Medical marijuana: Rob Corry calls Dept. of Revenue draft regs "death by 1,000 cuts"

Letter from Rob Corry to the Department of Revenue, January 27:

Dear Department of Revenue:

I am an attorney who represents many Colorado Medical Marijuana patients, caregivers, business owners, and other interested parties. On behalf of these clients and myself, please consider the following comments to the proposed Rules and Regulations pursuant to House Bill 10-1284, related to Medical Marijuana.

By way of experience and credentials, I am the only attorney in Colorado to prevail in Medical Marijuana-related litigation involving federal, state, and local entities. I have tried more jury trials related to Medical Marijuana than all other attorneys in Colorado combined, and such criminal prosecutions occasionally end with "not guilty" verdicts and my clients departing the courthouse with all Medical Marijuana seized. I successfully brought civil litigation against the State of Colorado in 2007 and 2009 to overturn the Five Patient Limit per caregiver, court decisions which helped to usher in Colorado's Medical Marijuana industry.

I was lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in Frasher v. City of Centennial, Arapahoe District Court Case No. 09CV1456, which is the only Court in Colorado that has confronted the issue of whether the possession, use, distribution, and sale of Medical Marijuana is a constitutional right. In that case, the Honorable Christopher Cross, District Court Judge, engaged in a comprehensive legal analysis and held that Medical Marijuana is indeed a constitutional right protected by the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14 and cannot be banned outright consistent with the Colorado Constitution. The parties to the Centennial case agreed that this ruling is the final ruling in the case, and neither party appealed within the time required, so the ruling stands.

I volunteered my time to serve on the Department of Revenue workgroup that discussed ideas related to medical marijuana regulations, but my participation in this workgroup should not be interpreted as my endorsement of all of the proposed regulations, as detailed below.

For approximately ten years I have represented and assisted people who painstakingly built marijuana caregiving activities and other businesses as ethical, upstanding, job-creating, community-focused entrepreneurial entities that have helped many suffering patients, and have returned millions in tax revenue and licensing fees to federal, state, and local governmental entities. Although some politicians and other powerful officials seem to relish demonizing this new and safe industry, Medical Marijuana's controversial reputation is undeserved, and does not generate high criminal activity. A 2009 report by the Denver Police Department, certainly not a Medical Marijuana advocate, confirms that medical marijuana-related businesses have a 16.8% crime rate, roughly equal to pharmacies, less than the 19.7% rate of liquor stores, and far less than the 33.7% rate of banks. "Analysis: Denver Pot Shops' Robbery Rate Lower Than Banks,'" Denver Post, January 27, 2010.

As for the proposed rules and regulations, in general, some aspects of the proposal will further the encouraging social trend toward legitimacy and acceptance of marijuana as a medicine. To the extent that the statute and proposed regulations create and facilitate a government-approved and sponsored mechanism for the production and sale of marijuana, they are a positive development for the people of Colorado. For too long, government has attempted to enforce the unenforceable, Prohibition, so it is good that the state government intends to aid and abet the for-profit distribution of marijuana.

A collateral benefit of these regulations is that the federal government will be restrained in its ability to bully and criminally prosecute any person for activities taken related to these regulations, since every government official or other person who participates in the creation and facilitation of this massive regulated marijuana distribution mechanism, would be a co-conspirator. This would include the Governor who signed the legislation, every member of the Legislature who voted for it, any media outlet that profits from the advertisement of marijuana, and certainly every member of the workgroup that formulated these regulations. The United States government should devote its attention to the global War on Terror and other real problems, as opposed to a harmless herb.

However, good intentions and positive collateral consequences aside, many of these proposed rules and regulations conflict with the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, which establishes the parameters of the fundamental constitutional right to the medical use of marijuana, and which supersedes any statute, ordinance, or regulation. Any regulation directly in conflict with, or which attempts to alter or amend, the State Constitution, the Supreme Law of Colorado, is void ab initio and need not be followed by any person.

In addition to being constitutionally and legally suspect, other aspects of the proposed regulations are contrary to the fundamental precepts of the free market and limited government. The Law of Supply and Demand cannot be repealed. Regulations that conflict with the laws of supply and demand will be at best unenforceable, but at worst will more likely produce human suffering and inefficiencies as people "opt out" of the government-regulated expensive market for marijuana and "opt in" to the unregulated and untaxed black market.

