New Caregiver Law

[GreenTrees88]

SoCoMMJ
I guess you are kind of missing my point. If the doctor writes a recommendation for a increased plant count, why as a caregiver would I have to defend the doctors recommended plant count? It's the doctor who wrote the recommendation and the patient who went to the doctor with their aliment and THEY decided what the plant count was not the caregiver.

The doctor is licensed through the State. Isn't it his job to determine what the patient needs are?

Why would the caregiver have to use an affirmative defense-maybe the doctor and patient would-since they are the ones that came up with the plant count?

Anyone else want to chime in?

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

if you're a caregiver, they're technicaly not YOUR plants. you're just caring for them. I agree with you greentrees. If something did happen that should be between the doctor and the patient, you're just a caretaker in that respect. An edibles or affirmative defense case has yet to be tried. from the language in HB1284 it seems as if the state will turn you over to the fed if you use edibles/affirmative defense in court. they turn over you, the caregiver, not the patient. you are the ones in physical possesion of the plants.

I doesn't matter if it's not your crack if your holding the crack it's yours.

Not much protection for caregivers. I think it's BUUUUULLL shit that the state protect commercial interests blatantly violating federal law with 3000 plants but will hang a caregiver out to dry for 37 plants.. And bill ritter takes $9mil of the PATIENTS money!

BUT, I'll say it again, there's alot you can do with 36 plants. People in other states would give their left nut for 36 legal plants. remember that.

don't get greedy, get bigger plants.

 

[SoCoMMJ]

Edible rec's are honored in BoCo. There was a guy that was given back a couple pounds, the prosecuter couldn't prove shit. Lots of people using edible rec's here, so to sum things up socoommj, the edible rec is more than just an affirmative defense here. Too bad its not worth didly squat in you're kneck of the woods.

I am very aware of the Jason Lauve case. I think you missed my point. It granted him an affirmative defense. He had to go to court in order to prove himself.

Yes, of course he won but he had to indebt himself to lawyers for a long time to get off the hook. How much do you think it costs to run a jury trial like that ?

An affirmative defense is exactly what I stated and exactly what Jason Lauve received. It will help you once you get to court. The goal of most of us is to stay out of the courtroom?

Just trying to help out with an answer to a question. If you don't like my answer go ask a lawyer. He will tell you the same thing and then charge you $250 for asking. 6 plants is an exception, more requires an affirmative defense. It's stated in both Amendment 20 and HB10-1284 :)

 

[CloneDoc]

great points GreenTrees. it real hasn't had time to play out yet but technical you're right. right now it depends on where you live as to how they treat you. if i was running more than 36 plants (under 99) i would probably want to live in boulder or Denver but there's lots of other smaller places too.
time will tell, stay safe.

 

[TurboAllWD]

I am very aware of the Jason Lauve case. I think you missed my point. It granted him an affirmative defense. He had to go to court in order to prove himself.

Yes, of course he won but he had to indebt himself to lawyers for a long time to get off the hook. How much do you think it costs to run a jury trial like that ?

An affirmative defense is exactly what I stated and exactly what Jason Lauve received. It will help you once you get to court. The goal of most of us is to stay out of the courtroom?

Just trying to help out with an answer to a question. If you don't like my answer go ask a lawyer. He will tell you the same thing and then charge you $250 for asking. 6 plants is an exception, more requires an affirmative defense. It's stated in both Amendment 20 and HB10-1284 :)

I wasn't asking for you're answer really. There are members here who have used edible recs, have shown them to cops to prove they are within their limit, and have had no further contact with said police. Just because you're using an edible rec doesn't mean your going to have to prove it in court, a cop would probably not challenege someone else in a wheel chair with serious medical conditions claiming they need an edible rec. Or my Cancer, Epilepsy and MS patients. An edible rec for back pain or an ingrown toenail is what you're probably talking about. In that case I might agree.

 

[selfhemployed]

So for the record there are people who have had a positive experience with LEO regarding the edible plant cards?

That would be the first I've heard it being tested without going to court. If cops are respecting the cards in non extreme cases that would be a big plus.

I would hope that if people aren't abusing it and not taking full advantage of the extra plants for example a caregiver with 3 edible cards and 99 plants, as opposed to the same caregiver with 3 edible cards for 30 plants each and has let's say 10 plants each for a total of 30 plants, that they may be a little more respectful of the overage and leave it alone.

How about the individual community rules? For example Fort collins has a 2 patient, 12 plant rule for within city limits. Does 1284 override this making it a civil issue rather than a criminal. In other words if you had 20 instead of 12 in a city like Fort Collins are you screwed the same way you would be for having more than 36 in a place that doesn't have restrictions? Would it be a zoning violation?

Or..

Does the recognition in 1284 of higher plant counts actually negate the 2 patients 12 plant rule by allowing more plants (if recommended) for each patient?

It's these little details that have a HUGE impact on caregivers.


Any guesses?

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

it's ILLEGAL for a city like fort collins to limit caregivership. Who gave the city the right to do so? Not HB1284. you're protected by AM20. If I lived in a city that tried to limit caregivership I would call the city myself and tell them I have 36 plants in my fucking basement and what are they gonna do about it? Give me a parking ticket? thats MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT as an MMJ caregiver in CO that some GREEDY DISPENSARY SYSTEM FUCK is trying to screw with.

Really, where the hell do communities get the power to regulate caregivership? NO WHERE!!! THIS AIN"T FUCKING NOR-CAL!!!

Don't stand for this crap. Shove a copy of AM20 in their face. this is EXACTLY why it's a constitutional amendment and not some bullshit bill like prop19. So every po-dunk ass community can't make their own laws and change them every week regarding your MMJ.

BUT, look, it's happening and guess who's letting this BS slide? Look who's getting their constitution pissed on?

