-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
New bill proposed in Colorado will be bad for patients, growers and dispensaries
- Thread starter Baddog40
- Start date
HossCartwright
Member
The CO healthcare community is a real altruistic bunch..
My damn doctor and pharmacist BOTH want to be compensated for goods/services EVERY visit. You'd think that after all those years of med school and hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans they would just want to work for free right? I mean, didn't they get into the business to HELP people? Those greedy bastards!
But in all seriousness,
I don't think the author of this thread, or myself for that matter, expected to be defending the opposition of this bill on ICmag. Some people just really like to degrade and belittle others from their soap boxes.
When did MMJ users become such friggin elitist, judgemental pigs?
DD, sorry for my part in arguing, but seriously if some jackass who you had never met before came on here making the crazy comments/implications that milehigh did towards me, you would probably ban the mother fu@#er. Am I right? Telling him to go screw himself the way I did was obligatory, and the least I could do, no? I came to this thread to unite with others and brainstorm ways to fight this bill. I never expected such infighting and it really sucks. But I'm not going to lay down and let somebody degrade me, ever.
My damn doctor and pharmacist BOTH want to be compensated for goods/services EVERY visit. You'd think that after all those years of med school and hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans they would just want to work for free right? I mean, didn't they get into the business to HELP people? Those greedy bastards!
But in all seriousness,
I don't think the author of this thread, or myself for that matter, expected to be defending the opposition of this bill on ICmag. Some people just really like to degrade and belittle others from their soap boxes.
When did MMJ users become such friggin elitist, judgemental pigs?
DD, sorry for my part in arguing, but seriously if some jackass who you had never met before came on here making the crazy comments/implications that milehigh did towards me, you would probably ban the mother fu@#er. Am I right? Telling him to go screw himself the way I did was obligatory, and the least I could do, no? I came to this thread to unite with others and brainstorm ways to fight this bill. I never expected such infighting and it really sucks. But I'm not going to lay down and let somebody degrade me, ever.
sac beh
Member
Hoss, settle down. You jump to a lot of conclusions about what other people think. My statement was an expression of frustration with people arguing in this thread, it was not intended to demean those who make money or suggest that compensation for growing/caregiver isn't just.
I don't see why one is any more of jackass for being interested in non-profit caregiving than another who requires compensation from another who owns a dispensary, etc. Just competing interests that need to be resolved if the movement is going to have a bright future.
I don't see why one is any more of jackass for being interested in non-profit caregiving than another who requires compensation from another who owns a dispensary, etc. Just competing interests that need to be resolved if the movement is going to have a bright future.
HossCartwright
Member
It wasn't the lack of respect mile high showed me, it was the blatant disrespect that set me off and set the tone. And the picture you paint of the situation with him being some noble, non profit, robin hood grower is not accurate imho. He's comparing his apples grow to my orange grow and making very obtuse assumptions and moral judgments, wrapping them up in a big loogi and spitting them in my face. Boo.
HossCartwright
Member
you can always click the "unsubscribe" button. Romer's bill is the most important issue CO mmj faces, so, it needs a place somewhere on the board.
H
HappyDog
I'm very interested on how the law will play out in CO.
Please keep this civil for the better good of the rest of the community.
Please keep this civil for the better good of the rest of the community.
sac beh
Member
Here you can find links to the latest Denver and CO MMJ regulation bills, including the latest 39-page draft of Romer's:
http://denverchronicle.blogspot.com/2010/01/medical-marijuana-bills-updated.html
http://denverchronicle.blogspot.com/2010/01/medical-marijuana-bills-updated.html
ColoMediCann
Member
In the intro to the article it says "You can read the current draft of Romer's bill here. He's trimmed close to thirty pages from the original proposal, and is looking for comments on the current version ASAP."
I wonder what provisions were stripped from the bill? Time to get to readin`.
Thanks for the link.
D
draco
I am picking apart the draft and sending letters to reps as i go... god knows that there is enough to be concerned about.
if you haven't sent a letter yet - get on it!! these legislators must be monitored! they want growers to post that it is a grow op in a prominent place fer shitsakes - they haven't a clue
if you haven't sent a letter yet - get on it!! these legislators must be monitored! they want growers to post that it is a grow op in a prominent place fer shitsakes - they haven't a clue
It's ridiculous and overkill. Full of bad news. We are talking a rollback to ~2007-2008 for the industry.
1. creates a new state "Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority" under the Dep't of Rev. Its mandate is to track every gram of medical marijuana and derivatives from production to consumption. It keeps active files on all patients, doctors, producers, distributors, employees, and probably more. They want to know exactly how much each patient is consuming, with a full patient care plan on file.
Unnecessary, overkill. All for a substance only slightly more dangerous than pencil shavings.
2 types of licenses, Clinics and Growers. Growers can't ever sell to patients.
Requirements for public notice and hearings for all new entities. You'll have to put your home addresses on the public notice sign posted at the business.
You have to prove you are of good moral character to apply as will all who own 10% of the business.
CBI and FBI background check.
