CDPHE Emergency

[cobcoop]

I will be there on the 16th and I will be writing Sen. Romer a hand written letter and an email. I will see if I can get his info on here as well to get more people on this band wagon. The more people that they see they are up against the more they will be forced to bend to our will. The all mighty vote will trump all. If Sen. Romer thinks he is in hot water at the next election for opposing us he will try to appease us for fear of loosing his office.

Here's the e-mail addy: [email protected]

You can write him here:
[SIZE=+2]CHRIS ROMER[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Colorado State Senator, District 32[/SIZE]
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203

Keep it respectful, polite, and concise. Not that anyone wouldn't...

 

[cobcoop]

Be careful folks!

http://icmag.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=606

 

[sac beh]

Be careful folks!

http://icmag.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=606

Yeah, that thread is really bothering me. I'm disappointed by the taking-of-sides between dispensaries and patients as far as privacy rights and risk goes in MMJ laws.

 

[cobcoop]

Yeah, that thread is really bothering me. I'm disappointed by the taking-of-sides between dispensaries and patients as far as privacy rights and risk goes in MMJ laws.

Yep, guess who's left holding the bag... pun intended.

 

[orpanic]

Anyone who makes laws, makes them with holes so people can get busted and the people representing them make their bucks. That guy doesn't care about your or me, only $.

 

[cobcoop]

You'll notice he doesn't really address any of our concerns, he only says "this is how to keep dispensary owners out of jail". I don't have anything against anyone (dispensary owners included) until I have reason to.

 

[StrictlyGateway]

I guess i'll post it here also....

"The model I have noticed is that a caregiver/dispensary owner has X number of legitimate (willing) patients assign them as their caregiver, they then distribute any excess medication they have via the storefront."

THAT'S ILLEGAL...Amendment 20 or not. obviously, warrenedson is the man to ask, but i'm sure this conversation has frustrated him.

cobcoop, you seem to want dispensaries, but don't want to jump through the legal hoops necessary to have them. it is COMPLETELY illegal to buy or sell mj to ANYBODY that is not your 'patient' AND to buy mj from anybody that is not your caregiver. the forms at reputable dispensaries assign them as your caregiver until you notify them otherwise. when the disp. says they are not changing your caregiver...they are telling you the truth...they ARE NOT changing your 'registered' caregiver with the state (that requires YOU sending a notarized form along with the new cg's id to the state).

the amend. only states that you can have one 'registered' cg, not one cg...so they are operating in yet another gray area.

don't like the forms? don't go to a disp. plain and simple.

you like the disp. that don't make you sign forms? hope you aren't there when they are raided, b/c nothing about what they are doing is legal...plain and simple...unless they are your registered caregiver with CDPHE.

 

[Spacecadet01]

I guess i'll post it here also....

"The model I have noticed is that a caregiver/dispensary owner has X number of legitimate (willing) patients assign them as their caregiver, they then distribute any excess medication they have via the storefront."

THAT'S ILLEGAL...Amendment 20 or not. obviously, warrenedson is the man to ask, but i'm sure this conversation has frustrated him.

cobcoop, you seem to want dispensaries, but don't want to jump through the legal hoops necessary to have them. it is COMPLETELY illegal to buy or sell mj to ANYBODY that is not your 'patient' AND to buy mj from anybody that is not your caregiver. the forms at reputable dispensaries assign them as your caregiver until you notify them otherwise. when the disp. says they are not changing your caregiver...they are telling you the truth...they ARE NOT changing your 'registered' caregiver with the state (that requires YOU sending a notarized form along with the new cg's id to the state).

the amend. only states that you can have one 'registered' cg, not one cg...so they are operating in yet another gray area.

don't like the forms? don't go to a disp. plain and simple.

you like the disp. that don't make you sign forms? hope you aren't there when they are raided, b/c nothing about what they are doing is legal...plain and simple...unless they are your registered caregiver with CDPHE.

