Top

blog

Stories

 

Marijuana: Health department wants to limit private caregivers and patient grows

Categories: Marijuana

a 205 Breathes Red Card.jpg
The Colorado Department of Public Health is looking to limit the number of patients that private medical marijuana caregivers can serve, as well as put a cap on the number of plants an individual may grow. Currently, caregivers can serve more than five patients by applying for a "medical necessity" waiver from the CDPHE and plant counts can be increased from just six with a doctor's recommendation, which is often the case with patients who make their own concentrates or edibles.

CDPHE officials say that they'll be asking the legislature to craft new laws clarifying their stance on caregivers and home growers, but before that can happen, the CDPHE will be holding a "Town Hall Meeting" for public comment on the proposed rule changes.

State regulators are calling the current situation a "loophole," and arguing that patient and plant counts have to be reined in to keep people from diverting cannabis to the black market. They are looking for a five-patient, thirty-plant limit -- a move suggested in a failed audit of the CDPHE's medical marijuana division last year.

But activists see this as a power grab by the CDPHE and an outright attack on patient rights that have existed under Amendment 20 for more than ten years. Increased plant counts are needed for some patients, and the decision for how much medical cannabis a person needs should be between the patient and their doctor.

kathleen.chippi.peace.sign.jpg
Kathleen Chippi.
Activist Kathleen Chippi is outraged over the move, and says the CDPHE is blatantly violating the rights of patients by proposing the limits. "It's the caregivers and patients who have the Constitution on their side," Chippi wrote in an e-mail to Westword today. "The patients pick their own caregivers and the CDPHE has no authority to decide who can be a caregiver as long as they meet the constitutional requirement of being eighteen or over. Is it irrational to ask the CDPHE to verify its implementation of the registry is Constitutional/lawful after the F audit BEFORE they proceed further?"

And while she urges patients and caregivers to speak up, Chippi says the public input session likely is just lip service: "Three minutes of public comment at Fridays 'CDPHE Town Hall Meeting' in the Supreme Court chambers addressing one new Board of Heath member, Dr. Volk, is NOT a FAIR stakeholder meeting by any means especially since it appears the second 'caregiver crackdown' bill is already written and to be submitted sometime next week."

Activist Robert Chase also points out that the department is considering redefining just who is an authorized CDPHE employee, which could mean increased access to private medical marijuana records by independent contractors or other state agencies. That could include people who have no need to see medical records, including private companies or the Colorado Integrated Document Solutions.

According to the Colorado Constitution: "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 and in possession of a registry identification card."

The CDPHE meeting starts at 1 p.m. tomorrow, March 28, at the State Capitol (200 East Colfax Avenue) in the Old Supreme Court Chambers. Public comments were accepted via e-mail during a very small window of time, but there is also scheduled time for public comment on the meeting agenda. For more information, visit the CDPHE medical marijuana registry site and click on the Town Hall Meeting under "Hot Topics."

According to CDPHE data, there are about 111,000 active medical marijuana patients on the registry. Of that number, roughly 4,900 patients assigned a private caregiver and more than 53,000 have signed up a medical marijuana center to grow cannabis for them.

From our Marijuana archives: "Denver Relief executives on partnering with ex-pot regulator Laura Harris"


My Voice Nation Help
63 comments
constant.gardner
constant.gardner

What is not being considered is that the system, prior to the ACA being instated, was rigged against patients with preexisting conditions and chronic pain. Getting an official diagnosis of their conditions would cost them out-of-pocket and they could not afford this. The high deductable is still a very real issue with the ACA and getting a full medical diagnosis through a primary care physician could be a financially onerous requirement for people with high deductables. This letter might still cost a patient with pain issues thousands of dollars. Many MMJ patients are older and have sustained injuries during their lifetimes that really didn't start bothering them until they hit late middle age. If officially diagnosed, these could have been considered preexisting conditions by their predatory insurance carriers and their premiums could have gone up. Instead, they went to their primary physician who was reporting to their insurance companies as seldom as possible. They were prescribed opiates and muscle relaxants and endured the pain as long as they could between visits. When they realized that MMJ would accomplish the same thing, they took their record of complaints and prescription bottles that were provided by their primary physician who would not prescribe MMJ due to fear of the federal government to a compassionate physician who was willing to provide a recommendation based on their verbal complaint, backed up by evidence of previous pain issues. Who determines medical necessity? Who determines what form of cannabis relieves pain and how much? How can some mook legislator who is not experiencing the patients' pain have a clue about this? The patient knows what works and in what dosage. The doctor isn't experiencing the patient's pain. He is just taking the patient's money. Is the state now proposing to victimize older patients and the poor who cannot afford to meet a $5000.00 deductable? This sounds like another scam to fleece the elderly and the poor. Has the presumption of innocence completely disappeared from our lexicon? It looks to me like we are really corporatizing cannabis in order to provide $400.00+ per ounce pot to rich tourists.  In the meantime, will the state be including a check to meet the deductable that patients will be charged out of pocket in order to get a full workup for an official medical necessity diagnosis? Since cannabis is federally illegal, would this create a scenario that could lead to a patient's health insurance policv being cancelled. If not, then if a patient receives a medical diagnosis, can the patient's cannabis be covered by their prescription plan?

