MMC ban in Jeffco (Jefferson county)?

[Mr.Sputnik]

Ok Jeffco patients and caregivers. Jeffco has 4,904 patients registered, second ONLY to Denver county in patient numbers. Anyone wanna comment on why jeffco has an MMC ban? Sounds like a serious health care disparity to me. If you're a caregiver in Jeffco it shouldn't be hard to convince the MMAC (medical marijuana advisory committee, whenever it desides to form) that you have an "exceptional circumstance" known as a "serious health care access issue" to gain caregivership to more than 5 patients.

oh and by the way, the MMAC is who puts the 5 limit into effect and the MMAC hasn't been developed yet.

It's STLL unlimited caregivership untill the MMAC gets its shit together.



At Bill Ritters spending rate that will probably never happen. :character0053:

 

[Bud Spleefman]

There is a zoning ban, basically the zoning resolution for the Unincorporated Jeffco says:

For "a" business the zoning shall be "b"....
For "g" business the zoning shall be "h"....

...etc.....

And then the last thing the zoning resolution says is "any businesses not mentioned shall be prohibited."

So, the zoning resolution was written years ago, and of course does not mention medical cannabis.

The town of Morrison also has a ban, and then there ARE SOME DISPENSARIES in Littleton, Lakewood and Golden, which are in Jefferson County. Did they shut those down? Jeffco goes all the way to Wadsworth, so any Dispensaies west of Wads are Jeffco, there are a few.

I am a Caregiver / Patient and I grow on AG property in unincorporated Jeffco. I don't get the impression they care, but I'm not calling to ask if it's okay, either!

 

[SoCoMMJ]

It's STLL unlimited caregivership untill the MMAC gets its shit together.

Again you are posting misleading information that can get a lot of people into serious legal trouble.

Listed below is the section of HB10-1284 that specifically details the 5 patient limit. The link you provided states that they need to work out an exception process not the rules for 5 caregiver limit.


(6) Patient - primary caregiver relationship. (a) A PERSON SHALL
BE LISTED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR NO MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS ON
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM REGISTRY AT ANY GIVEN TIME; EXCEPT
THAT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY ALLOW A PRIMARY CAREGIVER TO
SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN
DETERMINING WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THE STATE
HEALTH AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE PROXIMITY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CENTERS TO THE PATIENT. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST
OF HIS OR HER PATIENTS INCLUDING THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD
NUMBER OF EACH PATIENT AT ALL TIMES.

 

[zDisturbedz]

Care-givers


The Department is working to implement the provisions of H.B. 10-1284. That law contains a provision that limits a primary-caregiver to caring for no more than five patients unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Department plans to draft rules which will establish the criteria for "exceptional circumstances". Any proposed rules will first be taken to the Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, which is currently being created, for review and comment. A formal rule-making hearing before the state Board of Health is necessary to adopt such a standard. Until such time as the Board has adopted rules that establish the criteria for exceptional circumstances, it is the responsibility of the patient and his or her current primary care-giver to determine whether that primary care-giver will continue providing services to the patient.


So, basically the house bill is on hold concerning the caregiver provisions. It is not misleading when they post this on the State website. It boils down to the state rushing to push a bill through when they don't have the resources to follow through with it. And to keep their asses out of court they are giving some grey area to work.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

I still have 10 patients on the books. this whole thing is still a grey area as the constitution wasn't amended to limit caregivership either. So did they leave it at unlimited or limit it to 5? you can interpret that paragraph as you wish, but as far as I'm concerned I still have 10 patients, some who live in an MMC ban area. It's not hard to explain to the CDPHE that NO ACCESS exists in this community except me so I took on the responsability.

"I will continue providing MMJ access to my patients as no other access exists in this community". You could pull a lynchpin for a civil suit from something like that unless you can find fault with that statement.

 

[Bud Spleefman]

All the lawyers are saying 5 patients, so unless I want Mr. Sputnik to be my lawyer I'll just stick with my 5 patients, thank you!

I used to have 14 patients.... I just picked the 5 that bought the most meds......

On the subject of MMC bans in Jeffco...... which is the topic of the post, where does it say there is a ban? someone please provide a link if there is one, maybe we should read that instead of repeatedly discussing 1284, which is old news.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

There ya go bud. So, if you're in unincorperated jeffco there's no MMC's or commercial grows. There was a dispensary in pine junction that had to shut down because of this.

 

[Rednick]

I would be interested to know WHO "all the lawyers" are Bud. You have used that term a lot on ICMAG, too, to illustrate your points, but I must disagree with those assements.
For one reason, and one reason alone.
Your lawyer is going to tell you what you want to hear for your Comfort Level. This is still a grey area. I would be willing to bet a crop that your lawyers tell you different things than other clients...all based on their understanding of your goals, risk aversion and bank account.
Ofcourse, because of client confidentiality, it is a no lose bet for me 'cause we could never prove it.
If you think about it, there is really still only one interpretation of the law to worry about. The Feds interpretation.

