Ladies and Gentlemen, May I Introduce HB11-1043

  • Thread starter canaguy27
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
C

canaguy27

435
18
Looks like Massey is at it again...

Colorado’s HB11-1043 is Sen. Tom Massey’s attempt to clean up the mess he helped create during last years session
According to the intro of the bill…

“The bill clarifies a number of provisions in the “Colorado Medical Marijuana Code”. Under current law, any person applying for or who has been issued a medical marijuana license is subject to certain residency requirements. The bill narrows the application of the residency requirements to owners only, as defined by rule of the department of revenue.

A medical marijuana infused-products manufacturer is limited to having no more than 500 marijuana plants on site unless the manufacturer is granted a waiver.

A primary caregiver who cultivates medical marijuana for his or her patients must register the cultivation site and all patient identification numbers with the medical marijuana state licensing authority and comply with all zoning and building codes.

Under current law, a medical marijuana center is subject to prohibitions on unfair business practices that may include selling products below cost. The bill allows a center to sell at a reduced cost or donate medical marijuana to indigent patients. A medical marijuana center is authorized to sell clones in addition to medical marijuana and medical marijuana infused-products. A medical marijuana center is permitted to trade medical marijuana with another center in exact equal amounts and can sell that medical marijuana, but the medical marijuana may not be traded again.

Under current law, a medical marijuana license may not be issued to a person who has been convicted of a felony within the last 5 years or who has ever been convicted of a felony drug offense. The bill changes the requirement so that only those persons who have been convicted of felony drug offense in the last 5 years may not be issued a license. Current law imposes a 2-year residency requirement on all license applicants. The bill changes the residency requirement so that it applies only to those applicants who are going to be owners of a medical marijuana business.

Currently, a licensed medical marijuana center may not be located within 1,000 feet of a school, drug or alcohol treatment facility, higher education facility, or residential child care facility. The bill grandfathers in those centers that were located at their present sites on or before December 15, 2009. The bill repeals the provisions that made the location of optional premises cultivation operations confidential.

The bill creates 2 new classes of medical marijuana licenses: 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.
An infused-products manufacturing facility license, which allows a facility to be licensed for exclusive use by multiple infused-products manufacturers.

The bill clarifies that if a patient has applied for, but has not yet received, a registry identification card, the patient may present the application and a photo identification at the time of purchase in lieu of the registration card. The bill states that the labeling of medical marijuana-infused products is a matter of statewide concern. The bill creates a process by which a physician who has a restricted license to practice medicine may apply for clarification of whether the restriction prohibits the physician from making a medical marijuana recommendation.

A primary caregiver may delegate his or her authority to another primary caregiver with whom the primary caregiver has an existing business relationship if he or she maintains a professional relationship with a patient.
The bill states that land that is used for the cultivation of medical marijuana cannot be classified as agricultural land for tax purposes.

The bill clarifies that medical marijuana medical records are medical records for the purposes of the theft of medical records statute. An owner, officer, or employee of a licensed medical marijuana business who releases the medical record of a patient commits a class 1 misdemeanor. The state licensing authority may adopt rules regarding licensing action against a licensed business that releases patient information.”

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...llcont2/35AEB58FDBDA42DD8725781600583CE4?Open


PLEASE READ IT FOR YOURSELVES!!! CALL AND TALK TO YOUR REPS ABOUT IT.
 
R

RMCG

2,050
48
Oh good god.


Edit:

Ok, They knew they were going to get beat up on the residency provision.

> 5yr Felony reduction is good. But what do they do for the people that they have declined already?

Figures they were going to close the Ag. loophole.

Caregiver License? But ONLY if its more than 30 plants OR I have more than 5 patients? So if I don't petition for exemption for more, I'm still good?

With a caregiver 'license', do I receive additional protections from the State as defined in the constitution?

Registration of cultivation site? Why so they can leak those locations to the news too? Maybe throw up a camera on my street pole? How about require access to MY security cameras?


So it looks like they want to get rid of the 'caregivers can't team up' bit?

Someone needs to break this down, esp. the Caregiver Provisions.


Lipstick on a pig...
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
You beat me to starting a new thread.