Bob_Smith
Bob_Smith

So Colorado voters legalize pot and our Gov responds with a Social Workers' Full Employment proposal that was a huge pipe dream, and turns his top doctor into a tax collector. Politicians and money is the most dangerous addiction around.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter


  Greedy Big $$ Dispensary instigated CRACKDOWN on Patients and Caregivers


Denver -- Colorado health officials on Friday announced a new crackdown on medical marijuana patients whose doctors have given them permission to grow more than the standard number of marijuana plants.


Starting Monday, the Colorado Health Department will send out letters to doctors who recommended the elevated plant counts and the patients who benefit, requiring them to provide more documentation on the need for the extra plants.


Dr. Larry Wolk, the department's executive director, said doctors must provide not only medical information about the patients that caused the elevated recommendations but also studies showing that the patients' conditions require more medical marijuana than average.


[ hey fucktard, the Constitution doesn't say more than average, the word average isn't even in the amendment. ]


Colorado's constitutional medical marijuana provision limits patients to six plants each unless "greater amounts were medically necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition."


"We need information," Wolk said. "The constitution says 'medically necessary.' "


[ hey asswipe, the Constitution doesn't give the CDPHE any ENFORCEMENT authority, it merely creates a PASSIVE REGISTRY, no different than the County Clerk in every county who merely accept documents for recording -- mortgages, deeds of trust, promissory notes, marriage certificates, birth certificates, etc --  they do NOT review, approve or reject the contents of those documents ]


Wolk made the announcement Friday at a Health Department-hosted town hall meeting on medical marijuana. 


Also during the meeting, he unveiled a proposed bill that would strictly limit medical marijuana caregivers — people who grow cannabis for patients who can't grow for themselves — to serving only five patients and growing no more than six plants per patient. Caregivers can currently apply for a waiver to serve more than five patients.


xxxxxxxxxxx

Patients-First
Patients-First

Colorado Proposes Caregiver Limits - Patients Will Suffer

Edibles and extracts supplied by caregivers would be eliminated.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is having a "Town Hall" meeting on Friday, March 28 in Denver to discuss "proposed legislation" to limit patient and caregiver rights. The CDPHE has refused to supply CTI with a copy of the "proposed legislation", but the agenda for the meeting indicates that they want to limit caregivers to cultivating 6 plants. If passed, this legislation would restrict caregivers' ability to provide edible cannabis or cannabis extracts like Rick Simpson Oil, used as a cancer-fighting medicine.

Pot Caregiver Crackdown Rekindled in Colorado
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_25416979?source=bb

*CDHPE MEETING ON CAREGIVER RESTRICTIONS*
Friday, March 28, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Old Supreme Court Chambers
State Capitol Building (2nd Floor)
200 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80203
Also on the agenda for this meeting will be:
- Limit caregivers to 6 plants per patient
- Limit caregivers to 5 patients: This is already in statute, but CDPHE can make exceptions. It is unclear why this needs to be re-addressed.
- overview of the CDPHE's failed state audit last year
- CDPHE's new policy on medical necessity review: CDPHE has refused to provide CTI with an advanced copy of this "new policy"

*BACKGROUND* 

Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Constitution (popularly known as Amendment 20), states that a caregiver can supply a patient with whatever amount of medicine is "medically necessary" to treat their condition. A 6 plant limit per caregiver would abrogate this Constitutional right.

Proponents of a "caregiver crackdown" claim that there are caregivers all over the state selling cannabis openly for profit for multiple patients. If this were true, there are already statutes in Colorado that limit caregivers to no more than 5 patients each and prohibit caregivers from making a profit on their medicine. These laws were part of the HB1284-era of laws supported by dispensaries in 2010 and 2011, which eliminated 90% of the caregivers in Colorado. If there are any caregivers breaking the law, they can be prosecuted right now, so there is no need for new laws. 

Amendment 20 contemplated a compassionate system of medical marijuana distribution where the patients would be protected from criminal prosecution, and the medicine would be supplied by caregivers. This system worked without problems from 2000 until 2009, when the government crackdown began.

