Colorado Questions

rreign said:

Ok, I have a legit question here. I currently live in South Carolina and will be moving to Colorado immediately following me getting out of the Marine Corps. I have been in the infantry for 6 years now and have a lot of problems from it. Here is a short list that I believe is most pertinent.

- Chronic PTSD
- Chronic Insomnia
- Anxiety attacks
- Nerve Damage to right ulnar nerve
- Chronic shoulder and back pain. (my sholder has been diagnosed as debilitating)
- Chronic Headaches from TBI (tramatic brain injury)
- Bi-Polar Disorder w/o Psychosis

The list goes on and on. So here are my 2 questions... Obviously, will I qualify for my card and will I be able to use my military medical records for my interview? The records have been kept up to date and span from August 2003 until now. Any help here would be great. Thanks everyone.

Click to expand...

The answer to your question is yes.

Qualifications

Colorado law permits Colorado residents to acquire a “Medical Marijuana Registry” ID card if they have an “unbearable condition” for which a doctor provides a “suggestion” that marijuana may ease that condition. Debilitating medicinal conditions include: Glaucoma, Cancer and HIV. Moreover, a doctor may advocate medical marijuana for other debilitating conditions if the stipulation produces one of the following conditions in the patient: Severe pain; Cachexia; Seizures, Severe nausea; including those that are symptoms of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasm, including those that are characteristics of multiple sclerosis.
If you suffer from any of the subsequent Conditions, You may be an Ideal applicant for Using Cannabis as a cure to Your Conditions:
• ADD, ADHD
• Asthma (treated via vaporizers only, smoking is not suggested)
• Anorexia, Cachexia
• Arthritis
• HIV infection, Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
• Chronic pain
• Chronic low back pain
• Cancer
• Glaucoma
• Hepatitis C (in conjunction with anti-viral treatment)
• Huntington’s chorea
• Migraine
• Neuropathy
• PMS
• Painful Periods
• Persistent muscle spasms, multiple sclerosis
• Parkinson’s disease
• Seizures & Epilepsy
• Severe nausea
• Wasting syndrome
• And others…
Other qualifying medical situations might also include a persistent or constant medical condition that limits the capability of the patient to carry out one or more key life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 & if not alleviated, may cause severe harm to the patient’s safety, physical, and mental health. Link

Bad news for Colorado:



Setback for CO Medical Marijuana Caregivers?


By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:17:28 PM EST
Tags: medical marijuana (all tags) Share This: Digg!

The Colorado Court of Appeals today issued an opinion holding that medical marijuana caregivers must do more than merely provide pot and must have significant responsibility for providing for the well-being of their patients.
Actually, the opinion (available here, pdf) said the trial court ruled the caregiver must personally know the patient, and it was deciding the issue on other grounds. [More...]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

The appeals court states the caregiver must do more than merely supply marijuana, they must have significant responsibility for providing for the well-being of the patient. It seems to me that one can significantly provide for the well-being of a patient without personally knowing the patient. One could provide housing, transportation, meal preparation, housekeeping services and access to medical care without a personal relationship. If a provider supplied these service, as well as marijuana, that should render them one who has significant responsibility for providing for the patient's well-being. For example, this dispensary in Basalt, Colorado (outside of Aspen) announced it will be offering "... chiropractic care, physical therapy, acupuncture, Digital X-Ray and MRI diagnostics, heart screening, holistic dentistry, a spa, gym and yoga center."
As to the concurring opinion that "cries out for legislative reform ", I think the judge is making the argument that while the constitutional amendment authorizes use and possession of marijuana for medical purposes, it fails to prevent criminal liability for those who supply it to patients and caregivers, requiring the patient and caregiver to engage in an illegal transaction to obtain it. In other words, we need legislation that allows state-licensed dispensaries or others to provide marijuana to those lawfully allowed to use it. The judge writes, we need legislation to effecuate the "salutory medical purposes of the Amendment". He doesn't seem to be arguing for further restrictions, just pointing out the contradiction.
In 2000, voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana. (The text is here.) The Attorney General, local prosecutors and some state legislators want to impose legislative limits not authorized by voters. The media is playing along with them. (Note how the article stresses the number of males in their 20's obtaining medical marijuana permits, without mentioning that the state's statistics show the average age is 40 for male patients and 41 overall.)
Cities and towns are putting moratoriums and in some cases bans on the opening of dispensaries.

