March 18th hearing is delayed!!!

llLOU

llLOU

Well-Known Member
Actually, I think it is a GOOD thing if the change is made. This means that there will be MORE Cannabis growers , and that is a good thing....

 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Could you please explain how limiting a CG to 5 patients will mean more growers? Not being disrespectful but there are so many disabled patients that can't grow their own for any number of reasons that putting a limit will drive prices higher and make it harder to find. That is only my opinion but damn.
Would you limit how many people can shop at a grocery store, and if you did, wouldn't that potentially drive the prices up for any number of reasons?
Let the patients and CG monitor themselves and they will weed out the bad apples.

pp69


llLOU said:
Actually, I think it is a GOOD thing if the change is made. This means that there will be MORE Cannabis growers , and that is a good thing....
Click to expand...
 
llLOU

llLOU

Well-Known Member
pikes peak 69 said:
Could you please explain how limiting a CG to 5 patients will mean more growers? Not being disrespectful but there are so many disabled patients that can't grow their own for any number of reasons that putting a limit will drive prices higher and make it harder to find. That is only my opinion but damn.
Would you limit how many people can shop at a grocery store, and if you did, wouldn't that potentially drive the prices up for any number of reasons?
Let the patients and CG monitor themselves and they will weed out the bad apples.

pp69
Click to expand...
SEEMS PRETTY OBVIOUS , THAT IF YOU HAVE SAY 100 MM PATIENTS AND ONLY ONE GROWER IS ALLOWED FOR EVERY 5 CUSTOMERS, THOSE OTHER 95 MM PATIENTS WILL HAVE TO FIND PROVIDERS ( GROWERS ) THEREFORE MORE GROWERS...:blsmoke:
 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
First of all Thanks for yelling.
Next, just because you limit the number of patients per CG does Not mean that a bunch of people will step up and become growers. If they could grow, they would already be doing it.
Let the patients and Cgers monitor themselves. In other words, if a patient is being done wrong,they can now go to another CG, but if you place limits then they may not have a choice of a CGer. You don't create more growers by limiting how many patients they can have.

Have a good Day,
pp69



llLOU said:
SEEMS PRETTY OBVIOUS , THAT IF YOU HAVE SAY 100 MM PATIENTS AND ONLY ONE GROWER IS ALLOWED FOR EVERY 5 CUSTOMERS, THOSE OTHER 95 MM PATIENTS WILL HAVE TO FIND PROVIDERS ( GROWERS ) THEREFORE MORE GROWERS...:blsmoke:
Click to expand...
 
llLOU

llLOU

Well-Known Member
pikes peak 69 said:
First of all Thanks for yelling.
Next, just because you limit the number of patients per CG does Not mean that a bunch of people will step up and become growers. If they could grow, they would already be doing it.
Let the patients and Cgers monitor themselves. In other words, if a patient is being done wrong,they can now go to another CG, but if you place limits then they may not have a choice of a CGer. You don't create more growers by limiting how many patients they can have.

Have a good Day,


:lol:SHIT, I JUST ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS A UNLIMITED MARKET FOR GROWERS, MY BAD.
YELLING?, THIS IS YELLING...>>>>>>>> I NEED TO ADD MORE ,BUT WILL HAVE LESS.:-(
Click to expand...
 
trouble9039

trouble9039

Well-Known Member
From what I was told that when you are A grower you can not sell or take contributions for your work! How true that is I don't know! I know they were talking about raising the limit of how much you can have on hand for each patient.



pikes peak 69 said:
Could you please explain how limiting a CG to
5 patients will mean more growers? Not being disrespectful but there are so many disabled patients that can't grow their own for any number of reasons that putting a limit will drive prices higher and make it harder to find. That is only my opinion but damn.
Would you limit how many people can shop at a grocery store, and if you did, wouldn't that potentially drive the prices up for any number of reasons?
Let the patients and CG monitor themselves and they will weed out the bad apples.

pp69
Click to expand...
 
DocGreen

DocGreen

Active Member
The wife and I are watching the developments very very closely. We are 99.999999% sure we will open up a little mom and pop dispensary, and we are really rooting for Colorado to be our new home state.

