New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado

[Zedleppelin]

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/Medicalmarijuana/Memo_Draft%20Primary%20Caregiver.pdf


iii) â??Significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patientâ?� means, IN ADDITION TO THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA, assisting a patient with daily activities, including but not limited to transportation or housekeeping or meal preparation or shopping or making any necessary arrangement for access to medical care or NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA services or provision of medical marijuana. THE ACT OF SUPPLYING MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PARAPHERNALIA, BY ITSELF, IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE â??SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT. (C.R.S. § 25-1.5-106 22 3(b) (1))


A PRIMARY CARE-GIVER SHALL HAVE SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT WITH A DEBILITATING CONDITION. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PRIMARY CARE-GIVER AND PATIENT IS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP THAT IS MORE THAN PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA. (C.R.S. § 25-16 1.5-106(3)(viii)(i)) SERVICES BEYOND THE PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA THAT MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE PRIMARY CARE-GIVER INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSEKEEPING, MEAL PREPARATION, SHOPPING, OR MAKING ARRANGMENTS FOR ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE OR NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA SERVICES. IF PATIENTS DO NOT REQUIRE CARE-GIVER SERVICE OTHER THAN THE PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, THEN THE PATIENTS SHALL NOT DESIGNATE A PRIMARY CARE-GIVER.

[copobo]

war on the poor!

[Zedleppelin]

Correction, this is not a bill but a draft of rules for The Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee to consider and implement.

[copobo]

check this out man

Cannabis Therapy Institute: Colorado Dept. of Revenue Reveals Draft Rules for Medical Marijuana Industry (http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/rules/dor/)

watch the videos of the hearings.

[canniwhatsis]

There still trying to push that huh?

How are patients who can't afford $400 an oz supposed to get a hold of their meds?

[TheReleafCenter]

Still reading, but the oddest part of this is so far is where they describe where a primary caregiver can't use medical marijuana.

[HighPopalorum]

Caregivers can't use a patient's oxycontin either. :thumbsup:

[TheReleafCenter]

Right, so why did they need to specify a caregiver can't operate a motorboat while high?


1 7. PROVIDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IF THE PATIENT DOES NOT HAVE A
2 DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION AS DIAGNOSED BY THE PERSON'S
3 PHYSICIAN IN THE COURSE OF A BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
4 RELATIONSHIP AND FOR WHICH THE PHYSICIAN HAS RECOMMENDED
5 THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

I'm not sure how the state expects a caregiver to verify the nature of a patient/doctor relationship. Looks like a reasonable challenge could be made here.


SUCH CARE-GIVER CHARGES
10 SHALL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CARE-GIVER SERVICES RENDERED AND REFLECT
11 MARKET RATES FOR SIMILAR CARE-GIVER SERVICES AND NOT COSTS ASSOCIATED
12 WITH PROCURING THE MARIJUANA.

This appears to be their answer for simply inventing services. You're still able to find a service that people charge ridiculous amounts for... I'd go with fortune telling. And that's only if you can't find a way to appropriately compensate yourself through cost. They still don't prevent you from charging a reasonable amount for labor as a factor of cost.


SERVICES BEYOND THE PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA THAT
18 MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE PRIMARY CARE-GIVER INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE
19 LIMITED TO,

The "include, but shall not be limited to" gives you some wiggle room.

[canniwhatsis]

Under "Definitions" it say's this.


THE ACT OF SUPPLYING MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PARAPHERNALIA, BY ITSELF, IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE â??SIGNIFICANT 21
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE WELL-BEING OF A PATIENT. (C.R.S. § 25-1.5-106 22
3(b) (1)) 23



Then later it say's this too.

IF PATIENTS DO NOT REQUIRE CARE-GIVER SERVICE OTHER THAN THE PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, THEN THE PATIENTS SHALL NOT 22
DESIGNATE A PRIMARY CARE-GIVER. 23


Those 2 lines bother me. That FORCES able bodied patients to go to MMC's and pay out the nose, and if they don't have the funds, they don't get the meds.

[porone]

Yup they want us all behind bars.Reefer maddnes is alive and well

[shackhouser]

It seems to me that one of the main reasons a medical marijuana patient chooses marijuana over other prescription medications is it is safer and more natural than a lot of other prescription liver damaging drugs. Why not offer patients services as a Certified Herbal Counselor in addition to providing medication.

Here is a link to a certified course that costs $200.

Courses are certified and approved and offer 40 CECs through the Board of Registered Nursing â?? Provider No. 13837.

Heres the link: Joyful Living Services' Educational Opportunities (http://www.joyfullivingservices.com/education.html)

JUST A THOUGHT.........