I understand your points too cobcoop..but everything strict has said is pretty much well explained truth. Until there is really defined sets of rules with no gray area..this is how the system thats in place operates. just my .02

 

[StrictlyGateway]

Anyone who makes laws, makes them with holes so people can get busted and the people representing them make their bucks. That guy doesn't care about your or me, only $.

dude! those holes are what enable us to operate in the current environment. i, personally am having an absolute blast running around town looking at dozens of different flavors, talking about different grow methods, strains, buying clones and getting home with new flavs! have you ever spoken to warren? do you know what his intentions are? i guess not. getting a law passed to allow for dispensaries in nov. of 2000 would, most likely, have been a difficult task. so what's the next best thing?? a law with enough holes to drive hundreds of dispensaries right up in to. maybe in a couple of years we can get a law to allow for stores, but it took breaking down public opinion over the last 9/10 yrs to get there. and it took warren's (and a few others) carefully crafted (to our favor) amendment to get us where we are today. props to him and the others who are making mint on our ability to operate in a quasi-legal fashion....i'll take it for now.

 

[Spacecadet01]

dude! those holes are what enable us to operate in the current environment. i, personally am having an absolute blast running around town looking at dozens of different flavors, talking about different grow methods, strains, buying clones and getting home with new flavs! have you ever spoken to warren? do you know what his intentions are? i guess not. getting a law passed to allow for dispensaries in nov. of 2000 would, most likely, have been a difficult task. so what's the next best thing?? a law with enough holes to drive hundreds of dispensaries right up in to. maybe in a couple of years we can get a law to allow for stores, but it took breaking down public opinion over the last 9/10 yrs to get there. and it took warren's (and a few others) carefully crafted (to our favor) amendment to get us where we are today. props to him and the others who are making mint on our ability to operate in a quasi-legal fashion....i'll take it for now.

well said.

 

[orpanic]

I guess you don't get it...not worth wasting my time trying to explain. Have fun! You don't know how these guys make $ do you?

 

[sac beh]

dude! those holes are what enable us to operate in the current environment. i, personally am having an absolute blast running around town looking at dozens of different flavors, talking about different grow methods, strains, buying clones and getting home with new flavs!

StrictlyGateway, what you say makes sense to me, if that is indeed the correct legal interpretation. But if said model of dispensaries is indeed illegal (for both dispensary and patient) why are you running around town buying from different dispensaries that aren't your caregiver? Signing the forms at any given dispensary doesn't help you, just helps the dispensary. Maybe you're just saying that you're fine with buying your medicine illegally? This is the point I find confusing.

 

[cobcoop]

I guess i'll post it here also....
THAT'S ILLEGAL...Amendment 20 or not. obviously, warrenedson is the man to ask, but i'm sure this conversation has frustrated him.

Illegal or not that is how they operate. The Amendment does NOT address dispensaries at all. My point is that the PATIENTS are absorbing the legal liability, and that is not right.

cobcoop, you seem to want dispensaries, but don't want to jump through the legal hoops necessary to have them.

I don't want Dispensaries scamming people. Legal hoops or not.

it is COMPLETELY illegal to buy or sell mj to ANYBODY that is not your 'patient' AND to buy mj from anybody that is not your caregiver. the forms at reputable dispensaries assign them as your caregiver until you notify them otherwise. when the disp. says they are not changing your caregiver...they are telling you the truth...they ARE NOT changing your 'registered' caregiver with the state (that requires YOU sending a notarized form along with the new cg's id to the state). the amend. only states that you can have one 'registered' cg, not one cg...so they are operating in yet another gray area.

Show me where in the law it states that anyone can sell marijuana to anybody, caregiver or not? And how do we as a community keep dispensaries reputable? By spreading information, which is what I am trying to do.

don't like the forms? don't go to a disp. plain and simple.

