Colorado House Bill 1284

[GreenintheThumb]

Yeah, I'm curious about lawsuits as well. Maybe somehow we'll actually get an injunction.

I wish I had some info on this but my pos lawyer won't return my calls or even emails. After I had to correct him and send him emails from Matt Cook saying that ALL employees of MMCs must meet the 2 year residency clause. I guess up until a week ago Warren Edson was giving some pretty bad legal advice. Wonder if it effected anyone else's life as much as mine.

 

[milehighmedical]

.

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Yeah, I'm curious about lawsuits as well. Maybe somehow we'll actually get an injunction.

I wish I had some info on this but my pos lawyer won't return my calls or even emails. After I had to correct him and send him emails from Matt Cook saying that ALL employees of MMCs must meet the 2 year residency clause. I guess up until a week ago Warren Edson was giving some pretty bad legal advice. Wonder if it effected anyone else's life as much as mine.

Yeah.. I don't get it. As of July 1st all talk about these bills from the legal and political communities has just stopped. All I heard from lawyers before July 1st was we have to wait until the bill goes into effect to file lawsuits. So far the only lawsuit I've heard of is the zoning one. I haven't even heard rumors of another lawsuit. What about the caregivers? You know the ones who are producing all the quality meds.
Someone lobbied big time to get the caregivers pinched out is what happened and I guarantee it was some dispensary growing shwag. How else is it that the 5 patient law has already been thrown out and proven unconstitutional but this time its sticking? If it was unconstitutional then, it is now.

I know 2 different people in C.S. who decided to open dispensaries who don't smoke and have never grown before. They don't even know what quality meds are. It's sickening.

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Here is something that Matt Brown wrote on Jan. 14

Why a 5 Patient Cap will not work for anyone; Patients or Law Enforcement
At least you would think that John Suthers would have done the math on his own proposal. By his own admission the state has been adding roughly 600 new licensed patients a day since late July. To accommodate the roughly 60,000 patients currently covered by Amendment 20, we would need 12,000 people to secretly grow marijuana in their basements and gardens and we would need to add 120 new caregivers to that list every day. Those numbers start to make 600 or so dispensaries statewide look a lot more attractive.

Has Suthers not read the text of Amendment 20? The only time the word "five" is mentioned is when requiring the state health agency to issue a medical marijuana registry card within "five days" of verifying a patient's application. Perhaps he just skimmed the definition of "primary care-giver" in section 1(f) and failed to remember the legal definition of "person." Certainly the public can be forgiven for not fully understanding this nuanced legal argument, but shouldn't the state's top attorney be able to remember that the legal definition of "person" is

Person n. 1) a human being 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

I could go on detailing all the ways that a "5 patient cap" is simply unworkable in practice and extremely detrimental to our patients; but we just need to realize this idea is simply silly. It wasn't prescribed by the voters in 2000, it isn't being demanded by the voters today, and chasing this law enforcement fantasy only distracts us from the real work to be done.

The Word "Dispensary" is not in Amendment 20
It is true that Colorado's Amendment 20 doesn't include the word "dispensary," but that's only because the word was not used in relation to medical marijuana over a decade ago when this amendment was being drafted. However, if the lawyers who originally drafted Amendment 20 had intended for "primary care-givers" to be limited only to people acting on their own, it stands to reason they would have chosen the legally correct term "natural person" instead:

Natural Person n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation, which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-brown/the-clear-heads-in-the-me_b_423757.html

What happened to this argument?

 

[Baddog40]

Yeah.. I don't get it. As of July 1st all talk about these bills from the legal and political communities has just stopped. All I heard from lawyers before July 1st was we have to wait until the bill goes into effect to file lawsuits. So far the only lawsuit I've heard of is the zoning one. I haven't even heard rumors of another lawsuit. What about the caregivers? You know the ones who are producing all the quality meds.
Someone lobbied big time to get the caregivers pinched out is what happened and I guarantee it was some dispensary growing shwag. How else is it that the 5 patient law has already been thrown out and proven unconstitutional but this time its sticking? If it was unconstitutional then, it is now.

I know 2 different people in C.S. who decided to open dispensaries who don't smoke and have never grown before. They don't even know what quality meds are. It's sickening.

The 5 patient caregiver limit was never ruled to be unconstitutional.