[shackhouser]

I just found some more classes that are offered though the Cannabis Therapy Institute that are directly related to Medical Marijuana :

Certified Cannabis Therapist

Certified Cannabis Patient Advocate

and

Certified Cannabis Caregiver

These seem like some good credentials to have while you are providing medication as a primary care-giver as this would seem to meet the requirements that you are providing more than just medication to a patient, you have additional training.....

Heres the link to the courses offered: Cannabis Therapy Institutue - Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) Research, Education and Advocacy in Colorado (http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/classes/certification.html)

ANOTHER THOUGHT..........

[copobo]

I think CTI could just list classes as CTI here? Please check with mods, but you are a real business with a phone number?

[shackhouser]

No, i'm not promoting anything, I don't know anyone involved in the business personally, I just found these CTI folks on Google. Are we not allowed to share info here??
Anyway, it seems to me that folks are gonna need to work with these idiots who are trying to legislate your constitutional rights away with all this tricky bullshit wording, rules, and nit-picking or the very large number of patients and care-givers in this state are gonna let a small handful of anti-marijuana morons inject their very PERSONAL agendas into your day to day lives.....

[copobo]

yea, I think that's fine. I'm just encouraging them to post I think. Even though I'm not so sure how smart that would be. heh

[shackhouser]

Yea,
I don't know much about CTI personally, i'm just looking at options for care-givers to legitimately keep providing for their patients. It just seems that if these laws are gonna be on the books, it would be in a care-giver's best interests to adapt to this craziness because as it stands right now the DOR is obviously attempting to regulate the entire industry. We now have this nonsense changing the patient/care-giver relationship with these new definitions. Coloradans need to be very aware of what is going on at this moment. Legislators assured Coloradans when drafting these recent bills that the Care-Giver model would always be an alternative to patients so as to justify the regulations of MMC's. That also turned out to be a lie....

[Zedleppelin]

The classes are a good idea but if they have their way anyone that is capable of walking will not be able to use a caregiver. Just as with 1284 this is once again an attempt for centers to completely monopolize the market. This is not about reefer madness, this is about money. 'Patient' is mentioned 16 times in The Colorado Constitution, 'Caregiver' is mentioned 11 times, 'Centers' or 'Dispensaries' are not mentioned once yet who is getting the most protection from the law?

[canniwhatsis]

Yea,
I don't know much about CTI personally, i'm just looking at options for care-givers to legitimately keep providing for their patients. It just seems that if these laws are gonna be on the books, it would be in a care-giver's best interests to adapt to this craziness because as it stands right now the DOR is obviously attempting to regulate the entire industry. We now have this nonsense changing the patient/care-giver relationship with these new definitions. Coloradans need to be very aware of what is going on at this moment. Legislators assured Coloradans when drafting these recent bills that the Care-Giver model would always be an alternative to patients so as to justify the regulations of MMC's. That also turned out to be a lie....

I for one have an actual job and grow medicine for friends and family as a hobby I don't have time or money to take any kind of course to try and backdoor myself in. I'm not making a cent doing this, I just enjoy growing plants. If this passes I'm out, to the greater disappointment of my patients, and myself. :(

I will continue to grow meds for the wife and keep my count to 6 or less until they regulate that right away from us :mad:

Then I guess I'll try my hand at orchids, since I'm getting my head around hot peppers already.

[shackhouser]

If its only a hobby then sharing your medicine for free with other patients would most likely be between you and them as long as you kept within your own grow limit. I just don't agree that you would be trying to back-door your way in like your doing something wrong by complying with the words that "THEY" wrote for you. That is exactly what they are hoping for....

[jamessr]

Hope I am not intruding/interrupting here but, i noticed something very interesting here with the language and just thought to shed some light of what is really going on here..

Notice the hook here in this language..?

DIAGNOSED BY THE PERSON'S
3 PHYSICIAN IN THE COURSE OF A BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
4 RELATIONSHIP AND FOR WHICH THE PHYSICIAN HAS RECOMMENDED

5 THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

The Michigan appeals court used this specific lingo to point out public policy of what constitutes a VALID relationship vs. for profit clinics... THCF was the clinic in which the court ruled their is/was not a ''Bona Fide Physician-Patient Relationship" with Dr. Eisenbud... http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20100914_C295809_44_295809.OPN.PDF

It would appear this lingo would cut out about 3/4 of the signing clinics which are not owned and operated by a learned professional..i.e. healthcare professional owned business per public policy... Most mmj clinics are not owned or operated by licensed professionals... a flawed business plan against public policy. ;) Laypersons are at the helm..which does not conform to any written public policy.