Some patients rely on marijuana for their lives, would feel threatened that they are in danger of losing a legitimate source of their medicine and forced to obtain it from underground sources or not at all, and should not be subject to government oversight if they seek only to follow their doctor's orders. The extreme, perpetual, and arbitrary bureaucratic requirements of these regulations, and the nearly endless forms, labels, and approvals, threaten to bankrupt the industry and cause "death by 1000 cuts." This proposal gives government agents too much power and discretion, and enhances the potential for government graft and corruption, much like in Prohibition times.

And if the proposed regulations were to be adopted, they certainly would not eliminate the "underground" option for medical marijuana, in fact the opposite. The cost and intrusiveness of these regulations would further drive marijuana underground, to unregulated and untaxed, residential and neighborhood gardens in proximity to children. Such home-based gardens and distribution operations cannot be legally banned or even regulated under the Colorado Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Centennial case. And they will proliferate if this proposal is enacted.

These proposed rules and regulations are "too much, too soon." Specific comments follow, with reference to page numbers in the official notice:

Engaging in Business (page 9): Attempts to override the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14 by stating "notwithstanding" the constitution, a person must comply with these regulations and be duly licensed to engage in the "business" of medical marijuana. Medical Marijuana is a constitutional right, equally protected whether such right is exercised in the context of for-profit business or not. An analogy is the First Amendment's right of free speech. Although a newspaper such as The Denver Post sells speech for a profit, no one could seriously suggest that it is not constitutionally protected in the exercise of this right because it is engaged in the "business" of selling free speech.

Inventory (page 15): Counts clones as "plants" for purposes of determining a licensee's plant count per patient. However, as a matter of science and law, clones are not necessarily distinct plants, and many patients benefit from the ability to buy them. This would severely hamper the free market in clones by creating a strong disincentive for licensees to possess them. The requirement of cameras in the weighing and packaging area creates a severe security risk if the monitors are hacked into by criminal enterprises, and will also engender a false sense of security and complacency from the government regulator perspective. The cameras will disadvantage those who play by the rules, and create a significant incentive and advantage to cheaters. It will be easy to cheat since licensees will be familiar with the location and operation of their own cameras. The good people will go out of business, undercut by those willing to cheat.

30% Rule (page 19): Measures the notorious "30%" rule on a calendar year basis, which further exacerbates the problem created by the statute's arbitrary requirement. This rule will further limit selection and variety for the patients, and drive prices higher since the free market in wholesale medicine would be severely restricted. As above with cameras, the rule strongly encourages cheating, which will be easy to do and difficult to detect.

Loss of Property Rights (page 32): As above, attempts to override and amend the Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14 by explicitly stating that "notwithstanding" the constitution, there is no property right in medical marijuana if not in compliance with all of the proposed regulations. The proposal also provides that the State Licensing Authority is not obligated to maintain live plants in any manner if seized on an alleged violation of the regulations. However, it is certainly possible for a person to be in full compliance with the general parameters of the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, yet somehow technically run afoul of these detailed regulations. In such a circumstance, a person would not forfeit constitutional protections, which are explicit in Article XVIII § 14(2)(e):

Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of state law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination of the district attorney or his or her designee that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal. (emphasis added).

The proposed regulations also establish that agents of the State Licensing Authority, Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division are "law enforcement officers," (page 28) and are thus covered by this constitutional prohibition on destroying or neglecting plants until a criminal conviction is obtained.

Penalties (page 34): This proposal provides for an immediate revocation of license for "purchase from unlicensed sources," since allegedly "these violations are generally indicative of the presence of other criminal activity." I am not aware of any evidence to this effect, since for years, purchase of medical marijuana from a completely unlicensed source was not only perfectly legal, it was the backbone of the entire industry, which was formerly divided -- like every other industry in the world -- between wholesalers and retailers. There should be an intent requirement in this provision, i.e., a "knowing" or "intentional" purchase from unlicensed source ought to trigger some penalty, however, the unintentional purchase should not, especially if the buyer was misled.