 

[Bud Spleefman]

I would be interested to know WHO "all the lawyers" are Bud. You have used that term a lot on ICMAG, too, to illustrate your points, but I must disagree with those assements.
For one reason, and one reason alone.
Your lawyer is going to tell you what you want to hear for your Comfort Level. This is still a grey area. I would be willing to bet a crop that your lawyers tell you different things than other clients...all based on their understanding of your goals, risk aversion and bank account.
Ofcourse, because of client confidentiality, it is a no lose bet for me 'cause we could never prove it.
If you think about it, there is really still only one interpretation of the law to worry about. The Feds interpretation.

Rednick we don't really need a lawyer to interpret the limit on patients a caregiver can serve, I just mentioned the lawyers were in agreement that the limit is 5. Here, we can all read it, and interpret it ourselves:

(6) Patient - primary caregiver relationship. (a) A PERSON
13 SHALL BE LISTED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR NO MORE THAN FIVE
14 PATIENTS ON THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM REGISTRY AT ANY GIVEN
15 TIME; EXCEPT THAT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCYMAY ALLOWA PRIMARY
16 CAREGIVER TO SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL
17 CIRCUMSTANCES. IN DETERMINING WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL
18 CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE
19 PROXIMITY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS TO THE PATIENT. A
20 PRIMARY CAREGIVER SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST OF HIS OR HER PATIENTS
21 INCLUDING THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD NUMBER OF EACH
22 PATIENT AT ALL TIMES.
23

 

[JeromeGarcia]

Interesting post.

I need to clarify this for you guys though - The five patient per caregiver limit IS IN EFFECT as of 7/1/10. PERIOD! I know this for a fact since I work right in the middle of the mmj advocacy in CO...

However, this limit will be able to be raised (for some) once the DOR implements its new (and yet undecided) regulations regarding exceptional circumstances.

IMO - exceptional circumstances will recognize that if a municipality bans Wellness centers - there will be an undeniable need for CG's w/ higher patient counts. Because, really, what else could 'exceptional circumstance' be???

On a side note - I am kinda surprised how little mention Rob Correy's recent notice of intent to sue, for 5 million +/-, against the Town of Castle Rock, for its passing a local mmj wellness center ban, has gotten.

This will be a precedent setting case.

 

[sky high]

I continue to be amazed as I watch these anti-MMJ commissioners/town council members/other governing officials tossing out these (knee-jerk) bans and the general implication they send via these bans to their constituents that by banning the MMc's they are ridding their jurisdiction of the SCOURGE of medical marijuana altogether.

In all of the articles/reports I've seen since 1284 passed and bans were alowed I have yet to see ONE city/county attorney tell the governing body @ hand that this clause concerning "exceptional circumstances" even exists.

On the contrary, the dumbasses actiually think they can >limit< or ban home grows!

Score 1 for the residential grower. LOL. (a.k.a. I think I may need another 100amp sub panel soon).

 

[true grit]

100 amp panel? hmm...ill take 10 more patients and 2 houses in Jeffco please...hehehe:damnhippie:.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

Any county with an MMC ban and lots of patients is a good place to be a caregiver, there's an "exceptional circumstance", a health care access issue.

Jeffco isn't a place you want to get popped. Don't ever go into the taj mahal without a suit and an attorney. You're going to war.

 

[sedate]

all the money jeffco has to throw away in the criminal justice system

Don't ever go into the taj mahal

Ahaha. That fucking courthouse is the nicest fuck building in JeffCo.

On the contrary, the dumbasses actiually think they can >limit< or ban home grows!

Yea if your not a business you have complete constitutional protection for possession and production - 5 patients + yourself is fucking 36 plants.

Plenty plenty methinks.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

Agreed sedate, 36 plants is plenty. I'm going for the "exceptional circumstance" not because I need it but because the state and the counties need to allow caregivers to provide proper access to MMJ patients in counties where an MMC ban is in effect. It's the principle, you can't restrict health care access if people are willing to make access available.

I bet the CDPHE limits exceptional circumstance caregivers to 15 or less patients. I believe that's a fair number and even with yourself included you're at 96 plants. Looking into the future WHEN the DEA comes kicking down MMC doors you'll still be protected by the state at that point. Not that state protection would mean a damn thing in federal court, but at least it's something.

 

[sedate]

Looking into the future WHEN the DEA comes kicking down MMC doors you'll still be protected by the state at that point. Not that state protection would mean a damn thing in federal court, but at least it's something.

I mean - one wouldn't really be 'protected' at all. You know - the supremacy clause.

One would be protected by nothing more than the lighter fed sentences/guidelines for <100plants - but nothing more - and one would still be staring down the barrell of serious federal prosecution.

One really has *zero* protection from the feds.

The Ogden memo has absolutely zero power in an actual courtroom.

the counties need to allow caregivers to provide proper access to MMJ patients in counties where an MMC ban is in effect. It's the principle, you can't restrict health care access if people are willing to make access available.

Ha. Tell them that. Grand Junction just banned MMC's and plenty more towns and counties will follow.

Fine by me. More demand for us home growers. :)