While today's opinion does not say a designated caregiver cannot grow and provide marijuana to patients, only that the caregiver must provide more than marijuana, and that the "more" must be something that shows they are significantly contributing to the patient's well-being, it may already be outdated. It states that it applies to a case that was pending before a new state regulation went into effect. On August 30, 2009, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment enacted 5 CCR 1006-2 that provides supplying marijuana is sufficient to constitute "Significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient": More information is available on Colorado's medical marijuana law and policy is available at Sensible Colorado."

Google it

That doesn't really sound like bad news at all. As a matter of fact, it sounds like good news. The more they reform the laws about MMJ to fit the patients needs, the better. It keeps local law enforcement informed, and it keeps federal off of people's backs. Over-all it poses more efficient ways of doing things and makes a stronger slate for more states to legalize medicinal marijuana. I am all for getting rid of the gray areas and FULLY legalizing. It makes it more industrial and allows for good businesses to flourish and keeps bad busiensses and their ass-hole owners at bay. There's my 2 cents.

i have a very similar situation to the original poster. heres my situation. my wife and i are both mmj patients, i have much experience growing, and we are wanting to grow our own especially now that we legally are able to. ive read a lot about the law but nothing to the likes of our situation. so obviously we live together, so what would be the law concerning us growing ours together? are we still allowed 6 each? we are both also concerned about the well being of our family and our futures with jobs in this ever so failing system that we do not see getting any better. and are looking to make growing our way of life and source of income. but if law allows us 12 total i dont believe this will generate enough to make a living. we also want to steer clear of being cg's or allowing anybody else to grow for us. too much nonsense for me and would like to be entirely independent. but what i would like are some opinions from you guys... with all precautions taken and met, what do many of you think the odds would be of us getting caught with more than we should legally have? i mean we are not looking for anything bigtime, just enough to make us a comfortable living.

Justin,

The way the law is set up now if you and your wife each have your own card then you can each grow 6 plants (12 total). It IS possible to get a doctors recommendation for a higher plant count, but the legality on that is still something of a grey area. Whether you can also grow another 6 with your caregivers ok (the 6 they say they are allowed for having you as a patient), is also something of a grey area. My caregiver and the company he works with have had a couple of run in's with the police up in boulder over the whole plant count issue, and according to him they just buried the cops in paperwork and everything went away. Between him and the doctor i can technically have up to 20 plants at the moment, but I'm only growing 6 right now because I don't like taking risks and I want to wait and see whats going to happen with some of the legislation thats been proposed to the state legislature before I invest the time, money, and effort into expanding my grow areas.

To be honest with you, if you're wanting to grow commercially you would really be better off going the caregiver route. Considering what the stuff sells for it's not like you would have to sign up a huge number of people to make a decent living. Say you spend $100/oz to grow the stuff (and thats a very high estimate in my opinion). If you sell it for $250/oz you're still making $150/oz, so you wouldn't need to sell more then 5oz a week to make $39k/yr (before taxes).

Subscribed.. Im currently in the process of moving up to colroado so i can get a MMJ card.. I didnt realize that ADHD was a condtion that can allow a doctor to write me a recommendation for MMJ... I was told that it wasnt but the post above says it is... anybody have any knowledge with ADHD and colorados MMj program?

Question:

If I am a caregive for a friend of mine can she still grow at her own home? I would grow three of her plants and she would like to grow 3 in her home. Is this allowed? I can't find that specific answer...I was told by a buddy of mine that was ok but I don't think it is.