This bill can cause grave harm to CG's. In as such as, POTENTIALLY requiring CG's to get licenses. And, possible banning home-based cultivation via zoning, and building codes.

It does however allow CGs to work together.

It also sets up a system for the over 5 patients CG's, but it is poorly written. This is something I thought the Board of Health would do.

I'm giving the bill's author(his staff actually) a call today to clarify what exactly are their intentions with these proposed CG regulations, and how the heck do they think it is even legal to regulate a Constitutional right....(maybe... on that last)
 
C

canaguy27

435
18
maybe we take the staff lunch and have a little chat. just like drug reps.
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
maybe we take the staff lunch and have a little chat. just like drug reps.

Massey is an odd fellow. He is a repub and introducing these huge government bills. Something stinks right there... Anyone have time to research/compile a list of who his donors are?
 
R

RMCG

2,050
48
Massey is an odd fellow. He is a repub and introducing these huge government bills. Something stinks right there... Anyone have time to research/compile a list of who his donors are?


While he is a Republican, he has a LEO stance.
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
He is not using the LEO's argument of "save the children" though....
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
I talked to Massey directly.

Proposed CG cultivation license is for Cg's w/ more than 5 patients or 30 plants ONLY.

So the issue would be why, what for? Seems like its just going to burden the patients...
 
R

RMCG

2,050
48
I talked to Massey directly.

Proposed CG cultivation license is for Cg's w/ more than 5 patients or 30 plants ONLY.

So the issue would be why, what for? Seems like its just going to burden the patients...


What about a caregiver and 5 patients? Am I not allowed to grow for my self?

Did you get a feel for 'license' costs? Do we get to jump through the multi-page, 'sign your life/rights away' application too?
 
B

BoCo Buds

138
0
11 (II) A LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED TO AN OWNER WHO DOES NOT MEET
12 THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH (m) IF THE OWNER HAS A
13 PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY RELATIONSHIP WITH AN OWNER
14 WHO MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND WHO HAS A
15 MAJORITY OWNERSHIP IN THE PARTNERSHIP OR BUSINESS ENTITY.


This little tidbit is kinda huge... so now residency of 2 years, unless prior to Dec '10, only applies to 'majority owners'.

If I read this correctly, 1-49% interest holders, as long as not the majority owner, doesn't have to meet the residency qualifications as long as another majority owner does qualify. One main guy takes it all on, as long as a resident.

This effectively allows for outside investment dollars once again... and a legally supporting document to that effect. whew
 
mr. bojangles

mr. bojangles

45
6
That's what I got out of that paragraph, also. Lots of loopholes in this draft, I'm sure they'll close some of them up. Really curious as to why they removed the part about keeping locations confidential, especially in light of recent occurrences. Starting to feel like deja'vu isn't it BoCo.
 
G

ganjherbsmoke

Guest
so is there gonna be a fee for this cg law?
should i start signing over all the ppl ive been saying no to and get like 10 patients or more and then go for this lol ?
 
B

BoCo Buds

138
0
That's what I got out of that paragraph, also. Lots of loopholes in this draft, I'm sure they'll close some of them up. Really curious as to why they removed the part about keeping locations confidential, especially in light of recent occurrences. Starting to feel like deja'vu isn't it BoCo.

Tell me about it! No matter how much things change... ;-))


so is there gonna be a fee for this cg law?
should i start signing over all the ppl ive been saying no to and get like 10 patients or more and then go for this lol ?


Really it was a matter of time before this came to pass... caregivers ought to be licensed with some form of standards in place... only makes sense when giving out consumables to other people.

BUT... I know first hand of several MMC's that spray right up to the flush cycles, so there is much more to come by means of regulation & oversight... this whole thing is going to take time (years) to flush out.

And you will still likely have to live in a municipality that has banned MMC's in order to be 'approved' for more than 5 patients. It's just that now you must register (& comply) in order to have 30 plants in your grow... even if you serve less than 5 patients. Any medible rec is going to require for you to code qualify... which may be impossible with local zoning & codes.

More mess to follow as they attempt to squash the small guy...
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
This bill will not go into effect until July, IMO.