The target goal of our government is to slow/stop the growth of the exploded industry. By hook or by crook.

This is the lingo that must be changed if your state wants to survive the attack... our government is on a roll at any cost to stop growth.. the case above shows us this fact... a new frontal assault.:(

[shackhouser]

I also noticed this language about a Bona-Fide relationship between Patient and Physician, I think you are referring to SENATE BILL 10-109 which defines the relationship as:

(a) "BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP", FOR PURPOSES
OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM, MEANS:

(I) A PHYSICIAN AND A PATIENT HAVE A TREATMENT OR COUNSELING
RELATIONSHIP, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A
FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY AND CURRENT
MEDICAL CONDITION, INCLUDING AN APPROPRIATE PERSONAL PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION;
(II) THE PHYSICIAN HAS CONSULTED WITH THE PATIENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION BEFORE THE
PATIENT APPLIES FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND
(III) THE PHYSICIAN IS AVAILABLE TO OR OFFERS TO PROVIDE
FOLLOW-UP CARE AND TREATMENT TO THE PATIENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO PATIENT EXAMINATIONS, TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF THE
USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AS A TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT'S
DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.

Fortunately, I think that Coloradans are still Ok with this as recounting my own personal experience with my physician, I noticed that he followed the above regs to a T including scheduling a 3 month follow-up with me, Plus clinics are not allowed to be connected to dispensaries in this state......However, I can only speak from this one experience.....

[TheReleafCenter]

The classes are a good idea but if they have their way anyone that is capable of walking will not be able to use a caregiver. Just as with 1284 this is once again an attempt for centers to completely monopolize the market. This is not about reefer madness, this is about money. 'Patient' is mentioned 16 times in The Colorado Constitution, 'Caregiver' is mentioned 11 times, 'Centers' or 'Dispensaries' are not mentioned once yet who is getting the most protection from the law?

I know the centers who sit on the CDPHE working board and trust me, this is not their doing. They can't get ANYTHING through.

I know it's easy to keep blaming the centers, but this is still about a health department that is anti medical marijuana. They've demonstrated it time and time again.

99% of caregivers have completely opted out of the process, so why are they surprised when the rules consistently hurt them?

[TurboALLWD]

99% of caregivers have completely opted out of the process, so why are they surprised when the rules consistently hurt them?


Pshhhh...did you see the videos of the public hearings? There were caregivers there, just like disp's. Probably 1 percent of each there. Those cameras are going to kill your biz. ;) Good luck to you though.

[SprngsCaregiver]

I know the centers who sit on the CDPHE working board and trust me, this is not their doing. They can't get ANYTHING through.

I know it's easy to keep blaming the centers, but this is still about a health department that is anti medical marijuana. They've demonstrated it time and time again.

99% of caregivers have completely opted out of the process, so why are they surprised when the rules consistently hurt them?

So this is what the new propaganda is? LOL do you really believe that? It's ok you will when they start regulating you out. Unless you are "they". :eek:

[porone]

I know the centers who sit on the CDPHE working board and trust me, this is not their doing. They can't get ANYTHING through.

I know it's easy to keep blaming the centers, but this is still about a health department that is anti medical marijuana. They've demonstrated it time and time again.

99% of caregivers have completely opted out of the process, so why are they surprised when the rules consistently hurt them?

Who is suprized?The fox is watching the hen house.Like having a cop guard the donuts

[shackhouser]

I am very curious to see the new draft on 1043, this supposed "cleanup" bill. The wording of the original draft actually has some, not much, "hands off" type of wording in it in regards to care-givers that was in some major conflict with the wording in 1284. I think we can only go up from this bottom. We'll see, I guess...

[shackhouser]

I agree with some of you that the Centers need to be regulated as this is just the natural course of any industry that provides something mind-altering/medical to people. I don't think anyone believes it would just remain hands off forever nor would we want it to. However, if they want to enact zoning,taxes,POS,video, all that fancy stuff and change the name from dispensary to center, that's between those businesses and the state. If u want to get into that game, that's your choice and u will have to deal with regulation. The Colorado Constitution really doesn't directly apply any protections to a medical marijuana business. It does however, have very clear wording about patients and primary care-givers. I do not believe that the Amendment that passed meant to define a care-giver as someone who provides health care services to a patient. When the Amendment passed, we had no dispensaries in Colorado so in order to obtain medication, one had to rely on a care-giver model. There's no way they meant that you could only have medication if someone also wiped your nose for u. The laws are being trampled on right now due to explosion of centers, dispensaries,etc..Why not make the clinics wipe peoples noses for them before they walk out the door??? Why would a care-giver do anything different for a patient except maybe provide discount or FREE meds for people who dont,can't, or won't grow their own?? This whole hoopla going on right now has EVERYTHING to do with the centers and eliminating the care-giver model. That is not what the Colorado Amendment ever intended.....All you have to do is read it and nowhere will u find the word MMC,Clinic,Dispensary,Center..... NOWHERE.....

