Printable View
Hello - If you go to the DOH's website, to check the # of total patients, and stats, etc., here: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcanna...08-29-2011.pdf
, there are over a THOUSAND "inactive" patients, and lots of "inactive" caregivers. These make up around 25% of all patients. Wondering, are these people who let their cards lapse? Or, just not participating in the program? Seems odd....
Scared
Inactive means the patients have chosen not to renew their card, had their licensed revoked or they have died.
It looks like the majority of inactive patients have chosen not to renew due to hassle, cost or they see little benefit from having a card.
Thankfully, the situation here in New Mexico is getting much better every day and we still have new patients coming into the program faster then old ones are leaving. I would expect the rate of non-renewals to decline as more and more producers are getting up to speed and working the details out. Time will tell.
Actually, the table I looked at (DOH website) distinguishes between patients who have died (one column) and the "inactive" patients (another column). I'm thinking it might refer to those who have gotten cards, but never purchased from a dispensary, and do not have PPLs (so how are they getting their weed???). Food for thought,
Scared
If anyone cares, here's the link to the table: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcanna...08-29-2011.pdf .
Very troubling: 3981 "active" patients, 18 deceased, 1227 "inactive". So apparently almost 1 in 3 patients is "Inactive."
Scared
No reason to be scared. First, the inactive of the total represents about 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScaredasHell
My theory is that some of the applications for renewal are sitting at DOH waiting to be recorded. A family member and another friend sent their apps in back in July and are still waiting to hear. Of course when you ask someone to check you are told they have to submit a status request in writing and that just goes in the pile waiting with all the rest!! If the lawsuit would go away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job. The patients are supposed to come first. Someone should file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit so the patients can get their cards.
Additionally, I think that because some patients can only afford the brick and purchasing from anyone other than the LNPPs is illegal then they don't need the card and are going back to the way it was before the MCP was established. Sad, but true. Some doctors refuse to sign the certification forms. So the patient then needs to find a new doctor who will do so and that costs more. So, if it costs more to do things legally, and there isn't the money, human nature is such that people will return to prior ways rather than pay more. Even though the medicinal quality is so much better than street.
I found it interesting that renewing my card and PPL took a little less than 3 weeks. I can't understand why it takes 3 months (allegedly) for some people. No rhyme or reason (or it's BS).
Scared
Here are some facts; let us know if you disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO;2208030[I
1. The total number of patient cards issued is 3,981 (call it 4,000 by now), of which 1,227 are "inactive." That means about 1/3 or more than 30% of the people who applied for and received cards have had them expire and have not renewed them. Your 20% comes from erroneously adding the "inactive" patients to the patients who got cards. That's wrong of course because that would mean there were "inactive" patients who were never "active," which can't be.
2. You say that "if the lawsuit went away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job." I guess you're talking about the applicants' lawsuit, filed by six applicants who were approved, qualified (some had site visits, some not) and then left to rot, with all their business plans, Boards, investments, employees, hopes, etc., on hold indefinitely until the DOH decides what to do or how to justify the 25 picked, seemingly at random but maybe for other reasons. What you claim is not only dead wrong, but insulting to those who obviously care about the program more than you. So we'd sure like to know where you got the idea that dismissing the lawsuit would help the program. It's totally false, an outright lie. The fact is the State hired an Albuquerque law firm, and from the start of the lawsuit they have handled all the litigation. Nothing has been done by the DOH in Santa Fe, or by any of the staff on the applicants' lawsuit, and if they are trying to excuse not doing their jobs, then they should be held accountable, which incidentally is all the lawsuit tries to do -- hold them accountable.
3. Who are you, that you pretend to know all about the medical cannabis program and can smugly tell us that when the patients buy from the producers it costs more but " the medicinal quality is so much better than street." How would you know that? What would make sense is that the price right now should be lower, and the quality relatively higher "on the street" than from the LNPPs, who have numerous restrictions, limitations, and expenses not shared by their illegal counterparts. So tell us what you know about relative price and quality, and how you "know" it. Or about law enforcement, and efforts to wipe out marijuana in New Mexico?
Some questions, if anyone knows: what happened at the DOH-Producers meeting last week in Santa Fe? How many LNPPs are going to be able to pay the annual fees? If some don't or can't pay, will they replaced with others on the list of qualified producers? How do street prices and quality compare with LNPPs' prices and quality?
