Colorado House Bill 1284

[cannagirl]

mr. bojangles since Im not really in the CG position anymore, Im not really sure, but it does bring up an interesting point; that the state does, on some level, see the need for a good CG to have more than 5 patients. I also wonder if this has more of an impact for those CG's in counties and cities that ban dispensaries and dispensary grows...

 

[SGMeds]

Mornin CG! ;-) Or rather, gettin ready to crash for the night???


MB~ Sub A is on 46...

(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.


I recall that the issue was for the areas where dispensaries/mmc's are outlawed. But I don't even recall if there was a cap discussed on that... what if you are in a city/county that banned them... likely be a shitload of patients wanting your services, right???

You'd likely have to beat them off with a nice thick plant stalk! ;-)

 

[milehighmedical]

.

 

[mr. bojangles]

Yes this is true However it doesn't say that proximity of a center is the only accepted exceptional circumstance, nor does it state that no other circumstances shall be accepted. This is the type of gray area that needs to be thoroughly pushed to set precedence. The channel they give you to work in allows for you to go thru the state, rather than take the issue to court, although you could go that route, it's definitely not the preferable route. If denied, you gotta lawsuit. Good lawyer, win your case, and it falls under the rule making provisions. In essence, letting the patients set the rules. This is all just theory, but it gets us pickin and pokin at this bitch until we find what we're all lookin for, which is a means to provide the absolute best service to the patient, legally. I saw a couple of other interesting pieces of this bill, also. Specificaly in the sunset clause, which isn't that far off.

 

[SGMeds]

You make a damn good point! After all, they refer to the DOPHE, not the DOR... your arguments from before would hold a lot more weight w the Dr's vs Cook... or so I would think...???

 

[mr. bojangles]

Yeah, thats what I was thinkin. I mean after all, the constitution says MEDICAL marijuana. The DOR is just the administrator, not the only say. They have to give the proportionate amount of rule making to the health aspect, and we need to make damn sure that they don't forget it. That being said, money is still gonna be the motivating factor, what ever side it's on, will win. But, this first year is whats the most important, as far as rule making goes. Does anyone know if those committee meetings are close door or do they have an open forum opportunity?

 

[SGMeds]

I doubt they will voluntarily open up the meetings... I didn't even realize the deadline was the end of last month... to submit an app that is. Wouldn't be surprised if they've already started & we don't know!!!


That Sunset Review appears important to me because it does restate the importance of patient access & safety from prosecution... those are the first things stated.

There is a Sept 1 deadline for a public review/hearing, which is a hop, skip & jump away...!!! This is on Page 45, (c) (I)... the third paragraph. It only requires a 5 business day notice for this hearing...


GN all... ;-)

 

[mr. bojangles]

It would appear that the meetings are just that, meetings. They have to provide public notice before a rule making hearing, which is required by law.

On another note, that gives me just barely enough time to make the move out there. I hope to attend that first hearing. Thats if it goes the full nine, they could post the announcement any day. C.R.S. 24-4-106 allows us a grievance procedure in reference to any rule they make. This is your first legal option, if you don't agree with the rule. You have to have a valid argument, but you can initiate the procedure in any court in the state. This is key to winning, I feel, just have to choose what you feel is gonna be a sympathetic court.

I hope I can be of some help to the community when I arrive.

 

[cobcoop]

Nothing at the moment, just moved into a new house. Something from Barney's Farm or Serious Seeds usually.


Again you missed my point.

As a caregiver you can only supply 5 people, as a dispensary owner/employee you can grow for hundreds of people. Everyone complains dispensary's can't grow yet nobody wants to help them.

Do you not recognize that the vast majority of patients will be served by dispensaries?

Do you not care for the patients who will smoke that weed?

You are claiming to be a superior grower, why not help more than 5 sick people?

Here is the issue with your assumption; Small time growers will always be able to produce higher quality than a warehouse grow. I'll break it down a little further for you, take the exact same grower in a 10'x10' space, and he/she will produce higher quality than that same grower running a 100'x100' space. The sweet corn i grow in my backyard garden is 100 times better than anything coming from a commercial farm. I don;t think this concept is too difficult to understand.

 

[Baddog40]

tharmer are you cologrower420 on one of the other forums?

 

[HokuLoa]

You should let other americans make the decision of where they want to work on their own.

What if you dont want to work for someone else? What if you dont have enough money to jump through their hoops and start a dispensary? What if you just dont want to sacrifice quality for quantity? What if you would rather support local mom and pop gardens over big money/greed?

Im not sure a dispensary grow can micro-manage to the level that I can in a less than industrial size garden. Granted, they have more resources and help, but I dont buy the story that dispensary bud is somehow more healthy or less PM than caregiver product. There is no large scale method that cant be done small scale. There ARE medium scale methods (with higher quality imo) that are too expensive for it to be worth it in a large scale op... I dont believe the best weed in the world was grown in a commercial setting either. And there are amateur growers that work for dispensaries just like there are amateur growers that are CG.

I believe every plant should be grown with meticulous care. Checking every branch of every plant every day is just one task that is practically impossible in most large scale industrial grows. So how is it you assume dispensaries are somehow more careful than professional caregivers when it comes to PM and pests?

edit: and dispensaries arent even mentioned in the constitution. Its debatable whether or not they were ever the intention of the voters that passed the law. CGs and patients are what is mentioned, and their relationship is what the intent of the amendment was really about.