Occupational Licenses Required -- Background Investigation (pages 40, 42): Otherwise known as "The Snitch Rule," enlists every licensee as a mandatory informer against "any person" committing "suspicious acts" related to marijuana, whether in a shop or at a Red Rocks concert. The requirement that all licensees snitch, all the time, against merely "suspicious acts" that might have nothing to do with the regulated marijuana industry or the licensed premises, will create an obsessive culture of paranoia and is antithetical to American principles.

Specifications for Video Surveillance and Recording of Medical Marijuana Licensed Premises (page 54): Requires expensive and continuous video monitoring of all licensed premises. This single regulation, alone, could break the back of this industry by scaring many customers away. The proposed rule requires that video recording must include the sale of marijuana to a patient, and allow "for the clear and certain identification of the transacting individual and related identification." This is accomplished by the camera taking a picture of the patient's identification and registry card at the point of sale. (Pages 59-60). The registry card bears sensitive data including a patient's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, and obviously status as a vulnerable patient suffering from a debilitating medical condition who may possess medical marijuana. This violation of patient privacy goes against the Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14 and C.R.S. § 18-18-406.3. The proposal also requires the video footage be recorded and saved for 20 days, and provided to police officers "upon request." If this proposal is enacted and implemented, patients will be opting out of these licensed centers in large numbers, unwilling to provide intimate details of their disabilities and use of marijuana to their friendly local cops. During workgroup discussions, the comparison was made to the casino industry and the continual use of video cameras there. This analogy is poorly reasoned and somewhat offensive: gamblers never need reveal their identities and home addresses on camera. Gaming is purely entertainment, and never ordered by a physician as a medicine. Police are not motivated to go on fishing expeditions to prosecute people for possession of gambling materials. This requirement is even more damaging in small towns and rural areas, where patients value their anonymity even more. Interestingly, when the suggestion was raised at the workgroup for a requirement of analogous video surveillance of government regulators on the job, to protect the public against corruption and graft, the negative reaction from government agents was telling.

Sanitary Requirements (page 69): Otherwise known as the "Dirty Hippie Ban," requires all persons working in direct contact with marijuana shall maintain "adequate personal cleanliness." Marijuana production can be a dirty business.

My clients and I hope that the State will not drive this newly legitimate industry back underground and scare patients with intrusive, burdensome, and expensive regulations, some of which are also unconstitutional and illegal.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Corry, Jr.

Department of Revenue draft regulations:

More from our Marijuana archive: "Rob Corry says Chris Bartkowicz medical marijuana bust proof the DEA has gone rogue."

My Voice Nation Help
29 comments
STINGER
STINGER

i mentioned signing to get sudafed, for christ sake that was an example, i have made several comments in past all that were pro were received well, however any that were in the least bit inquisative were met with ridicule and rudeness, for god sake let both sides express their views without all the snide remarks, i voted for this and feel i have a right to express views

Alohas420
Alohas420

did any one go to todays hearing? and if so what happend??

Guest
Guest

I wish "the state" AKA "employees of colorado citizens" would devote their efforts to more important issues. MEDICAL marijuana should not be a POLITICAL issue. Big brother needs to get a life.

Possession of small amounts of marijuana in colorado is already decriminalized...these rules and regs put stress on patients and marijuana entrepreneurs and do nothing to curb recreational use.

If marijuana were in the same drug class as st john's wart and all the other herbal medications nobody would care. Reschedule marijuana and move on.

seabourne
seabourne

One would think the DEA and ONDCP has doctors or scientists on staff.Sadly this is not so - we would like to see that changed and believe it is a step to change.

Please sign the letter petition to appoint a doctor or scientist to the DEA and ONDCP.

http://criminaljustice.change....

Thank you!

AncientMedicine
AncientMedicine

If the regs aren't quickly disposed of -- entirely -- the patients and caregivers will have to have regular meet-ups, where all caregivers and patients are welcome and lasting relationships are made.

Guest
Guest

Only the last four digits of your social security number are listed on your card.

AncientMedicine
AncientMedicine

Thanks for putting so much time into this, Rob.

I'll admit, I've been quite vocal and quite upset that more centers and more attorneys didn't fight the attempts to regulate with everything they had right from the start, in large part because I have gotten most of my medicine from centers, since the regulations ran out my caregiver. And I want to be able to continue to frequent the centers, but I don't want to be filmed, recorded and micro-tracked by a "former" DEA agent.