 

[SGMeds]

Yeah, I'm curious about lawsuits as well. Maybe somehow we'll actually get an injunction.

I wish I had some info on this but my pos lawyer won't return my calls or even emails. After I had to correct him and send him emails from Matt Cook saying that ALL employees of MMCs must meet the 2 year residency clause. I guess up until a week ago Warren Edson was giving some pretty bad legal advice. Wonder if it effected anyone else's life as much as mine.

I seem to have an opinion contrary to JG... but respect the guy as a lawyer. Though not with him... he actually told me to move to another state ;-) lol... would recommend him first to other peeps as a consequence. Gotta respect a guy that shoots straight... even if ya disagree.

btw... funny how WE didn't show at the convention, though he reserved a booth... hmmmmm

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

The 5 patient caregiver limit was never ruled to be unconstitutional.

Oh really?

Posted in Chronicle Blog by Phillip Smith on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 6:43pm

Monday night, Colorado's rapidly increasing number of medical marijuana patients and burgeoning medical marijuana industry won a major victory against state regulators trying to cramp their style -- and fiddle with a medical marijuana law written into the state constitution by voter initiative nine years ago. After a marathon public hearing packed with nearly 400 medical marijuana supporters, the Colorado Board of Health rejected a controversial proposal from the state Department of Public Health and Environment that would have tightened up the definition of a caregiver and would have limited caregivers to providing for no more than five patients.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle..._supporters_defeat_restrictions_on_caregivers

 

[Baddog40]

Oh really?

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle..._supporters_defeat_restrictions_on_caregivers

Because the Dept Of Health decided not to implement it to you that means it was ruled unconstitutional? Alrighty then...

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Because the Dept Of Health decided not to implement it to you that means it was ruled unconstitutional? Alrighty then...

Well it was originally thrown out in a Denver court in 07 and then this case in 09. I'm mainly going off what I heard from lawyers in the press and the vibe was it didn't stick because it was unconstitutional.
It's been removed twice. If it was constitutional why would that be?

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Not to mention..

Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit business?

Do they limit caregiver services in other fields to a certain number of patients?

 

[Baddog40]

Well it was originally thrown out in a Denver court in 07 and then this case in 09. I'm mainly going off what I heard from lawyers in the press and the vibe was it didn't stick because it was unconstitutional.
It's been removed twice. If it was constitutional why would that be?

It was thrown out in court because the DOH didnt follow proper procedure of having a public hearing when they originally implemented it, then the DOH tried to do it again with a hearing and they ultimately decided against it. It was never argued in court nor decided based on constitutional grounds.

Not to mention..

Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit business?

Do they limit caregiver services in other fields to a certain number of patients?

What does this have to do with your statement about 5 patient limits already being ruled unconstitutional?

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

It was thrown out in court because the DOH didnt follow proper procedure of having a public hearing when they originally implemented it, then the DOH tried to do it again with a hearing and they ultimately decided against it. It was never argued in court nor decided based on constitutional grounds.





What does this have to do with your statement about 5 patient limits already being ruled unconstitutional?

My actual words were "thrown out and proven unconstitutional", not ruled. If your going to nit pick at least get my words right. My point was the consensus at the time was it was thrown out because it was unconstitutional and they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Oh and it didn't have much to to with it other than help prove it is unconstitutional.

You're not 1 of those 2 people I know are you? haha
Lobby much? lol

 

[Baddog40]

My actual words were "thrown out and proven unconstitutional", not ruled. If your going to nit pick at least get my words right. My point was the consensus at the time was it was thrown out because it was unconstitutional and they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Oh and it didn't have much to to with it other than help prove it is unconstitutional.

You're not 1 of those 2 people I know are you? haha
Lobby much? lol

Holy shit, if something is "thrown out and proven unconstitutional" that means it was ruled upon. Would it be easier for you to comprehend if I colored you a damn picture?

And yea, and I must be Matt Brown or whoever you're insinuating because I called you out on bullshit. Why do you want to keep arguing over something that you were incorrect about? Just fucking admit you were wrong and leave it at that.

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Holy shit, if something is "thrown out and proven unconstitutional" that means it was ruled upon. Would it be easier for you to comprehend if I colored you a damn picture?

And yea, and I must be Matt Brown or whoever you're insinuating because I called you out on bullshit. Why do you want to keep arguing over something that you were incorrect about? Just fucking admit you were wrong and leave it at that.