Nailed it. This issue (quality and value of Centers vs CGs) is as much about scale as much as it is about skill. Until Center's develop a skill level comparable to that of a top grower they will be completely unable to translate that ability to a scale large enough to properly service a large patient base. For instance:

Grower A is a caregiver with 20yrs experience, a completely dialed in production process, AND a topnotch bank of genetics. She cares for 10 patients w/o any obligation to "retail" so she has ample time to devote to green work AND to patient care. Her processes take more time and care but are a crucial component of producing top quality MEDICINE. As a result her meds are the enviable top quality in the state. Her meds SHOULD BE the measure against which all others are held to standard.

Grower B is a well-meaning but less experienced Center owner/employee. He has 5 years experience and best of intentions but he has the further burden of trying to stretch his abilities and processes to serve a patient base of 1000. He has heard of the careful, well crafted processes of grower A but realizes that they are not applicable for a larger scale production. He instead must rely on "more productive" processes that result in a volume over quality trade off. Given the pressures of the grander retail scale this is a necessary trade off until he can figure out a new, better process that is manageable. His "meds" are as a result well-flushed but still chemy(often, not always). Unfortunately he must also rely on mechanized trimming (b/c hiring legions of trimmers is hard with the new regs) which further diminishes the quality. Oh, and because he is a relative newcomer his genetic supply is vastly inferior to grower A's. Add to that the likelihood that he will almost certainly end up battling disease and pest infestation (a given for new, large scale grows).... well, you get the picture....

Of course there are quality Center owners but almost inevitably a larger scale means decisions placing demands of scale alongside demands of quality. The latter almost always diminishes even for the best growers when scale is increased. Given this reality it is MUCH easier to understand why caregivers interested in superior quality medicine AND patient care are unwilling to consider transitioning to Centers. High standards are high standards and those who know are not interested in that trade off despite the allure of profits.

 

[HokuLoa]

I just wish he'd quit jackin the fuckin thread and move on to another topic. I posted this a couple pages back and would like to get some debate on the matter. Thank you SG for posting your comment before this thread got sidetracked AGAIN.

My take on possible reasons....

Caregiving in municipalities where Centers are banned and there is no proper patient access for the community. Understandable for patient limit exception.

Caregivers in more traditional "care" relationships. For instance, a caregiver for a group home for patients. Say you run a care facility for patients needing more comprehensive 24hr care that houses 10. I'm guessing (yes, guessing) this may be an allowable circumstance for expanded limits.

 

[HokuLoa]

I wish they'd ban dispensaries in Fort Collins. I would love to caregive for 16 patients... I think that's the limit in that scenario. That, or a full acceptance of the higher plant count rec's. Either way I just want to get back to pushing the 99 plant limit. I want to have a dozen mom's and a mini-fridge BURSTING with seeds! It's just such a bummer to keep the variety limited... it's not fair to the patients.

Yeah the implications for genetic/medicinal variety are REALLY distressing for CGs. I know it is WAAAAY out of their ability for logical legislation but it would be nice if the state made an exception in plant counts to allow for mother stock. At least then a 5 patient CG can properly maintain a true medicinal variety.

 

[mr. bojangles]

Yes I agree. A little higher veg count would do far more good than a higher flower count. I mean, it's the usable meds that the state wants regulated, right? We should be allowed diversity for the greater good. Any doctor will tell you ( unless they are a neo-con) that marijuana affects everyone differently, different strains for different ailments, and so on and so forth.

These are they points that need to be addressed at the first hearing. There are alot of doctors on the committee, lets just hope they are sensible. If approached with this concept then maybe we can get a little compromise. At least get it to where you don't have to go to court and spend ass loads of money on an affirmative defense. Honor the doctors rec, but keep it on a percentage basis, say no more than 35-40% in flower at any given time. Just my thoughts, and thank you for the discourse.

Edit: As far as a more personal care plan goes, I was think more for homebound patients and seeing that they are taken care of. Kinda like an on call with daily or every couple of days going by to visit, go grocery shopping or take them to appts. and such. Be a friend as well as their "provider of medicine". And yes a group home as well. Good discussion

 

[Surrender]

I guess my beef with 1284 is that it was written to enable Colorado prosecutors to put caregivers in jail. All this other shit is a side effect.

 

[SGMeds]

I just got back from a showing & got a little bit of interesting news...

Those under the 2 year residency (after 12-18)... might still have a chance to be under contract w a disp.


Last week it was 'no we can't talk at all'... apparently now it's playing the 1099 game.

Any way, just a heads up to those of us utterly depressed this last week or two! ;-)

 

[SprngsCaregiver]

I just got back from a showing & got a little bit of interesting news...

Those under the 2 year residency (after 12-18)... might still have a chance to be under contract w a disp.


Last week it was 'no we can't talk at all'... apparently now it's playing the 1099 game.

Any way, just a heads up to those of us utterly depressed this last week or two! ;-)

Are you saying that they may allow 1099 emloyee's to work for dispensaries?

 

[TheReleafCenter]

tharmer are you cologrower420 on one of the other forums?

LOL. Was wondering the same thing myself. Or HighPop.

 

[SGMeds]

It was a new person that I met w (disp owner) repp'd by a lawyer that I didn't recognize.


I truly cannot say for sure... but he seemed open to the possibility that there are ways to work the current situation... that the lawyers are working on, so...???


This was the first 'good' news I've heard regarding the residency issue. Who knows what the dope will be next week, ya know?

But I'm going to be asking about this on Monday... no doubt! Peace

 

[TheReleafCenter]

From my understanding, the residency restriction only applies to those who are filling out the associated persons form.