[canniwhatsis]

99% of caregivers have completely opted out of the process, so why are they surprised when the rules consistently hurt them?

This is true, and I'm guilty as charged. It's 7:48 PM right now,... I literally JUST walked thru the door after my regular job, so other than writing some poorly worded E-mails what am I supposed to do?

Sure I could take day's off of work and go down town and sit in on the meetings,.... after 3 day's off work a month I'll loose enough income that something won't get paid, like my house or my car! NOT gonna happen! ;)

Even if my voice was heard, All I'd win is the ability to continue loosing about $200 a month in expenses.

[jamessr]

I would like to help clarify something here in regards to the word CAREGIVER ...

That word has very specific meaning in healthcare law... change the definition to what it really is A PROVIDER !!

Once you have this cluster fuck oxymoron lingo removed... because a care-provider lingo does not fit in the mmj world at all.

We had this changed in Wa. State because it is what it is and NOTHING MORE. YOU ARE A PROVIDER OF MEDICINE ONLY, period !!! When you look at how the COURTS interpret caregiver vs. provider.. It becomes crystal clear...one can be a care-provider and a mmj provider all in one... but, you need 1 license from the state health dept., and one from the signing authorizing practitioner in the normal course of their business... NONE OF THE HYPER-TECHNICAL LINGO IS PRESENT. voila from a legal standing-point.

Not that any leo agree but, it sure shut the bleeding off....:cool:

[canniwhatsis]

I would like to help clarify something here in regards to the word CAREGIVER ...

That word has very specific meaning in healthcare law... change the definition to what it really is A PROVIDER !!

Once you have this cluster fuck oxymoron lingo removed... because a care-provider lingo does not fit in the mmj world at all.

We had this changed in Wa. State because it is what it is and NOTHING MORE. YOU ARE A PROVIDER OF MEDICINE ONLY, period !!! When you look at how the COURTS interpret caregiver vs. provider.. It becomes crystal clear...one can be a care-provider and a mmj provider all in one... but, you need 1 license from the state health dept., and one from the signing authorizing practitioner in the normal course of their business... NONE OF THE HYPER-TECHNICAL LINGO IS PRESENT. voila from a legal standing-point.

Not that any leo agree but, it sure shut the bleeding off....:cool:

I actually agree 100% with this. But the state seems to be leaving the "Caregiver" tag there since it's in the constitution, and trying to force a combination of the bold text above on those of us who are only asked to be MMJ "Providers"

I've voiced my concerns to my patients, and they all agree that I do play a significant roll in there well being by providing top quality meds that are well within their means to afford! Sent one home with his max 2 oz (dry and cured) for helping trim a single plant!!!! :hippy:

The Money my patients save alone improves their lives, plus every one of them has claimed a drop in consumption from dispensary meds due to the fact that the effect is there in 1-2 hits and it lasts 2x as long, instead of smoking a whole bowl to be good for an hour.

Smoking less (even if it is MMJ) = good for your health! :hippy:


None the less, the lawmakers don't seem to recognize that! :(



I should probably put most of that into one of my shitty E-mails..... that might have been my best wording so far! :i feel stupid:

[jamessr]

Simple solution my friend.. demand a separate definition for " provider"...that would solve the bleeding issue everyone one is tripping about.:D

Just a thought.;)

[jamessr]

(1) "Designated provider" means a person who:

(a) Is eighteen years of age or older;

(b) Has been designated in writing by a patient to serve as a designated provider under this chapter;

(c) Is prohibited from consuming marijuana obtained for the personal, medical use of the patient for whom the individual is acting as designated provider; :thumbsup:

Anything past this is asking for more bleeding..

Look here as an example of how courts think about the words/meaning of CAREGIVER:

Primary Caregiver

Under the CUA, a â??primary caregiverâ?� is defined as an â??individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.â?� (§ 11362.5, subd. (e).)