With the passage of House Bill 1284 in 2010, the government gutted the caregiver model for medicinal cannabis distribution, even though this was the system approved by voters. They forced patients to shop in Medical Marijuana Centers (which are not caregivers and therefore not protected by the Constitution). MMCs did not have the same quality and variety that caregivers provided, so patients suffered. 

Now with the passage of Amendment 64 (recreational marijuana), the government wants to shut down the medical program altogether and force patients to shop in A64-stores, where cannabis is highly taxed to fund law enforcement, government propaganda campaigns and some school construction. MMCs are not subject to the A64 40%+ additional taxes, so patients can find less expensive medicine there. 

According to the Denver Post, the CDPHE meeting on Friday may be being held as a "last-minute attempt to placate lawmakers, not a genuine attempt to listen to caregivers." http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25416979/marijuana-caregiver-crackdown-explored-colorado#ixzz2xC1lve4S 

Indeed, there is evidence of this. The CDPHE's "Town Hall" Meeting is set from 1pm to 4pm, with the 1:30pm to 3:30pm time slot allocated exclusively for public comment. So, clearly, the main purpose of this meeting is for public comment. 

However, the CDPHE has done everything they can to make sure attendance at, or even knowledge of, this meeting is as minimal as possible

 - CDPHE announced the meeting on their website on Monday afternoon, giving only 4 days notice

 - CDHPE scheduled the meeting for Friday afternoon, probably the worst time of the week if you want to maximize attendance

- CDPHE claims that they sent an email to all those on the email notification list, but people who are known to be on the list received no such email

- CDPHE refused to send an email to the 200,000+ active and inactive patients and caregivers on the Registry, with no explanation why

 - CDPHE deceptively named the meeting a "Town Hall" meeting, indicating a local city or town was having a discussion, not that a statewide body was meeting to discuss a statewide issue.

- CDPHE refused to give CTI a copy of the "proposed legislation" that was to be discussed at that meeting - No member of the General Assembly will be in attendance at the meeting, only CDPHE employees. If the purpose of the meeting is "proposed legislation", why are no legislators going to attend? ===========================================================

percussionisto
percussionisto

Apparently Westword is rewarding internet trolls for their trolling by labeling them as top commenters. I stopped reading the print version and lately regret clicking any links because of this garbage reporting. Expert opinions from individuals; most industry people would roll their eyes at the mention of these names.

Monkey
Monkey

The audit showed 52 caregivers serving more than 5 patients. 52!

State legislators should laugh when they see a proposed bill aimed at limiting 52 people from serving patients that have designated them caregiver. This would effect many more patients than caregivers, but they call it limiting caregivers instead of limiting patients. If a patient can't decide who their caregiver should be, who will? The CDPHE?

Limiting caregivers to 30 plants leaves a wide gap between the smallest commercial cultivation license of 3,600 plants. They can't claim a caregiver serving 10 patients, or growing 60 plants, should be considered the same as a business growing 3,600 plants, but they are.

As Chippi says, patients designate a caregiver, a right granted to them by the constitution. In fact, the constitution says they can designate a caregiver at any time. Patients usually do that because they don't want to shop for commercial weed, and want someone to maintain a specific garden for them. Their decision should be recorded by the registry, not questioned by the registry, or the state.

If 52 people, acting under the law, are a cause for concern, why aren't the 184 patients who designated these 52 people a concern? What will they be told? Other people like your caregiver too, so they can't assist you anymore, unless they become the commercial entity you're trying to avoid? It makes no sense.

In the age of "recreational weed" for everyone over 21, limiting 52 people from providing cannabis to patients is ridiculous. Anyone 21 and over can provide weed to anyone 21 and over, without a medical card. Preventing patients from designating a caregiver who also provides to other patients is a waste of government resources.

If they pull this off, and create legislation over 52 people, I guarantee the next attack will be our right to "assist" others. If they can dismantle one Amendment, they will do it to another. To me, the best part of A64 is the right to assist those 21 and over with the Possession, Use, Display, Cultivation, Processing, Transport, and Transfer marijuana. But that interferes with commercial sales, so you can bet that the next attack on the peoples's rights will be just that, especially if they can convince the state to "regulate" 52 people.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

They are also proposing onerous invasive "background checks" to eliminate and disqualify 100s or 1000s of private caregivers from being able to grow for their patients, thereby further forcing patients to patronize the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels with their overpriced, overtaxed, over-regulated warehouse schwag.


What next? ... "background checks" for Patients themselves who dare exercise their constitutional right to grow their own independent sustainable supply ??


The Commercialization of Cannabis won't be complete until NO ONE has the legal right or ability to produce their own private affordable tax free supply -- under the Penalty of Criminal Law!