LOL Why did it get thrown out then? What was the consensus in the MMJ community on why it got thrown out?
Yes you are correct that there hasn't been an official ruling deeming it unconstitutional but that was the reason I heard it didn't stick. You?

 

[SoCoMMJ]

Oh really?

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle..._supporters_defeat_restrictions_on_caregivers\

Really.

It was thrown out because the health department did not seek public input prior to implementation, not because it was unconstitutional.

When they did seek public input in 09, the board voted against implementation. Neither of those ruled it unconstitutional.

Unless you have something else that proves it unconstitutional... Those are the only instances that I am aware of where the 5 patient cap was addressed pre HB10-1284.

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

Really.

It was thrown out because the health department did not seek public input prior to implementation, not because it was unconstitutional.

When they did seek public input in 09, the board voted against implementation. Neither of those ruled it unconstitutional.

Unless you have something else that proves it unconstitutional... Those are the only instances that I am aware of where the 5 patient cap was addressed pre HB10-1284.

You guys are right..
I was just under the impression that was the main argument going in and once the health department voted it out the consensus was it didn't hold up because it's unconstitutional.
I was wrong. I just read an article on Sensible Colorado that says they just felt it wasn't needed.
I still feel it is unconstitutional but like you said that isn't official yet.

 

[Easy Skanking]

Most "real" cannabis professionals are likely to have operated illegally in the past 10yrs. Plans and simple, if you were "caregiving" prior to Holder's announcement of Fed intent you probably were not declaring and paying taxes on that because it invited prosecution. Many pros would happily have established business licenses and payed taxes IF there were a protected way of doing so that jibbed with both local and Fed law. So, as you now grant complete access to all your information you completely open the door to investigation, charges and prosecution for any PAST activity revealed. I now understand why they lodged the MedCan regulatory agency with the Dept of Revenue. When they pry open every aspect of you financial history it will be super simple to discover accounting discrepancies that will betray "illegal" activity. If your financial holdings (including real property) do not accurately and unequivocally match your financial/employment/tax history YOU WOULD BE INSANE TO APPLY!!! Any discrepancy is virtually a request to be investigated like a criminal and (I believe) probably charged like one too.

Totally agreed! I couldn't have said it better! I used to want to be a dispensary owner sometime in the future but now I wouldn't even sign the forms to be an employee at one. Way too sketchy!

FUCK YOU to all the stupid politicians, lobbyists and lawyers who fucked this up for everyone trying to go about it the right way! When do we get to see your 10 year financial and criminal histories and all of your campaign contributors? Never?!? A big shocker there.

 

[Rednick]

Maybe, just maybe, this will get some of the fuckers out of the Rectaltangle and to go back from whence they came.

But fuck it!
I have lived here my whole life,
I am not going anywhere. (of course, with the price dropping here, and rising in other states it is tempting to leave - somewhat of an Economic Imbalance going on here)

And since all the prisons are in Colorado, even if they do make me a criminal, I will still be here.

 

[tharmer]

I'm not going to pick out any one poster because so many are so confused. It's pretty clear to me why this law exists and it's also clear that Colorado is the Avant-garde with this important historical precedent; the other 49 states will follow OUR lead.

Why does the law exist? Because people are scared.

Good people all over the state who were taught that 'pot is bad', 'pot is addictive', 'pot is dangerous', 'pot will ruin peoples lives' are afraid of pot. That cannot be a surprise to anyone posting or reading this forum, but some of you don't seem to understand this basic idea.

Because people are scared of what they don't know they will run for cover to the things they do know. There are a huge number of people in Colorado who have never even tried pot, can you imagine? So these good people call their senators and congress people and mayors and newspapers and they try to get someone to agree with their position. From their uneducated standpoint it's simply that they must take action to protect their children from this hideous new demon masquerading as medicine. You see Coloradans did not expect all these dispensaries all over the state when they voted on Amendment 20 a decade ago.

So the legislators, hoping their constituents will re-elect them, are forced to rush together legislation. They haven't finished their work yet and have provided for an entire second full legislative session to fix the important issues they didn't fully address in the 2010 legislative session, but they can all go back home and assure their supporters that they indeed are addressing the problem.

So they pass it and the Gov'na signs it, so it's law.