Allowing regulated Capitalism to work its magic is what is best for patients, caregivers, and ultimately the state. Competition breeds better product, keeps prices low(er), and ultimately everyone is happy.
 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Neither one of these statements is true for the State of Colorado. As a grower,really called a caregiver, you can sell to any other card holding patient. The state has never mentioned anything about changing, for the good or bad, any quantity levels. The law currently does state that "whatever is medically necessary".

pp69



trouble9039 said:
From what I was told that when you are A grower you can not sell or take contributions for your work! How true that is I don't know! I know they were talking about raising the limit of how much you can have on hand for each patient.
Click to expand...
 
Tyrannabudz

Tyrannabudz

Well-Known Member
They are trying to limit the amount of patients a single caregiver can serve. There was no previous limit written into the MMJ law. Also trying to implement rules that would obligate caregivers to have a more pro-active relationship with patients. For example arranging rides to and from thier appts. and things of that nature. The thing is the dispensary (caregiver) is nothing more than a pharmacy licensed by being the individual patients assigned caregiver to dispense medical Marijuana to that patient and any others who have assigned them to be thier caregiver. The actual license has a space on it declaring who the caregiver is. Entitling that person to cultivate for, sell to, or posess for that patient. It is right in the law. Any way they are not limiting the amount of people a given pharmacist at King Soopers can serve, and the drugs they dispense actually kill people.It should be a right of the patient to choose who thier caregiver should be regardless of how many other patients the caregiver serves. The burden is on the caregiver to provide the medicine to the patient and if they take on more than they can handle or have crappy service because they can't handle the volume, well that's where competition would come in.
 
Tyrannabudz

Tyrannabudz

Well-Known Member
If this new legislation is passed they will see an exponential multiplication of growers both legal and illegal. Making it hard for the caregiver to cover all the costs of growing, hence making the medicine even more expensive. We need to band together to make it known that this won't work. They also only said the meeting would be sometime in June. Not given us a definite date. I do know that supposedly the federal law has changed regarding dispensary rights under state law. They are saying if no state laws are being broken than they won't pursue an investigation on any dispensary that has passed MMJ laws. Laslty there is a bill in the senate right now sponsored by Dr. Ron Paul, and Sen. Barney Frank to lift the prohibition on Marijuana. Perhaps they are waiting for this decision because if that passes my brothers, in the words of the great Ted Nugent "It's a free for all."
 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Okay, I received my notice in the mail today. Looks like the hearing is back on.

July 20 2009 9am-4pm
Turnhalle, Tivoli Student Union, Conference Room 250
Auraria Campus, 900 Auraria Parkway
Denver, CO 80246

Written comments will be accepted until May 15 2009
Colorado Board of Health
C/O Linda Shearman, Program Assistant
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South EDO-A5
Denver, CO 80246-1530
FAX: 303-691-7702
e-mail: linda.shearman@state.co.us

Link to Detailed rulemaking Information
http://www.thecannacabana.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dora.state.co.us%2Fpls%2Freal%2FSB121_Web.Show_Rule%3Fp_rule_id%3D3186http://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/real/SB121_Web.Show_Rule?p_rule_id=3186

Link to proposed rule changes
NOTE: caps are what the state is trying to change
http://www.thecannacabana.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dora.state.co.us%2Fpls%2Freal%2FSB121.Download_file%3Fp_file%3DF13297%2FMedicalMarijuanaDraft_043009_withBasis.pdfhttp://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/real/SB121.Download_file?p_file=F13297/MedicalMarijuanaDraft_043009_withBasis.pdf


Directions to location:
From I-25 take the Auroria Exit (only goes downtown)
Take Auroria to 9th street
Turn right on 9th street
Tivoli Student Union is on corner of Auroria and 9th street
Parking is on your right
There is an hourly fee for parking


A map of the campus is available at
http://www.thecannacabana.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahec.edu%2Fcampusmaps%2Fmaps.htmhttp://www.ahec.edu/campusmaps/maps.htm

