-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Colorado House Bill 1284
- Thread starter snowschool
- Start date
You think they're passing SB109 just to mess with us? They intend to use it!
The cops in every town have scoped out the local recommending doctors. They've acquired recommendations from them under falsified pretenses. Doctors are the key to this entire mess--they only have to make an example out of 3-4 before nobody will sign another recommendation in CO again for fear of their license. The legislative intent is to force the registry back to 2008 levels, constitution be damned.
If a caregiver can lawfully acquire for his patients, than he can acquire it from other caregivers. There is no violation, explicit, implied, or otherwise, in exchanges, compensated or otherwise, between 2 lawful possessors. Where are the busts and convictions that support your assertion? The only applicable case law seems to be Clendenin and it's far from resolved. The Appeals court got it half right and half wrong. Why they didn't see fit to remedy Clendenin themselves remains a mystery.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the exchange of meds between 2 patients is also illegal.
The cops in every town have scoped out the local recommending doctors. They've acquired recommendations from them under falsified pretenses. Doctors are the key to this entire mess--they only have to make an example out of 3-4 before nobody will sign another recommendation in CO again for fear of their license. The legislative intent is to force the registry back to 2008 levels, constitution be damned.
If a caregiver can lawfully acquire for his patients, than he can acquire it from other caregivers. There is no violation, explicit, implied, or otherwise, in exchanges, compensated or otherwise, between 2 lawful possessors. Where are the busts and convictions that support your assertion? The only applicable case law seems to be Clendenin and it's far from resolved. The Appeals court got it half right and half wrong. Why they didn't see fit to remedy Clendenin themselves remains a mystery.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the exchange of meds between 2 patients is also illegal.
SB 109 was just defeated in the house.. I posted a thread here with a link and detail a couple minutes ago.
patient to patient sales are the only sale of MJ allowed in the state, its right in the law plain as day.
CBF
CBF
Marijuana should be regulated as any other herb one would find in a GNC store because thats exactly what it is. The bottom line is the money, lawmakers want to act like marijuana is bad unless they can tax the fuck out of it and create a dozen new agencies to regulate it, then its ok. Dont follow their BS rules and its back to being bad.
I do like the way Warren's thinking. It makes sense from a serious business perspective. Did we really think growing would be a free for all if it becomes legal? No. Listen folks. It's time to go pro or go home. Play by the rules or don't.
Sure I can go down and get a bottle of Grey Goose at the liquor store or I can risk a misdemeanor and go score a gallon of moonshine.
Sometimes it's worth it for the goose. Sometimes it's worth it for the shine.
Now If I wanted to make a couple hundred gallons moonshine, I'd be risking a felony. Seems to be similar to mmj under 1284. Seems like as good as a deal as I would realistically expect. Enjoy the free for all till 7-1-11.
Mile Hi Dave
Member
Warren...there are plenty of othe MMJ sites that you can troll....go away. This bill will close all the little shops that cannot afford to get a location to grow in. It will close all the little folks down that are true "locals".
The small mom and pops shops that most patients prefer to go to...why is it that patients are not mentioned? MMC's is what these bills are about. As a grower, I don't want to "work" or "partner" up with a dispensary. Why should I have to? Can you imagine our legislature passing a bill telling Budweiser and all of it's distributorships, liquor stores, bars etc... that they have to be "partners"? Can you imagine if the gov't told the owner of your favorite drinking establishment, that in order to serve Coors, that Coors would have to be a partner/part owner of the bar?
What other business does the legislature "force" partnerships?
YOU and your ilk are only in it for the money. This is quite obvious, as you have yet to offer to help any of us!! Your "free" advice here is as worthless as you are!! You come here to spout your negative opinions with no positive solutions.
Climb back under your rock, as your advice is as worthless as this fucking bill!!!
Mile Hi Dave
Member
I'm not sure how this all works. Now what happens?
House Judiciary03/22/2010. .
