Medical Marijuana Workgroup's dull meeting highlighted by awarding of first MMC license

workgroup.jpg
The ambiguously-named Medical Marijuana Workgroup met yesterday, and although the point was to create transparency between state and city officials and the medical marijuana center owners, the results were more akin to a big back-patting session for everyone involved.

As we noted in yesterday's blog post, the idea for the sessions came from Tom Downey, director of excise and licensing for the City of Denver. There's no political mission for the meetings; Downey just wanted to have a time and place for all parties to get together in one room and have a conversation. A commendable cause, for sure.

But yesterday's meeting felt more like a conversation with a politician. It had the potential of being engaging and intriguing, but it quickly devolved into a lot of glad-handing and self-praise.

Sure, they awarded Dr. J's the first medical marijuana center license in Denver and gave everyone an update on city council moving forward with a proposal that would allow MMCs to transfer licenses. Both of those are big steps forward from a city that has been pretty damn slow on the whole MMJ licensing uptake. But with no other point to the meeting, the whole thing came off like a photo op for a handful of dispensaries and elected officials.

Other than that, the few speakers seemed more interested in building morale than anything else. A good number people in the audience and up on the panel appeared disinterested, checking their phones and mumbling to the person next to them.

Eventually, the meeting got to the question and answer section. Activist Robert Chase -- probably one of the few non-dispensary folks in attendance -- spoke first, but the audience microphone wasn't turned on and I couldn't hear much of what he said. Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division director Dan Hartman's response, though, included comments about the "reality of the situation" and marijuana being "still a Schedule 1" controlled substance, plus a few things that garnered applause from the audience.

Fill in the blanks of this exchange and you probably won't be far off. Chase is opposed to the state system and thinks it will bring pressure from the feds, while Hartman says the state system is being looked at as an example on the national level and has been keeping potential DEA raids at bay.

The rest of the questions from the audience were very narrow and specific, targeting issues at specific dispensaries. Things like: "I've got a 2,000 square foot warehouse and I'm at the corner of This and That, in my place..." and so on. At that point, like a lot of people in the audience, I packed up and left once it was clear where the rest of the meeting was going. Everyone's concerns were no doubt valid, but some of them would have been better answered over the phone with excise and licensing.

The next Medical Marijuana Workgroup meeting is scheduled for December 14 -- same Bat time, same Bat atrium.

More from our Marijuana archives: "Med. marijuana 3rd-party testing okay despite Full Spectrum's shutdown"; "Survivor update, week seven: Dispensary owner Jim Rice plays on as Ozzy seeks Redemption"

Location Info

Map

Wellington Webb Municipal Building

201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO

Category: General


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
69 comments
Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

"Hartman says the state system is being looked at as an example on the national level and has been keeping potential DEA raids at bay."

Is there any factual basis behind this rather naked assertion? Like a direct confirmation on their position from the DEA or US Department of Justice ?

 ... or is it merely wishful thinking and fallacious rationalization.

Josh Stanley
Josh Stanley

Found this video about me testifying about turning in people to the police that came to my MMC.  This was before the 70/30 rule.

Please feel free to share and inform people about how I operate.  

http://youtu.be/kxNcy0YAr0c

anonymouse
anonymouse

I just love the way MMIG has rewritten their own history to include such heroics as "saving the CO MMJ industry" and "preventing us from going the way Montana did".

I simply cannot wait to see what they have up their sleeves next.  Perhaps a 3rd year of moratorium on new businesses?

Get active
Get active

Maybe MMIG members actually get involved. Any one could have been on the work group but I guess you missed the boat on sign ups. Try paying attention next time.

Why Not???
Why Not???

Why not give the people who went through the bull shit thechance to get a leg up on ass holes from other states that want to try and monopolizeColorado’s industry? I'm all for another year.

MMIG is PIGS
MMIG is PIGS

Maybe MMIG did somethings that caused someone to lose their job.Maybe this person losing their job will hurt the MMJ industry because the new person replacement him will have to be less involved with the MMC stakeholders which in turn will only hurt the patients. Maybe....