It is my understanding that you both can have 3 plants but remember only 3 out of the 6 can be "mature" or in flowering. If one of you want to veg 3 plants and the other wants to flower 3 plants I do believe it is legal.

Reeny said:

It is my understanding that you both can have 3 plants but remember only 3 out of the 6 can be "mature" or in flowering. If one of you want to veg 3 plants and the other wants to flower 3 plants I do believe it is legal.

Click to expand...

Just watch the 'maturity' of those 3 vegging plants. Don't want to get caught with more than our mediocre state limits.

Mac,

Tell me about it. It's a bit hard to stay under 2 ounces when your growing a plant that has a normal yield of 3-4. I worked out the numbers and someone that smokes an ounce a week thats only growing their 6 on a perpetual grow cycle will end up harvesting one plant every 20-22 days and must have a yield of at least 3 ounces if they don't want to run out before the next harvest. So, you either break the rules regarding plant limits so you can harvest smaller amounts, break the rules about possession by harvesting too much, or go pay dispensary prices every time you run out.

My caregiver is in denver and a new law was passed that prevents him from growing in city limits. He advised me that he has a friend out of the city that can be my caregiver. I would like to try and grow my own but do not want to take the risk of growing poor product and then be left with nothing. just to be clear, I am not able to grow my six if I have assigned a caregiver, correct?

WeedTour said:

My caregiver is in denver and a new law was passed that prevents him from growing in city limits. He advised me that he has a friend out of the city that can be my caregiver. I would like to try and grow my own but do not want to take the risk of growing poor product and then be left with nothing. just to be clear, I am not able to grow my six if I have assigned a caregiver, correct?

Click to expand...

This is certianly an old thread you've brought up, but you can grow your own even if you have a designated caregiver.

Better check that. I believe the law specifically states that if you assign a CG you can NOT grow too. I think the intent was, if you're so sick you need a CG then you're too sick to grow.
Better seek out some one like PikesPeak69 or SoCoMMJ. they seem to know this law pretty well.
Fred

fred flintstoned said:

Better check that. I believe the law specifically states that if you assign a CG you can NOT grow too. I think the intent was, if you're so sick you need a CG then you're too sick to grow.
Better seek out some one like PikesPeak69 or SoCoMMJ. they seem to know this law pretty well.
Fred

Click to expand...

Do you suppose someone is gonna put the time and trouble into checking the patient AND the caregiver and put together a case ? I don't think so. If so then I call bullshit to wasting tax payers dollars .

Wasting tax payer dollars seems to be what the govt. is all about.
That doesn't change the fact that they have passed a law restricting patients from growing their own and specifying a Cg.
You're correct, that the chances of getting caught are slim. Slim, not nonexistent.
Why bother to get the card if you're not going to follow the law to the letter?
Yes, it sucks.
Work to change the laws any way you can other than breaking it, that clearly doesn't work. Too bad, I'd rather say fuck em and do whatever I want.
Fred

fred flintstoned said:

Wasting tax payer dollars seems to be what the govt. is all about.
That doesn't change the fact that they have passed a law restricting patients from growing their own and specifying a Cg.
You're correct, that the chances of getting caught are slim. Slim, not nonexistent.
Why bother to get the card if you're not going to follow the law to the letter?
Yes, it sucks.
Work to change the laws any way you can other than breaking it, that clearly doesn't work. Too bad, I'd rather say fuck em and do whatever I want.
Fred

Click to expand...

There is no caregiver designation on my card and thats the way I'm gonna keep it, I know a rip off when I see one and designating a caregiver is just that unless they're honest and GIVE the patient a decent deal. So hows that work? all the people that are growing are suddenly breaking the law because they have a caregiver designated? This doesn't seem right but as you just stated the gov wastes money and aren't much concerned with making things right.