Caregivers...Get Ready to Register Your Grow Site and Pass Inspection!

[eyecandi]

... yes they do ..... if I had @ $8mill I know the perfect underground facility with well over 45,000 sq ft .......

 

[Bud Spleefman]

I remember it as "JUST SAY MORE!" Hah! Miami Vice on TV, Scarface, Cocaine on everyone's brain.............. and all the Columbian Gold you could ever smoke.... and Belieze Breeze.............. no shortage of seeds back then!

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

These folks do realize that these ordinances are impossible to enforce. The municipalities are hoping caregivers just decide to agree to the municipality (or should I say MMC) terms. I must say I did see this coming so I moved my grow to the sticks. Fuck these people. Don't be obvious and you shouldn't have a problem.

And PLEASE for the sake of your patients don't register your grow. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN someone decides to come fuck with your registered grow.

this is legal corruption that you don't need to pay for.

Bud, I tried to grow some Belize Breeze a few years ago. A friend brought me some seeds from a trip. It was very beany/stringy and didn't do well indoors so I ditched it. Who has a seed shortage?

 

[SoCoMMJ]

These folks do realize that these ordinances are impossible to enforce.

These folks should realize that it's pretty easy to crosscheck the list of caregivers vs the list of registered caregiver grow sites. Not quite as impossible as you might wish.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

These folks should realize that it's pretty easy to crosscheck the list of caregivers vs the list of registered caregiver grow sites. Not quite as impossible as you might wish.

The CDPHE doesn't just give access to these records, the municipalities are hoping people THINK this is the case but it's not. Caregiver and patient information are still confidential medical records and are treated as such by the CDPHE.

The only way the municipalities are making caregiver information public is through VOLUNTARY registration into their system. Read AM20 again, the CDPHE can't release caregiver information to municipalities or to anyone else besides law enforcement and only then to identify you if you have been detained/arrested. AM20 was written very well in regards to protecting a caregiver in such circumstances. Any such caregiver list would put patient med access at risk so it doesn't exist and it shouldn't exist.

What the fuck are municipalities thinking when they release caregiver grow locations? To whom does THAT benefit considering we're still dealing with a schedule 1 drug?

Even IF the records were made available to the municipalities it doesn't necessarily mean your grow is at the address listed on the card.

and if all that happens and they're at your door asking if you are growing for more than yourself, JUST SAY NO! what are they going to do, get a warrant to prove that you're disobeying an ordinance? how do they plan on proving that you're selling to patients in your own home unless the municipality sets up a sting to bust you for an ordinance violation (which I would willingly take the ticket if they actually went to such an effort!)? How do they know how many plants you have in your house? and if worse comes to worse, it's a fucking zoning violation! Whoopty Dooooo!

I would take a zoning violation vs a municipality giving my information straight to the DEA. This is still federally illegal and if it wasn't this whole thing would be a different story and we all might find a new hobby.

The reality is that the municipalities don't have the resources (both financial and information) to enforce these ordinances. Wait a year from now and compare the number of registered caregivers to the number of ordinance violations. You could probably count both on one hand.

The real issue is the municipalities defining what constitutes a marijuana business. This was settled with HB1284. If you're a caregiver, you're not a business. If you are an MMC, you're not a caregiver and you're a business and we hate you. HB1284 made the distinction that caregivers don't do MMJ business, only MMC's do. The state doesn't want caregivers to be defined as a business for multiple reasons. If ANY of this municipality ordinance bullshit made it to the state or even county court it would LOOSE.

 

[sky high]

The Center folks just want all of us to feel as noid'd as they are feeling right now.

FAT chance.

This is a non-issue. If you have any skills >at all< you can stay UNDER 5 patients and take care of far more peeps without registering shit or swallowin their shinola.

The local boyz have been in my home. It's no secret I grow...I've been listed in their system as a grower/patient for over 4 years now...and the cops who were here told me they would ignore calls about smellls/smoke/etc. because it is obvioius I'm legal and have every right to do what I'm doin'.

They have to have a complaint or cause to show. DON'T give it to em. Nixx any traffic, kill all smells, play the game. They aren't/can't access the database to show up "just to check".

Don't fall for such shit talk. Focus on growing BIGGER plants to make up the slack that is comin'....cus it won't be long before things change >again< and this time it will be in the patient's favor no matter WHAT the >State< does about CG's.

wot a mess...

s h

 

[JeromeGarcia]

Senate passed 1043 on Tuesday. The House is awaiting the bill for final passage now.

 

[SoCoMMJ]

The Center folks just want all of us to feel as noid'd as they are feeling right now.

I wouldn't even wish that on an enemy. You are not the enemy. Kind of grouchy sometimes, but not the enemy.

On a side note, it's ok to list a PO box on your caregiver change form...
just tossin that out there :)

 

[sky high]

I wouldn't even wish that on an enemy. You are not the enemy. Kind of grouchy sometimes, but not the enemy.

14 years of daily pain will make ya grouchy, believe me. I could go get on Prozac and flat line it all out...but venting and bitchin' is better medicine. LOL

No..you aren't the "enemy"....but you >are< a part of the catalyst (anyone who licensed/took this into a commercial arena) that is causing these threatening changes in the Law and a solid involvement in MMJ by the State (DOR) that was never present previously/before 2009/Centers/1284.

I've worn the shoes yer in, and that is why I'm adimate that it isn't gonna happen >again> at my expense so that a few peeps who >>just can't throttle it all back<< can continue to parade this in the public eye when it just doesn't >have< to be there.

:evilgrin0040:

 

[sky high]

According to this article....1043 passed the House/senate vote late last night and is now on the gov's desk.

NOW that they are formally tightening the CG rules to almost extremes...The patients now need to start applying pressure to the State to place these cameras and follow up on the regsa set for "licensees" and the "CENTERS".