Our Supreme Court recently concluded that to be a primary caregiver within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e) of the CUA, an individual must show that â??he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana.â?� (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 283 [85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061].) Because the appellant in Mentch failed to proffer sufficient evidence he was providing his patients consistent caregiving, independent of providing them marijuana, at or before he began providing them marijuana, the court held he was not entitled to a primary caregiver jury instruction. (Id. at pp. 288â??289.) The Mentch court concluded that the appellant's testimony he â??sporadicallyâ?� took a couple of patients to medical appointments and provided shelter to one of his patients was insufficient to establish the primary caregiver defense under the CUA. (45 Cal.4th at pp. 288â??289.)

The Mentch court noted the term â??consistencyâ?� â??suggests an ongoing relationship marked by regular and repeated actions over time.â?� (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283.) The court further noted that primary caregiver status â??requires an existing, established relationship. In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] â?¦ [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale.â?� (Id. at p. 284.)

Finally, the court in People v. Mentch noted a primary caregiver â??must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause [in section 11362.5, subdivision (e)] based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana.â?� (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 284.) That is, under the CUA a â??primary caregiver relationship is a necessary antecedent, a predicate for being permitted under state law to possess or cultivate medical marijuana.â?� (Mentch, at p. 284.) Thus, the Mentch court agreed with previous decisions concluding consistent growth and supply of medical marijuana by itself is not sufficient to establish the primary caregiver defense. (Id. at p. 285, citing People v. Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336], and People v. Windus (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, 644 [81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227] [â??Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient with marijuana has no defense under the CUA.â?�].)

The MMPA defines â??primary caregiverâ?� using the same definition as the CUA. (See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) â??While the MMPA identifies certain individuals who can be valid primary caregivers, i.e., persons designated by more than one person, all of whom reside in the same city or county, the person (or entity) [designated as the primary caregiver] must still meet the requirement of â??consistentlyâ?? assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.â?� (People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1015â??1016 [98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 347], citing People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283.)

So as you see, that specific word has ill effects when defined.

[TheReleafCenter]

Pshhhh...did you see the videos of the public hearings? There were caregivers there, just like disp's. Probably 1 percent of each there. Those cameras are going to kill your biz. ;) Good luck to you though.

I'm the first to applaud anyone who participates in this process, but showing up at hearings is just one element of successful advocacy. The MMED hearings were almost entirely MMC related, as well; time would be better spent at the CDPHE.

There are too many on the sidelines who don't want their name as part of public record on this. I can't judge them, but I also don't think they should be surprised. As for the cameras, they can't be challenged until they're part of the code, so we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.


So this is what the new propaganda is? LOL do you really believe that? It's ok you will when they start regulating you out. Unless you are "they".

The CDPHE already tried to pass this by emergency rule in 2009, this hardly new or propaganda.
Judge Voids State Board's Definition Of Marijuana Caregiver - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21570430/detail.html)

The DoR board embraced working with centers to draft rules. The CDPHE, on the other hand, gives me the impression they look down on medical marijuana. They'd probably put medical in quotation marks.

As for "them" and if we're a part, we're pretty clear about where we stand on issues. Your assertion seems highly speculative at best.


Who is suprized?The fox is watching the hen house.Like having a cop guard the donuts

I'd argue that caregivers should have been more fox-like. Several lobbying groups have already raised thousands of dollars and folded before the first caregiver lead group has even formed.


This is true, and I'm guilty as charged. It's 7:48 PM right now,... I literally JUST walked thru the door after my regular job, so other than writing some poorly worded E-mails what am I supposed to do?

Sure I could take day's off of work and go down town and sit in on the meetings,.... after 3 day's off work a month I'll loose enough income that something won't get paid, like my house or my car! NOT gonna happen!

Even if my voice was heard, All I'd win is the ability to continue loosing about $200 a month in expenses.

I hear you. I'm doing almost all of this on my free time, and I'm finding I have less and less every day.

Send them a poorly worded e-mail (the ones you get back usually are). Know your council person by name and make sure they know yours. Get on CTI's e-mail list and know when events are happening. Talk to other people about it.

[RUMPLEFORSKIN]

This madness combined with their attempt to make medibles illegal just boggles my mind.

They need to quit focusing on people who would rather not munch Vicodin and Percocet like they were Pez.

I'm fortunate enough to have a caregiver that provides me with very high quality meds at some ridiculously low prices.

I wish they'd put the focus somewhere else instead of wasting all of this money trying to cornhole everyone they can for a few extra nickels.

Leave us all alone. Asswipes. :mad:

[shackhouser]

I don't think this new bill trying to ban edibles has a prayer cause in all fairness they had a debate today on 1043 and the number of plants they were going to allow an edible producer to have on hand....They left the number at 500 even though a very sweet sounding chick tried to change the rules to allow 6000, that amendment failed...The bill got sent through so I would highly doubt they would allow a ban on edibles as there was really no opposition to the 500 plant rule for edible producers....Doesn't stop them from trying, though, right.