And the clueless bong-sucking brain-dead idiots -- Wasteweed included -- thought that festering turd A64 was "legalization".


LOL!


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Thanks.  Laura Kriho has demanded an explanation of the purpose of this meeting from Ron Hyman, State Registrar.  His reply is somewhat edifying:  the Department of Health's position is that the group holding the hearing does not act as a State public body, i.e. it has no rule-making authority (and does not even act in an advisory capacity) -- this has been the usual reply when we caught the CDPHE and DOR trying to hold secret meetings; they do not explicitly concede that whoever is meeting is a State public body, but they condescend to allow the public to attend.  In this particular, Hyman's reply answers another of Laura's questions which was not explicitly addressed:  if the policy changes have already been fixed in stone and legislation already written, what point is there to soliciting public comment?  The answer, of course, is that the fix is in; the prohibitionists on the Legislative Audit Committee told the CDPHE to jump, and it did so -- allowing the public to observe and comment on the Department's drafting of the outrageous and unconstitutional provisions of a bill (which will probably be introduced hard on the heels of the 'Town Meeting') would have been messy and only prolonged the agony, so Dr. Wolk spared us the trouble -- since he has set his name to the lies apparent on the agenda, I hope he may go the way of Dr. Urbina, and sooner.  Colorado's government is a very amateurish circus.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

DON'T FORGET that these restrictions and abrogations of individual patients' / cargivers' rights are being instigated, lobbied for and promoted by the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels -- MMIG, DRC, etc -- who don't want individual marijuana users to be able to cultivate and produce their own affordable, sustainable year round supply.


This was the predicted and inevitable fallout from that festering piece of shit A64, which was nothing but a COMMERCIALIZATION of CANNABIS for Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Pigs, while maintaining criminal prohibitions against individual users / growers / dealers in Colorado.


Who do you think instigated and is bankrolling this frontal assault  upon the constitutional rights of INDIVIDUAL private patients and caregivers ?? ... first proposed in Denver Post right after the greedy Recreational Pot shops opened with their obscenely inflated prices.


Their PR pigs and lobbyists for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels along with their media lapdogs in the press have already categorized the Constitutional Rights of Patients / Caregivers / Doctors to grow independently of the Dispensary Pigs as "a Loophole" that needs to be closed by new laws with criminal penalties targeting anyone who would dare produce their own sustainable tax free supply.


Where are Lyin' Brian Vicente, Mendacious Mason Tvert and Bullshit Betty Aldworth now?



       Remember Bitches -- REGULATION WORKS!! ... you VOTED for IT !!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Bob_Smith  "Politicians and money"


Bribes from the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels and their slimy two-timing double-crossing back-stabbing McLawyer Lobbyists like Vicente & Sederberg.




D0NKEYH0TAY
D0NKEYH0TAY

This proposed bill is going to really cut into caregivers profits and unreported incomes.  We have to stop it now!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

The announcements brought an angry response from the crowd. One medical marijuana activist shouted, "Fascist!" as Wolk spoke. 



Later, during public testimony, another activist cursed at Wolk.



"This is criminal," said James Clark Jr., a caregiver from Akron who said he serves 25 patients because there are so few caregivers on the Eastern Plains. "This is mean. This is hurtful to people who are very sick."


Advocates say the higher plant counts are needed to make edible marijuana products and concentrates, which they say are a better way to treat some patients.


Colorado has about 3,300 medical marijuana caregivers, Wolk said, and 24 of them are registered to more than five patients. One caregiver serves 82 patients.


[ so 0.007 of the total caregiver population serves more than 5 patients ?? ]


Law enforcement officials have repeatedly raised concerns over caregivers growing for large numbers of patients or patients who can grow large numbers of plants, arguing that they could be a source of illegal marijuana sales. 


[ just as Dispensaries are the source of illegal marijuana sales and diversion ]


A state audit last year recommended that lawmakers crack down on caregivers and elevated plant counts.


Nothing like a CRACKDOWN on the Constitutional Rights of Patients to prove that -- REGULATION WORKS !!


Thanks lyin' Brian Vicente, mendacious Mason Tvert and bullshit Betty Aldworth!
,,

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@Patients-First Right on: 

How do we get from here on 3-11-14:   "Colorado Marijuana Loophole Bill Unlikely"

18http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/03/11/colorado-marijuana-loophole-bill-unlikely/

to here on 3-25-14:  "Pot Caregiver Crackdown Rekindled in Colorado"
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_25416979?source=bb

The Loophole:

The "loophole" is what the voters in CO passed way back in 2000 and it's called medical marijuana (Article 18 section 14) and the Constitutional Amendment involves/includes/protects ONLY patients and caregivers to supply medicine to themselves. The state government can not change/violate it.  The 2013 state audit on the CDPHE's charge to implement the MMJ registry questions the constitutionality of CDPHE's implementation of A20 in many area's. 

The Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project and the Cannabis Therapy Institute have been filing emergency rule requests with the CDPHE in regard to patient privacy and registry breaches since the state audit earned the CDPHE an F on MMJ and have had every request denied.

The reason we have been denied for the last year according to the CDPHE:  They are waiting for John Suthers Office to write official opinions so they know if they are indeed violating patient and caregivers Constitutional rights like the state auditor pointed out they very well seem to be. 


Fair Play by CDPHE?:

If
we (PCRLP, CTI) as patient and caregiver advocates are being denied any resolve until Suthers office posts their opinions why is the CDPHE moving ahead with it's still questionable agenda?  If the CDPHE does not feel 'lawfully' comfortable moving to PROTECT patient/caregiver privacy and rights through our rule requests, why do they feel lawfully comfortable to move forward on their "caregiver crackdown" agenda without Suthers opinion on lawfulness? 

Are they violating the Constitution or not?   Are caregivers permitted to own businesses like the state audit says and if so why would any business be limited to 5 customers yet be regulated like an HB10-1284 business? Does any other business in this state have a limit to customers?  Can the CDPHE mandate caregivers become a statutory business?  

It's the caregivers and patients who have the Constitution on their side.  The patients pick their own caregivers and the CDPHE has no authority to decide who can be a caregiver as long as they meet the constitutional requirement of being 18 or over.   Is it irrational to ask the CDPHE to verify it's implementation of the registry is Constitutional/lawful after the F audit BEFORE they proceed further?

Stakeholders are patients and caregivers, not MMJ 'industry' or their lobbyists:

The PCRLP and CTI, representing thousands of patients and caregivers who have little time or understanding of the legal/illegal maneuverings taking place over the last 3 1/2 years have been attending the CDPHE meetings on MMJ since 1997 and requesting stakeholder meetings for years.

Three minutes of public comment at Fridays "CDPHE Town Hall Meeting" in the Supreme Court chambers addressing one new Board of Heath member, Dr. Volk, is NOT a FAIR stakeholder meeting by any means especially since it appears the second "caregiver crackdown" bill is already written and to be submitted sometime next week.  The CDPHE "Town Hall Meeting" accomplishes what, exactly?  Theater?

Seems from the DP article they believe having the Town Hall will give them their 'caregiver crackdown bill' right at the end of this session, with limited time for discussion/stopping it.  Flashback to last years submission and passage of a DUI bill less than 4 hours before the close of the session.  This year the CDPHE plans on limiting caregivers to 5 patients and 30 plants yet regulating them as HB10-1284 businesses and charging like fee's/taxes.  No other business entity in CO has a limit on customers, let alone 5.  And the Constitution protects caregivers to cultivate, transport and dispense medical marijuana, not HB10-1284 businesses. 

The CDPHE should have to wait to proceed with anything until John Suthers clarifies for them what they can and cannot do under Article 18 Section 14 of the CO Constitution in light of the F audit.  Before HB10-1284 there were over 125,000 voluntarily registered patients and over 60,000 voluntarily registered caregivers. After HB10-1284 there are only 5,000 registered caregivers left, when these are the only people (CG/patients) protected by the constitution to cultivate and dispense medical marijuana.  How they are being cut out of the Constitutional service model of patients and caregivers providing for themselves w/o a constitutional amendment making that change is unexplainable and not in the spirit of the 2000 law.

Kathleen Chippi
PCRLP

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@percussionisto I believe you are referring to an automatic feature of the My Voice Nation commenting system.  If you don't think you can contest these commenter's points, insinuate ad hominem, anonymously.  Your conceit that "industry people" must be in the know, because they sell cannabis is laughably wrong; we have seen any number of people in the industry opine without reference to facts, and the self-appointed spokesperson for it below did not fare very well in this discussion.  My advice:  keep it anonymous, and keep on insinuating.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@MonkeyWhat has been hanging for a long time is the Department's specification of responsibilities for caregivers totally unrelated to the provision of medical cannabis (like taking them shopping or wiping their butts), on which the Department was so intent in 2009; so far, it has not done so.  Part of the purpose of tomorrow's meeting is to spend our energies against a policy the Department long since determined; our best chance to change or defeat the bill soon to be introduced is to closely monitor the course of the legislation and lobby the GA.  It should be obvious that for a host of reasons, it will be very much an uphill battle.  We can appreciate the absurdity of using a legislative H-bomb to go after fifty-two caregivers, but I doubt the media will ever treat with that aspect of the issue, and not being able to put our case before the public (because the corporate media report the Establishment's view and suppress all news about cannabis that does not fit their preconceptions) remains an insuperable obstacle.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Monkey  ... the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels -- and their paid lawyer-lobbyists like Vicente / Sederberg / Tvert / Aldworth -- won't be content until they ELIMINATE all private grows forcing everyone to patronize their overpriced, overtaxed, over-regulated, government controlled, pre-packaged McMarijuana warehouse schwag.