But I recognize that there are many well-meaning center owners who justifiably thought that they needed to "go along to get along" with the regulations, in order to stay in business. It is unfortunate people didn't listen more carefully to what Romer stated on record he intended to do. But I can also appreciate the bind many of these dispensaries were in: close up the shop, lose all their money, and end their dream.

OR, do everything they could to stay compliant (or risk potential, serious legal consequences) in order to stay in the game.

The regulations and political goals of Robbers like Romer will destroy patient privacy and patient access and have divided this community; but we must seek common ground or we will perish.

And I also know that Rob Corry has done a TON to help medical cannabis patients, caregivers and owners in Colorado, which I greatly appreciate. Seeing Rob's objections today gave me hope. I hope some center owners also realize they stand to lose a substantial percentage of customers, if these regs are implemented.

When I've used the expression, "the cat's out of the bag," Simple, I am referring to the fact that the medical truth regarding the medical efficacy and medical safety of cannabis is a well-known fact that will never go away.

NEVER. No matter how much evil people try to distort the facts and/or divide the community..

Robert
Robert

I agree with Rob's objections -- I was not aware of the Dirty Hippie Rule, but it is part of a larger pattern of disdain for cannabis as medicine, indeed a refusal to acknlowedge the constitutional fact that it is medicine. Several speakers made any number of excellent arguments against both the constitutionality and the rationality of the regulations. I learned drom Dan Hartman that the D.O.R. plans to skirt the confidentiality requirements by not taking over and abolishing the Registry (Fern, their consultant, was apparently being paid to expound about matters she did not understand), or even to duplicate it through voluntary submition of patients' personal information; all they want to do is maintain a video record of 1) close-ups of patients' cards, and 2) the entire transaction, in case Ernie Martinez or Special Agent in Charge Bacon WANT to look at them (no reference to the constitutional requirement that law enforcement only be able to verify patients' presence on the Registry pursuant to being stopped or arrested was made, unsurprisingly). Patients and caregivers NEED to opt-out of a system which makes their confidential medical information freely availble to any law enforcement officer for the asking. My letter to the D.O.R. (somewhat amended) follows; I plan to submit more comment on the proposed regulations; the D.O.R. is accepting comments through Feb. 11 at MMEDRulecomments@dor.state.co.us and at the address below:

Robert D. ChaseColorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers1141 Emerson St. #3Denver, CO 80218(720) 213-6497

Colorado Department of Revenue Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division Attn: Mia Tsuchimoto - Rulemaking Public Comments 1881 Pierce Street – Room 108 Lakewood, CO 80214

January 27, 2011

Dear Sirs:

As one reflects on the absolute mess Colorado government has made of medical cannabis, two instigators spring to mind: Denver’s pathetic excuse for a daily newspaper, which continues to wage a campaign of yellow journalism against dispensaries, and one candidate for Mayor of Denver, who, in a psychotic break from local political reality, hopes to profit by having grandstanded about closing 80% of dispensaries. Former Senator Romer and his colleagues’ arrogant determination that medical cannabis should be regulated like gambling and alcohol disregards the plain language and clear intent of Article XVIII, Section 14 of our Constitution, in which the People of Colorado designated the “state health agency” (and none other) as the body responsible for the medical marijuana registry; there are fully thirty-six (36) references there to the “state health agency” and its responsibilities, and none whatever (0) to the D.O.R. Until and unless the People elect otherwise, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (C.D.P.H.E.) will remain responsible for administering the medical cannabis program. Utter disregard and disrespect for the supreme Law of Colorado is the foundation of quicksand upon which you propose to make rules today.

Whatever disingenuous and unsound arguments might be advanced in favor of the Department of Revenue (D.O.R.) having statutory authority to regulate any aspect of medical cannabis, it is explicit in the Constitution and in statute that the Medical Marijuana Registry is confidential and strictly the responsibility of the State health agency. Article XVIII, Section 14 (3) (a) states: “No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information about patients in the state health agency's confidential registry, or any information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about physicians and primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the state health agency in the course of their official duties and authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have stopped or arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana …” – in particular, it is illegal for D.O.R. employees to gain access to the “information about patients in the state health agency's confidential registry, or any information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about physicians and primary care-givers”, or to permit anyone else to do so. There is no exception in the Constitution allowing the D.O.R. to create its own database of patients or caregivers, but a paid, outside consultant to the D.O.R. recently proposed eliminating the Registry maintained by the C.D.P.H.E. in flagrant disregard of the Constitution. Under C.R.S. 18-18-406.3.(5) “Any person … who releases … any confidential record or any confidential information contained in any such record that is provided to or by the marijuana registry of the department without the written authorization of the marijuana registry patient commits a class 1 misdemeanor.” – transferring data contained in the Registry to a D.O.R. database is explicitly criminal under this statute. On behalf of patients, caregivers, and doctors, and every taxpayer in Colorado, I enjoin the D.O.R. from attempting to breach the confidentiality of the Registry.