[canniwhatsis]

I doubt the edible thing will go thru either, patients who can't smoke or vaporize due to respiratory problems (asthma, or emphysema for example) would no longer be able to medicate at all.


So THIS bill moved forward? :wtf:

[shackhouser]

I doubt the edible thing will go thru either, patients who can't smoke or vaporize due to respiratory problems (asthma, or emphysema for example) would no longer be able to medicate at all.


So THIS bill moved forward? :wtf:

Yea, it did move forward and on a unanimous decision at that. There were a few legislators that were obviously sympathetic to the MMJ community, and in all fairness to them, 1284 had so much bullshit in it and 1043 sought to clarify some of that bullshit so I think they voted YES because a NO vote would have meant to leave 1284 as it stands now with a lot of conflictive wording. These jerks actually passed an amendment that only allows a center to sell a total of 6 clones to a patient in a 3 month period....Not cool...........However, this was not like the hearings conducted on Jan. 27-28 in Golden concerning all the DOR and 1284 stuff where only like 6 people testified, there was a good turnout and quite a few people were able to testify in opposition of further regulations that harmed the community....Doctors, MMC owners, patients, care-givers, lawyers, co-ops, etc... Pretty good turnout for the Medical MMJ community.....

[canniwhatsis]

I'd argue that caregivers should have been more fox-like. Several lobbying groups have already raised thousands of dollars and folded before the first caregiver lead group has even formed.

I would wager that the pharmaceutical company's have their lobbyist's WAY deeper in the pocket of CDPHE than a few thousand dollars could possibly buy. :wtf:


I'll check in with CTI and get on their list, (WooHOoo another list to have my name on! :i feel stupid: )

[canniwhatsis]

However, this was not like the hearings conducted on Jan. 27-28 in Golden concerning all the DOR and 1284 stuff where only like 6 people testified, there was a good turnout and quite a few people were able to testify in opposition of further regulations that harmed the community....Doctors, MMC owners, patients, care-givers, lawyers, co-ops, etc... Pretty good turnout for the Medical MMJ community.....

That's good to hear at least!

[shackhouser]

I doubt the edible thing will go thru either, patients who can't smoke or vaporize due to respiratory problems (asthma, or emphysema for example) would no longer be able to medicate at all.


So THIS bill moved forward? :wtf:

The edibles thing came up as one care-giver testified about a woman he provided meds to that had throat cancer, she wasn't able to smoke but could do the edibles.....I don't think anyone wanted to touch that one....

[jamessr]

JUDGE LOEB specially concurring.

I agree with the majority's disposition and reasoning with respect to all issues in this case. However, I write separately with respect to the primary care-giver issue to express my concern about a practical anomaly regarding the application of Colorado's medical marijuana constitutional amendment, which, in my view, cries out for legislative action.

The fundamental legal issue we are called on to resolve in this appeal is whether to qualify as a "primary care-giver" under Colorado Constitution article XVIII, section 14(1)(f), a person must do more to manage a qualifying patient's well-being than merely supply marijuana. In resolving that issue of constitutional interpretation, we should strive to ascertain and give effect to the intent of those who adopted the amendment. See Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 962 (Colo. App. 2003).To do so, we "must determine what the voters believed the language of the amendment meant when they approved it, by giving the language the natural and popular meaning usually understood by the voters." Id. Applying this plain language analysis, the majority concludes, and I agree, that the constitutional definition of "primary care-giver" means something more than simply supplying a qualifying patient with medical marijuana.

The practical problem with this result, however, is that the medical marijuana constitutional amendment adopted by the voters almost ten years ago essentially closes its eyes to the reality that a qualifying patient or his or her primary care-giver (as defined in the amendment and interpreted in the majority opinion) must somehow engage in an initial transaction to acquire the marijuana from some other person who is not protected from criminal prosecution and conviction by the constitutional amendment or any legislative enactment. Thus, although qualifying patients and primary care-givers may be protected from criminal liability, nothing in the amendment protects their original suppliers from prosecution or conviction on drug-related charges.

Indeed, it appears this was the very intent of the amendment, as presented to the voters.

As noted by the majority, when interpreting a constitutional amendment, courts often look to the explanatory publication of the Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, otherwise known as the Blue Book. Id. Here, in the background section of the Blue Book's analysis of the medical marijuana amendment, it states that because the proposed amendment "does not change current law, distribution of marijuana will still be illegal in Colorado." See Colorado Legislative Council, Research Pub. No. 475-6, An Analysis of 2000 Ballot Proposals 1 (2000). Further, in describing the arguments against the proposed amendment, the Blue Book noted, "The proposal does not provide any legal means by which a patient may obtain marijuana. Under state criminal law, it will still be illegal to sell marijuana or marijuana plants to another individual, including a patient on the state registry." Id. at 2.