HB10-1284 FINAL VOTE - Refer House Bill 10-1284, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Members of the committee commented about their positions on the bill. The motion passed on a vote of 7-4.
Just one of many committees it still has to get thru. There was another meeting on 4/20. To my understanding, there are 1 or 2 more committees this has to go thru before it goes before the whole legislature for a vote.
You are incorrect, there are plently of home based businesses that make things in their home for commercial sale. Are you telling us Dell computers started out illegally? Michael Dell started out making and selling computers out of his garage. As long as you are not running a retail establishment where customers come to you then it is perfectly legal. Are you sure you are THE Warren Edson?
I read that it now goes to the Senate for a final vote then on to the Governors desk (which all could happen VERY quickly). Anyone have more info on this?
Mile Hi Dave
Member
SB109 was not defeated...please do not pass around this type of BS & start rummors. They decided to strike some of the language that made it tougher for 18-23 year olds. In fact here is the whole article from the post, explain to me where you get that it was defeated?
"State lawmakers backing tougher regulations for medical-marijuana patients and doctors appear to have abandoned their efforts at creating unique requirements for young people seeking medicinal pot.
The sponsors of the proposal, Senate Bill 109, had amended the bill to require patients under 23 to get two doctors' recommendations — instead of one. That amendment, though, was rejected by the full state House. Thursday, lawmakers opted against any special requirements for patients under 23. John Ingold, The Denver Post"
HEAR HEAR!!! Thank you Dave!
People are ALL different. My strains aren't found in dispensaries and dispensary strains are only "So So" for medicating me.
Try getting some experience as a REAL patient and a REAL grower.... before coming in and spouting inane bullshit.
I'm truly sorry your education and programming is so F'd up. You would have made a real decent living soul.
Mile Hi Dave
Member
Now...how many here are bitching and not doing a damn thing to help...plenty, I am sure. I posted all the email addresses...now you folks have to sit down and put together a well-crafted email, that your legislator will read. Please do it right...going off on a tangent, cursing, etc...will not help, nor will they read past the first sentence.
Come across as a patient, use language that you would use when speaking to your grandparents, be specific (generalized emails tend to be ignored), make sure you send it to all of the legislators, as they all influence ea other. It is OUR job to EDUCATE them!!!
BE RESPECTFUL & respresent the MMJ community, not just yourself! If these representatives get enough emails/phone calls from their constituents, we may be able to get them to listen. Just spouting off here on the boards accomplishes nothing...they don't read this!!!
Come across as a patient, use language that you would use when speaking to your grandparents, be specific (generalized emails tend to be ignored), make sure you send it to all of the legislators, as they all influence ea other. It is OUR job to EDUCATE them!!!
BE RESPECTFUL & respresent the MMJ community, not just yourself! If these representatives get enough emails/phone calls from their constituents, we may be able to get them to listen. Just spouting off here on the boards accomplishes nothing...they don't read this!!!
warrenedson
Member
Cobcoop,
That's the real tricky part of this legislation, ie. that it is legislation. They are not amending the constitution, they are creating 4 new statutory based defenses. Thus they can restrict them and mess with them. They also will not have to abide by the judicial language that has been attached to the "caregiver" defense because you will not be a caregiver but one of these new things.
They will then limit the caregivers through zoning and business restrictions. Ie. if you help more than 5 people than you are a commercial business and have to abide by those rules.
To Others: me handing you mj would be distribution of mj which is against the law. The only defense I am aware of to justify that exchange would be you naming me as your caregiver. If I walk into a current dispensary and hand them my extra mj, I have distributed mj to that owner. He/she probably hasn't named me as their caregiver. So how is that act of distribution legal? Add to that, Denver Bill 34 clearly says you can not distribute for the purpose of redistribution.
Please point to zoning laws in denver that allow you to manufacture products in a residentially zoned home for commercial distribution. I did not say invent, I said manufacture. Many denver dispensaries have been unable to obtain their license because of their mixed residential use zoning designation.