No. There is no maybe about it. MMIG hurts the patients again.

Also, MMIG are not the only people involved in MMJ poltics in Colorado, however they, MMIG sure is acting like they think they are the only ones.

YMMV
YMMV

The MMIG does not promote the interests of patients or caregivers, only dispensaries.  Let's see a list of their members so I know who to avoid.

Colorado Mmj Patient
Colorado Mmj Patient

Oh we have payed attention to what MMIG and their lobbyists have done.  Thanks a lot for HB1284 and HB1043.  Many MMCs had no idea about the sign ups.  

I found some interesting things about MMIG using the Freedom of Information Act that will come to light soon.  

Matt in Boulder
Matt in Boulder

Something tells me you are a not-too-distant relative of "Get Active".  Your logic (or lack thereof) is eerily similar. 

You're not doing a very good job of defending MMIG with comments like that...

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Is the pain and suffering caused by MMIG a valid condition for a Physician's MMJ referral ?

jojo5000
jojo5000

Um, not sure who this is. But I highly doubt that he / she was nearly as indispensable as they might believe.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Correct.

Patient/Caregiver's best interests are in direct conflict with those of the for-profit commercial retail dispensaries and their government bedfellows, the Dept. of REVENUE.

Can't imagine there are any sober patients or so called "patient rights groups" that would blindly support Big Pharma and the FDA ... yet some of these fools are still being duped by The Big Dispensary lobby.

Idiots.

jojo5000
jojo5000

And how exactly do you know this? MMIG has lobbied against the 35 day rule and the photographing / taping of patient transactions. It has also lobbied against the high CDPHE registration fees, and much more. How is it that you and the rest of these fools feel comfortable commenting on things you obviously know nothing about? Have you been to a MMIG meeting? Have you been present at meetings between MMIG and legislators? I'm sure not. But sure, feel free to avoid the 50+ dispensaries who have taken incredible risks and spent countless hours building their businesses and trying to ensure that legislation does not adversely members of the industry OR PATIENTS. The idea that MMIG does not care about patients is ludicrous. Not only are owners and employees patients too, but so our our friends, family, AND OUR CUSTOMERS! While MMIG did not lobby for caregivers, we certainly did not lobby against them; there were plenty of other groups doing that. And by the way, the caregivers who protested and made rude comments at the hearings did not exactly win any points with elected officials. 

Colorado Mmj Patient
Colorado Mmj Patient

Here are the board of directors according to my sources.

Norton Arbelaez, River RockJosh Stanley, Budding HealthSteve Ackerman, Organic AlternativesJohn Salfeld, Local ProductDan Rogers, GreenwerkzBryan Swanton, Dayz'sTripp Keeber, Dixie ElixersJake Salazar, MMJ AmerciaBrian Cook, Altitude Organic MedicineThere are other members, but the list needs to be double checked because people are dropping out of it.  I would hate to say someone was a member when they weren't.

jojo5000
jojo5000

MMIG lobbied for state licensing because the state was about to take action with or without industry participation. If dispensaries, grows, and edibles had not been formally recognized by the state, they would have been eliminated. Additionally, it is naive to assume that MMIG wrote 1284 and 1043. There were some things that MMIG advocated, but much of it came from law enforcement and others as well. If 1284 had not passed, there would either be no legislation or something even worse. In either case, dispensaries, grows, and edibles would not exist. Most of the comments on this site demonstrate extreme ignorance as to legislative politics and the inner working of government. If people like them were in charge, we would have another Montana or Michigan situation at the expense of patient access.

sampson
sampson

Obviously, I was referring to MMIG's actions which resulted in Dan Hartman getting demoted/transferred. Sheesh....

And it is not that he was indispensable, it is that the next MMED head will be harsher and more strict than Dan because of the nature of Dan's removal.

YourMBA
YourMBA

Wow. Your analysis proves that sometimes markets get saturated, and because of that not all businesses will succeed?

get this guy a fucking finance degree, stat.

