From our blog: Top 10 Fake CDPHE Applications | blog.thereleafcenter.com
If you've been using a certified mail receipt that doesn't correspond to an application, the CDPHE has released your number and what you actually sent in.
Printable View
From our blog: Top 10 Fake CDPHE Applications | blog.thereleafcenter.com
If you've been using a certified mail receipt that doesn't correspond to an application, the CDPHE has released your number and what you actually sent in.
While pursuing mail fraud charges against patients who did create fraudulent documents may seem extreme, it is necessary, as is the 35 day rule.Quote:
If you??re a fan of common sense, I think this shows what a joke the ??35 day rule? was all along. Hopefully common sense can prevail next time.
As long as marijuana is to be legally restricted to patients who have had it recommended by a physician, the 35 day rule must stand as the state must have a chance to respond to applications that are not complete, lack the appropriate documents, are illegible etc.
The rule protects us legally, and now that the CDPHE is processing applications in 2-3 weeks, it's a legal protection from serving people who have committed fraud.
wrong. where else does a dr. recommend something and a patient has to wait like this in order to protect s regulatory scheme?
you need to go rethink.
I think that we could both agree that the 35 day rule, as a statement of position from the DoR, wasn't perfect. The only reason we need protection from fraud is their poorly drafted rule. In lies the joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
Let's use the legal drinking age as an example. Requiring that a person be 21 to purchase alcohol creates an incentive for those under 21 to create fraudulent documents if they wish to purchase and drink alcohol. Fake ID's are produced for high school and college students. You can even order them online.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
You might disagree with the drinking age, as you might disagree with the 35 day rule and how it functions, but if you were a bar owner you would still ask your bouncer to be certain that ID's are real because the exposure to the risk of fines and losing a liquor license is too great.
You don't blame the DMV for the requirement of ID's being a "joke" even supposing that rules about ID's are not perfect, because it is in your best interest to ensure the legality of the people that you are serving.
Analogously, the 35 day rule and the concomitant requirement of proof of submission created a opportunity for individuals to commit fraud, and this is why Matt Cook has stated the DOR's position as he has. Serve a patient that just came from the doctor; you do so "at your own peril" because you expose yourself to potential fraud.
Copobo. The ugly reality of bureaucracy is that licensing takes time. Private caregivers don't have to wait for a patient's redcard to arrive to serve them, but the exposure to risk for an MMC is too great to accept anything other than what the state has dictated considering what hangs in the balance, and especially now that they process the applications so quickly.
I don't like it, but it is the way it is.
Let's extend this example to make it more apples to apples, though. DMV issues identification cards that work extremely well. We can use them to get into a bar or onto an airplane. They're hard to obtain or counterfeit. The paperwork that we were told to obtain from patients is none of that, unfortunately.
You would blame the DMV if you could no longer go to a bar because they took months to issue license renewals, even though you were of age. If you were a bar owner, you'd be furious that you now had to check slips of paper that were easy to counterfeit, especially if the DMV allowed months to pass before giving you a list of those who were engaging in fraud.
Instead of working with the CDPHE, the DoR actually set them back, requiring the health department waste time signing for bogus mail. The idea that all applications are being returned in 2-3 weeks is still not fully true, and there are other instances of odd numbers coming out of the health department. Saw a patient last week that applied in August and just received their card. It was dated a year from their initial application, not when it was issued as had been previous protocol. They didn't receive any explanation why.
Poor execution on the part of the CDPHE and DoR, two incredibly well funded departments.