Colorado Growers Thread
- Thread starter aceofspades
- Start date
- Status
K
Kelly.
...
I would assume so, but I'm no lawyer.
Caregivers with more than one or 2 patients will have a difficult time with the level of service you are providing.
It seems they failed at limiting caregivers to 5 through the health department, now the DA is going to take a stab at it through the legal system.
I wish somebody would get the industry together and lay out some clearly defined rules and regulations. This roller coaster is starting to make me queasy. But I guess that's what the prohibitionists want isn't it?
I'm not giving up, but I may huck on somebody's shoes here soon.
StrictlyGateway
Member
Do we have a lobby yet? fire with fire.
the AG in CO is saying some scary things and he is up for re-election next year. not to mention, it would just be nice if we could get some savvy activists to play the legislatures' stupid money games on our behalf....i have a feeling the money is out there, just needs to be concentrated and organized.
the AG in CO is saying some scary things and he is up for re-election next year. not to mention, it would just be nice if we could get some savvy activists to play the legislatures' stupid money games on our behalf....i have a feeling the money is out there, just needs to be concentrated and organized.
aceofspades
Member
I have been following this thread for a while now, and I love the plant, do not need it medically. I would love to give my knowledge ( as short as it seems ) to someone who needs it.
So my question is: can a caregiver be a non MMJ holder? Mind you I am not child who is infatuated with marijuana. Curious about my skills being donated to some that may need them.
Ace
So my question is: can a caregiver be a non MMJ holder? Mind you I am not child who is infatuated with marijuana. Curious about my skills being donated to some that may need them.
Ace
you can for sure be a caregiver and not a card holder, as long as you have somebody to make you their caregiver.
StrictlyGateway
Member
Absolutely. Although, as a result of this latest court decision (see discussion above). no longer can you just have patients and provide their meds. the other issue would be if for some reason you were to come into contact with LEO through your growing endeavors and showed them that you were a 'caregiver'...they could very well make you take a UA to see if you have been partaking in meds which you are not 'allowed' to take (this is how my lawyer presented it to me).
Spacecadet01
Member
Whatsup everyone? I'm not from colorado, but wanted to say whats up. I plan on heading that way and spreading some roots, and it seems like I made the right decision. PEACE and look forward to growing with you!
nice using the UC system...got mine on order shouldnt be longer than 3 wks now...welcome to CO
orpanic
Member
Who is emailing people and telling them that I am also mtnkush and BioJenn?????????
If you *think* I am lying, have the admin do an ip check, I have NOTHING TO HIDE.
To whom spreading the lies, I hope that the folks you are telling this, see through you and see you for what you are really about.
Have a nice day!
If you *think* I am lying, have the admin do an ip check, I have NOTHING TO HIDE.
To whom spreading the lies, I hope that the folks you are telling this, see through you and see you for what you are really about.
Have a nice day!
Balazar
Member
I have been getting pm's about a punk that sends threatening messages about IP's. As a Microsoft certified system engineer with a CCNA I would like to make a few statements about IP's and security. First of all if you have a modem your IP changes every time you connect to the internet. If you use DSL depending on the method used to connect it doesn't change much. If you have cable like most folks then your IP changes every time you reset your modem and every few days. You can check this by going to ipchicken.com Then information on which street address holds what IP address at a given time may or may not be recorded by your internet service provider (comcast, at&t, netzero, ect). If someone records your IP at a certain time then turns it over to LEO unless they have a warrant to request that information from the ISP than they cant make that connection. Punk kids can scare people that don't know much about computers but dont let them push you around. I stay firm in my position that you shouldn't brake the law and advertise it on the internet because if LEO finds it by a tip off than they can obtain a warrant. Stay within the law whatever the fuck that may be now cause I dont know. I'm gonna have to call my lawyer now. Obviously they see the power slipping away from them and they don't want things to get out of hand. I don't see anyone trying to legislate a plan to keep things working though. It seems more like they want to cripple caregivers so that the scene will fizzle out. I think we could benefit from less gray areas in the regulation of medical marijuana but not the whacked out ideas of close minded politicians that do what they do for votes and not the people.
dont worry orpanic BEING HANDLED,
pretty sad that one person is doing all this and all for what? and if these pm's are real why have they not been sent to a MOD why are they being sent to colorado scene members only? ymmmmmmm i wonder why
thanks to whoever nailed that idiot with the banhammer. 
now can we have some peace in the CO threads finally??? 