I don't

you like the disp. that don't make you sign forms? hope you aren't there when they are raided, b/c nothing about what they are doing is legal...plain and simple...unless they are your registered caregiver with CDPHE.

Exactly my point, so we agree that if they do not assign you as their registered caregiver, they cannot serve you, so when you sign away your rights as a patient, it is your ass on the line.

 

[StrictlyGateway]

I guess you don't get it...not worth wasting my time trying to explain. Have fun! You don't know how these guys make $ do you?

it's not worth anybody's time to read the bulk of your posts. you say nothing. i know how these guys make money...i pay them...happily.
these guys got us, as a community, as far as we are right now.
if you want to continue hatin...go for it. i am thankful, and live my life so...

 

[StrictlyGateway]

Illegal or not that is how they operate. The Amendment does NOT address dispensaries at all. My point is that the PATIENTS are absorbing the legal liability, and that is not right.

I don't agree that patients are absorbing legal liability. dispensaries are serving a need to people that want a safe (hopefully) place to access meds. in order for that to happen, the patient needs to name the disp as their caregiver...if even for a moment. the patient is not absorbing any legal risk, merely allowing the disp to act as cg...which is the legal cover the disp needs to operate and the patient needs to allow for disp.

I don't want Dispensaries scamming people. Legal hoops or not.

couldn't agree more! there are definitely some scammers out there and i hope our supply and demand model gets rid of them...if LEO doesn't first.

Show me where in the law it states that anyone can sell marijuana to anybody, caregiver or not? And how do we as a community keep dispensaries reputable? By spreading information, which is what I am trying to do.

it doesn't, but it also doesn't say that it has to be provided for free...that would be ludacris. the information you are spreading is unfair. the disp you were 'evaluating' is simply having you sign the forms that the lawyers have claimed will provide an exemption for mmj. in fact, most of the 'membership agreement' forms will have some clause that says you can notify them that they are not acting as your cg anymore...imo, you should just carry a letter with you when you go, and give it to them upon your completing your visit to their store. then they can't act as your cg any longer.

Exactly my point, so we agree that if they do not assign you as their registered caregiver, they cannot serve you, so when you sign away your rights as a patient, it is your ass on the line.

we do NOT agree here. the law states that you can only register one cg...it does not say that you can only have one cg. therein lies the gray area that dispensaries rely upon to operate. maybe someday we can legalize and this whole discussion will be moot, but until then...its hoops and lawyer fees galore, but it beats the alternative...

 

[sac beh]

I don't agree that patients are absorbing legal liability. dispensaries are serving a need to people that want a safe (hopefully) place to access meds. in order for that to happen, the patient needs to name the disp as their caregiver...if even for a moment. the patient is not absorbing any legal risk, merely allowing the disp to act as cg...which is the legal cover the disp needs to operate and the patient needs to allow for disp.

couldn't agree more! there are definitely some scammers out there and i hope our supply and demand model gets rid of them...if LEO doesn't first.

it doesn't, but it also doesn't say that it has to be provided for free...that would be ludacris. the information you are spreading is unfair. the disp you were 'evaluating' is simply having you sign the forms that the lawyers have claimed will provide an exemption for mmj. in fact, most of the 'membership agreement' forms will have some clause that says you can notify them that they are not acting as your cg anymore...imo, you should just carry a letter with you when you go, and give it to them upon your completing your visit to their store. then they can't act as your cg any longer.

we do NOT agree here. the law states that you can only register one cg...it does not say that you can only have one cg. therein lies the gray area that dispensaries rely upon to operate. maybe someday we can legalize and this whole discussion will be moot, but until then...its hoops and lawyer fees galore, but it beats the alternative...

That makes sense and clears some things up for me in my head. Thanks.
What I still don't like is the idea that some dispensaries would have you sign away more than just access to the MMJ-related records they have on you (which is there proof of a legal caregiver-patient relationship) but also access to your doctor or other records as cobcoop says happens. I haven't seen it, and I can't imagine ever signing something like that.