Doctors and Cops and those under 21 can't have ownership in a clinic/grow.
500 feet limit on public/private schools, day care centers.
no operations within 20 miles of the state border (why?)
Requires operators to apply with yet another local licensing authority, in their city or county, payment of yet another fee.
Specifically allows cities towns and counties to zone for MMJ businesses as a class of business.
Officers and board members of a business must be CO residents.
No mobile clinics (delivery ok)
8am to 8pm business hours. Closed Sunday.
"Clinics" limited to 1500 patients.
Individuals limited to ownership in 3 licensed entities.
CO MMJ only no out-of-state sources.
Clinics must report anyone who receives more than 2oz per week, these patients subject to special review ad CDPHE.
Electronic payments to growers only.
Growers only in Agriculture or Industrially zoned locations.
3 licensed growers may share a facility.
Growers file a monthly report of:
total plants
height and maturity of each
"estimated days to flower" of each plant not yet flowered (??)
total amount of MMJ harvested each month.
Lots of provisions for license revoking and fines. By applying for a license you agree to testify in any proceedings against another or licensee.
30 day limit for judicial review of a permit denial.
Oh then they slip in revised colorado statutes that still spell it as "marihuana"
Rules for physicians
photo ID cards for patients
photo ID cards for caregivers
New rules for caregivers. Must apply. "Minimum level of other services for caregivers"
Coops of 5 only. (traditional caregivers limited to 5 patients)
clinics/growers can't pay doctors
board review of all patients under 21 who aren't vets.
Caregiver may also be a clinic ?
Towns and counties authorized to add an up to 20% tax on MMJ! (subject to ballot approval in each locale)
In short it's a whole bunch of crazy! It does nothing to reign in the excesses and throws a bunch of sand in the gears rather than facilitating a smooth future.
edit: Hey we'll make a huge expensive bureaucracy and make them pay for it!
1. creates a new state "Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority" under the Dep't of Rev. Its mandate is to track every gram of medical marijuana and derivatives from production to consumption. It keeps active files on all patients, doctors, producers, distributors, employees, and probably more. They want to know exactly how much each patient is consuming, with a full patient care plan on file.
Unnecessary, overkill. All for a substance only slightly more dangerous than pencil shavings.
2 types of licenses, Clinics and Growers. Growers can't ever sell to patients.
Requirements for public notice and hearings for all new entities. You'll have to put your home addresses on the public notice sign posted at the business.
You have to prove you are of good moral character to apply as will all who own 10% of the business.
CBI and FBI background check.
Doctors and Cops and those under 21 can't have ownership in a clinic/grow.
500 feet limit on public/private schools, day care centers.
no operations within 20 miles of the state border (why?)
Requires operators to apply with yet another local licensing authority, in their city or county, payment of yet another fee.
Specifically allows cities towns and counties to zone for MMJ businesses as a class of business.
Officers and board members of a business must be CO residents.
No mobile clinics (delivery ok)
8am to 8pm business hours. Closed Sunday.
"Clinics" limited to 1500 patients.
Individuals limited to ownership in 3 licensed entities.
CO MMJ only no out-of-state sources.
Clinics must report anyone who receives more than 2oz per week, these patients subject to special review ad CDPHE.
Electronic payments to growers only.
Growers only in Agriculture or Industrially zoned locations.
3 licensed growers may share a facility.
Growers file a monthly report of:
total plants
height and maturity of each
"estimated days to flower" of each plant not yet flowered (??)
total amount of MMJ harvested each month.
Lots of provisions for license revoking and fines. By applying for a license you agree to testify in any proceedings against another or licensee.
30 day limit for judicial review of a permit denial.
Oh then they slip in revised colorado statutes that still spell it as "marihuana"
Rules for physicians
photo ID cards for patients
photo ID cards for caregivers
New rules for caregivers. Must apply. "Minimum level of other services for caregivers"
Coops of 5 only. (traditional caregivers limited to 5 patients)
clinics/growers can't pay doctors
board review of all patients under 21 who aren't vets.
Caregiver may also be a clinic ?
Towns and counties authorized to add an up to 20% tax on MMJ! (subject to ballot approval in each locale)
In short it's a whole bunch of crazy! It does nothing to reign in the excesses and throws a bunch of sand in the gears rather than facilitating a smooth future.
edit: Hey we'll make a huge expensive bureaucracy and make them pay for it!
ColoMediCann
Member
In other news:
Looming budget deficit will dominate Colorado General Assembly in 2010
How to deal with looming revenue shortfalls -- $600 million for the budget year that's halfway over and $1.5 billion for the budget year that starts July 1 --without eviscerating government services will dominate the session that starts Jan. 13 and overshadow many other efforts, Boulder-area legislators said.
"The single biggest issue is going to be finding ways to balance the budget without hurting higher education and K-12 education anymore than we have to," said Rep. Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat.
An issue that's gotten almost as much press as the state's budget crisis -- medical marijuana regulations -- will take up plenty of time this session, Boulder area legislators said, but none of them described it as a key issue for their constituents.
