Colorado Growers Thread

[SoCoMMJ]

ive heard you cant look at the trichs while they are on the plant with the radio shack microscope. any truth to that? id prefer not to have to cut/trim to see if they are ready for harvest.

thanks for the reply.

If you get a 30x jewler's loupe you can see things much easier than with that stupid microscope thing.

 

[cobcoop]

The lamps are on a closed vent circuit with a cold outside air inlet and exhausting into the house to supplement the heating bill in winter.in summer i vent outside thru the dryer vent.

NICE! Reduce Reuse Recycle, I'm loving it man, keep up the good work! Glad to see another Northern Co. compatriot

 

[urbangardenCO]

thanks.starting flowering very soon(w/in 1 week)will keep everyone posted.

 

[rmccinc719]

just put these baby's in to flower 2 day's ago.

 

[rmccinc719]

hears a some mothers I'm flowering out. I think i got 2 1/2 weeks left on the moms and a month on the tray.

 

[Kelly.]

...

 

[Balazar]

I am running 6 of the Radiant 8's but they all have 1k bulbs so I kinda needed 8 inch to keep them cool. It seems like all of the reviews I see are mostly for 6 inch hoods. I would like to see a good comparison of 8 inch hoods. I'm thinking about getting the combo from www.ultralohydro.com that comes with 2 quantum 1000 watt ballasts and 2 cool-tubes with batwings and bulbs. I have heard mixed reviews about the cool-tubes but the price is so good that I'm really wanting to do it. Just $900 for two digital 1000 watt setups! That's a deal! I want to do 6 1k lights and 3 600 watt lights. I like to do digital too. does anyone have suggestions for a good place to make a bulk buy like that?

 

[SELFHEMPLOYED]

Way to Grow in Boulder and Fort Collins can fill that order no sweat, and ask for 15% off not the punch card

 

[rmccinc719]

hey balazar i do biusness with ultralohydro there awsome. bulk orders no problem. call jon at ultralow and tell him what you want to do, he'll biuld for you. maybe look into the trinity ballasts they have 3year warranty and a bit cheaper than quantum. I'm using sunspot6's, trinity ballasts and optilume bulbs. he was able to get the cost down to $260 with shipping. granted i buy sets of ten at a time. hell i might have a couple extra sets at the shop i can get rid of.

 

[Spacecadet01]

ultralow has great ballast prices..thanks for the heads up guys

 

[rooted]

wadup high guys...i'm puzzled by something i was told yesterday...

"the law just changed and caregivers can no longer legally sell to patients unless you're an employee of a dispensary"

...therefore he can't contract me patients to help with my plant count

sounds like BS to me, he told me to look on the internet but i can't find anything

anyone hear similar?

 

[Spacecadet01]

wadup high guys...i'm puzzled by something i was told yesterday...



...therefore he can't contract me patients to help with my plant count

sounds like BS to me, he told me to look on the internet but i can't find anything

anyone hear similar?

hey rooted...I have an email into my attorney about this..Ill let you know what and how it effects the MMJ community.

 

[cobcoop]

I assume this is what he/she was referring to.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13673322

 

[Spacecadet01]

Its looking like after that ruling that vendors to dispensaries are not protected form prosecution unless they somehow become part of the patients care. Meaning that they have to do more for the patients then just sell there herb to said dispensary. Wellness centers wont be touched by this..but store fronts that just sell MMJ are in fact prosecutable.

quote from WARREN EDSON ::

I am just saying that if you do not offer wellness services as part of your "caregiving" package, you could be arrested tomorrow if you grow or distibute to others. The DA's could start filing cases tomorrow using the new definition without any legislation at all.



Warren Edson, Esq.
1490 Lafayette St., Suite 407
Denver, CO. 80218
(303) 831-8188
warrenedson.com


QUTOE FROM BRETT BARNEY ::

I concur with Warren on this matter. I think the decision is clearly indicative of the collective mind of the appellate panel, and how they will treat any future appeals, at least until the legislature acts. The Court?s specific holding in Clendenin was that ?to qualify as a ?primary caregiver?, a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana.? Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Court does not go on to say exactly how much more is required to be a ?primary caregiver? and therefore does little to help us understand to what extent one must be involved in the patients care regimen to be protected by the affirmative defense. What is clear is that those whose only service provided to a patient involves supplying medicine will be subject to prosecution, and will be unlikely to be permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the affirmative defense in a manner that will be successful. This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction at the trial court level, but on appeal, one can expect this result. At the trial level, the court acts as the finder of fact, and based on the facts presented, determines whether the defendant is entitled to present the affirmative defense at trial. The Appeals panel found no error in the Boulder trial court?s conclusion that Clendenin?s lack of personal relationship with her patients precluded her from asserting the defense, so from this decision, we can take away two pieces of knowledge; 1) caregivers should know their patients personally, and 2) they should be involved in the patients care in a way that involves more than ?merely supplying a patient ?with marijuana.?



I think this decision will have little bearing on those caregivers who are providing a ?wellness center? approach to caregiving (as Warren has indicated, ?Mentch like wellness service?). This will, however, likely have repercussions for those who have storefronts, whose only function is to dispense medicine. I am more concerned for those vendors who have ?subcontracted? with patients, through another caregiver, for the production of the medicine. While these individuals are, in essence, making the great majority of the medicine easily available to patients, I fear that they have little protection after this decision, unless they have a greater role in the patient?s care than most I have encountered.

 

[funkfingers]

So if this is the case, are the patients responsible for compensating the caregiver for the care given? I know there has been a heated debate on whether or not mmj is to expensive. I mean when you go see a doctor or a chiropractor, or masseuse you are expected to compensate them for their services. So does this then justify the cost of medical marijuana, for the caregiver to provide these services ?

