Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division accepting vendor applications -- on Friday only

The staffers at the state Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division have announced that they will be taking a limited number of new vendor applications this Friday, October 5. This follows a previous statement that they would be unable to accept any dispensary employee applications until mid-February at the earliest.

The special vendor-only registration is scheduled to take place Friday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. According to the MMED website, a limited number of vendors who provide "services to industry members and whose employees commonly work within restricted areas of the MM business or take custody of Medical Marijuana products for transportation" must register with the department.

Thumbnail image for medical marijuana enforcement division badge.jpg
This includes people such as trim-machine operators and employees of third-party bulk-cannabis delivery companies. In order to be registered, at least one person with the company needs to hold a "key occupational license" from the MMED, and all employees need occupational licenses.

All of this comes just a few weeks after the aforementioned delay announcement, which has frustrated many potential employees and their employers.

The division also released a list of currently approved vendors. The list -- which is formatted almost identically to the leaked MMED list of licensed dispensaries -- names 49 different entities registered to do work with medical marijuana businesses in Colorado. Interestingly, the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division is included as an approved vendor.

Otherwise, the list is mostly populated by security companies, grow supply stores and trim-machine rental places.

Vendors interested in applying this Friday should call 303-205-3330 to set up an appointment.

Here are the registered vendors listed by the MMED.

mmed registered vendors 1.jpg
mmed registered vendors 2.jpg
mmed registered vendors 3.jpg
More from our Marijuana archive: "Videos: Part two of marijuana activists' Amendment 64 debate and more" and "Marijuana: Vets group supporting Amendment 64 after health department's PTSD non-ruling."



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
COlady
COlady

at the risk of going way off on a wanker tangent about the actual verbatim of the "Code" I cant imagine what they are licensing since the MMED currently has No statutory authority to issue a vendor license for any person to carry or handle meds... at this time vendors only have statutory authority to Fix equipment and property associated with a licensed MMJ business location.    

BUT PLEASE DONT TAKE MY WORD ON THIS ISSUE WITH VENDORS... INSTEAD I WILL USE THE WORDS OF MS HARRIS HERSELF, TO ONCE AGAIN MAKE MY REDUNDANT POINT FOR ME. 

1st off here is the link to the issue we are discussing, Thursday 9/20 Ms Harris issued a "position statement" regarding Brokering Wholesale Transactions... http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Position+Statement+Regarding+Brokering+Wholesale+Transaction+09%2F20%2F12.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251822613909&ssbinary=true The

The thing we need to stay focused on here is not the issue of wholesale transactions, but more importantly the boldly contradictory stances Ms Harris takes in her statement.

 

We should start applying the Directors own support of her position in her "Division Analysis" specifically: "Any activity not explicitly allowed by the code is not Authorized." ** to the MMED's current contradictory activities across the board... If you read below into the commisions section she writes... "The Code clarifies that a licensee is granted privileges to sell, manufacture, or cultivate medical marijuana on its licensed premises. See CRS 12-43.3-310(8) (a). Privileges are Specific to the licensed location and entity holding the license, and it is specifically prohibited that any other person not holding the license exercise those privileges. Id " * *  note, this passage and the MMED advisory panel discussions about it, has always been my foundation for beliefs that transport services, brokers, and trim crews were illegal, (also Note Mr Cook and Mr Hartman did not sign off on such vendor Licenses, but Ms Harris, did in fact sign off on them, and she has later publicly admitted at an NCIA (recreational use oriented group) event that she is aware that she has no statutory basis to do so.** see above: division analysis re activity not specifically authorized in the code.) Yet the MMED's own website defines Vendor license thusly... "All businesses that work within the Medical Marijuana Industry providing services to industry members and whose employees commonly work within restricted areas of the MM business or take custody of Medical Marijuana products for transportation – example of such businesses would be trim crews that travel from facility to facility to harvest Medical Marijuana crops or couriers that transport Medical Marijuana from facility to facility. This application include the cost of one Key Occupational License for the individual that takes responsibility of the action of the registered business (this includes a background check on that individual). All employees of the vendor that will be working within the Medical Marijuana industry must also obtain an occupational license"This is per MMED, specifically not per 1284, 1043 etc... I see a direct conflict here, and this needs to be fixed legislatively not by presto-chango of the Code to suit the MMED's past actions...  