"There are a small number of people who care passionately about the issue," Mitchell said. "But it's probably 23rd or 25th on a list of things that Coloradans care about."
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_14111484
Maybe somebody can explain to Sen. Romer that he can have his massive cannabis regulatory bureaucracy and all he has to do is finish gutting Colorado´s education programs.
I´m sure the voters won´t mind that their kids won´t get a proper education as long as no stone is left unturned in the effort to harass medicinal cannabis patients and providers.
Offer Sen. Romer feedback @ [email protected] .
Looming budget deficit will dominate Colorado General Assembly in 2010
How to deal with looming revenue shortfalls -- $600 million for the budget year that's halfway over and $1.5 billion for the budget year that starts July 1 --without eviscerating government services will dominate the session that starts Jan. 13 and overshadow many other efforts, Boulder-area legislators said.
"The single biggest issue is going to be finding ways to balance the budget without hurting higher education and K-12 education anymore than we have to," said Rep. Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat.
An issue that's gotten almost as much press as the state's budget crisis -- medical marijuana regulations -- will take up plenty of time this session, Boulder area legislators said, but none of them described it as a key issue for their constituents.
"There are a small number of people who care passionately about the issue," Mitchell said. "But it's probably 23rd or 25th on a list of things that Coloradans care about."
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_14111484
Maybe somebody can explain to Sen. Romer that he can have his massive cannabis regulatory bureaucracy and all he has to do is finish gutting Colorado´s education programs.
I´m sure the voters won´t mind that their kids won´t get a proper education as long as no stone is left unturned in the effort to harass medicinal cannabis patients and providers.
Offer Sen. Romer feedback @ [email protected] .
Dont sweat yourself too much colorado. Remember this is just a proposal, all we need to do is let our representatives know that we will not support it or anyone who pushes it through.
HossCartwright
Member
Yeah but the IRS was just a proposal too. So, while not panicking, we should definitely take this threat seriously.
Wasn't there a list somebody posted of names/numbers who we should be contacting? It had everybody in the senate, their district and their contact info...I can't find it now...
Wasn't there a list somebody posted of names/numbers who we should be contacting? It had everybody in the senate, their district and their contact info...I can't find it now...
ColoMediCann
Member
response from Senator Romer
response from Senator Romer
I got a personal reply from Senator Romer in response to my email explaining politely my objections to his bill. He didn't agree right now but maybe I planted some seeds...
Your turn: [email protected]
response from Senator Romer
I got a personal reply from Senator Romer in response to my email explaining politely my objections to his bill. He didn't agree right now but maybe I planted some seeds...
Your turn: [email protected]
HossCartwright
Member
Rob Corry's 12-page response to Senator Romer regarding the bill:
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 7, 2010
The Honorable Chris Romer
Colorado Senate
Denver, Colorado
Re: Preliminary Comments on Draft Text (Dec. 30, 2009)
Regulate Medical Marijuana
Dear Senator Romer:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to your draft “Regulate
Medical Marijuana” bill. I enjoyed our appearance on KBDI January 5, and am
encouraged you committed to consider significant modifications to your draft,
which cannot be supported by any serious patient or caregiver in Colorado’s
Medical Marijuana community. On a personal note, though I appreciate our
collegial and respectful dialogue, your obvious diplomatic skills are no
replacement for substance. My clients’ lives literally depend on their access to
medicine, and we will fight any government proposal that would restrict supply
and raise costs, such as this proposal.
In general, the top three problems facing Medical Marijuana patients are (1)
high cost of medicine; (2) choices and consistent supply of medicine; and (3)
quality control and labeling of medicine. As an economist, you know that the only
way to lower cost, on both a short- and long-term basis, is to increase supply.
Your proposed bill would significantly increase costs to patients, thereby placing
the most vulnerable of them in danger. Your bill would reduce the selection and
consistency of medicine, driving most of the supply back to the dangerous
criminal underground. Your bill does nothing to address quality and labeling of
medicine, which the community is already developing faster and more effectively
than government could for this unique community formed under slowly-clearing
clouds of Prohibition.
2
Patients are caregivers are rightfully concerned with your stated motivation,
as quoted in both the Boulder Daily Camera and Denver Post, to put half of
Colorado’s existing, taxpaying, job-creating, economically viable, caregivers “out
of business.” There is currently a shortage of caregivers, and we hope that
eventually the supply and availability of medicine can increase to create
significant decrease in price.
Specifically, the bill suffers from numerous deficiencies as follows. These
comments are of a preliminary nature only, and given more time to study your 39-
page proposal I might locate other defects. I thought it preferable to highlight the
main problems rather than take the time to develop a comprehensive analysis since
you indicated you were contemplating changes anyway.
Page 3, Section 1. Legislative Declaration:
The first sentence incorrectly limits the benefits of medical marijuana to
treating “pain.” Although pain relief is one major benefit of medical marijuana,
many scholarly studies, physicians, and patients report that medical marijuana can
actually improve or cure certain medical conditions, and prevent other conditions,
rather than merely relieving pain. Medical marijuana is more than a band-aid for
many patients. There are many other reasons for medical marijuana in addition to
pain relief, and the declaration should reflect this significant fact.