How long ago did you renew? My husband's renewal took just about a month in May. The other two were in July and are still waiting. The PPL check hasn't cleared on one from July. So that can probably be chalked up to the US postal service. Will have to resend everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScaredasHell
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannarex
1. Amazing how some people have trouble adding/reading. If you will look at the detail of the report on the DOH website you will find the following information:
3,981 ACTIVE + 3 APPLYING + 18 DECEASED + 1,227 INACTIVE + 6 WITHDRAWN = 5,238 TOTAL {applications/patients}
EACH number represents another batch or group. Just as it is shown on the report...the DOH is or has processed 5,238 applications. It does not say that of the 3,981 there are 1,227 inactive. Of the total 5,238 there are 1,227 inactive. 1,227 divided by 5,238 is actually 23.43%. I had used 20% as I was simply taking 1000 by 5000. Thus, the "erroneous" percentage would be the 30% or 1/3 (which of course is 33.3333%). Even the "new math" would support that 20% is less than 30%. So 1 in 5, not 1 in 3 patients is "inactive". If you want to use all of the numbers ... and you want to focus on the positive, 76% of all patients who have applied are ACTIVE as of 08/29/2011. Your numbers would indicate that there are only 2,754 active patients and you are going to tell us that we need more producers? what happens when all 25 producers have their perpetual harvests going and the shelves are full of inventory? Can you understand the meaning of diversion? Medicinal quality on the streets? Yeah, you bet. (Pull out your Webster's dictionary for the definition of inactive. I believe it will say something along the lines of "having once been active".
2. Are you one of the would-be producers or Mr. Livingston or one of the other attorneys for the plaintiffs? I haven't a clue which law firm the DOH hired nor do I care. (Although I thought I had read that it was a state's attorney. Maybe they have hired an outside firm to represent the best interests of the program.) One of the plaintiffs is a "venture capitalist" according to the newspaper. These are supposed to be nonprofit entities which means no ownership interest and the Board members serve without compensation. But that's another topic all together. I digress...
The lengthy delays in the program have only happened since the lawsuit. I believe I read that one of the motions off the lawsuit requested copies of all of the currently approved LNPPs applications, there are tens of thousands of pages that the DOH has been ordered to produce...again, copies of ALL of the applications. All of these pages must be redacted to protect the producers' private information.
But you are the one who is "dead wrong" and telling "outright lies". None of the parties in the lawsuit have been "approved". They may have had their site visits. They may have been told by someone that they were tentatively approved. But until the Secretary of Health signs the paperwork...they were not "approved". And if they went out and spent anything more than the $100 application fee and the $25 incorporation fee, then that is on them. That is a risk they assumed when they started. There is nothing in the LECA that states that just because someone submits a complete application they will automatically receive a license. I don't know how the determination was/is made. You tell me how it is that there is a producer in a county that has only one registered patient but yet there are counties with many patients that have none? Obviously that producer submitted his application in a timely manner and didn't wait until there were already several licensed producers.
According to the reports the majority of patients are in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area. This is probably (you think?) why most of the producers are also in that area. There are 400 patients in DAC, but half of those have production licenses. So do you think DAC needs another producer? 200 patients that don't have a license. One producer allowed to have 150 plants. Patients can only have 6 ounces (exceptions may apply). Producer cannot sell outside of DAC due to the checkpoints. Hmmm. Think there might be a surplus there at some point? Maybe not now, but there will be if they know what they are doing.
Accountable? To whom? Within 17 months the program has grown from 5 producers to 25 and from 1,459 (total) patients to 5,238. I think the DOH is doing a hell of job with borrowed staff from the Harm Reduction Program.
Regarding your statement of "others who care about the program more than you do" ..... if you only knew the whole story. But I'm not telling the whole story to you or on this forum. What I will tell you is that I have not one, not two, not even three...but four family members in this program and two more who have qualifying conditions. I fight for and believe in this program for the benefit of the patients. We have been "in" it since the beginning. So, I don't know who the hell you are, but you have some nerve attacking a stranger simply because that is what I am to you on this forum...someone you don't think you know. But...you never know.....you may actually know me....IF I told you who I am.
3. Who are you? Pretend is not in my nature. I don't play games. About the only thing available on the street in my neighborhood is Mexican brick and medicine from the LNPPs. I'll pay the producers price over chemicals. Why would you think street would be better than organically grown? As a patient, I have had both. IMO the medicine from the LNPP was superior to the brick. Prior to the LNPPs, I had Cali medicinal and CO. The quality from my LNPP is comparable to both of these state's MMJ. And as the program ages, the prices will come down. However, that becomes another diversion issue. If the price is so low, then the patients MAY decide to purchase their full 6 ounces, keep what they need for themselves and resell the rest. That would be really good for the program...now wouldn't it? (sarcasm)
Regarding law enforcement: I have a friend who is a member of the joint drug task force in DAC and he said they aren't interested in the MMJ patients or the LNPPs. Only those people who are not following the rules have anything to worry about. But if you are referring to the feds, the Ogden memo clearly states that they are interested in the commercial producers ...with thousands of plants....who are making huge profits. NM producers are nonprofit entities and their plant numbers are minimal (although still prosecutable if the feds decided to do so).
What producers' meeting in Santa Fe? But seriously, if there was one...what happens at a meeting with the producers' and the DOH is not subject to the open meetings act and is none of your/our business. However, IMHO, I would be surprised if any of the current producers opt out of the program. The license renewal fees are steep ... especially for those producers who have not had $100,000 in revenues yet. But unlike the wannabe producers, those that have actually received their licenses have had tremendous expense already. I can't imagine they wouldn't find the $10,000 or $20,000 to renew. I don't think any of them are subject to the $30,000 fee yet.
Hope this clarifies my comments a little better for you. Perhaps you could learn some manners between now and your response?
CFO - I renewed in March, as my card and PPL were set to expire in late April. Was pleasantly surprised to get Both cards within 3 weeks.
Scared
Hi again, ScaredQuote:
Originally Posted by ScaredasHell
Well, that would put your application as having been received prior to the lawsuit which was filed in April. Although not scientific proof that the lawsuit has harmed the patients, certainly some anecdotal evidence.
Take care!
2 years ago my lifelong freind Tom got his user card after developing esphogial cancer. We had smoked pot together for over 40 years. he died last march. I wonder if he is on the inactive? My paperwork is in for my user card. Wonder how long I will be on the list. Do I have to renue every year??
Well I'm very sorry to hear about Tom. Actually you DO have to renew every year, even if you have a chronic condition that doesn't change. Kind of a pain.
Wow, Tanoan must be dry. LMAO You say because "the only thing available is A or B" that that is somehow the case for EVERYONE. How self-righteous of you. You must not be low income, because you tout paying over inflated prices over cost effective prices for the target market. Poor, needy patients do not have the ability to toss that kind of cash for par grade seedless cannabis. "My street, I'll pay", looks like we know who the spotlight is on.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
Booooom...there went your credibility. "Quality is comparable"....:wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
I would bet there is not 1 single producer drive a car older than 2010 or NOT going on lavish vacations every year or season for that much. So for the prices, why would they go down, they are trying to match the street prices everyone knew before the Medical Marijuana act went through. Non-profit, means launder, launder, launder. :pimp:
Hey, DrBreeze -wtf yourself!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBreeze
Why don't you go back to CO and stay out of the NM forum? You don't purchase in NM and have NEVER purchased from MY producer. So don't come on here and question my "credibility" about what I post. Your parents are on the program here....I am happy to hear that. However, them sharing producer information with you is a breach of the rules and regulations of the program. Unless you are a NM resident you do not qualify to be a caregiver on the program and should not have any of the information.
Come down to the sourthern part of the state and purchase before you criticize or question my posts. As I stated, I have had medical grade from both CA and CO and MY producer does have comparable. As far as pricing, the older producers have already lowered prices and I expect the rest will follow suit once things are operating more smoothly. Unfortunately, pricing is what leads to diversion. Patients purchase @ $8/gr and resell it @ street prices.
I should take your bet, but I won't take your easy money. I can tell you right now, for a FACT, that the Las Cruces producer does NOT have any vehicles newer than 2007!!! And after 2 years of being licensed, they have yet to take barely any time off let alone any "lavish" vacations. None of which are paid for by the LNPP. Many seem to forget that a resonable compensation is allowed to be paid and that ALL of the producers have uncompensated patients on their boards.
Get your facts straight before you come on here and criticize anyone. Just because your program may be corrupt doesn't mean that ours is too.
So....."BOOOOOM! There went your credibility!"
As a legal resident owning property in Santa Fe, as I mentioned before, and maintaining utilities I am a legal resident and you did not ask if I was a caregiver, which I am. I tell you what, you are very quick to judge, without asking before assuming. That is the problem with most of the internet, everyone assumes their situation is the Only situation. Besides, how is there a breach of rules if the producer has a dot com for the public and is registered on multiple domains under such name? Seriously, you need to think before you speak. I appreciate your effort though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
To be honest I have only purchased ALB/SF product for my parents, so I was out of line by not having product from the Southern part of the state. :hippy: I was basing my position on the info from the patients I know and consult. Diversion is why MM is even a business, LEGAL drug dealing. Patients I know that need the medication use WAY less than the alotted amount and really can not afford the price. SO they have to resort to traditional methods of acquisition. :( I wish the VA would cover it, but they won't. :mad: The ones I know that need it are to afraid to even think about selling, so there are 2 kinds of people using this MM....the good and the bad. Sucks, but it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
Granted, but reasonable compensation is really a GRAY area and when you make profit you find ways to go back into the red. Anyone that has run a business knows this, even if it is not a non profit. You make it sound like they are a CHARITY, they are far from that. They have to pay light bills and I know they ALL have under the table work, don't fool yourself. I am just voicing the other side of the river, there is always more than one perspective and I have mine, you have your's. :smokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
100% of this conversation was based on opinion, so there is not much fact to get straight. Criticism is a direct result of difference of opinion...you are right in your mind and I am in mine, that does not mean either of us are right. Freedom of speech is awesome, glad we can converse and get perspective out for the masses to read.:hippy:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
Wait a minute....I am quick to judge & make assumptions? This conversation was 100% based on opinion? You need to go back and re-read your post. You attacked me without justification or provocation. Many on this forum will tell you that I do not back away from people who post false statements. You did not express your opinion, you attacked. In another post you identify Alfonso as R Greenleaf. R Greenleaf posts under their own name and just because a producer helped establish the NMMCPA (or whatever the initials are), does not mean they "own" it. The patient's alliance is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization. The producers are not. The federal government will never approve a medical cannabis producer or dispensary until the federal law changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBreeze
Not all of the producers have public domains. You will not find the Las Cruces producer by googling them. Just because some of the producers do something you don't agree with doesn't mean you should lump all of the LNPPs in the same category. As I said, everyone of them have patients on their boards. Their actions need to be approved by the boards. How many patients do you know serving on the board of a LNPP would allow their company to cheat/gouge the patients? This whole program is built for us patients. Many patients resent the LNPPs mostly because they are misinformed and some because of people like you who come on forums such as this and provide false information. I've read the posts.
IMHO the NM program has a long way to go. But, as long as everyone follows the rules, the program will be here for a while and it doesn't matter which party is in the round house. The rules and regs are in place not only to protect the patients but the LNPPs as well. The feds are staying away and I hope that continues. I for one, do not want to go back to the streets. I prefer the safe access I have with my local producer.
Since you are a caregiver, a Santa Fe property owner, and seem to know it all about cannabis, I haven't seen any of your posts that state you are assisting your parents in growing. If there is a post, I missed it. Growing for them would be the best thing for them. But then, if you did that, you would no longer have any basis to criticize the producers or the program.
And another thing..... you didn't mention this in this post, it was another, but just because you own property in Santa Fe and pay utilities that does NOT make you a legal resident of NM. Residency is based on where you reside, have your car registered, vote, get your mail, address used for filing taxes, etc. You stated somewhere on this forum that you LIVE in CO. So, that means you do not qualify to be a caregiver under the Lynn & Erin Compassionate Use Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBreeze
And you are correct, freedom of speech is awesome. It is the abuse of that freedom (especially when people speak falsehoods) which causes problems.
LOL, I would scan my registry card, but that is not going to do anything other than put my information all over, lol. Oh well. :thumbsup: Servere foot in mouth syndrome. I have an NM plate in CO....oh dear god, it can not be???? How in the heck is that possible, LMAO. Let's say that I will vote for president in New Mexico. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CFO
"Foot in mouth syndrome"? I guess that would apply to you. You state on another post that you have a "summer home" in Santa Fe. Anything is possible for those that choose to break the law. Your posts indicate you freely choose to do so and encourage others to do the same. Just curious (and of course I don't expect an answer)...do you file both a NM and CO income tax return? On which one do you claim residency? No need to scan your "registry" card. I don't recall....are you a patient on the CO program, the CA program AND a caregiver in the NM program? Or simply caregiver?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBreeze
NM patients and those wishing to apply, please follow the rules and regulations of the program which you will find on the DOH website. People like DrBreeze bring harm to the program and will cost us all in the long run.