 

My observation is that one key sentence in the Division's position is: Said Owner is not authorized to receive ANY(my emphasis) pecuniary gain, Such as Monetary commission, from transactions related to operations in which he or she does not hold and ownership interest, the disclosure of which is otherwise required pursuant to article 43.3 of title 12. 

#1. How does this apply to licensed Vendors who transport medicine? they get paid a fee to deliver meds they have no statutory authority to handle, and have no ownership or employment with the company they deliver for... 

#2. How does this apply to the slew of "vendor licensed" edibles wholesale brokerage groups, which again have neither statutory authority nor legal ownership over the companies they distribute products on behalf of? 

#3 How does this one sentence apply to Vendors in general, since they are not "Said Owners"? ( I feel this goes back to what I have repeatedly said that  Vendors cannot be middlemen on any transactions where they gain by being party to any sale or handling of Meds. Vendors are intended to be complimentary businesses who are paid by the MMJ business owner for services rendered on the property or equipment of a legal MMJ business, period.)  ** again please see above division analysis re activity not specifically authorized in the code. 

Ms Harris continues... " The Code not only mandates that the State Licensing Authority require a "complete disclosure of all persons having a direct or indirect financial interest" in each licensed(sic) issued, but it also prohibits individuals from having an unreported financial interest in a license.* CRS.... Assuming for the sake of this analysis, a licensee could broker a wholesale transaction outside the confines of Section 12-43.3-402(4) the code does not explicitly allow said licensee to receive a commission for brokering such a transaction. The division believes a commission in this instance would constitute an indirect financial interest in another licensee's license, and such activity is not allowed.*Thus even a licensed medical marijuana center owner is PROHIBITED from receiving a commission. ie, holding an unreported financial interest, in another licensee's license*..... (blather omitted)...... The division believes neither wholesale transactions nor commissions from brokering activity between two other Licensees is Authorized pursuant to the Code."    * What the fuck? So does all this apply to Vendors and Wholesale Brokerage services too, per the above statement about privileges, or not.... the MMED cant issue licenses for one type of entity (which it has already done) in direct conflict with the division's own analysis against that type of transaction on this issue** again please see above division analysis re activity not specifically authorized in the code.  

Faycless
Faycless

So, if this thing passes, ANYONE from out of state, 21 or older can come here and buy 1 oz (a day?) How are they gonna keep track of who buys how much?

I already have a red card and can posses 2 oz's. How is this going to benefit me? Will red card holders still be able to have 2? And I'm also concerned that  "new govt. studies" will show a "need" to implement that 5 nano thing, or 10 or 15 or whatever number they pick, arresting people by the scores....I dont think Amend 64 is a great idea. Treat it like alcohol? What does that mean??? Am I just missing something here?

Thanksalot
Thanksalot

One name on that list makes me cringe.  And not just because it's misspelled.

 

Of the 49 entities listed, one is a girl's full name and home address.  The MMED chose not to use her business name ("Colorado Quality Collective"), as they did for every other business registered.

 

Why?  Her Boulder Weekly article barely joked about the MMED. http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-9703-commentary-medical-marijuana-and-taxes.html

 

Maybe her next article should include their name.  Published with someone's home address.  Or at least just misspelled.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

It demonstrates that the scheme is not completely moribund, at least.

 

How crazy it is to pretend that the example of the MMED serves as some kind of warning about an imaginary successor (not to be instituted by the General Assembly should Amendment 64 pass) -- the MMED has not proven a threat to the distribution of medical cannabis, other than through general incompetence and obstreperousness, of course.  So far from raging jack-booted through medical cannibis facilities, the MMED has had to give back some of their fleet of SUVs for want of revenue.

joshkappel
joshkappel

 @Faycless Red Card holders will still be able to have 2 ounces if A64 passes. (You might be able to have 3!) A64 will help thousands of patients who do not qualify under A20, such as those with PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Tourettes, Chrons, Opiod Dependence etc. Plus, its just not right to waste tax dollars criminalizing adult cannabis users. 

orson
orson

 @michael.roberts  Your comments often come off as disingenuous imo.  This lady has an issue with her private information being released to the public and she feels it's in retaliation to an article she wrote and you say it's "interesting." On the last THC driving bill article you said "The bill nearly passed last time around. It'll be interesting to see if support has shifted since then."  Want more popcorn???  These issues are serious and your disconnected comments makes me think that the westword doesn't really care about the issues, only the drama.