Page 3-8, Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority:
In these times where our state government is literally bankrupt, we cannot
afford to create an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will exist
perpetually and carve out an imaginary justification for its own existence like a
parasite, sucking tax dollars for generations. The Department of Health is already
bloated, obstinate, hostile, and inefficient enough with documented
misinformation about the average age of patients and its inexcusable and illegal
delay of over 120 days in issuing simple registry cards and overcharging patients
$90.00 for the privilege of waiting nearly a half a year for a card that expires in a
year. Patients cannot afford another hostile army of bureaucrats whose mission is
to undermine the Colorado Constitution.
Page 4, Line 12:
Improperly delegates too much power and discretion to local authorities on
an issue of statewide concern. Local governments have already demonstrated an
extreme hostility to suffering patients and their needs, instead opting, ostrich-like,
to try to hide from the future. Local governments, with some positive exceptions,
have generally shown by their own arrogant and illegal actions (see Frasher v. City
of Centennial, Arapahoe District Court 2009, which I litigated, successfully
striking down an illegal local prohibition on medical marijuana) that they cannot
be trusted to exercise any reasonable discretion on this issue. Of course locals
3
should retain neutral zoning power as to location of businesses, but nothing more.
Giving these heartless local bureaucracies any more power is an invitation to them
to continue to discriminate against suffering patients. For example, the City
Council of Westminster, Colorado callously opted to shutter the doors of existing
dispensaries while flatly refusing a courteous written engraved invitation to even
take 15 minutes out of their day to personally visit the viable businesses they
destroyed. Most other city council members are similarly arrogant. There are
exceptions: some Denver City Council members have actually visited the
businesses they seek to regulate, and you have as well, which we appreciate.
Page 4, Line 21:
Requires a public hearing on ALL complaints (and there will be some,
especially when opponents (or even business competitors) discover this
burdensome procedural hammer) made against a clinic or grower licensee, thus
burying licensees and the government in expensive perpetual litigation. Believe it
or not, there is a shortage of real lawyers who are competent and experienced in
dealing with medical marijuana-related court or administrative proceedings. My
law firm is too busy already.
Page 6, Line 9:
Criminal background checks as a requirement for serving as a caregiver are
unconstitutional and unreasonably restrict patient choice of caregiver. Pursuant to
the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, the voters already defined a
caregiver as an adult with a significant responsibility for the well-being of a
patient, period. Not an adult who has lived an error-free life. Not an ordained
saint, although some caregivers should qualify for that designation. The practical
reality is that many caregivers, since they are knowledgeable in how to cultivate
and produce marijuana, picked up criminal convictions at some point in their lives.
These people now seek to turn their valuable knowledge into something that helps
suffering patients. They should be welcomed to the business world, not shut out in
the cold.
Page 7, Lines 9-15:
The Devil’s Dictionary definition of “morality” is “that sneaking suspicion
that someone, somewhere, may actually be having a good time.” The case against
medical marijuana closely relates to this irrational mentality, typically held by
those individuals so dissatisfied with their own empty lives that they actually
obsess about the manner in which other unknown people alleviate their physical
conditions. Most of the complaints and concerns regarding medical marijuana
relate to the signage on the physical locations themselves. This can be attributed
mostly to a very vocal minority of fanatical biddies, grandmothers, and other
Communist nanny-types who are somehow “offended” that some suffering people
use a 10,000-year-old Old and New Testament-recognized scientifically-proven
4
holistic organic plant remedy instead of synthetic chemicals and pills. Until these
poisonous haters die off (from their own narcotic and alcohol addictions that could
be cured by the plant they hate), as an elected politician, you probably still have to
put some grease on these very irritatingly squeaky wheels. Thus, a reasonable
restriction on signage is probably an area that this community would reluctantly
compromise on and which government could properly regulate. Your bill does the
opposite by allowing unfettered advertising. We should discuss some acceptable
compromises in this area along the lines of the tobacco industry, which agreed to
limit its own ability to advertise.
Page 7, Lines 16-27:
This section provides that a person cannot refuse, even under the right to
remain silent against self-incrimination, to provide testimony to the apparently
god-like medical marijuana licensing authority. The Colorado State Legislature
can never repeal the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
should not even waste the court’s time in attempting to do so. I will file a lawsuit
against this bill in the unlikely event it becomes law over the objections of a
thousand screaming patients, but I would rather have a challenge instead of a
slam-dunk.
Page 8, lines 4-5:
This permits the all-powerful licensing authority to deny a license “in its
discretion.” For the reasons earlier expressed, government cannot be trusted to
exercise any real discretion regarding medical marijuana, or the power to deny a
license on a whim, regarding an alternative medicine it abhors.
Page 10, Lines 1-7:
This requires any growing location to post a sign on the planned grow
location visible to all in the neighborhood, including children. This is ridiculous.