Balazar
Member
So when will these "extra patient care requirements" be stated? They said they were trying to regulate more but all they have done with this ruling is create a new huge gray area.
*edit*
I assume this means that what I said above is pointless because they are talking about how things were before July. So if this lady appeals she will basically win cause now its on paper that a caregiver only hast to provide medicine.
*edit*
I assume this means that what I said above is pointless because they are talking about how things were before July. So if this lady appeals she will basically win cause now its on paper that a caregiver only hast to provide medicine.
My understanding is that the judges produced this ruling as a guideline not just for past cases, but as a guide to current and future interpretations of our law. While Corry may be referring to the state dept of health ruling in July, I believe the consensus among politicians, DA's and LEO is that these new proclamations are the law.
Stay safe!
Stay safe!
Spacecadet01
Member
Just received this from Sensible Colorado.
Please be there.
pp69
https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campai...f13c3259b641e6
CO Health Board to vote on Tuesday (11/3) to Weaken Medical Marijuana Law
**EMERGENCY ALERT-- PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY**
In an underhanded move, the Colorado Board of Health will be voting to weaken the medical marijuana law at an "emergency" meeting on Tuesday, November 3 at 10:30am in Denver. At this stealth meeting the Board will be voting to redefine what a "caregiver" is to require such individuals to provide supplementary-- and often unnecessary-- services beyond simply providing sick patients with medical marijuana.
"This is like requiring my pharmacist to give me a massage or make me a sandwich," said Dan Pope, muscular dystrophy patient and medical card holder. "I can do those activities myself. I need a caregiver to give me medicine. End of story."
This meeting, which was announced in a late afternoon email to a small handful of patient advocates, is another example of the state engaging in underhanded tactics in their effort to undermine the medical marijuana law and the will of the Colorado voters. Please help hold them accountable.
Here's How You Can Help:
(1) Attend the Meeting. This meeting will occur at 10:30am on Tuesday, November 3 in the Snow Room, 1st Floor Building A of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver CO.
(2) Call-in to the Meeting. While we strongly prefer that you attend in person, you can also call-in at 1-866-899-5399 1-866-899-5399, conference code *3529725*
(3) Spread the Word. Please tell friends and family to attend the meeting and forward this alert widely!
Please be there.
pp69
https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campai...f13c3259b641e6
CO Health Board to vote on Tuesday (11/3) to Weaken Medical Marijuana Law
**EMERGENCY ALERT-- PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY**
In an underhanded move, the Colorado Board of Health will be voting to weaken the medical marijuana law at an "emergency" meeting on Tuesday, November 3 at 10:30am in Denver. At this stealth meeting the Board will be voting to redefine what a "caregiver" is to require such individuals to provide supplementary-- and often unnecessary-- services beyond simply providing sick patients with medical marijuana.
"This is like requiring my pharmacist to give me a massage or make me a sandwich," said Dan Pope, muscular dystrophy patient and medical card holder. "I can do those activities myself. I need a caregiver to give me medicine. End of story."
This meeting, which was announced in a late afternoon email to a small handful of patient advocates, is another example of the state engaging in underhanded tactics in their effort to undermine the medical marijuana law and the will of the Colorado voters. Please help hold them accountable.
Here's How You Can Help:
(1) Attend the Meeting. This meeting will occur at 10:30am on Tuesday, November 3 in the Snow Room, 1st Floor Building A of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver CO.
(2) Call-in to the Meeting. While we strongly prefer that you attend in person, you can also call-in at 1-866-899-5399 1-866-899-5399, conference code *3529725*
(3) Spread the Word. Please tell friends and family to attend the meeting and forward this alert widely!
Marshmello
Member
I plan on calling in so that I can listen to what is happening firsthand.
I could not attend in my current physical shape.
This is the type of political bullshit that wakes up the public.....
let's just hope it's not too late.
WTF is up with all of the shots @ Amendment 20 as of late?