 

[StrictlyGateway]

What I still don't like is the idea that some dispensaries would have you sign away more than just access to the MMJ-related records they have on you (which is there proof of a legal caregiver-patient relationship) but also access to your doctor or other records as cobcoop says happens. I haven't seen it, and I can't imagine ever signing something like that.

i hear ya. i never said i like these forms. my general policy is to only go to a store that i know something about the people running it. the folks i go to have no desire to do anything with these forms...they are merely there to show LEO. i guess there may be shops out there that you may need to worry about the owners actually looking stuff up about you, personally, i'm not too concerned if they are aware of which doctor is treating my symptoms...sounds boring to me. i guess for me, i just choose which store i go to wisely...maybe let a guinea pig friend try it first, and then operate out of the assumption, however naive, that we are just fighting the same pathetic battle against an outdated mindset that considers marijuana to be harmful at some level, and we sign what the lawyers have us sign so that the tax-paying, law abiding (bending, perhaps), dispensary can continue to operate. when that assumption is proved wrong, or their mission of merely making money is revealed, then they get a letter stating that they can no longer act as my caregiver and i move on down the road.

 

[cobcoop]

it doesn't, but it also doesn't say that it has to be provided for free...that would be ludacris. the information you are spreading is unfair. the disp you were 'evaluating' is simply having you sign the forms that the lawyers have claimed will provide an exemption for mmj.

It was unfair to have that discussion in the dispensary review for that place, that wasn't my intention, I was responding to Mr Edson. Although I did not care for that place for several reasons, just my opinion. At the time I visited that shop and wrote most of the reviews a notary was not required on the paperwork. I have mentioned in the other reviews which dispensaries have this practice, and if it seemed like a knock on that place in particular it was not intended.

Obviously we disagree about some things, but I think it is important for people to make educated decisions, especially when it comes to rights, and privacy, which are two things the whole MJ movement revolves around. I see where you are coming from, and I like a person who stands their ground. Agree to disagree.

Cheers!

 

[budkatz]

Dec 16 hearing postponed:

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...pones_next.php

Board of Health postpones next medical-marijuana meeting
By Michael Roberts in Follow That Story, MarijuanaMon., Nov. 23 2009 @ 2:02PM
Photo by Joel Warner
A photo from the last Board of Health meeting about medical marijuana earlier this month.
​Medical-marijuana entrepreneurs and patients, among others, have been waiting with trepidation for the next Board of Health meeting, slated for December 16, at which its recent tweak of the "caregiver" definition was expected to be revisited following a Denver District Court ruling throwing it out.

Well, the wait just got a little longer. The board has announced that it's postponing the sit-down -- and no new date has been set. The release says only, "The board will explore its legal options before determining how to proceed."

That's extraordinarily vague, not to mention deliberate -- especially considering that the initial board action was deemed an "emergency." See the entire release below:

Board of Health Postpones Dec. 16 Rulemaking Concerning the Medical Marijuana Registry Program
DENVER -- At its meeting on Nov. 18, the state Board of Health voted to postpone its rulemaking hearing scheduled for Dec. 16 concerning the proposed repeal of the definition of "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient" (Regulation 2 A(iii), 5 CCR 1006-2).

The postponement comes following a Nov. 10 decision by Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves that voided the Board of Health's Nov. 3 emergency rulemaking. That rulemaking had eliminated language about the regulatory definition of "significant responsibility" as that term relates to primary caregivers for medical marijuana patients.

As stewards of Colorado's public health, the board recognizes and considers the needs and health of all Colorado citizens in its actions and will continue to seek appropriate input in its public proceedings.

The board will explore its legal options before determining how to proceed. Please continue to check the Board of Health's Web site, http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/bh/index.html, for information about rescheduling of the hearing.

 

[cobcoop]

Heard this morning on the radio, they are backing off! Good job folks! In the radio story they said the DOH was postponing it indefinitely.