Violating Patient Rights

[TheReleafCenter]

I'll continue over from the other thread, mainly @Zed and Cana.

canaguy and colodonmed have both done their homework and read through the DoR draft rules, but both seemed to have missed what is on their front page:

Colorado legislation passed in 2010 assigned regulatory authority of Medical Marijuana Centers, Infused Product Manufacturers and Optional Premises Cultivations (Grows) to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The legislation created the need for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment â?? which maintains the Medical Marijuana Registry â?? to share limited, non-personally identifying information with the Department of Revenue so that DOR can verify the numbers of patients for which a marijuana center is serving as the marijuana provider. Names of patients on the registry would not be shared.

A confidential, secure data base system could provide the most economical and efficient method for the two agencies to share needed information. No such system of sharing of Medical Marijuana Registry information between the agencies has yet been created. And, more importantly, any system to be created shall maintain all current patient confidentiality safeguards, which meet the requirements of the constitutional amendment.

It also is intended that any new data base system would provide law enforcement with access 24 hours a day/7 days a week, as required by the legislation, to verify whether or not an individual has an active marijuana registry card. This capability also would meet the legal requirements of the constitution and of the new laws. Law enforcement only would be able to access the system with information provided to them directly by the patient in order to defend their possession of Medical Marijuana, and access to the database will be conducted in accordance with state statute

All of that is consistent with what I'm hearing from the DoR. SoCo's account of the MMBA meeting last night seems to support this, as well.

You know why that is? Because caregivers don't want their door busted in at 5 oclock in the morning and their house destroyed by some drug swat team because they happened to be the voice of caregivers in general. Caregivers are an easy target by cops and criminals as we have witnessed many times.

How many caregivers have spoken at a city council meetings or testified in front of the legislature and had this happen? I know tons of caregivers who are still growing happily after writing a letter to their councilperson. At least you still have your power of attorney. MMC's have sacrificed everything.

I still think there are more caregivers hiding because they have something to hide.

[TheReleafCenter]

Those are clearly rights violating rules. I bet you can get oxycontin (sp?) at a drug store with far less scrutiny. Reefer Madness in the extreme.

The only reason go to the clubs any more is for clones. I get em, I split em then grow em. No other use for the clubs. I spend most of my money investing in bags of soil and gas (4 1/2 hours each way) to produce my own stash. I make my own medibles and bubble hash.

SoCo did you stand up in the meeting and say why are the restrictions for pot so much worse than for prescription drugs? Why are medical marijuana patients discriminated against by the state and police agencies? Why aren't police agencies protecting peoples stash and grows like the private possessions of any of the other citizens of the state?

If not maybe next time you could.

What would that solve? The DoR isn't responsible for any of those things.

[HighPopalorum]

â?? to share limited, non-personally identifying information with the Department of Revenue so that DOR can verify the numbers of patients for which a marijuana center is serving as the marijuana provider. Names of patients on the registry would not be shared.

This is OK with me. I don't mind being taped, but I don't want my name and my purchase history associated with that taped image. I haven't bothered to read the rules, (which seem to be changing fast) but is audio required or only video? Even if no names were associated with the recorded conversations, it's undignified to record patient complaints about their bowels or how chemo has them throwing up all day long. The simple knowledge that they are being recorded will make some patients more reticent in describing their ailments. Simply make the DoR oversight patient-anonymous and I'd be fine with just about any level of regulatory supervision, from a yearly visit by an inspector, to 24/7 electronic surveillance.

[Colodonmed]

This is OK with me. I don't mind being taped, but I don't want my name and my purchase history associated with that taped image. I haven't bothered to read the rules, (which seem to be changing fast) but is audio required or only video? Even if no names were associated with the recorded conversations, it's undignified to record patient complaints about their bowels or how chemo has them throwing up all day long. The simple knowledge that they are being recorded will make some patients more reticent in describing their ailments. Simply make the DoR oversight patient-anonymous and I'd be fine with just about any level of regulatory supervision, from a yearly visit by an inspector, to 24/7 electronic surveillance.

c. A single fixed camera shall be placed above each point of sale location, allowing for the clear and certain identification of the transacting individual and related identification. A single fixed camera shall be placed above each point of sale location, allowing for the recording and recognition of any transacting individualâ??s identification and any medical marijuana removed from the premises. This will be accomplished by temporarily placing the authorized identification, and registry card in a 12â?� x 12â?� area on the counter top, where they will be captured from the above mounted camera.

Unless you got a super stealth card with no name, or any other info on it, you will be recorded and identified. And it will be kept for a minimum of I believe 20 days. No offense man, but maybe you should read a little more on the proposal because this is not good for you or I or any of the 100,000 plus registered patients

[DenverRelief]

You don't seem to get it. Patients are fed up with what is happening and are going back to caregivers and the protection of am20. They are running from MMCs in droves.

So long as they aren't requiring that patients lay out their card when the transaction is made, not much is going to change for patients that come to us.

Many patients have come to love and appreciate the retail atmosphere to purchase their medicine, and I don't see droves of them leaving. They already know we have cameras.

We have cameras in our retail location and have had them since we moved in. It's a reasonable protection for employee theft, liability, and they keep us safe by allowing us to aware of what is going on.

That the DOR which regulates us may have interest in the recordings to do their job does not trouble me.

Legalization is about getting everything above the table so that the public at large may see that nothing nefarious or shady is going on when a patient purchases marijuana and that it can be as common an act as going to the pharmacy, where people are also taped on security cameras.

And everyone please remember that this has not been decided yet and let your patients know as well.

[rudy2010]

I am from CA so not that familiar with CO buzz words. I just wanted to point out the rights that I think are being stepped on.

