New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
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.;)
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
(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 ??primary caregiver? is defined as an ??individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.? (§ 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 ??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.? (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. 288??289.) The Mentch court concluded that the appellant's testimony he ??sporadically? 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. 288??289.)
The Mentch court noted the term ??consistency? ??suggests an ongoing relationship marked by regular and repeated actions over time.? (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283.) The court further noted that primary caregiver status ??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.] ? [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.? (Id. at p. 284.)
Finally, the court in People v. Mentch noted a primary caregiver ??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.? (People v. Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 284.) That is, under the CUA a ??primary caregiver relationship is a necessary antecedent, a predicate for being permitted under state law to possess or cultivate medical marijuana.? (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] [??Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient with marijuana has no defense under the CUA.?].)
The MMPA defines ??primary caregiver? using the same definition as the CUA. (See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) ??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 ??consistently?? assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.? (People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1015??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.
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboALLWD
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canniwhatsis
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.
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
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:
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
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.
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
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:
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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.....
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
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: )
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by shackhouser
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!
New draft bill will essentially kill off caregivers in Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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....