Ignoring the unconstitutionality of HB1284 and the proposed regulations altogether, proceeding to promulgate these regulations now would be untimely in light of the fact that the General Assembly is actively considering legislation which could conflict with their provisions. Irrespective of the fact that HB11-1043 as introduced may have been intended not to conflict with most of the present regulations, we can have no confidence that the General Assembly will not significantly alter the supposed legal basis for any regulations before those now proposed could be implemented. To use any more of the resources of D.O.R. developing, much less introducing regulations for dispensaries, growers, and manufacturers of cannabis-infused products before there is legal foundation for them would be irresponsible. I urge the D.O.R. to withdraw the regulations for further consideration until the end of the legislative session, or at least until it becomes clear as to whether the General Assembly will make significant changes in the statutes relating to medical cannabis.

Sincerely,Robert D. Chase

Simple
Simple

WOW

Rob Corry,

This is ALMOST comical. I was a big supporter of you when I first came to Colorado about five years ago. Now, your comments pretty much make me laugh. This is your statement now? How is this new news?

Its obvious that you are now realizing that your "investments" were beesters at best. You all thought that people would have no problem being on camera, you thought, naw, they're bluffing they wont do this. But you all "hundreds of thousands of dollar spending" dispensary owners are now reaping the true benefit of what you have done to "patients" and caregivers.

Let me ask you a question sir. Do you think that before marijuana was in the constitution that people got their "meds" from a dispensary? No way. Whats the biggest reason for a red card? "pain" meaning where is your true customer base? its obvious that you don't make your money from sick and dying people its obvious now that your business is lacking and the big customer base is going elsewhere. The cat is out of the bag people. And yet now all of you "dispensary owners" whom most of you weren't here in the first place, thought that once Obama said he wasn't going to go after people who are in compliance with the laws, you all were in the free. But now there are audits going on in Cali that could ruin the whole entire "Cannabis Business." News flash dispensary owners: wake up and realize that were not in the old market anymore.

Rob Corry, you are a greed hungry person who wants the fame and fortune. Why are you saying this nonsense now and basically complaining about how this sucks? Its completely too late for dispensaries. There is nothing here but a piece, basically saying these rules suck. Like a child being treated unfairly at a highschool pick up football game and going and telling the school newspaper to print a story about how the "other side" are being bullies.

This age of advocacy is over. The age of consultants should be over. I believe obama said it best: we grant visas and green cards where people can come and get the best education in the world, and then we send them back over to be our competition. You "consultants" trained these caregivers just to get a few hundred dollars. now all of the people who buy weed are going to the caregivers (growers) or the black market dealers. Its odd how we care about our money in the now but seem to lack the confidence and competence to sustain a wealthy future. Its obvious now the dispensary owners and the advocats and consultants that they are listening to, are ruining the "business" of "Medicinal Cannabis."

I have no sympathy for the subjects in this report. Ive said it before and ill say it again... you "dispensary owners" had a chance, when these rules and regulations starting being a reality, to either ban together and try to strike down these obtuse and intrusive laws. Or go at it alone. Well is seems that you made a bad decision, eh? It will take years to get this business going again, well on paper that is. And if you couldn't see that before and are now blabbing about it, well then Rob, I don't think you belong. And if you did see it coming and didn't do anything about it, well that's just worse.

Hope the new high times cup is fun for all of you! I wonder who will buy first place in Colorado?