Clearly that document describes an over bearing emphasis on intimidating people who are legally acquiring their medicine. It seems that the DOR MMED regulations from their website propose some pretty draconian rules.

I hope the CO MMBA can find a way to protest or have modifications made in the final DOR document.

[HighPopalorum]

No offense man, but maybe you should read a little more on the proposal because this is not good for you or I or any of the 100,000 plus registered patients

I may well be wrong, but I thought that rule has been precluded by the announcement Releaf just posted. The fact the DoR is holding meetings with patients indicates that perhaps the draft rules are under ongoing review, which is what one does with drafts, after all. I have no idea what we're even arguing about since we both agree that recording patient transactions and conversations is a bad idea. Peace out.

:hippy:

P.S. I haven't read the draft rules and never will. I like reading legislation because I have a personal and professional interest in civics, but the day I find myself reading draft regulations it might be time to consider suicide. I will rely entirely on you knuckleheads!

[Colodonmed]

I'll continue over from the other thread, mainly @Zed and Cana.

canaguy and colodonmed have both done their homework and read through the DoR draft rules, but both seemed to have missed what is on their front page:


All of that is consistent with what I'm hearing from the DoR. SoCo's account of the MMBA meeting last night seems to support this, as well.



How many caregivers have spoken at a city council meetings or testified in front of the legislature and had this happen? I know tons of caregivers who are still growing happily after writing a letter to their councilperson. At least you still have your power of attorney. MMC's have sacrificed everything.

I still think there are more caregivers hiding because they have something to hide.

Releaf center, I also say about your center..I have not heard anything negative about your place, I truly wish you success as I do believe there is a real need for patients to safely access their medicine, and if the releaf center provides that than I say hooray!! To address your post; I do not have a problem at all with the DOR being able to verify patient / plant / product counts. I applaud the fact that law enforcement will be able to verify 24 hours a day if a patient is active in the registry...using the information provided by the patient. That is a good thing for everyone. I again need to express my opinion on the cameras being used to record the identity and purchase history of patients. WHY? Hell if they are monitoring you guys from the time you plant a seed till the time the medicine leaves your place of business in the hands of a private patient, they are monitoring your books and will be able to see everything you do in real time with the flip of a switch, why oh why do they need a video record IDENTIFYING the patient and the quantity of medicine they purchase? I do not go through this for any other purchases I make, anywhere, anytime. Yes there are cameras everywhere, but as previously stated they are for the protection of the business, not to monitor how many pills the pharmacist is putting into my bottle, ( that evidence is already logged, but not with a video recorder )they want evidence of the sob that is trying to steal from them. There is a big difference. I am so sick of being treated like a criminal for using a medicine that for me has very good pain relieving effects as well as many other health benefits that have been documented in my medical records by my DRs. Enough is enough man, I understand you need your business to flourish, you have bills to pay just like the rest of us, at the beginning of the post, I asked the question as to my curiosity of how many folks are willing to date big brother, and outside of a few responses this is turning to a thread to support the DOR's propsed regulations. If they are passed, like I said in the beginning I will not shop at another MMC, dispensary or whatever name they want to change it to next. I wish you good luck and hope your shop prospers after the big brother effect.

[Colodonmed]

I may well be wrong, but I thought that rule has been precluded by the announcement Releaf just posted. The fact the DoR is holding meetings with patients indicates that perhaps the draft rules are under ongoing review, which is what one does with drafts, after all. I have no idea what we're even arguing about since we both agree that recording patient transactions and conversations is a bad idea. Peace out.

:hippy:

P.S. I haven't read the draft rules and never will. I like reading legislation because I have a personal and professional interest in civics, but the day I find myself reading draft regulations it might be time to consider suicide. I will rely entirely on you knuckleheads!

Not meaning to come across as argumentive towards you at all, yes we do agree on the backbone of the issue. I read the draft rules because that is where I seem to be able to get an idea of where issues are being born and who may be pushing those issues. I do make it a point to listen to the hearings that are streamed online whenever I can, I do watch the videos of the hearings when they are available, unfortunately I am restricted by physical health and economics dictate when I can travel to the big city, thus I do not attend the hearings in person. But I do try to stay informed as much as I can.

Your friendly knucklehead!!

[SoCoMMJ]

SoCo did you stand up in the meeting and say why are the restrictions for pot so much worse than for prescription drugs? Why are medical marijuana patients discriminated against by the state and police agencies? Why aren't police agencies protecting peoples stash and grows like the private possessions of any of the other citizens of the state?

If not maybe next time you could.

You have a voice, and a computer. Speak up, and not just in the internet forums. Take the advocacy boot camps being offered this weekend. I can, and do speak out, but am only 1 voice. There is power in numbers.

The period for public comment closed on 2/11 so this was not the arena for those comments regarding rules. The DOR has no oversight on police agencies so that's the wrong agency to complain to about LEO. Try your police chief or city council if you are being harassed or your rights are being violated. The restrictions are worse than prescription drugs because Maijuana is still listed as a Schedule 1 by DEA.

I did however send emails indicating disapproval regarding the camera systems as being intrusive and excessive. Those comments were printed by DOR and submitted to the licensing division to be considered with the approval of rules. I also submitted comments against 90 pages of law followed up by another 89 pages of rules being excessive, but that only applies to dispensaries.

Patients need to speak up regarding patient issues. The DOR said that they were disappointed that patients failed to show up and comment regarding rulemaking public comment time. Email was another option available. I asked our patients to send in their comments, and I'm sure some of them did.

While as a dispensary of course we support patient rights, patients need to speak and not just hope and assume that somebody else is speaking for you.