Who knew that Commercializing Cannabis and surrendering total control to the Prohibitionist Politicians, Insatiable Dept. of Revenue and the Avaricious Dispensary Cartels would have had any negative blowback upon the A20 medical marijuana system that was functioning fine for over 10 years before those greedy scumbags hijacked it ??




Amye
Amye

@DonkeyHotay If this hurts you personally in anyway it's worth it and I'd vote for it.  Screw you Aaron.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay No background checks needed.  Most people feel that it's best to have felons and cartel members providing care for the sick and dying patients of Colorado.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase  


Where are lyin' Brian Vicente, mendacious Mason Tvert and bullshit Betty Aldworth now ??


Hiding from public view as secret back-channel supporters of this Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartel attack upon the rights of private patients / caregivers to be able to grow and produce their own sustainable independent supplies?


Why aren't lyin' Brian Vicente, mendacious Mason Tvert and bullshit Betty Aldworth speaking out publicly though their press releases and on-call media whores against this outrageous attack on the constitutional rights of private patients and their caregivers ??


Why the shameful silence?


Where's the Great and Fabulous Rob Corry to threaten injunctive action if the CDPHE / Legislature pursues this abrogation of individual patients' constitutional rights ??


Edson? ... Gard? ... ... Bueller? ... anyone ??


D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay It's not about restricting patient access you buffoon.  Patients have NEVER had issues getting the medicine that they need.  It's about "caregivers" (aka black market growers) using sick and dying patients as a human shields for their 1000 plant illegal grows.

There is NO WAY that the assigned patients are consuming all that is being grown by their "caregivers". 

Question:WHERE IS THIS HUGE EXCESS GOING TO?

Answer:  CRAIGSLIST, NON ASSIGNED PATIENTS, RECREATIONAL USERS, OUT OF STATE BY THE TRUCKLOAD... all for BIG $$$.

D0NKEYH0TAY
D0NKEYH0TAY

You can trust big caregiver operations. They aren't in it for the money or anything. You only become a Greedy Big $$ Cartel when you get a state license.  Caregivers never double cross, two time, or back stab at all.  Completely legit!  Trust me.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay I didn't hear anyone call Wolk "fascist", though that may have happened.  I did call him a "hatchet man" twice -- perhaps Ingold heard that as "fascist".

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase  


... where are the high-paid Marijuana McShysters who can never get enough media exposure now ??


Kowtowing in silence to the best interests of their Corporate Big $$ Dispensary Cartel clients?



D0NKEY
D0NKEY

Nobody is forced to patronize dispensaries.  Colorado is Awesome!  You can grow your own.  You can have a caregiver grow it for you. Your buddy can give you some that he grew.  

It becomes an issue when you sell it outside of the system. Same way with alcohol, gasoline, tomatoes, and everything else in the consumer market today.


Your blathering juvenile tirades regarding those that are following the laws is both funny and tiring at the same time.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Amye ... who's "Aaron"? ...you ignorant cunt.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY ... the owners and operators of the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels are ALL federal Drug and Money Laundering Felons -- on a daily basis.


hth.



RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@D0NKEY  Your concern for patients' welfare is so touching.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY "Patients have NEVER had issues getting the medicine that they need.  "


So the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels -- and the bullshit propaganda they rode into town on a decade after A20 -- are completely unnecessary.


Noted.


Why do you hate independent Marijuana Growers / Caregivers / Dealers ?? .. you prohibitionist scumbag diseased dispensary whore.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@D0NKEY  An industry shill raises its ugly head!  How dare you impugn the entire class of caregivers or libel them with those totally unfounded assertions?  The State declared that no caregiver could work in a dispensary when it hijacked them four years ago; you do not even have a shred of concern for patients, and everyone including the prohibitionists knows that your only motivation is insane greed.  Are you swine coming to serve up these self-serving lies for the benefit of the prohibitionists?  That should be interesting.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... I figured that was you.


Hatchet Man ... Fascist ... not much difference phonetically or figuratively ... or literally in this instance.


Wolk = Fascist Hatchet man

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY  "It becomes an issue when you sell it outside of the system. "


It's only an "issue" for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels who are attempting to game and rig "the system" to their financial advantage -- at the exclusion of and detriment to private individual patients and their appointed caregivers.