orson
orson

 @IcePick   "Yes on A64!" - Yes, because it will be so much better when these asshats at the DOR are regulating recreational marijuana.   (NOT)

orson
orson

 @Matt_in_Boulder   Yes, unfortunately legitimate medical marijuana patients are being wrongfully lumped in with "stoners" and "potheads" by many people.  That  image can change over time if the medical approach is kept.  If A64 becomes law, treating all marijuana users like drug abuser will be the future of marijuana regulations.  Marketing marijuana, a psychoactive medicine, as a recreational party drug is the wrong approach.  It is the self proclaimed recreational marijuana users that are on the wrong side of this issue.  Medical marijuana should be their route to safe access, not recreational marijuana.  Marijuana is medicine and recreational users seeking marijuana are doing so because the psychoactive MEDICINE makes them feel better.  Keep it medical and expand access and rights to medical marijuana.

Matt_in_Boulder
Matt_in_Boulder

 @orson 

You may not realize it but you just contradicted your statement above that "A64 sucks for medical marijuana". 

 

First thing to know is that the feds don't recognize ANY valid use of marijuana.  They are giving MMJ a temporary pass but that can be revoked at any time (can you say Mitt Romney?).  The bottom line is that MMJ patients are already lumped in with the "Stoners" and "Potheads". 

 

Second thing to know is that there is strength in numbers.  Roughly 40% of Americans admit to having smoked pot.  If marijuana were legal for greater numbers of users then you would have more concern for your well-being as a patient.  The reason alcohol safety is regulated is that a lot of people use it and it would look bad if a lot of them got sick.  Nobody in our government cares whether or not "stoner/patients" get sick off of their "medicine". 

 

You are fighting on the wrong side of public opinion.  Keep cannabis for yourself as medicine and you will always be on the fringe with your rights continually stomped on.  Open it up for broader use and more people might care about how safe it is.

orson
orson

FYI -- my main problem with the "asshats" at the DOR is that they do not care about the quality of the medicine they are regulating.  They do not test for mold or proper marijuana growing procedures.  Imagine if this same agency did not care about the quality of alcohol being served and byproducts like methanol made it into the supply because the alcohol wasn't produced properly.

orson
orson

I understand what you are saying and I'm actually ok with how A20 has evolved and understand why HB1284 was implemented.  It sucks for medical marijuana vendors that medical marijuana is so heavily regulated but patients have easy access to marijuana and have a lot of options with being allowed to grow themselves or buy from caregivers or MMCs.  I have safe access to marijuana thanks to these laws.  The reason I cannot support A64 is that it re-brands marijuana from a medical substance to a recreational one.  Over time this will have huge consequences as our society evolves to see marijuana like alcohol.  Recreational drugs, like alcohol, are seen as vices by the majority of voters, even by many that will support A64 and I don't think it's wise to label marijuana as a vice.  Alcohol is a toxic psychoactive and will never be medically accepted for consumption.   Marijuana is a psychoactive medicine and can be accepted medically if the medical approach remains. Medicine and health are somewhat respected in our society, like gun rights and free speech, and 75% or more of voters support the right to medical marijuana.  There are many more people who see themselves as recreational users of marijuana than there are medical ones and they will be the image and the future of marijuana pushing for a recreational get high and party attitude, like alcohol.  The approach to expanding the rights of marijuana use to everyone should be as a medicine.  A64 sucks for medical marijuana.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@orson@IcePick

Orson, please try to understand:  passage of Amendment 64 is not going to result in the DOR regulating general retail sales of cannabis to adults (although as long as cannabis is considered an intoxicant, regardless of how much less harmful it is than alcohol or tobacco, society is likely either to proscibe it, as now, or to legalize it subject to regulation – however imperfect our system of regulation of e.g. alcohol and  tobacco may be, it does not materially hamper people’s consumption of those drugs, and the fringe’s pretense that the DOR regulating the retail sale of cannabis could in any sense be worse than keeping all non-medical sales of cannabis felonious is beyond ridiculous).  Unlike the present tolerance for medical cannabis, there is no ambiguity at all in the Feds' policy against non-medical cannabis.  Should the Amendment pass, the Feds will likely do some saber rattling to the effect that Colorado cannot license Federal felonies, and that anyone who obtains a license will become the target of investigation.  The Feds could try to go after legislators who comply with the terms of the Amendment, they could close down retail medical cannabis in Colorado within a month, and there is a superabundance of ways for them to go after virtually anyone associated in any way with cannabis, but what is far more likely is the scenario I just outlined:  the Feds will indicate that they will act against licensees if and when the State licenses people, and the General Assembly will not challenge them.  Because many in the General Assembly still oppose the legalization of cannabis (or are afraid of taking a stand for reform), because it would cost money for the DOR to establish the system of licensure, and because there would be no legal consequences for failing to comply with the provisions of the Amendment telling the General Assembly to provide for licensure of general retail sales of cannabis to adults, the cultivation; processing; and sale of hemp products, or its requirement that legislators enact an excise tax on wholesale sale of cannabis.  The General Assembly is very likely to treat these provisions as moot until there are major changes in Federal law and policy. 