 

[rooted]

thanks cobcoop, spacecadet

"caregiver" is not a proper name for a cannabis supplier, someone really screwed the pooch on that one...a caregiver is a nurse IMO, not an expert grower

i don't understand why the state wants us to give acupuncture and massages, it doesn't make any fucking sense...it's not the job of a grower.....soooo colorado growers are forced to get acupuncture certification now to stay legal? is that next? ...ridiculous

leave the care of the human to a nurse who is trained to give nutritional/health/pain advice. if a person's condition is debilitating enough to where he or she can't get along day to day without the assistance of a nurse, then the grower should meet with both of them on a regular basis to discuss treatment involving cannabis.

overall, however, it sounds like people who are personally connected with all their patients don't have anything to worry about.

here's the link cobcoop hooked up

Court says medical-marijuana growers must have close patient contact
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/30/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 10/30/2009 06:25:41 AM MDT

Related

* Oct 30:
* Pot dispensaries thriving as stiffer regulation looms
* Oct 25:
* Growth of medical-marijuana demand fuels Colorado land rush
* Oct 22:
* Denver lawmaker wants medical-pot rules clarified
* Los Angeles law would curb new dispensaries
* Six ticketed at A-Basin
* Oct 21:
* Some think cartels help supply medical marijuana in Colorado
* Oct 20:
* AG: Colorado may need to regulate medical marijuana
* Oct 19:
* U.S. to stop arresting medical-pot providers, users

The Colorado Court of Appeals redefined the role of medical-marijuana caregivers Thursday in a ruling that says growers must have more meaningful contact with patients than simply providing the drug.

The court upheld the conviction of Stacy Clendenin, who in 2006 was charged with cultivation of marijuana in her Longmont home, which is a felony.

Clendenin argued that the marijuana she grew was distributed to authorized medical-marijuana patients through dispensaries. The court found that Clendenin needed to know the patients.

In a special concurring opinion, Judge Alan Loeb wrote that Colorado's Amendment 20, which legalized medical marijuana, "cries out for legislative action" because it is vague in regulating the roles of caregivers.

Clendenin's attorney, Robert Corry, said he plans to appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court and said the decision has only a narrow impact.

"The ruling only applies to those who went to trial before July when the state medical board agreed that caregivers could simply provide marijuana," Corry said. "This ruling does not affect people that are in business right now. That being said, I represent a number of clients, and I will be advising people to meet their patients in person, in the abundance of caution."

Mike Saccone, a spokesman for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, disputed Corry's statement that the decision is limited to Clendenin and a few others charged before July. He said that the attorney general believes the court's interpretation of the state's constitution trumps any actions by the state medical board.

"The decision speaks for itself," Saccone said.

Suthers applauded the court's decision. "I am pleased to see the Court of Appeals has provided legal support for our case that a caregiver, under Amendment 20, must do more than simply provide marijuana to a patient," Suthers said in a statement. "I also was pleased to see the assertion in the special concurrence that Amendment 20 'cries out for legislative action.' I could not agree more. I hope the legislature will act and create a regulatory framework that gives substance to the Court of Appeals' findings."

Clendenin wants to get the felony removed from her record and already has served a probationary sentence.

Thursday's ruling, if upheld on appeal, could change the process now in place to supply the burgeoning medical-marijuana industry in Colorado — if the Colorado legislature doesn't restrict it first.

State Sen. Chris Romer plans to introduce some medical-marijuana restrictions when the legislature convenes in January.

"The state needs to issue clear, bright lines and needs to define medical marijuana with a meaningful-caregiver relationship," Romer said.

Romer said some caregivers are operating like convenience stores without knowing whom they are serving. He believes caregivers should provide other services to patients, such as acupuncture, pain management, counseling and nutrition.

The Court of Appeals agreed but didn't define what would constitute an acceptable relationship between patient and caregiver.

"If you are a dispensary simply selling marijuana and acting like a 7-Eleven, you will now be prosecuted based on this decision," Romer said. "My hope is that this will slow or stop the gold rush of dispensaries that are growing like weeds, no pun intended."

 

[Spacecadet01]

going to be interesting to see how this turns out...MAYBE ALL VENDORS SHOULD START TAKING REIKI CLASSES..In preparation for some hands on caregiving down the road. Bad joke..but maybe not a bad idea either

 

[funkfingers]

It's weird how much the older generation ( for the most part) resists change. You'd think in times like this when we are taking money away from education , and using it to lock up perfectly productive members of society. When in fact this "gold rush" they speak of could be used to bring more money into programs that are truly important to the future of this country.

 

[Spacecadet01]

believe me when I say there are some very smart people working on a fix for this right now. But i hear ya..sometimes the powers that be have a hard time relinquishing power to us little folk. And that whats been happening with MMJ. The powers that be see control slipping away. So they make these rulings. We just have to keep our heads up..keep things within the law and make our case. Most importantly get the people out to vote when its time. A change in our representatives might help us!

 

[rooted]

So if this is the case, are the patients responsible for compensating the caregiver for the care given? I know there has been a heated debate on whether or not mmj is to expensive. I mean when you go see a doctor or a chiropractor, or masseuse you are expected to compensate them for their services. So does this then justify the cost of medical marijuana, for the caregiver to provide these services ?

this would depend on the caregiver. i'm sure many of our local mmj caregivers have the $$ to cover the occasional massage, acupunture, nutritional consultation, etc....my question is, what if the patient doesn't need any of these services...who's to tell us we're not doing our job if our patients are happy with the services provided?