The rest of the Consenting Adult consumers, growers and distributors of marijuana have no problem with selling / buying outside the greedy big $$ dispensary system -- they did just fine for 10+ years before the carpetbagging dispensary clowns bum-rushed into Colorado chasing $$... you dispensary sucking shitstain.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@jeremy343 <== buys overpriced, overtaxed, government controlled warehouse schwag ... a pathetic 1/8th at a time.


LOL!

jeremy343
jeremy343

@DonkeyHotay @jeremy343original statement from you, like a broken fucking record.  I wanna see pics of your pathetic homegrow, I'm sure it is complete fucking schwag grown by an amateur. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY "Nope, but A20  indicates that a caregiver can only provide to assigned patients. "


Bullshit. A20 states that any patient can appoint any adult as their caregiver at any time, without any limitations on how many patients a caregiver may serve.


None whatsoever.


Monkey
Monkey

@D0NKEY  What about caregivers who grow good weed, and not monster commercial plants yielding a half pound each?

Some grow more than 15 flowering plants, provide for more than 5 patients, and yield less than 2 pounds a month. Not because they lack skill, but because they offer better quality and more variety with smaller plants. Yield is dictated by time, the amount of light provided, and the specific strains selected. To generalize what a plant yields is absurd. Two clones from the same plant can produce a 1/4 ounce from one, and 3 pounds from the other. Commercial growers grow for weight, caregivers grow for their patients, that's the difference. 

This isn't about caregivers hiding behind their patients, it's about patients designating the caregiver they want, regardless of how many others want the same caregiver. As you know, there are already laws against black market sales. Preventing patients from designating their caregiver will not prevent black market sales, it only prevents patients from designating a caregiver. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@RobertChase Caregiving for sick patients is not a problem.  Hiding behind patients to support a black market grow is. 

A 30 plant grow can easily yield 6 ounces per patient every month. That is almost 2lbs a month.  If you can't support 5 medical marijuana patients with 30 plants you are doing it wrong.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@D0NKEY  "When you sell marijuana outside of the established system, then it's a problem" -- how so?  In order to be protected by the Law, caregivers must be providing cannabis to patients whose doctors have recommended it -- that is the system, and it predates and takes precedence over all the absurdly overbearing regulatory apparatus established by the State starting in 2010.  Caregiving poses no threat of any kind to retail cannabis -- not one of Federal intervention, not one of unfair competition -- but even if it did, its status as a constitutional provision enacted by the People should preclude the meddling of incompetent legislators.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay

It gets SOLD to marijuana users by GREEDY CAREGIVERS USING PATIENTS for the cover of their illegal sales.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay Nope, but A20  indicates that a caregiver can only provide to assigned patients. Pretty sure that the massive excess is not going in that direction.

It's funny that you are bordering on an aneurism, foaming at the mouth, while slobbering all over you keyboard with your hatred. Cute... 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY 


The Rights granted by Amendment 20 don't require any Patient or Caregiver to be a dispensary ... in fact the word dispensary isn't even mentioned at all.


Greedy Big $$ Commercial Dispensaries don't exist by constitutional right, they exist by special legislation and are governed as such.


That legislation does not apply to, nor can it restrict or deny, the CONSTITUTIONAL Rights granted to Private Individual Patients and their appointed Caregivers.


Now go suck some more of that filthy diseased dispensary cock, you wretched prohibitionist scumbag.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@jeremy343 ... who's "we", sucker ?


You and the delusional voices in your bong-baked brain?

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay If you want to be a dispensary, then be a dispensary.  If you want to grow for your self or even a patient as a caregiver, nobody gives a shit.  


When you sell marijuana outside of the established system, then it's a problem.


So by your logic if a dispensary is selling marijuana they are greedy.  If a caregiver is selling marijuana they are not greedy?  Logic Fail

jeremy343
jeremy343

@DonkeyHotay We just hate the quality of bud your provide your patients donkey, you are really doing them all a disservice by pretending to be a caregiver. Take some growing classes and check back with us in a couple years, haha.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY What happens to the pounds of excess that the caregivers are growing ?


Same thing that happens to the 100s of pounds of excess that the dispensaries move out their back doors ...


... it gets consumed by marijuana users.


Why do you hate marijuana users and growers, you lowlife prohibitionist piece of shit?

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@DonkeyHotay What happens to the pounds of excess that the caregivers are growing ? Unreported income?  Even the Avon lady reports her income.  

Black Market growers report their income?  Nope.  It's UnAmerican to not pay your taxes.


America!  Fuck Yeah!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@ExpertOfAllSubjects "Based on your logic all growers and sellers are illegal."


