plan on growing for free or how will you sleep when you will be excluding the most important people in this industry because they are unable to pay your fees and that is the needy low income,HIV,Cancer having patient that is transportation less and lives in an area that is less than savory and has to depend on a public transpo system that considers cannabis illegal and does not even come close do a dispensary? We have always had and will continue to have the right to assist any patient with getting medical cannabis. That will never change. Also keep in mind by the law that is written even the new one, I have the right to set what I think my cost are for my meds and so do you, since we all grow different and on different levels.

 

[SGMeds]

Skunk~ dude, u'r a good person too! got hella tasty & nicely grown nugs to boot. We all need to just chill on each other.

o/l is fukd up because there are no non-verbals to go along with the words... we each read em in our own heads, applying our own inflections & stresses, coming to our own conclusions on where the other person is coming from... with less than half the normal info we would use to judge these things... no non-verbals. i can call u an asshole in a jovial/bonding manner, or in a violent/pressing one... totally different intentions... totally different impact to the other person. We don't have that here... makes it tough. kick some peeps some slack... all the way around.



HL~ funny... we seemed to repeat each other all the way down up until this point...

"c) ONLY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED
PAGE 45-HOUSE BILL 10-1284PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION WITH AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION LICENSE, OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER PATIENTS OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF MAY CULTIVATE OR PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE.

This pretty explicit. Cultivation/providing is limited to PCs for THEIR patients (not others) OR for the patient personally. While explicit, you may argue the expanded definition of "medical use"
and that argument may be very good. However, the intent of the law is fairly clearly defined in the article so I would not want to test it with LEO. LEO doesn't care and the validity of the med use interpretation can only really be tested in court. If that appeals to you then all the power to ya! For most of us, not going to court is MUCH more appealing!"

~ wouldn't be surprised if i wasn't the one to legally test my model by the end of the next 12 months or so...? a long time ago, i jumped into the game... and did it after quite a bit of concerted deliberation. knew the risks & made the decision. at this point, i feel it is more a duty to push the envelope... considering the political & social climate. i want to challenge & progress... i don't want to go to jail.

~ but more on point to the law... this is perhaps where the grey comes into play, esp between the two of us.

OR A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS OR HER PATIENTS

This limits the 5 patient grow, per 1284, for cg's...

OR A PATIENT FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF

A patient remains protected...

MAY CULTIVATE OR PROVIDE MARIJUANA AND ONLY FOR MEDICAL USE

U GOT ME!!! ;-)

Yeah, i reread it a few times under your perspective... and that interpretation makes perfect sense to me!

the last part is what screws w us... 'may cultivate or provide' & 'only for medical use'.

tied to the rest of the sentence... cg to it's 5 & patient for themselves... pretty clear.

K... this is the constitutional challenge #1 regarding CG's & Patients... well, there is the 5 cap too!

this is certainly a problem... that will come down to how we behave/run the biz vs what the DOPHE/DOR decide to do... if anything. but yes, 1284 does seem to have that clause as you pointed out that does appear to directly contradict direct & open sales.

practically speaking, i don't see how they will investigate such person-to-person interactions... unless they use busted ass narcs. make sure you have paperwork & work smart...???

speaking in principle, this clause is a fuk-up & is one of the more important ones to challenge.

i'm tired... ;-) will think on it a bit more later... gotta get some food in me tummy. peace

 

[Str8Dank]

wow you guys need to move to MI I'm not giving away shit free i pay to grow it you pay to smoke it....

 

[SGMeds]

wow you guys need to move to MI I'm not giving away shit free i pay to grow it you pay to smoke it....

That's a start... been there, done that.

I could pimp out all day long at 48... all day long... say it again, all day long.

That's the 'hook-up'. They'll still bang a few g's from there. All day long.


I'm trying to give back to what has been so kind to me... spreading the love. Ideally this can become a 'cottage industry' that is localized to benefit the small guy... the local economy & community. Mothers putting their kids through school. Local parks & schools funded & paid for by the industry. Spreading the love... and the word.

Grow dank... no doubt. ;-)



BTW... HokuLoa, right now, might only be able to throw dead babies at ya! ;-)

 

[Skunkmiester]

Thank u SG but okay okay here is the million dollar question. Would I rather go to court for selling to a patient and it be arguable or go to court for sitting on to much medication because I have no way to get rid of it which puts me in the 2oz violation range for each patient cuz they ain't smoking that much and I can't grow that little so what to do grow automatics,that's a good source of medication..ha ha. No win situation unless ur patients are and oz a week consumer.