Monkey
Monkey

The industry has confused you again. Caregivers can grow for many more than 5 patients, instead of waiving our rights and paying extortion fees, all we have to do is fill out a 2 page form, no fee, for a registry who records what we tell them to, not a licensing authority. I've never have surplus to send out of state and am quite glad my dispensary friends stopped calling me for their "top shelf" meds.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You really have no idea what you're yammering about, do you?

First you claim that private caregivers -- 1800+ of them -- can't grow quality, then you claim that dispensaries used to buy this low-quality schwag for "big bucks" ... then you digress into other nonsensical self-contradictory delusion.

Amendment 20 isn't a "gray area of the law" for Patients and Individual Caregivers -- they are the only entities covered by its protections. Note that Individual Patients and Private Caregivers are the only entities that the Feds / DEA have stated would not be targeted for federal criminal prosecution. The Feds / DEA have clearly stated that Commercial For-Profit Retail Dispensaries and their large-scale commercial Grows ARE subject to federal criminal prosecution.

BTW - Colorado Amendment 20 never authorized Commercial For-Profit Retail Dispensaries. Didn't even contemplate it, much less authorize it.

" ... make big money like dispensary owners ...

LOL! ... what fool would want to own a dispensary? Even a rudimentary analysis of the market shows its doomed to abject failure.

There are approximately 150,000 registered patients, and nearly 700 retail dispensaries in the state. At BEST that leaves the dispensaries with only 200 legal patients, on average, as a total customer base. Customers they will have to continually fight and compete for to survive.

Who in their right mind would invest $100k to build out a retail dispensary, $100k or more to build out the required industrial grow, and $5000 - $10,000 month in rents alone, plus another $3000 per month in wasted electric power, plus $30,000 in State and Local license fees -- licenses that don't protect them from Federal Felony prosecution -- to only have access to 200 customers who are so impoverished they often only purchase $25 of "medicine" at a time.

And using your own figures, with the majority of patients having one of the 18,000+ private caregivers as their source, any given Retail Dispensary in fact would have -- on average -- LESS THAN 100 total customers to depend upon for their financial survival.

$250k cash investment, $10,000 every month in rents and utilities,plus salaries and other operational overheads, all for the privelege of engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise where the DEA can send them off to MANDATORY minimum prison sentences of 5 years or more, and the IRS will deny them any and all normal business expense deductions as a criminal enterprise -- i.e. they'll be taxed upon their GROSS income -- and the US Dept. of Justice can indict them for Money Laundering where the penalties are 20 years in prison ... for each and every count.

Business Plan = Epic FAIL !!.

GFY
GFY

you mean the for-profit caregiver's best interest is in direct conflict with the for-profit commercial retail dispensaries. This has little to do with helping patients on either end and a lot to do with making money. to say that caregivers weren't in this for the almighty dollar any more than dispensary owners is foolishly naive.

if you are going to talk about this, then be real about it: most "caregivers" are pissed because they can't make big money like dispensary owners because they can't sell to dispensaries anymore. If that one thing alone was changed, most of them wouldn't have a single problem with this industry. They also can't grow for more than five people, which cuts into the surplus herb they used to send out of state for $5k a pound. They miss living in the gray area of the law, and don't like that someone actually came out and defined what they had to do to remain legal in this state.

So please, keep pretending this is all about helping sick patients get access to medicine. Just remember that the stats show that there are more patients with caregivers now than there were pre-1284.

Monkey
Monkey

I frequently visit warehouse grows and can guarantee my mom could do better. Some people eat fast food and some people hire a chef, I guess we need both but my standards are higher than "big-mac" quality buds.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You must be confused as to whom you are replying to.

I agree, the Big Dispensary fear-mongering self-serving claim that "patients won't have safe access" if there are no dispensaries is a complete LIE. 

There are over 18,000 caregivers registered in the DPH database ... and 1000s more who operate under Amendment 20 without registering. 