We got no free ride and neither should they. I would urge folks who have simlar feelings as I to join me in calling the GOV's office to remind him that the STATE has many, many things to do to make the licensees comply....that is..if they expect the patients to also comply with these changes.

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/...cle_31c238ce-7c92-11e0-93d0-001cc4c03286.html

wot a fuckin' mess. Thanks for fuckin' it all up, licensees! What can you screw up next?

 

[sky high]

More BS.... note that they are now "attaching" social program liabilities to MMJ taxes...."saving the State a lot of money".....



The monies don't appear to be coming out of the "Registry" pool of funds....but then again, they aren't putting any into the MMJ program to lessen OUR costs. Fuckers.

Anyone who buys from a Center is promoting this shit. Period.

 

[mendel]

Well, since your too busy throwing a bitch fit sky, ill ask the question I sent you in pm in hopes someone will answer it.

I have seen it stated that 1043 applies to all caregivers regardless of the number of patients they have, and that it only applies to patients who have applied for and recieved authorization to have more than 5 patients, which is it?

 

[JeromeGarcia]

Well since you asked,I'll say it again.

The CG registry applies to all. This is because nowhere does it say it only applies to a select group.

 

[mendel]

Thanks for the clarification Jerome, much appreciated!

 

[sky high]

Sorry bro....not a lawyer...don't know yer answer. Don't get torqued about it!

FWIW....

MY first plan of attack here will be to consult my attorney. My patients have a MINOR CHILD in their home...and since growing in a residence where there are minors is considered Child Abuse/is technically against the LAW in CO.... there's a definite conflict present in that they can't LEGALLY grow in their own home. Though...it could very well be that THEIR address ends up on all the forms... including mine/my wife's. Heeheee....

Second choice....if it licensing/inspections/loss of confidentiality applies to >>>all<<< CG's I'll drop my patients and STILL grow their plants....cus it ISN'T >>>>currently<<<< against the law to SHARE garden space between patients. Tag em.....take their pic with em in the garden (we'll ALL pose with birds flippin on one hand and cards in the other)....and GROW AS ALWAYS.

either way.....the counts we've always run will still be ran.

s h

If we give in....we lost.

 

[Texas Kid]

Does anybody have a link to the final version that was passed?

I still don't see how it applies to caregivers of 5 patients or less or 30 plants or less, as i read it only the exceptions to that are required to register with the state.

From the bill itself as previosly posted on the state website....

Summary -
A primary caregiver cultivation license, which gives a
primary caregiver who has received a waiver to serve more
than 5 patients or who grows more than 30 plants at a time
the authority to grow medical marijuana only for his or her
patients or for the patients of another primary caregiver, if
the licensee has been delegated authority over the patients.

Actual language -
12-43.3-405. Primary caregiver cultivation license. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER CULTIVATION LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED ONLY TO A PRIMARY CAREGIVER WHO IS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 25-1.5-106, C.R.S., WHO HAS RECEIVED A WAIVER FROM THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY TO SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS OR WHO GROWS MORE THAN THIRTY MEDICAL MARIJUANA PLANTS AT A TIME, AND WHO GROWS AND CULTIVATES MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR THOSE PATIENTS. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER CULTIVATION LICENSEE SHALL NOT PROVIDE OR SELL ANY CULTIVATED MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO ANYONE OTHER THAN HIS OR HER PATIENTS OR THE PATIENTS OF ANOTHER PRIMARY CAREGIVER IF THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER HAS BEEN DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER THE PATIENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 25-1.5-106 (7), C.R.S.

Have they changed that somewhere to include ALL caregivers?

Tex

 

[true grit]

Thats all I've seen Tex (as in 5/30), but then again they do get shifty....

 

[SoCoMMJ]

NOW that they are formally tightening the CG rules to almost extremes...The patients now need to start applying pressure to the State to place these cameras and follow up on the regsa set for "licensees" and the "CENTERS".

So because you got your panties in a knot because of possible grow location registrations, you are now ENDORSING intrusions into patient rights?

FWIW, they backed off the intrusive on camera identifying requirements and opted for a long shot of the dispensary sales counter.

You want privacy when it comes to your activities, but want intrusion when it comes to others... You should pick one and stick with it.

 

[SoCoMMJ]

Does anybody have a link to the final version that was passed?

This text is on pages 25-26 of the bill linked below:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...DA42DD8725781600583CE4?Open&file=1043_rer.pdf

(7) Primary
19 caregivers. (e) A PRIMARY CAREGIVER WHO CULTIVATES MEDICAL
20 MARIJUANA FOR HIS OR HER PATIENTS SHALL REGISTER THE LOCATION OF
21 HIS OR HER CULTIVATION OPERATION WITH THE STATE MEDICAL
22 MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY AND PROVIDE THE REGISTRATION
23 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH PATIENT TO THE STATE LICENSING
24 AUTHORITY. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE STATE MEDICAL
25 MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH (e)
26 SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC AND SHALL BE CONFIDENTIAL.
27 THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF A
PRIMARYCAREGIVER CULTIVATION 1 OPERATION TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
2 OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY UPON RECEIVING AN ADDRESS-SPECIFIC
3 REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION. THE LOCATION OF THE CULTIVATION
4 OPERATIONSHALLCOMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL LAWS,RULES,OR
5 REGULATIONS.

 

[DoobyScoo]

"Just Say No!"

Sorry Gov, beat it into my head since I was a kid, can't stop now.

Oh, and that shit they taught me about the Constitution...
Can't forget that either.

Have your 5, if they send out a questionaire don't send it back.

Taxation without representation, is not feasible.
:harvest:

Just go back to "No Smell, No Tell". For those who remember how it was.