This is an advertisement and open invitation for children and teenagers to break in
and steal the marijuana they think might be inside, and get shot or killed in the
process. This provision is dangerous and unenforceable, and must be eliminated.
Grow operations must be as discrete and unknown as possible. Any alternative
rule harms children and infringes on public peace and safety. No grower worth
anything will comply with this. This requirement would drive grow operations
back underground, all for the enjoyment and profit of foreign criminal drug
cartels. I expect the prison-industrial complex, led by Warden Suthers, to strongly
support this harmful provision, since it is full employment for them and their
government-funded satraps.
Page 10, Lines 8-11:
5
This allows so-called “parties in interest” and other nattering self-important
neighborhood nabobs to subpoena, cross-examine, and inquire into confidential
medical information. This has no place in the United States of America, still a
free country.
Page 11, Lines 22-23:
This would allow neighborhood residents to exercise a veto over location of
an existing or new dispensary or caregiver operation on their whim. It gives effect
to irrational prejudices against marijuana and must be eliminated.
Page 11, Lines 24-26:
This would allow the government, never a good assessor of supply and
demand (see the Former Soviet Union with its interminable bread lines), to deny
licensure of existing or new caregivers if there are already adequate (in the
judgment of government) suppliers in the area. This is anticompetitive and creates
government-imposed marijuana monopolies. Ironically, this is antithetical to the
purpose of the bill in that it locks in the early movers (who are presumably
offensive) and excludes the newer entrepreneurs who seek to bring their business
acumen to bear on this burgeoning industry. If the existing players are somehow
offensive, why would this bill lock in their market share in perpetuity and create a
government-sponsored syndicate that excludes competition, all in the worst
tradition of mob-style crime families?
Page 12, Lines 12-13:
Allows the government, with all of its evident knowledge about marijuana
and the medical needs of each patient, to create a “cap” on the number of patients
a particular caregiver can serve. This is illegal, and a violation of the
constitutional right of the patient to determine his or her own caregiver. It would
also harm the most vulnerable of patients who already have difficulties obtaining
medicine at a low cost.
Page 13, Lines 10-12:
Grants the government the subjective discretion to deny a clinic or grower
license based on the “character” of the applicant or its officers, if the government
thinks that violations of this statute might occur. This allows petty government
bureaucrats to completely shut down the medical marijuana supply chain on their
imaginary whims, and if past actions are any guide, they will abuse every inch of
power this statute gives them, and it gives them miles.
Page 13, Lines 13-18:
6
Again permits government to deny a license based on its own assessment as
to whether local customers are already served by existing businesses, thus locking
in a marijuana monopoly. Government as Al Capone. See comments above.
Page 14, line 10:
Prohibits government from issuing a license to “a person who is not of
good moral character.” This would apply to growing licenses and clinic licenses.
It is unlikely that Dr. James Dobson or The Pope will apply for these licenses,
therefore government could deny any other fallible human sinner a license and
effectively choke off the entire supply, or more probably just drive it back
underground. The judgment of “good moral character” is also based partially on
business persons/competitors and neighbors within the area, as determined by the
local government. So both the state and local governments get to determine the
“good moral character” issue. No real adult human being can survive such
scrutiny.
Page 14, lines 19-22:
Requires 100% of officers, directors and 90% of stockholders in any
business also be of “good moral character.” No company in the United States
could meet such a standard. No legislature in the United States could meet such a
standard. No city council in the United States could meet this standard. No
governor’s office could either. Marijuana should not be held to standards no other
entity can satisfy.
Page 15, Lines 4-5:
This prohibits a peace officer, or any member of a peace officer’s family,
from obtaining a clinic or grow license. As a criminal defense lawyer, I know that
a minority of police officers have difficulty complying with the “good moral
character” requirements in this bill, but most of them are upstanding moral
members of our community. If we do not trust police officers, or even more
strangely and arbitrarily, their families to help suffering people who need
marijuana, then who can we trust? One of my favorite dispensary clients has a son
who serves as a Sheriff’s Deputy, and there is no problem whatsoever with this
situation. This bizarre provision makes no sense, like the rest of this bill.
Page 15, line 23:
Requires clinic and grower licensees to provide fingerprints along with
“personal history information concerning the applicant’s qualifications” to obtain
a license. Like the “good moral character” requirements critiqued above, this
would only inspire local witch hunts against medical marijuana caregivers who
already have enough problems with conducting this controversial business. As for
“qualifications,” under this standard, a first-time beer brewer such a John
7
Hickenlooper probably would have been denied his permission to brew beer,
lacking any “qualifications” in this regard, so the man you may succeed as Mayor
might have been denied the business platform that launched him to the Mayor’s
Office in the first place. Someday, a dispensary owner may rise to be Mayor but
your bill would deprive the community of such new innovative career-changers
such as Mayor Hickenlooper.