Medical Marijuana functioned just fine for 8+ years under the Patient/Caregiver model authorized by Amendment 20, THOUSANDS of Patients and Caregivers took care of each other long before the explosion and invasion of greedy, profit-driven commercial retail dispensaries appeared circa 2008.

GFY
GFY

except that roughly 65 percent of all patients for the last year and a half have had and still have a private caregiver (in other words: before and after 1284). The number of patients with private caregivers has actually gone UP since 1284 went into effect last July. These huge numbers of patients being left without access you talk about simply don't exist. Find a new talking point, though I might suggest one backed by actual facts next time.

Your Weed Sucks
Your Weed Sucks

please. one look on craigslist will show you all the mold, bugs and mildew you could ever want to see from 'basement grows'.

this idea that small growers are all better than a dispensary is bullshit. everyone and their mom thinks they can grow herb these days.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Or the constitutionally dubious and arbitrary " 5 patient / caregiver " limits ...

... or the equally absurd prohibition against caregivers sharing space or resources with other caregivers. Really? ... a 40 acre farm and 2 caregivers can't each have their 30 plants somewhere on that same piece of land?

Clearly an attempt by the Big Dispensary lobby to eliminate and restrict Private Caregivers in a calculated effort to limit patient choice and force patients to only patronize overpriced for-profit commercial retail dispensaries.

Monkey
Monkey

Farming in a warehouse, certainly not a good idea. Commercial weed like you farm should be outside, you're a waste of resources. Basements are the best place to build and maintain a beautiful indoor garden. Regulations on warehouse weed do not cover quality, you can harvest crappy premature buds with bugs and mildew on them but as long as you wash your hands and pay the fee you can sell it to anyone with a debilitating condition, sounds safe to me. You will always strive to be as good as a basement grow while publicly pretending warehouses are a better environment for plants.

jojo5000
jojo5000

so, you don't believe caregivers should be regulated so they CAN dump phosphate down the drain...or blow up their houses with butane or ethyl alcohol...or mess with their wiring and start a fire...or get robbed bc they have no security...

jojo5000
jojo5000

well, lets see...farming in basement? probably not a good idea. Slaughterhouse in basement...probably not a good idea either. Pharmaceutical company in basement...um, doesn't seem right...

i think this list can be a lot longer

Matt in Boulder
Matt in Boulder

What makes a dispensary any more legitimate?  Based on your rant, I guess growing weed in a warehouse makes you legitimate but growing at your house does not?  So all home-based businesses are bull shit?   People who work out of their houses, without going to an office, are bull shit?  Interesting delineation you've drawn...

Thanks
Thanks

That right and if they came to my place of business I would throw them out too. Care givers are bull shit. Unless your actually taking care of people like in home care your not a "care giver", your a person that grows weed in their house for extra money and hopes their neighbors dont call the cops on them. What a fucking joke

Colorado Mmj Patient
Colorado Mmj Patient

I have the audio recording of Josh Stanley saying he turned in caregivers to the police from the 1284 hearings.  Will post it up on youtube and let you know.  

Sampson
Sampson

MMIG did not lobby against caregivers? Come again???

Josh Stanley (the real head of MMIG) went on the public record as saying, and I am paraphrasing here "Caregivers should have regulations on them, so they don't do things like dumping phosphate down the drain".  or "I have had Caregivers come to my shop with duffel bags and try to sell product. I told them they have 5 minutes to leave and them I am calling the police" (this is when it was perfectly legal for caregivers to sell to dispensaries

Pray tell, how is pushing for regulations such as that NOT lobbying against caregivers?

SAmpson
SAmpson

Jojo5000 - You sound like a parrot. Good job.Keep on hating - some people will feed off of that.

jojo5000
jojo5000

yes, im lying. But you and your "sources" are the fountain of truth.

jojo5000
jojo5000

no, im back. i just have a job unlike most of the other people on this blog. what organization that you can think of posts lists of all its members? And why would we do that? So the wacktivists and harass us? We dont hide either though. Most of us personally introduce ourselves as MMIG members as was evident at the last workgroup meeting. And no, Josh Stanley has not admitted any criminal wrongdoing. But if you have evidence, then share it. 