Correct. 


The obscenity is when one group of criminals attempts to bribe the government to persecute and prosecute a competing group of criminals for their own personal financial advantage.


Grow a brain you ignorant fucktard.


ExpertOfAllSubjects
ExpertOfAllSubjects

@DonkeyHotay Based on your logic all growers and sellers are illegal.  

Welcome to hypocritical piece of shit town you hypocritical piece of shit.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase  "If you operate a dispensary, let your customers know just how much animus you bear against everyone who sells cannabis without a license or grows seven plants.  You would not dare to do so because you know most would not to buy their cannabis from a prohibitionist collaborator."


... the prohibitionist scumbag dispensary shill's name is Don R.


http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=3338159#p3338159



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY ... it's ILLEGAL for Dispensaries to sell or grow ANY marijuana, under Federal law.


Dispensaries ARE Criminal Enterprises, ipso facto ... you hypocritical piece of shit.


D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@RobertChase ok so now you are saying it's not a matter of if caregivers are selling excess (they are), but that I don't endorse that. 

A prohibitionist would want it to remain illegal. I don't, but that doesn't make it a legal activity today. 

I don't know... follow the law?  It's actually pretty generous in CO regarding marijuana growing and consumption.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@D0NKEY  You have failed to supply any evidence that caregivers grow an excess of medicine; I do not waste my time denying unsupported claims because I am not a reactionary.  You have neatly avoided answering my charge regarding your obvious motivation, and you make no attempt to justify using the criminal law to go after people who sell cannabis -- outside of the dispensary system, all sales of cannabis to non-patients are felonious, so you insinuate that we should keep making felons of Coloradans over cannabis.  In that you want to keep using Prohibition to make felons of people who sell cannabis while you profit from it, you are worse than any prohibitionist.

   Have the courage of your convictions and post under your true name!  If you operate a dispensary, let your customers know just how much animus you bear against everyone who sells cannabis without a license or grows seven plants.  You would not dare to do so because you know most would not to buy their cannabis from a prohibitionist collaborator.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@RobertChase It is illegal to sell home brewed beer.  It is illegal to sell your backyard tomatoes without reporting it as income. 

Why should marijuana get an exception to the most basic laws in our state/country?

I noticed you did not deny that caregivers are growing more than their patients can consume.  A caregiver getting "reimbursed" for expenses by somebody not listed as his patient is not allowed under A20.  So given that, what happens to the excess? 

Hint: It is being sold ILLEGALLY.

D0NKEY
D0NKEY

I love marijuana users.... growers too. Marijuana should be fully legalized and completely unregulated. That being said, we do currently have laws regarding sales of marijuana to manage taxation and diversion of cash to criminal enterprises.


I am the furthest thing from a prohibitionist that you could find.  However I am supportive of the progress that we have made to date, and wish to continue pushing forward.

You choose to piss all over the bed you sleep in.  I do not.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@D0NKEY  The real question is how anyone who supports our right to use cannabis can imagine that using the criminal law to go after other people who use cannabis is any way appropriate.  How could such a person push the notion that "massive volumes of marijuana" grown by caregivers are being illegally diverted out of state, even if it were true?  Undoubtedly, some cannabis grown here is being taken elsewhere in the country, but there is no indication that this has any probability even of being used as a pretext for ending Federal toleration of our dispensaries.  More to the point, medical cannabis is in our Constitution, and I object to trying to pervert the intent of Article XVIII, Section 14, much less to contradict it directly, as the Department clearly intends to do.  Even more to the point, your trying to drum up resentment of caregivers who may be diverting cannabis is apropos of nothing other than your pigwitted perception that they are amateur and politically vulnerable competitors; perhaps it has escaped your notice, but there is no hue and cry about large amounts of cannabis leaving Colorado -- most of the news reports out of the surrounding prohibitionist states do not even support such fears, so WTF would you be voicing them, other than the obvious reason I just stated?  I hope that not a single dupe/shill articulates what you just did tomorrow; that would only cause trouble, further exacerbate the divisions between patients and the industry, and waste our almost nonexistent political impetus.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@D0NKEY ... funny, you don't whine about or question where the massive overproduction from 3000 - 10,000 plant dispensary grows ends up.


Why do you hate independent marijuana users / growers, you prohibitionist shitsucker ?



D0NKEY
D0NKEY

@RobertChase NOBODY has a problem with caregivers that are taking care of their patients needs.  The problem lies with the massive volumes of marijuana grown that the patients can't consume.  

You are saying that there are patients that can actually consume the 3-4 ounces PER DAY that a 100 plant rec will generate?  If those patients don't consume that much, where does the excess go?

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...