Page 16, line 3:
Requires the State of Colorado to forward fingerprints, names, social
security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and other identifying data of growers and
clinics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a federal background
check. This makes the state government into a federal snitch, an unprecedented
development in the history of separation of powers in the United States of
America. With this extreme requirement, no self-respecting clinic or grower will
ever comply with this law, making it even more unenforceable then current
criminal prohibition against recreational marijuana, widely ridiculed by the
populace. The State of Colorado should be protecting its citizens from the
depredations of foreign sovereigns such as the federal government, which despite
President Obama’s pronouncements, continues its hostility against the voters of
the State of Colorado and our firm desire that medical marijuana be legal. Your
earlier proposal that the Colorado Attorney General be required to defend
Coloradoans persecuted by the federal government was a step in the right direction
and should be re-inserted into your bill. But this proposal goes the opposite
direction. Obviously the FBI cannot be trusted to respect state prerogatives
regarding medical marijuana.
Page 16, lines 25-27:
Prohibits a clinic or grower from being within 500 feet of a school or day
care center. There should be no arbitrary distance limit from schools and day care
centers, which would effectively ban the operations in many parts of the state.
There is no documented case of any child ever purchasing or obtaining medical
marijuana from a dispensary. A distance limit accomplishes nothing, as children
are mobile and can travel to dispensaries, if that were a problem which it is not. It
is unclear what “problem” a distance limit from schools “solves.” Why is 499 feet
from a school unacceptable but 501 feet acceptable? There is no answer to this
rhetorical question, i.e., the very definition of arbitrary. It is also unfortunate that
the State Legislature is asked to act as a local zoning board and asked to substitute
its judgment over local zoning decisions. Your Senate District is close to 9th and
Corona streets in Denver, which has a liquor store and a pharmacy directly across
the street from a public elementary school, with no documented problems for
decades.
Page 17, lines 3-5:
8
Prohibits a clinic or grower from being 20 miles from a Colorado state
border. This is insane. It could deny citizens in Fort Collins, Grand Junction,
Sterling, Burlington, Trinidad, Cortez, and other people and communities that
happen to be close to the arbitrary state border lines, access to medicine. This
seems utterly arbitrary, like most of these distance requirements. Are we
protecting citizens from other states?
Page 17, lines 22-23:
Any transfer of a clinic or grower license must be pre-approved by the
government, further locking in monopolies and devaluing the license. This is
more government interference in the free market that will only harm patients, and
participants will opt out of this non-transferable licensing scheme and go back
underground, all to the benefit of cartels.
Page 21, lines 14-20:
This would permit local governments to limit the number of medical
marijuana clinics and growers. It grants far too much power to locals, as many of
them have expressed and acted on their desire to ban medical marijuana outright,
so they would pass limits of “one” under this bill. Patients should decide through
their free choices how many clinics and growers there should be.
Page 21, Lines 22-25:
Requires clinics and growers to notify the state within ten days of any
employee change, an onerous requirement with which no other type of business in
Colorado need comply.
Page 22, lines 11-12:
Requires all officers and board members to be residents of Colorado. There
is no rational purpose for this, again a requirement that saddles no other business.
Page 22, lines 13-19:
Prohibits Sunday distribution of medicine or distribution outside of 8am
through 8pm, also prohibits on-site consumption. Colorado has grown past
antiquated “blue laws,” and this would only deny patients in difficult emergency
situations their medicine. Dispensary hours should not be limited. Pharmacies are
open 24 hours in some cases, since emergencies can occur and patients may need
medicine at all hours. That said, most dispensaries now choose to limit their own
hours, but should not be prohibited from having a 24-hour help line to provide
medicine to patients in emergency situations on an as-needed basis. On-site
consumption, if properly set up, can be an important aspect of dispensaries. Many
patients need to medicate in private area of dispensary since they have no other
9
private area to do so, and children may be present in their homes, and the
Constitution prevents use in “public view.” This would send people to public
places to medicate, which is unsafe and unsightly, and illegal.
Page 22, Lines 20-21:
Limits caregivers to 1500 patients, which is unconstitutional and irrational.
If a particular caregiver is compassionate and effective enough to accumulate
more than 1500 patients (as many are currently), patients should not be arbitrarily
restricted from selecting this caregiver. A similar objection exists to the
prohibition on holding an ownership interest in more than three clinics at one time.
This is yet another example of an attempt to repeal the laws of supply of demand,
which government cannot do.
Page 23, lines 2-9:
Requires clinics to report on and act as informants against their own
patients if the amount purchased exceeds two ounces per week. Although law
enforcement frequently overuses paid snitches/criminals to do its dirty work, this
bill would poison the confidential relationship between patient and caregiver and
place them in an unnecessarily adversarial posture. It would just drive this back
underground because no truly compassionate caregiver would comply with this
evil requirement.
Page 23, Lines 15-19:
Prohibits a grower from “directly” providing medical marijuana to a
patient. This is blatantly unconstitutional and inconsistent with reality.
Caregivers are permitted by the constitution to provide for their patients. It sets up
a required middleman, which increases costs to the patient.
Page 23, Lines 20-23:
Requires transactions be conducted by a “verifiable” payment method. I
assume the intent is to eliminate cash transactions, by far the most common
method in this business. Multinational credit card companies have shown extreme
hostility to medical marijuana as have some banks. Many patients are too poor or
disabled to have a credit card or a checking account and this provision only hurts
them.
