New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter

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

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...

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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: