So as I investigate becoming a caregiver, I've noticed just how undefined the law (Amendment 20 and the new adopted rules as of 7.20.09) tends to be regarding procurement and production of marijuana.
Section 2(a)(iii) of Amendment 20 states: "The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section. This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana."
Further, Section 2(d) states: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions (shielding a person from prosecution), 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."
Looking at these two clauses, a person could be excused for being a little confused about what a caregiver may legally do. On one hand, it seems like the intent of 2(a)(iii), as well as regulatory language from the Department of Health, could be interpreted to mean that the only way a patient can obtain MM (aside from growing it herself) is to have one caregiver grow it for her.
That said, 2(d) could be read to imply that, provided the usage of MM falls within the defined medical conditions, that product (MM) could be acquired from someone other than the caregiver (i.e. the caregiver doesn't have to necessarily grow for his or her patient).
Indeed, some of the major MM dispensaries in the Denver/Boulder area seem to be doing just that - buying from independent growers and not even requiring customers to nominate them as caregivers.
So I guess I'm wondering if anyone out there in CO understands the legal position these companies (such as Pikes Peak Alternative, which mentions "Licensed Growers", or Boulder Alternative Medicine Co, which talks about their "network of growers"). I'm guessing that it's simply the co-op structure that they're relying on here, using the collective growing capabilities of co-op members. But this co-op model is never mentioned in the law, which defines a caregiver as a "person".
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I'd appreciate your view on this situation. Cheers.
Section 2(a)(iii) of Amendment 20 states: "The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section. This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana."
Further, Section 2(d) states: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions (shielding a person from prosecution), 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."
Looking at these two clauses, a person could be excused for being a little confused about what a caregiver may legally do. On one hand, it seems like the intent of 2(a)(iii), as well as regulatory language from the Department of Health, could be interpreted to mean that the only way a patient can obtain MM (aside from growing it herself) is to have one caregiver grow it for her.
That said, 2(d) could be read to imply that, provided the usage of MM falls within the defined medical conditions, that product (MM) could be acquired from someone other than the caregiver (i.e. the caregiver doesn't have to necessarily grow for his or her patient).
Indeed, some of the major MM dispensaries in the Denver/Boulder area seem to be doing just that - buying from independent growers and not even requiring customers to nominate them as caregivers.
So I guess I'm wondering if anyone out there in CO understands the legal position these companies (such as Pikes Peak Alternative, which mentions "Licensed Growers", or Boulder Alternative Medicine Co, which talks about their "network of growers"). I'm guessing that it's simply the co-op structure that they're relying on here, using the collective growing capabilities of co-op members. But this co-op model is never mentioned in the law, which defines a caregiver as a "person".
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I'd appreciate your view on this situation. Cheers.
SoCoMMJ, sounds like the real deal.