Page 23, Lines 24-25:
Prohibits growers from operating in any areas not zoned for agricultural or
industrial uses. So now the State Legislature is acting as a local zoning board and
substituting its judgment for local zoning issues, which is the one area the locals
should retain some power.
10
Page 24, lines 10-26:
Grants the licensing authority extreme powers, including subpoena power,
to harass and probe into confidential patient, caregiver, and physician issues.
Page 25, lines 8-9:
Allows the clinic or grow license to be “summarily suspended without
notice,” which devalues the license altogether. Most will bypass this onerous and
worthless license in favor of going back underground.
Page 26, lines 26:
Fines paid by licensees are credited to the General Fund, which is
unconstitutional, just like the legislature’s own $258,735 money grab on 4/20/09
(coincidental date?). The Constitution requires that all monies collected for
medical marijuana be used to fund the administration of the program.
Page 29, lines 15-18:
Requires physician do perform follow-up care to the patient, even if the
patient does not need or request it. This and other micromanagement of the
ancient confidential doctor-patient relationship is without precedent in American
law.
Page 30, lines 1-3:
Requires physician to have never had his or her Drug Enforcement
Administration registration suspended, another unconstitutional requirement. The
constitution requires a doctor to only have a current license to practice medicine in
Colorado. Many doctors eschew the DEA process as it is too intrusive and
bureaucratic, and they are not interested in making their patients addicted to
synthetic narcotics.
Page 30, 22-27:
Requires the registry card to have the doctor’s name on it, a further
violation of confidentiality, that will enhance witch hunts against the courageous
physicians who do the right thing for their patients even in the face of government
intimidation.
Page 32, lines 1-7:
11
Requires caregivers to obtain government approval before acting as such,
another unconstitutional requirement. It is the patient who decides who his or her
caregiver is, and only the patient.
Page 33, lines 1-6:
Further restricts patient choice by arbitrarily limiting them to four changes
of caregiver per year. Some patients have more than four caregivers at any one
time, and many patients change them frequently as the supply of medicine is quite
inconsistent.
Page 34, lines 13-20:
Allows the government to deny a registry card or revoke it if the
government decides, without a hearing or jury trial, that this bill or the constitution
was violated. This is unconstitutional. The government’s only constitutionallypermitted
role regarding cards is to issue the card if the physician’s
recommendation and other information is valid.
Page 35, lines 1-11:
Prohibits a physician from being compensated in any way for his or her
work, except by the patient directly. This is a requirement that no doctor in any
other specialty must follow. Most doctors are compensated by the hospitals in
which they practice, and doctors rarely collect money directly from their patients.
Pages 35-36:
Creates yet another layer of bureaucracy, the “Medical Marijuana Review
Board,” set up to intrude upon and interfere with confidential physician decisions
regarding individual patients under the age of 21. The specter of these vulnerable
young patients facing a Governor-appointed board of overseers for “permission”
to access his or her constitutionally-protected, physician-recommended medicine
does not belong in a free country. This Board’s very existence is unconstitutional.
What Should be in the Bill
This is a constitutionally-protected medicine that is currently overpriced
because of high demand and low supply. Patients depend on this medicine in
some cases for their lives. Further restricting supply only drives up the cost for
patients, who would be harmed by crushing regulations. The most vulnerable of
patients are harmed the most.
This community is not opposed to reasonable regulations designed to help
patients, but will oppose those that will restrict supply or quality. Some of the
legislative ideas that should be considered are purity and quality labeling; warning
12
labels; prohibition on local infringement on the constitutional right to medical
marijuana; prohibitions on discrimination in employment, education, professional
licensure, housing, parenting, child custody, based on status as Medical Marijuana
patient; statutory protection for entry-level caregivers to start operations without
fear of prosecution; expansion of the power to provide recommendations to
licensed chiropractors, licensed nurses, and licensed physical therapists; and
creation and establishment of a University of Colorado research program into
medical marijuana.
In conclusion, in working to help build this industry over the past nine
years, I understand that marijuana remains a controversial medicine, although that
is rapidly shifting with even the conservative American Medical Association
endorsing its medical benefits. Luckily, the majority rules, and Colorado’s
compassionate voters are more numerous than those who would deny others this
miracle medicine.
In conceptualizing this bill, it is helpful to consider another controversial
medical issue, abortion. As we discussed previously, it would be interesting to do
a “find & replace” on your bill and replace all references to “medical marijuana”
with “abortion.” I am sure Colorado’s creative pro-life organizations would
appreciate this blueprint for further regulation of that industry. Your statement
that, because you are pro-choice, you would vote against a parallel regulatory
regime for abortion providers, speaks volumes.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please call me at
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 7, 2010
The Honorable Chris Romer
Colorado Senate
Denver, Colorado
Re: Preliminary Comments on Draft Text (Dec. 30, 2009)
Regulate Medical Marijuana
Dear Senator Romer:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to your draft “Regulate
Medical Marijuana” bill. I enjoyed our appearance on KBDI January 5, and am
encouraged you committed to consider significant modifications to your draft,
which cannot be supported by any serious patient or caregiver in Colorado’s
Medical Marijuana community. On a personal note, though I appreciate our
collegial and respectful dialogue, your obvious diplomatic skills are no
replacement for substance. My clients’ lives literally depend on their access to
medicine, and we will fight any government proposal that would restrict supply
and raise costs, such as this proposal.