Thus, the amendment has created a system by which qualifying patients and their primary care-givers can legally use medical marijuana (which includes the act of acquiring it) but they still have to acquire it from someone who will violate the law by selling or providing the marijuana to them. In my view, while this result may not be absurd, and, indeed, appears to be exactly what the voters intended in passing the amendment, it poses a bizarre practical anomaly -- in order to effectuate the purpose of the amendment, namely, to provide an affirmative defense or immunity from prosecution to patients truly in need of medical marijuana, it forces such persons or their primary care-givers to engage in an illegal transaction (at least from the standpoint of the supplier) to obtain the marijuana in the first place. This is because neither the amendment nor any subsequent legislation passed by the General Assembly sets forth any mechanism (such as state licensed dispensaries) by which patients or their caregivers can acquire medical marijuana. Nor does the amendment make any attempt to distinguish between types of suppliers or dealers of marijuana. A drug dealer on the street and a person who grows marijuana plants in his or her home solely for the purpose of providing it to qualified medical patients are treated the same; both are subject to criminal prosecution and conviction if they provide medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or his or her primary care-giver.

Thus, this system seems to provide a disincentive for patients in need to acquire medical marijuana, and it certainly provides no incentive, other than pure monetary gain, for anyone to provide medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or primary care-giver.

To some extent, I suspect this anomaly is the result of the vagaries and weaknesses in the voter initiative process in Colorado. It is probably nearly impossible to draft a proposed constitutional amendment that could anticipate and provide for all conceivable practical problems that may arise in actually applying and implementing the amendment. I recognize there are obviously political aspects to proposed constitutional initiatives as well; proponents of such initiatives, as may have been the case here, will make concessions and compromises in the ultimate proposal submitted to the voters in order to maximize the chances of getting it passed.

It is not the province of this court to involve itself in policy or legislative considerations, and I express no opinion whatsoever on the wisdom of the original constitutional amendment or how the practical anomaly discussed herein might be alleviated. My purpose in writing separately is simply to identify the flaw I perceive in the current system and to suggest that some legislative action will be required if the salutary medical purposes of the amendment are to be fully effectuated.


Seeing how these folks view laws is a great guiding post...

Adding the provider provision seems to be what the court is aiming at...since no providership is provided and is a criminal offense under law... total cluster fuck..

The provider provision protects ALL outside the constitutional provisions of caregiver..

Oh, and a schedule II or less put's it squarely in line with Gonzales v. Oregon..anything less.. causes serious bleeding.:thumbsup:

Just some thoughts to help see through the bullshit going on..

Hope it helps.;)

[GratefulMeds]

Caregivers can't use a patient's oxycontin either. :thumbsup:

But they do! having working in hospitals for 20 years, I have seen it all.

[canniwhatsis]

JUDGE LOEB specially concurring.

I agree with the majority's disposition and reasoning with respect to all issues in this case. However, I write separately with respect to the primary care-giver issue to express my concern about a practical anomaly regarding the application of Colorado's medical marijuana constitutional amendment, which, in my view, cries out for legislative action.

The fundamental legal issue we are called on to resolve in this appeal is whether to qualify as a "primary care-giver" under Colorado Constitution article XVIII, section 14(1)(f), a person must do more to manage a qualifying patient's well-being than merely supply marijuana. In resolving that issue of constitutional interpretation, we should strive to ascertain and give effect to the intent of those who adopted the amendment. See Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 962 (Colo. App. 2003).To do so, we "must determine what the voters believed the language of the amendment meant when they approved it, by giving the language the natural and popular meaning usually understood by the voters." Id. Applying this plain language analysis, the majority concludes, and I agree, that the constitutional definition of "primary care-giver" means something more than simply supplying a qualifying patient with medical marijuana.

The practical problem with this result, however, is that the medical marijuana constitutional amendment adopted by the voters almost ten years ago essentially closes its eyes to the reality that a qualifying patient or his or her primary care-giver (as defined in the amendment and interpreted in the majority opinion) must somehow engage in an initial transaction to acquire the marijuana from some other person who is not protected from criminal prosecution and conviction by the constitutional amendment or any legislative enactment. Thus, although qualifying patients and primary care-givers may be protected from criminal liability, nothing in the amendment protects their original suppliers from prosecution or conviction on drug-related charges.