That's the real tricky part of this legislation, ie. that it is legislation. They are not amending the constitution, they are creating 4 new statutory based defenses. Thus they can restrict them and mess with them. They also will not have to abide by the judicial language that has been attached to the "caregiver" defense because you will not be a caregiver but one of these new things.
They will then limit the caregivers through zoning and business restrictions. Ie. if you help more than 5 people than you are a commercial business and have to abide by those rules.
To Others: me handing you mj would be distribution of mj which is against the law. The only defense I am aware of to justify that exchange would be you naming me as your caregiver. If I walk into a current dispensary and hand them my extra mj, I have distributed mj to that owner. He/she probably hasn't named me as their caregiver. So how is that act of distribution legal? Add to that, Denver Bill 34 clearly says you can not distribute for the purpose of redistribution.
Please point to zoning laws in denver that allow you to manufacture products in a residentially zoned home for commercial distribution. I did not say invent, I said manufacture. Many denver dispensaries have been unable to obtain their license because of their mixed residential use zoning designation.
Mile Hi Dave
Member
Hey Warren...if you really want to help, how about helping us with the language that will allow us growers to continue to operate - legally. How about you putting your education and knowledge to work for us?
I see you telling us what won't work, how about helping us put together legislative language that we can present to our lawmakers --- instead of just pointing out all of the negative bullshit??
Oh yea....that's right, we aren't possible candidates to open a MMC, thus you have no monetary interest in helping us....
I see you telling us what won't work, how about helping us put together legislative language that we can present to our lawmakers --- instead of just pointing out all of the negative bullshit??
Oh yea....that's right, we aren't possible candidates to open a MMC, thus you have no monetary interest in helping us....
warrenedson
Member
Mom and pop shops that purchase all their meds off the black market? Where are those? Most of the little stores I deal with in Ned, Loveland, eldorado springs, ect., are little mom and pop places because they are trying to maintain quality and control by growing their own and working directly with their growers. As opposed to buying whatever walks in off the street.
The mom and pop stores won't have to grow their own and rent buildings unless they want to. They will just need to work with growers who want to license through them. I thought part of the bitch was that the MMC's were going to be making the wholesale money and getting control? Why wouldn't that apply to the mom and pop as well?
The mom and pop stores won't have to grow their own and rent buildings unless they want to. They will just need to work with growers who want to license through them. I thought part of the bitch was that the MMC's were going to be making the wholesale money and getting control? Why wouldn't that apply to the mom and pop as well?
warrenedson
Member
This does allow growers to operate legally. You all just expect to do this without any regulation.
Mile Hi Dave
Member
"working directly with their growers" won't be allowed, as the growers will have to be a partner. You sir, are spouting a bunch of BS. Forced integration is something else all the Mega-Stores want...to force out the smaller, better businesses. You showed your true colors here....you go ahead and represent the Mega-operators, as they allow you to continue to live the "High" life (pun intended). I see you for what you are....another worthless POS lawyer putting $$ ahead of patients...
Hey Warren...Dailybuds.com is looking for a lawyer to troll and offer worthless advice...go there!!! Your posts here are absolutely worthless as they have no positive input. If you know what won't work....tell us what will!!! If you can't, then STFU!!!
You sound like the PD I had telling me to take a plea....a plea I refused. After firing said PD, I represented myself (went pro se) and was, subsequently, acquitted. Not saying I know the law any better than you...I can't see myself rolling over for this law...because you say so...
Exactly my point. The Const amendment we all voted on deals exclusively with "caregivers", and defines what a "caregiver" is (albeit vaguely). So would it not be un-constitutional to alter the "caregiver" definition without a constitutional amendment voted on by the people of Colorado?
I do appreciate your advice, although I don't always agree. It is very easy to look at this issue through our own prisms, but realistically we need to honestly evaluate the situation through not only our views but those of the opposition in order to have an effective argument.
