New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado

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

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

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

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

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

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.....

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

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....

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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.

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....

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/O...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.:(