Thanks
Thanks

You missed about 30 people but who's counting. The fact is you guys are haters that can't get people to listen to you. Well no one but maybe on the Westward blogs which is where you seem to think you shine. Fact is most of you people can't get a meeting with an elected official because they don't want you any where close to their office. Ever time you guys blog about MMIG we actually get stronger so thanks :)

Thanks
Thanks

Sweet come back. Your someone I would follow.... Hahahahah, your guys are a joke :)

MMIG is PIGS
MMIG is PIGS

You can note that jojo5000 stopped posting about MMIG after the Dan Hartman story was released.

I second your opinion, Scandal, MMIG should release their membership list if they are "proud" of what they are doing.

But we know the reality. Bad people/organizations HATE sunlight... just like rats they do everything they can to avoid it.

Think about that MMIG members... There is still time to jump off this train wreck know as MMIG.

BTW: How did the "Emergency meeting" go last night? What was the conclusion? Did Josh Stanley admit to any criminal wrong doing, yet?

scandal
scandal

So if you guys have nothing to hide why don't you list all of your proud members.We will be waiting.

Sampson
Sampson

@d80e9585837ae27973838b33fde1aecb:disqus I guess if I was in your position I would also lie my ass off - if I didn't have an integrity that is.

jojo5000
jojo5000

actually, considering I am a member of this group (on the associate level, not board) and you are not I think i am in a better position to say that YOU ARE WRONG. First off, you left out the majority of members who are associate level. Secondly, there are more board members (new ones) you left out. Additionally, myself and the other MMIG members obviously do not view our own organization as "harmful" (and certainly not "proven") and we are not incestuous either. None of the people you mentioned are in business together. Furthermore, I am sure that neither you or anyone else in your world are in any position to hurt anyone. Rather, you are the usual crowd of loudmouth, ignorant rejects. Enjoy your role. It is pure comedy to the extent that anyone even pays attention.

MMIG is PIGS
MMIG is PIGS

No his sources are spot on. But why would you admit that - it will only hurt you. There is 1 person left out of that list, but that is all.

I really think all MMIG members need to reconsider their membership in this apparently incestuous, and proven harmful group. And that is putting it lightly.

jojo5000
jojo5000

actually, there are a lot more members than that as we've had a huge increase in membership at the board level and below. Your sources suck. 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You have NO LEGAL comprehension -- not a single MMJ Lawyer would even make such an absurd legal assertion.

The PROVISIONS of Amendment 20 don't mention, much less define and authorize Retail Dispensaries. If it isn't in the PROVISIONS of a bill, then it isn't PROVIDED FOR.

When you comprehend what NOTWITHSTANDING means get back to us.

Hint -- the NON-provisional section you are misinterpreting is a FURTHER RESTRICTION and LIMITATION upon any PROVISIONS of the bill/amendment.

Truth
Truth

@Donkey_Hotay:disqus - You absolutely wrong in your assertion that there is nothing in "Amendment 20" concerning dispensaries.

2(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person,including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protectionof this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture,production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuanafor any use other than medical use.See the word "dispensing"??? A 'dispensary' means a place where dispensing occurs...

     Perhaps read what you are talking about before you decide you know it all.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Legal Logic = FAIL

There is nothing in the PROVISIONS of Amendment 20 that even mentioned, much less authorized, retail dispensaries. Only Patients and individual primary Care-givers were defined and authorized to enjoy the VERY LIMITED protections of Amendment 20.

In fact, the proponents of Amendment 20 specifically stated in the Voter Information packet that "sales of marijuana would REMAIN illegal" if Amendment 20 were passed.

Unless you have specific clear directives from the DEA / US DOJ that the reason why they have not yet arrested and indicted a slew of Colorado dispensaries is because they "like" Colorado better than other states, your ad hoc fallacious rationalization is the same delusional thinking that got Chris "living the dream" Bartkowicz and Pierre "Dr. Reefer" Werner their very own Federal Prison cells for the next 5 years ... minimum mandatory.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You are correct on this one.