Am I wrong in my belief that ANY changes made MUST BE VOTER APPROVED?
(apparently)
I could not attend in my current physical shape.
This is the type of political bullshit that wakes up the public.....
let's just hope it's not too late.
WTF is up with all of the shots @ Amendment 20 as of late?
Am I wrong in my belief that ANY changes made MUST BE VOTER APPROVED?
(apparently)
rooted
Member
EMERGENCY FINDINGS AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Medical Use of Marijuana (5 CCR 1006-2), Regulation 2-Definitions
November 3, 2009
Findings and Statement of Reason for Action
The Department finds that immediate adoption of these amendments to Medical Use of Marijuana is imperatively necessary to comply with state law and the Colorado Constitution and for the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare, and that compliance with the requirements of C.R.S. section 24-4-103, would be contrary to the public interest.
These amendments are needed to avoid conflict with the Colorado Court of Appeals decision People v. Clendenin, No. 08CA0624 (Colo. Ct. App., October 29, 2009) which ruled that in order for a person to be a “primary care-giver” as defined under Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, Section 14, the person must do more than simply provide medical marijuana to the patient with a debilitating medical condition. The rules adopted by the Board of Health that became effective August 30, 2009, define a primary care-giver as “a person other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition.” This definition is identical to that contained in the Colorado Constitution. Regulation 2 A (iii), 5 CCR 1006-2, however, further defines the phrase “significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient” to include only the provision of medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals’ decision in Clendenin did not directly address the Board’s rule, which was adopted after the defendant’s criminal trial. However, the definition of “significant responsibility” in Regulation 2A(iii) conflicts with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the constitutional definition of “primary care-giver”. The Court of Appeals specifically ruled that “the act of supplying marijuana for medical use, by itself, is insufficient to constitute significant management responsibility for a patient’s well-being, and consequently is insufficient to constitutionally qualify a person doing so as a “primary care-giver.” By adopting this emergency repeal of the definition of “significant responsibility”, the rules will avoid any conflict with the Court of Appeals ruling regarding the constitutional provisions. This action is imperatively necessary to eliminate confusion for persons attempting to comply with state law, and is needed for the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare.
These amendments to the Medical Use of Marijuana rules are promulgated pursuant to C.R.S. Section 25-1.5-106, and Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, Section 14.
FOR
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Medical Use of Marijuana (5 CCR 1006-2), Regulation 2-Definitions
November 3, 2009
Findings and Statement of Reason for Action
The Department finds that immediate adoption of these amendments to Medical Use of Marijuana is imperatively necessary to comply with state law and the Colorado Constitution and for the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare, and that compliance with the requirements of C.R.S. section 24-4-103, would be contrary to the public interest.
These amendments are needed to avoid conflict with the Colorado Court of Appeals decision People v. Clendenin, No. 08CA0624 (Colo. Ct. App., October 29, 2009) which ruled that in order for a person to be a “primary care-giver” as defined under Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, Section 14, the person must do more than simply provide medical marijuana to the patient with a debilitating medical condition. The rules adopted by the Board of Health that became effective August 30, 2009, define a primary care-giver as “a person other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition.” This definition is identical to that contained in the Colorado Constitution. Regulation 2 A (iii), 5 CCR 1006-2, however, further defines the phrase “significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient” to include only the provision of medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals’ decision in Clendenin did not directly address the Board’s rule, which was adopted after the defendant’s criminal trial. However, the definition of “significant responsibility” in Regulation 2A(iii) conflicts with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the constitutional definition of “primary care-giver”. The Court of Appeals specifically ruled that “the act of supplying marijuana for medical use, by itself, is insufficient to constitute significant management responsibility for a patient’s well-being, and consequently is insufficient to constitutionally qualify a person doing so as a “primary care-giver.” By adopting this emergency repeal of the definition of “significant responsibility”, the rules will avoid any conflict with the Court of Appeals ruling regarding the constitutional provisions. This action is imperatively necessary to eliminate confusion for persons attempting to comply with state law, and is needed for the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare.
These amendments to the Medical Use of Marijuana rules are promulgated pursuant to C.R.S. Section 25-1.5-106, and Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, Section 14.
- Status