Thanks and I hope to see everyone there.
pp69
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
Heres the thing, supermarkets aren't likely to use their extended customer base to launder away criminal intent for having otherwise unexplainable quantities in their possession.. Letting ppl grow too much makes it too easy for them to sell the bulk of it illegally..
 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Then make a law that fights that, don't limit the patients access to meds by limiting how many patients a caregiver can help.



born2killspam said:
Heres the thing, supermarkets aren't likely to use their extended customer base to launder away criminal intent for having otherwise unexplainable quantities in their possession.. Letting ppl grow too much makes it too easy for them to sell the bulk of it illegally..
Click to expand...
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
How do you propose to do that?? The law that accomplishes that does so by limiting quantity.. Its the only feasible solution.. Anything else leaves too many loose ends, especially considering the idiotically absurd amounts some ppl apparently claim to consume medicinally (up to a freaking pound/month??).. I consume about 3-5% of that, so that leaves quite a bit of wiggle room with even one client.. Five clients like that could leave a grower with more than 50lbs excess that they could sell to school kids over the year..
Honestly I despise the dick twits that abuse the medical label.. If you don't truly use it for a condition (besides withdrawal) that can't be treated effectively/safely with mainstream dosage controlled options, and you hold a Med Card, in my opinion you are scum.. The lot of you are destined to be the argument MMJ critics keep bringing up.. Well, that and the overflows hitting the streets from legal growers.. Just wait until statistics get formed about the percentage of legitimate need cases vs scammers, and legitimate use of legally grown pot.. It just makes far more sense to be discrete and illegal if you aren't a legitimate 'medical need' case.. Thats the honest way to go about it, and thats the way to protect MMJ for those who 'need' it..
And more ppl will apply to grow for friends/family if thats the only alternative.. Thats just common sense
 
P

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Well you definitely have your right to that opinion.
I do know some patients that use about 1 oz a week. If you were only growing outdoors, with 1 crop a year, you'd need better than 3 lbs to supply for a year. And you should have enough backup in case 1 year is a failure. You can see that it's possible to explain quite a bit. I don't agree with sitting on lbs just to have around but the truth is that only about half of registered patients in Co even list a caregiver. I would assume that the others can't find a good one, even if they are growing their own, it's good to list a CG in case you have problems you'll have another source.

pp69


born2killspam said:
How do you propose to do that?? The law that accomplishes that does so by limiting quantity.. Its the only feasible solution.. Anything else leaves too many loose ends, especially considering the idiotically absurd amounts some ppl apparently claim to consume medicinally (up to a freaking pound/month??).. I consume about 3-5% of that, so that leaves quite a bit of wiggle room with even one client.. Five clients like that could leave a grower with more than 50lbs excess that they could sell to school kids over the year..
Honestly I despise the dick twits that abuse the medical label.. If you don't truly use it for a condition (besides withdrawal) that can't be treated effectively/safely with mainstream dosage controlled options, and you hold a Med Card, in my opinion you are scum.. The lot of you are destined to be the argument MMJ critics keep bringing up.. Well, that and the overflows hitting the streets from legal growers.. Just wait until statistics get formed about the percentage of legitimate need cases vs scammers, and legitimate use of legally grown pot.. It just makes far more sense to be discrete and illegal if you aren't a legitimate 'medical need' case.. Thats the honest way to go about it, and thats the way to protect MMJ for those who 'need' it..
And more ppl will apply to grow for friends/family if thats the only alternative.. Thats just common sense
Click to expand...
 
backcountry

backcountry

Member
pikes peak 69 said:
Well you definitely have your right to that opinion.
I do know some patients that use about 1 oz a week. If you were only growing outdoors, with 1 crop a year, you'd need better than 3 lbs to supply for a year. And you should have enough backup in case 1 year is a failure. You can see that it's possible to explain quite a bit. I don't agree with sitting on lbs just to have around but the truth is that only about half of registered patients in Co even list a caregiver. I would assume that the others can't find a good one, even if they are growing their own, it's good to list a CG in case you have problems you'll have another source.

pp69
Click to expand...
Good points and interesting information. Thanks for posting the updated meeting schedule! See everyone there....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top