Amendment 20 did NOT authorize commercial retail dispensaries.

Period.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Your post is correct on nearly every point ... except that Amendment 20 did NOT authorize Commercial Retail Dispensaries.

Didn't even mention the word dispensary, much less authorize them.

And the pro-Amendment 20 lobbyists even told the electorate in the 2000 Voter Information Packet that "sales of marijuana would REMAIN illegal" if Amendment 20 was passed.

The only entities that Amendment 20 defines, authorizes and protects are Patients and INDIVIDUAL Primary Care-givers appointed by those patients... and only for narrowly defined small-scale activities -- 2 ounces and 6 plants.

Nothing more, nothing less.

MMIG is PIGS
MMIG is PIGS

Mark - You should pretty much do the opposite of what jojo5000 is saying. Get involved. Find out who is your representatives are and engage them, in an educated manner, and I can almost guarantee you, you will have a positive impact on the political process.

Monkey
Monkey

You forgot about Long Beach CA, you know, told by the court they were breaking Federal  Law by licensing Marijuana businesses. DOJ also recently said local licensing schemes in CA will be some of the first targets. Other places make it more difficult to track their marijuana dealers, no need to rush in CO, the DOR is taking care of it and instead of protecting that information from the Feds, they'll hand it over on a silver platter.

Monkey
Monkey

All that case did was prevent caregivers from selling to you, remember, when you had good buds.

jojo5000
jojo5000

mark montgomery is the typical example of the ill-informed, legally retarded, bitter, industry OUTSIDER. Go home, put the weed-leaf sunglasses away, and leave the politics to the adults. 

jojo5000
jojo5000

oh, by the way - here's the case stating that Amendment 20 DOES NOT, by itself, legalize sale of medical marijuana People v. Clendenin, 232 P.3d 210, 215 (Colo. App. 2009).

jojo5000
jojo5000

well, you and your 5 retarded friends can "resist" rather than seeking compromise. That will get you right were you are now...nowhere.

jojo5000
jojo5000

Your interpretation of the constitution is just that....YOUR interpretation. No judge in this state shared your view. Thats why no unlicensed dispensary was allowed to remain open. If you were correct, dispensaries given retail sales tax licenses prior to 1284 would have been deemed to have vested rights. But the judges said that Amendment 20 did NOT confer these rights. Name a single state that allows dispensaries to operate openly without licensure. I'm waiting....

Jussayin
Jussayin

The percentage of patients who designate a private caregiver hasn't really budged from about 65 percent in about a year and a half. That's pre- and post- 1284. Mix that with the fact that registry numbers increased by about 20,000 people since 1284, and there are actually MORE people with a private caregiver now than pre-1284.

Johnny BendOver
Johnny BendOver

Yes, all that public comment is such a nuisance. Just shut up and bend over. MMIG knows how to do this well.

Mark
Mark

Yes, we shall all believe JoJo, who fails to provide one citation to back up his/her assertions. To start, Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution is not called "Am. 20". It was only "Am. 20" for the purposes of the ballot in 2000. When it was enacted, it became "Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution", not "Am. 20".

So please get your terminology straight before you "dare to comment"on this blog.

Article XVIII, Section 14 Section 2 (d) states: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use. "

This clearly implies that "for...medical use" only that "dispensing" and "distribution" shall be protected. Now, you show us all the court cases that refutes this clause in the Constitution.

The difference between Colorado and Montana, Michigan and Washington is that the Color mmj law does allow for dispensaries. Do you really think that Suthers and all the DAs in Colorado stood by from 2000 to 2009 and didn't bust these supposedly illegal dispensaries b/c they are nice guys? Or did they not bust them b/c they knew they were allowed under the Constitution? They only started to bust them once they had new regulations in place (1284) to shut them down. They couldn't before 1284 b/c they were legal.

If you have case law to refute this, we would all love to see it.