Indeed, it appears this was the very intent of the amendment, as presented to the voters.

As noted by the majority, when interpreting a constitutional amendment, courts often look to the explanatory publication of the Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, otherwise known as the Blue Book. Id. Here, in the background section of the Blue Book's analysis of the medical marijuana amendment, it states that because the proposed amendment "does not change current law, distribution of marijuana will still be illegal in Colorado." See Colorado Legislative Council, Research Pub. No. 475-6, An Analysis of 2000 Ballot Proposals 1 (2000). Further, in describing the arguments against the proposed amendment, the Blue Book noted, "The proposal does not provide any legal means by which a patient may obtain marijuana. Under state criminal law, it will still be illegal to sell marijuana or marijuana plants to another individual, including a patient on the state registry." Id. at 2.

Thus, the amendment has created a system by which qualifying patients and their primary care-givers can legally use medical marijuana (which includes the act of acquiring it) but they still have to acquire it from someone who will violate the law by selling or providing the marijuana to them. In my view, while this result may not be absurd, and, indeed, appears to be exactly what the voters intended in passing the amendment, it poses a bizarre practical anomaly -- in order to effectuate the purpose of the amendment, namely, to provide an affirmative defense or immunity from prosecution to patients truly in need of medical marijuana, it forces such persons or their primary care-givers to engage in an illegal transaction (at least from the standpoint of the supplier) to obtain the marijuana in the first place. This is because neither the amendment nor any subsequent legislation passed by the General Assembly sets forth any mechanism (such as state licensed dispensaries) by which patients or their caregivers can acquire medical marijuana. Nor does the amendment make any attempt to distinguish between types of suppliers or dealers of marijuana. A drug dealer on the street and a person who grows marijuana plants in his or her home solely for the purpose of providing it to qualified medical patients are treated the same; both are subject to criminal prosecution and conviction if they provide medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or his or her primary care-giver.

Thus, this system seems to provide a disincentive for patients in need to acquire medical marijuana, and it certainly provides no incentive, other than pure monetary gain, for anyone to provide medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or primary care-giver.

To some extent, I suspect this anomaly is the result of the vagaries and weaknesses in the voter initiative process in Colorado. It is probably nearly impossible to draft a proposed constitutional amendment that could anticipate and provide for all conceivable practical problems that may arise in actually applying and implementing the amendment. I recognize there are obviously political aspects to proposed constitutional initiatives as well; proponents of such initiatives, as may have been the case here, will make concessions and compromises in the ultimate proposal submitted to the voters in order to maximize the chances of getting it passed.

It is not the province of this court to involve itself in policy or legislative considerations, and I express no opinion whatsoever on the wisdom of the original constitutional amendment or how the practical anomaly discussed herein might be alleviated. My purpose in writing separately is simply to identify the flaw I perceive in the current system and to suggest that some legislative action will be required if the salutary medical purposes of the amendment are to be fully effectuated.


Seeing how these folks view laws is a great guiding post...

Adding the provider provision seems to be what the court is aiming at...since no providership is provided and is a criminal offense under law... total cluster fuck..

The provider provision protects ALL outside the constitutional provisions of caregiver..

Oh, and a schedule II or less put's it squarely in line with Gonzales v. Oregon..anything less.. causes serious bleeding.:thumbsup:

Just some thoughts to help see through the bullshit going on..

Hope it helps.;)

Not sure why I quoted this post,.... but BTTT! :D

[jamessr]

TPIGESSI! ;)

But

That's

Too

Tough! BTTT:D

[jamessr]

Better

Try

The

Tequilla!

:jawdropper::detective1:

[canniwhatsis]

LoL!

Back to the top ;)


Anyway, sorry, drunk post.... Interesting read tho.

[GratefulMeds]

This is true, and I'm guilty as charged. It's 7:48 PM right now,... I literally JUST walked thru the door after my regular job, so other than writing some poorly worded E-mails what am I supposed to do?

Sure I could take day's off of work and go down town and sit in on the meetings,.... after 3 day's off work a month I'll loose enough income that something won't get paid, like my house or my car! NOT gonna happen! ;)

Even if my voice was heard, All I'd win is the ability to continue loosing about $200 a month in expenses.

This was there plan from the beginning, it's not that the caregivers have lost interest, they have to eat and therefore have to work. It is depressing to go to meetings at the DOR or the Statehouse when last year we had overflow crowds and now we can barely fill a room or have enough folks to speak. we could only muster a half day's worth of comments when they scheduled two days for public comments. That hurt but I understand that we all got to eat! ( "I wish more then ashes when your dreams come true"):mad: