These are the talking points I've put together to bring to the table today.

We would love to see a good turn out so that we can have a unified voice at this committee hearing.

1. Edibles are a vital part in the treatment of many of our patient's conditions for which they have been recommended the use of medical marijuana. In many cases the use of edible cannabis cannot be substituted for smoked cannabis either because the patient's condition is contraindicated for smoke entering the lungs (i.e. lung cancer) or an edible is a more effective, longer lasting method of medicating.

2. We have several patients who are in wheelchairs who use edibles to sleep through the night. They have painful conditions like muscular dystrophy that have them in constant discomfort. If such a patient were prohibited the ability to use the edibles that last throughout the night, unlike smoked cannabis, that patient's right to access has been infringed upon.

3. Other patients for personal reasons simply do not wish to expose their lungs to smoke, a choice that should remain open to them. Were regulations to pass that would remove the edible option from these patients, their constitutional right to access granted by A20 would be infringed upon.

4. Amendment 20 grants access to medical marijuana. It does not dictate what form that marijuana must take in order to be medical. Edibles provide long lasting and easily dosable relief for many Colorado medical marijuana patients, and it is not up to the legislature to determine what form of cannabis may be considered effective or medical. That is between the patient and their doctor.

5. Questions of efficacy should remain between the doctor and the patient.

6. In many cases the doctor has explicitly recommended the use of edibles to treat the condition. The recommendation gives the MMJ patient a constitutional right to access and the recommendation may explicitly state that the patient should use edible cannabis as opposed to smokable cannabis.

7. Does the state have regulations dictating how other medications are administered, such as "Tylenol must be taken intravenously", or "Percocet must be used as a suppository"? The state has not interfered in how doctors administer other medicine. What is different about cannabis that it must intervene in how doctors administer it?

8. This proposal is undue interference with the medical practice of doctors who have knowledge to actually make these decisions. Politicians are not qualified to determine what is best for patients with serious conditions and should not be allowed to interfere in treatments recommended by licensed doctors.

9. I hate to bring it up again, but the impact on tax revenue should again be considered. Edibles constitute a large percentage of our revenue, and if you take that away from MMC's you take the same percentage away from the state.

10. Jobs - unless it is the intention of the legislature to actively undermine employment, this bill should be voted down. Infused product manufacturing in Colorado employs bakers, gardeners, graphic designers, delivery staff, etc.

11. With all the requirements in HB1284 regulating how infused product manufacturing must take place, is the legislature really ready to throw that all out after months have been spent by the industry getting into compliance?

12. The safety of infused products should not be in question. Is there evidence that edibles have been causing illness, injury, or death? Is their evidence that edibles present a public health issue? Have there been incidences that require legislative attention. Has cannabis ever caused a death from overdose? No

13. I can go to the supermarket right now and buy something that I could easily overdose on. A patient can walk into an MMC and buy as much as they could eat without needing their stomach pumped, or needing to go to the hospital because of a critical condition induced by toxic compoounds.