STINGER
STINGER

I HAD TO SHOW I.D. THE OTHER DAY TO GET SUDAFED, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL , DOESN'T WORRY ME A BIT, LOOKS OVERBLOWN BY A FEW PEOPLE

Shredder M
Shredder M

I've been stocking up on seeds since I first heard about the proposed monitoring system. As of today, I'll never step foot in an MMC again. Mission Accomplished Timer - one way or another you will close 80% of the MMCs. Underground dealers, lawyers, prison industry and cops are the only people who benefit from this legislation. Heckuva job Romey!

anonymous
anonymous

What has Corry's Colorado Wellness Association been up to this past year? They dropped off the radar after a promising start.

High Country Caregiver
High Country Caregiver

Mother Nature's Call to Arms against the DOR on http://mypot.co where we've been surveying guests since July if they will still purchase at a dispensary if they are being recorded and monitored......60% say they won't go to dispensaries if their purchases are tracked.......see the report via Wufoo on http://marijuana.wufoo.com/rep...

dp
dp

maybe you' should check out the DP?

Guest
Guest

stinger...there are several issues here. one point is that marijuana is federally illegal and medical marijuana patients fear federal prosecution even though they are within state law....sudafed has federally recognized medical uses, isn't a schedule I drug, and to my knowledge isn't federally controlled. at medical marijuana centers id's are always checked you must have a special license for marijuana (on you also) so it's not really comparable to sudafed. and now, big brother wants to breathe down our necks even though we've jumped through all the hoops going to doctors, notaries, and paying fees annually. where does it end? people should not have to sacrifice the right to privacy in order to receive medication.

as a patient i appreciate your support of medical marijuana. please don't take responses as personal attacks.

Robert
Robert

Both institutions (and especially the DEA) are illegitimate and should be closed.

Andrew
Andrew

Depends on when the card was issued, I believe. Newer cards have the first 5 digits redacted, but older cards do not. Not sure when that change was implemented by the CDHPE, but there may be some not yet expired cards out there with the full SSN. And who's to say the CDPHE won't start printing the full SSN on cards again anyway? It seems every time I blink some bureaucrat is making up a new rule.

Patient
Patient

telling it like it is. it may seem harsh, but it's pretty accurate. rob corry has won many court cases but he promised everyone a lawsuit last spring to kill 1284 and where is it?

i thumbed up you, Simple, it didn't register. perhaps robert (poster) thought you included him in the advocacy part, because he does do allot of advocating (and he probably doesn't make any money off of his work.)

the ones who should be taking responsibility are the business owners (it's their business that will be lost when no one shops there.) and the attorneys.

Robert
Robert

Please don't be simple. Your response to Rob's points against the regulations is completely inappropriate. "This age of advocacy is over" -- and the age of blather begun (one must suppose). I'll take a winning advocate for the cause over some maunderer with a grudge any day.

kathleen chippi
kathleen chippi

One packet of Sudafed does not get you a 5 year mandatory minimum like one cannabis plant can.

patient
patient

Sudafed kills. It has a LD50.

AncientMedicine
AncientMedicine

And when you buy Sudafed you are not committing a federal crime, for which you could possibly do time, like if the DEA guy decides your medicine needs are more than he thinks you need.

Denvercruiser
Denvercruiser

Was law enforcement watching you on camera while you purchased the Sudafed? Was your purchase documented in a permanent file that's accessible to Federal agencies that deal specifically with Sudafed transactions? Did you have to hold your ID up to a camera so that Law enforcement officers could see your license number and address? I think it's a little bit different, I"m pretty sure the clerk just wanted to verify your age.... kinda like they do with that REALLY SAFE DRUG, ALCOHOL. (I wonder if the recent death of that valet had anything to do with good old harmless booze?)

Simple
Simple

I do apologize to you Mr. Chase and anyone else I offended, for my harsh comments, I, in no way want to cause harm or distress to you or your friends. So please don't take my harsh realistic viewpoint of the cannabis business, personal.

I have lost the faith in advocacy. Im simply trying to make the point that I truly believe some of us have been blinded by big dollar signs. Let our ego get control. And maybe even drifted a bit on the moral/ethical side. It seems being an advocate, lawyer, consultant, whatever you could call it... is not helping the Industry, as much as it used to. Sometimes one needs to switch gears, change, evolve, revolutionize... But hey man, it is what it is. It just seems like were playing the wrong game and what not. I believe Kathleen Chippi said it best: "You can't play games with these people because they change the rules of the game, as you play it."

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...