They decide the man in the state who is best able to develop rules that interpret the new rushed together law is the head of the department of revenue, Matt Cook. This makes sense to the politicians because Mr Cook has experience in law enforcement, in Colorado politics and in developing rules for complicated crime prone industries like gambling.

Over the next 12 months Mr Cook and his team will interpret the law and develop a set of specific rules that dispensary owners need to follow. He has many issues to address including residency and moral character and how can he visit farms without infesting them with bugs from the last farm he visited. Here's a fantastic overview of his approach to the problem at hand:

http://www.findmypot.com/2010/06/09/video-matt-cook-department-revenue-hb-10-1284-house-bill/

After watching him for one half hour I was quite impressed. I was impressed that he had the appropriate experience and that he seemed to be a straight shooter even suggesting how dispensary owners can best work together with him to shape the new rules. He spends time talking about the fees they set and how they intend to use the money. I didn't realize, until I watched the video that the state doesn't even know how many dispensaries exist. I hadn't realized that because I hadn't considered the problem from Mr Cook's perspective.

So while I understand the anger from those who are 'not of good moral character' and the need to vent, some of you sound like children. Your desires to 'go back underground' and 'screw leo' and care give for more than 5 people and care give for profit astound me. It's almost as if you think this is a joke, like just because you want it to be a certain way and it isn't you are willing to jeopardize your freedom.

I'm certain Mr Cook has no intention of letting any people of questionable morals own/operate dispensaries. I'm 100% confident that pedophiles and bank robbers will NOT be licensed to operate dispensaries in the state of Colorado. Nor will known drug dealers, this makes sense if you look at it from the other side of the fence. While it may change one day, right now the state will not let criminals fund or operate a dispensary.

Disclaimer: you CAN run a dispensary if you are a criminal. you CAN run a dispensary for the next 11 1/2 months. The problem is that you will not get a license and you will not be able to sell your lease because your unlicensed dispensary will prevent another dispensary from opening in your location for at least 2 years. The law does not go into effect until July 2011. Dispensary owners have 12 months to fully comply with the new law.

I'd also like to address the untenable position that dispensary owners should not be investigated. This silly idea that dispensary owners backgrounds should not be turned inside out and upside down. Where in the constitution/bill of rights/bible or any other document people consider law does it say that you have the right to own and operate a dispensary in Colorado? Oh yea, it doesn't.

Owning and operating a dispensary in Colorado is a privilege, not unlike the privilege casino owners have to 'print money'. It is not a right. Don't be confused by amendment 20, it doesn't give you the right to be a drug dealer. Dispensary owners are a very lucky group of people and if they can get through all the hurdles thrown at them they just might turn a profit one day.

Lets not fight, let's support this new priveledged class by showing them some respect and helping them pay the incredible $635 per month they need to pay the state on top of their rent, electric bill, security/alarm bill, consultation fees to remain hippa compliant, overpriced legal fees which can easily beat $1000 per month.

Help our local friends and neighbors build their businesses so we can all enjoy the fruit of their labor at a reasonable price.

Warning, if you do not support your local dispensary you will soon find that pot prices will go WAY WAY up and supplies will dwindle as dispensary owners with little experience and no help from you start to grow their own and fail.

Don't hate dispensary owners, hate the fear.

 

[funkfingers]

Well I don't know where to start with this post:sigh: I think the reason this law was passed should be crystal clear to anyone with half a brain. The state saw an industry making MONEY. They also saw that there were to many ways for people to make tax free dollars..So if you think this bill was passed for any other reason you're crazy.

I do believe some of us have a problem with the "moral" character clause, being that anybody who has any considerable experience with this herb, was doing it legally the entire. It was a roll of the dice for ANYONE who chose to cultivate/smoke.(remember some states simple possession can make you a felon).

I still stand by my post I feel like that any public official (including police officers) should have to disclose every last bit of info to the public for audit. ie financial records, bank statements,credit card statements ect.. You think any of them would go for it.. Also what if we told general mills they have to produce 70% of their grain, or the grocery stores to grow 70% of their own product. Point being this bill stomps all over our constitutional rights as united states citizens, anyone who can't clearly see that is blind or ...

I'm sure there would be a lot less confusion if THEY had any idea what was going on.. You have a lot of faith in politicians....