:mad0229::mad0229::mad0229::mad0229::mad0229:

:mad0233:

 

[sky high]

When I told my County Comish'es and Sheriff that it was my RIGHT to caregive and grow 36 plants and they CANNOT limit patients in-county to 6 plants/2 oz per HOUSEHOLD they looked at me like I was from another planet. They have since taken these restrictions off the table but it shows WHERE their minds are/intents are on the topic, IMO.

time will tell if I have to litigate to protect my rights but I'm prepared to do so if I have to.

Anybody have any good links/knowledge about "class action suits"? I'm thinking that this route may be the way to go as a FEW folks can LOOK VERY LARGE when represented as a GROUP. Anbody have any ideas?

yer right, Sput...we can't let this slide and if we have to, we must 'take sides" against the State and the dispensaries who, at this point, are in bed together and are fuckin the average patient in the ass for their own gain.

s h

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

Sky, I quote Col. Travis from the battle of the Alamo, "The line is in the sand".

I can't believe communities are zoning caregivership. They have no right. I'll go get a beer tonight with my lawyer and get a legal opinion. If this bullshit comes to my door I will pursue a lawsuit. I would suggest any caregiver in FOCO do the same


this is what is happening to caregivers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogMHLq3uqKA&feature=related

 

[selfhemployed]

Regardless of whther or not it should be, it is the rule in Fort Collins... Does anyone know how a violation of said rule would work?


I'm with you guys it's a bunch of bullshit. i hope I'm right in thinking that amdt. 20 and 1284 supercede this ridiculous local rule

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

Regardless of whther or not it should be, it is the rule in Fort Collins... Does anyone know how a violation of said rule would work?


I'm with you guys it's a bunch of bullshit. i hope I'm right in thinking that amdt. 20 and 1284 supercede this ridiculous local rule

not HB1284, just AM20. There's nothing good for patients or caregivers in HB1284. It's your right to have 5 patients. It's a fucking health care access issue AND a violation of the state constitution. Call the CDPHE and hear what they have to say about it.

No one gave FOCO the right, they just took the liberty.

what's the punishment for non-compliance, a zoning violation? like having too many cars at your house? What's gonna have to happen is someone is going to need to challenge this and take it to state court.

Just because it's on the books in FOCO doesn't mean it's lawful or even law.

J-fly, this is why you need a lawyer bud.

 

[selfhemployed]

Hmmm... interesting. It becomes confusing on how to handle it.. On one hand I'd like to say fuck it, amdt 20 protects me for up to 5 patients worth of plants. But how would that play out if the cops came a knocking and even though I'm state compliant I'm not city compliant...


The only good thing for patients or caregivers I saw is the official recognization of the edible plant cards. Amdt. 20 says absolutely nothing about them to my knowledge.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

If the cops come in FOCO, tell them you're state compliant with 5. If they say you can only have 2, tell them to write you a ticket and you'll see them in court.

If you wanna try the issue, run 5 and keep some money around for the court costs. You should win the case if your lawyer appeals to state court. I gotta get on the horn about this, I might know someone GOOD who will try the case pro-bono just to set precidence. The community has no power to do this but they could bs something in court and actually win in state court if your lawyer sucks. So, get a good lawyer, run your 5 and be prepared to sue FOCO.


It's just someone trying to weasle in some more regulation. It sucks it has to be figured out in court, but if the case is won by the city it will set precidence for cali type bullshit in every community in CO.

This is gonna be a shit show.

 

[advanced396]

Question can a person be a caregiver if he or she has a prior drug conviction

If the cops come in FOCO, tell them you're state compliant with 5. If they say you can only have 2, tell them to write you a ticket and you'll see them in court.

If you wanna try the issue, run 5 and keep some money around for the court costs. You should win the case if your lawyer appeals to state court. I gotta get on the horn about this, I might know someone GOOD who will try the case pro-bono just to set precidence. The community has no power to do this but they could bs something in court and actually win in state court if your lawyer sucks. So, get a good lawyer, run your 5 and be prepared to sue FOCO.


It's just someone trying to weasle in some more regulation. It sucks it has to be figured out in court, but if the case is won by the city it will set precidence for cali type bullshit in every community in CO.

This is gonna be a shit show.

Question can a person be a caregiver if he or she has a prior drug conviction charge that was 7 years ago in the state of Colorado?

 

[selfhemployed]

I'm not the one to try it, my grows are small enough that they just squeak by and are compliant, but I hope it gets figured out soon.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

Question can a person be a caregiver if he or she has a prior drug conviction charge that was 7 years ago in the state of Colorado?

yes, the no caregiver if you're a felony didn't get put into HB1284 but you can't play in the commercial game. you're fine as a caregiver, you just can't have anything to do with the commercial scene.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

I'm not the one to try it, my grows are small enough that they just squeak by and are compliant, but I hope it gets figured out soon.

Read what I wrote in the denver caregiver ban thread. this municipality ban is a fucking joke. If you know anyone who wants to try a lynchpin against FOCO PM me I have someone who will represent them.

 

[JeromeGarcia]

Sadly, I am not aware of the FOCO 2 patient CG limit.

When did this happen?

Alas, if it is true it can still be changed via a citizen petition (needed 2 be filed within 30 days of FOCO's CC passing the resolution), or a voter initiative.

 

[TurboAllWD]

I think it happened in May-June, its been passed for a good while, before 1284 for sure.

 

[Mr.Sputnik]

As a patient in CO, no one can deny you the right to a caregiver or make you buy from an MMC. MMC's are NOT caregivers, HB 1284 is clear about that distinction. WTF, PM me if you wanna take FOCO to state court. I have a lawyer who is chomping at the bit for this case.

Caregivers have rights under AM20, MMC's don't. But money talks now don't it..