Here again, the difference between medical versus non-medical use is likely to be significant; while both parties voted for unconstitutional SB10-109, HB10-1284, and HB11-1043, they did so because of three reasons:  1)  medical cannabis was already being dispensed by caregivers from hundreds of retail outlets, 2)  most legislators wanted to be able to claim that they respected Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Constitution (even though the bills themselves flouted its clear intent), and 3)  there was a political appeal to bucking the Feds on the issue of medical cannabis.  The dispensaries that survived the consequences of the 2010 legislative session accepted the dictate of the General Assembly that they throw over their constitutional protections and confidentiality in favor of regulation and licensure.  By proceeding to license dispensaries as MMCs,  the General Assembly challenged the Feds and used the entire industry and the thousands of people involved in it as its cat’s-paws.  The Feds have so far responded (if it can be considered a response) by riffing off of provisions in the CSA to come up with the absurd, ad-hoc rule being enforced by fiat by US Attorneys in California and Colorado:  no dispensaries within 1000' of schools, parks, or libraries.  The General Assembly's medical cannabis distribution system has been sitting under the Sword of Damocles since its establishment, and although patients would be hurt if it were to be rolled up, there would still remain the  constitutional protections for patients and their caregivers in Article XVIII, Section 14.

 

The Democrats would like Colorado to keep turning blue, and they know that support for cannabis in Colorado is relatively strong and growing.  The amount of time Obama has spent in Colorado demonstrates how electorally important Colorado is considered.  A major move against medical cannabis at least would seems far more likely if Romney were to win, but Obama will have a freer hand if he wins reelection – should he want to take on changing the muddle of current policy.  Obama has not challenged the vast army of prohibitionist parasites ensconced within our Federal government, the system of Prohibition perverting our laws, or even moved to have cannabis rescheduled, and there is little hope that an administration that put the infamous, racist prohibitionist Joseph Biden one breath away from the Presidency will move to reform our policies on cannabis.  We have a very long way to go in the movement to end Prohibition when ostensible supporters of the medical use of cannabis such as yourself do not understand the need to challenge the bases for the Controlled Substances Act itself, and to institute a comprehensive reform of Federal policies regarding the use of all drugs.  Cannabis is not going to be simply excised from the CSA, and re-scheduling fails to address society's wrongful criminalization of non-medical use at all.

 

The fight against Prohibition must be pursued on all fronts at once, and I consider that we would do well to focus not just on the rape of American Freedom represented by the drug laws, but on the fascist parasites who derive an income off of Prohibition -- support for the drug laws is no better than the desire to burn putative witches or conduct pogroms against the Jews.  For some time in Colorado, the counterrevolution against Colorado's Constitution by police, DAs, legislators, and judges has succeeding in perverting the law to abrogate a part of the Constitution instituted by the will of the People, but the People have another chance to overrule them.  Amendment 64 is far from perfect, and I know more about its baggage and the sorry reaction to it by some former activists than anyone else, but there is no excuse for anyone who opposes Prohibition to vote against it.  Declaring ANY personal use of cannabis by non-patients legal is a battle against Prohibition won.  Preventing ANY arrests for growing cannabis is a battle against Prohibition won.  Amendment 64 is very far from the end of the road, and I support further constitutional reform as soon as possible, but it is our best hope for asserting the will of the People over the Establishment with regard to cannabis that we may get for a very long time, and I strongly support its passage.

 

Stopping the War on Americans is in every American's interest.  Take the next step, Colorado:

 

Vote Yes on Amendment 64!

 

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...