To clear things up... The bill creates a "Caregiver Cultivation License(CCL)", and a multiple MIPS in the same location license. The CG CCL license would only be for CG's with an "enhanced" patient count. CG's w/o less than 6 patients would not need a "CG Cultivation License". Or so says the bills author.

Furthermore, the bills CURRENT intent, is that ALL CG's would need to register. As they do now, to my understanding and CG'ing experience. This CG registry would be used for LEO purposes, if for instance, a CG was pulled over a LEO could access the Db and see that the CG was A OK... or perhaps to help prevent needless searches of suspected mj grows...

These are the only 2 aspects of the bill I am currently looking at....
 
Mr.Sputnik

Mr.Sputnik

1,010
63
You don't have to live in an MMC ban zone to get approved for exceptional circumstances, the +5 patients that you provide for have to live in a ban zone or in an area that is more than 15 miles or so from an MMC. the CDPHE hasn't given an exact mileage but I'm guessing it's something like that.

As far as MMC's being banned from communities, I think it's the communities choice weather to ban them or not. Alot of MMC's are obnoxious hence the bans. this bill allows caregivers to fill in where communtites don't want MMC's, and no I don't believe MMC's have a right to exist in any community they want. I think there's better things to fight for like keeping the registry out of LEO's hands.

I heard CBI wants the registry record to arrest all MMJ patients who attempt to buy a gun. this is supposed to happen in march or may. I think that's a little more critical than a weed store location.

They'll make you license yourself if you want +5 to make sure you're not doing anything stupid like growing outdoor next to an elementary school in a residential area.

It took just 1 stupid ass CG like barckowicts and voala, there goes your freedom. Thanks to all the dipshit CG's for these new bills, you make them necessary.
 
M

mdTHC420

235
0
"I heard CBI wants the registry record to arrest all MMJ patients who attempt to buy a gun. this is supposed to happen in march or may. I think that's a little more critical than a weed store location."

really? thats kinda bull, i guess its only weed and no one would really want to steal any of it or rip a place off.
 
G

ganjherbsmoke

Guest
A PRIMARY CAREGIVER 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

so is it just me or does that wording ,not seen just once either
sorta sounds like i can just choose to grow more than 30 plants for them at time, if i want to get the license
or am i just tripping?

its not like it wouldnt make sense this bill just seems like they want more money
i mean the infused products manufacturing licenses talk about corporate push and just another license
so everyone in the buildings gotta have one
and the building does too
 
Mr.Sputnik

Mr.Sputnik

1,010
63
really? thats kinda bull, i guess its only weed and no one would really want to steal any of it or rip a place off.

the form you fill out to buy a firearm asks if you use marijuana and if you do you're not supposed to buy/own a gun or you're committing felony perjury. CBI sees no difference between MMJ and crack. there's been some debate about MMJ patients/caregivers owning firearms but allowing CBI access to the MMJ registry is fucking ludicrous.

LEO needs to stay out of the MMJ registry. The only state agency that should concern itself with the MMJ registry is the CDPHE. __PERIOD>>>

Losing the confidentiality of the registry is the #1 thing every patient and caregiver should be shitting a brick about.
 
R

RMCG

2,050
48
the form you fill out to buy a firearm asks if you use marijuana and if you do you're not supposed to buy/own a gun or you're committing felony perjury. CBI sees no difference between MMJ and crack. there's been some debate about MMJ patients/caregivers owning firearms but allowing CBI access to the MMJ registry is fucking ludicrous.

LEO needs to stay out of the MMJ registry. The only state agency that should concern itself with the MMJ registry is the CDPHE. __PERIOD>>>

Losing the confidentiality of the registry is the #1 thing every patient and caregiver should be shitting a brick about.


Absolutely Frightening.

:worried
 
sky high

sky high

4,796
313
I wonder how many folks will drop off the Registry if they start tracking the patient's every move or require folks to further "license" and "regulate" merely to be a caregiver?

Seems like anonymity is gonna be a safer route for A LOT of folks...no names on a list available to po-po.....NO plant counts...no fee to the State.....just like the old days!

Chant with me now....."under 99 and yer fine"..."under 99 and yer fine".....

Dumbshits. Ya can't close the door NOW. Duh.

wot a mess...

s h
 
Top Bottom