I would also like to see your proof of this statement: "it is known that the Attn. General was planning to shut down dispensaries (with federal assistance) if 1284 did not pass." So why didn't Suthers shut them down BEFORE 1284 passed? Answer: Because they were legal.

jojo5000
jojo5000

...Furthermore, anyone who thinks that protesting or fighting elected officials is any way to help dispensaries, patients, or caregivers is dreaming. If anything, they find it a nuisance and it makes them even more critical of us. Additionally, there are legislators who are our friends and need us to back them up when they attempt to do something right. But sure, wear and pair of stupid glasses and a crown of pot leaves and see where that gets you. Insulting regulators, senators, representatives, and city council members is also a really successful tactic. 

jojo5000
jojo5000

Ok then. Obviously, you are another member of the mass of people who have no idea what they are talking about. Lets look at the states who passed laws legalizing medical marijuana but failed to officially recognize dispensaries. (1) Montana. All dispensaries were closed by the feds / state police / and local sheriffs after the legislators there rejected attempts at licensure. (2) Michigan. After an appellate judge ruled that the state law did not legalize dispensaries (it didn't) the state closed all retail locations. (4) Nevada. Federal raids shut down all dispensaries in Las Vegas. (5) Washington. After the governor vetoed a bill authorizing the state to license dispensaries, all retail locations in Spokane were shuttered by the feds. (6) Arizona. After the governor refused to implement the ballot initiative calling for the establishment of licensed dispensaries, the state raided multiple caregiver operations.

Additionally, your incorrect assertion that amendment 20 legalized dispensaries was soundly rejected by the Colorado courts. When dispensaries that were shut down pursuant to local ordinances and 1284 attempted to argue that amendment 20 (combined with city permits) afforded them a vested right to operate, the courts stated definitively that Amendment 20 DOES NOT legalize dispensaries. And the fact is, that unfortunately the judges were correct. Amendment 20 only decriminalizes the possession of plants / finished product with a valid state - issued card. It also provides an affirmative defense if the individual in possession of the marijuana has a doctor's recommendation. Finally, it allows caregivers to grow for multiple patients with valid cards or doctor's recommendations.

Amendment 20 says nothing about retail sales or storefront locations. Additionally, it is known that the Attn. General was planning to shut down dispensaries (with federal assistance) if 1284 did not pass because the courts in Colorado and every other state with laws similar to amendment 20 have stated that such laws DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STOREFRONTS AND RETAIL SALES. The legalization of dispensaries requires additional affirmative legislation. 

Before you dare to comment on this blog, go read something instead of making arguments that have already been soundly rejected by the appropriate authorities. I will even post the relevant precedents here for you, although i strongly doubt you or your ilk have the intellectual capacity to absorb them.

Mark Montgomery
Mark Montgomery

This post is full of misinformation. It is not true that dispensaries needed 1284 to stay in business, an oft-told lie by the MMIG/DEA schills and their ilk. Dispensaries operated legally under the constitution from 2000 until 2009 when 1284 passed. If these dispensaries would have been illegal under the constitution, the cops would not have hesitated to shut them down. Instead, they had to pass a new law (HB1284) to shut the dispensaries down b/c the Constitution said dispensaries (caregivers serving more than 5 patients) were legal. According to Sen. "pot clown" Romer who sponsored the bill, 1284 was designed to shut down 50% to 80% of existing dispensaries. First, the felons went, then those that couldn't afford the surveillance system went, and then the local bans took a bunch of dispensaries. 1284 is a big set up -- the feds are gathering all the information they want about dispensary owners/employees and, yes, patients too. Remember, all video surveillance cameras in dispensaries are on live feed to DEA and LEOs on demand, no warrant necessary. Stop spreading lies that 1284 was put into place to help patients. No patient has been helped by this law. So many have lost their caregivers, and now their privacy, which was the main point behind Am. 20, to protect privacy. When will the "industry" get off their asses and fight for patient rights instead of continuing to bend over for the pot clowns?!?!?!

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...