In general, the top three problems facing Medical Marijuana patients are (1)
high cost of medicine; (2) choices and consistent supply of medicine; and (3)
quality control and labeling of medicine. As an economist, you know that the only
way to lower cost, on both a short- and long-term basis, is to increase supply.
Your proposed bill would significantly increase costs to patients, thereby placing
the most vulnerable of them in danger. Your bill would reduce the selection and
consistency of medicine, driving most of the supply back to the dangerous
criminal underground. Your bill does nothing to address quality and labeling of
medicine, which the community is already developing faster and more effectively
than government could for this unique community formed under slowly-clearing
clouds of Prohibition.
2
Patients are caregivers are rightfully concerned with your stated motivation,
as quoted in both the Boulder Daily Camera and Denver Post, to put half of
Colorado’s existing, taxpaying, job-creating, economically viable, caregivers “out
of business.” There is currently a shortage of caregivers, and we hope that
eventually the supply and availability of medicine can increase to create
significant decrease in price.
Specifically, the bill suffers from numerous deficiencies as follows. These
comments are of a preliminary nature only, and given more time to study your 39-
page proposal I might locate other defects. I thought it preferable to highlight the
main problems rather than take the time to develop a comprehensive analysis since
you indicated you were contemplating changes anyway.
Page 3, Section 1. Legislative Declaration:
The first sentence incorrectly limits the benefits of medical marijuana to
treating “pain.” Although pain relief is one major benefit of medical marijuana,
many scholarly studies, physicians, and patients report that medical marijuana can
actually improve or cure certain medical conditions, and prevent other conditions,
rather than merely relieving pain. Medical marijuana is more than a band-aid for
many patients. There are many other reasons for medical marijuana in addition to
pain relief, and the declaration should reflect this significant fact.
Page 3-8, Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority:
In these times where our state government is literally bankrupt, we cannot
afford to create an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will exist
perpetually and carve out an imaginary justification for its own existence like a
parasite, sucking tax dollars for generations. The Department of Health is already
bloated, obstinate, hostile, and inefficient enough with documented
misinformation about the average age of patients and its inexcusable and illegal
delay of over 120 days in issuing simple registry cards and overcharging patients
$90.00 for the privilege of waiting nearly a half a year for a card that expires in a
year. Patients cannot afford another hostile army of bureaucrats whose mission is
to undermine the Colorado Constitution.
Page 4, Line 12:
Improperly delegates too much power and discretion to local authorities on
an issue of statewide concern. Local governments have already demonstrated an
extreme hostility to suffering patients and their needs, instead opting, ostrich-like,
to try to hide from the future. Local governments, with some positive exceptions,
have generally shown by their own arrogant and illegal actions (see Frasher v. City
of Centennial, Arapahoe District Court 2009, which I litigated, successfully
striking down an illegal local prohibition on medical marijuana) that they cannot
be trusted to exercise any reasonable discretion on this issue. Of course locals
3
should retain neutral zoning power as to location of businesses, but nothing more.
Giving these heartless local bureaucracies any more power is an invitation to them
to continue to discriminate against suffering patients. For example, the City
Council of Westminster, Colorado callously opted to shutter the doors of existing
dispensaries while flatly refusing a courteous written engraved invitation to even
take 15 minutes out of their day to personally visit the viable businesses they
destroyed. Most other city council members are similarly arrogant. There are
exceptions: some Denver City Council members have actually visited the
businesses they seek to regulate, and you have as well, which we appreciate.
Page 4, Line 21:
Requires a public hearing on ALL complaints (and there will be some,
especially when opponents (or even business competitors) discover this
burdensome procedural hammer) made against a clinic or grower licensee, thus
burying licensees and the government in expensive perpetual litigation. Believe it
or not, there is a shortage of real lawyers who are competent and experienced in
dealing with medical marijuana-related court or administrative proceedings. My
law firm is too busy already.
Page 6, Line 9:
Criminal background checks as a requirement for serving as a caregiver are
unconstitutional and unreasonably restrict patient choice of caregiver. Pursuant to
the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, the voters already defined a
caregiver as an adult with a significant responsibility for the well-being of a
patient, period. Not an adult who has lived an error-free life. Not an ordained
saint, although some caregivers should qualify for that designation. The practical
reality is that many caregivers, since they are knowledgeable in how to cultivate
and produce marijuana, picked up criminal convictions at some point in their lives.
These people now seek to turn their valuable knowledge into something that helps
suffering patients. They should be welcomed to the business world, not shut out in
the cold.
Page 7, Lines 9-15:
The Devil’s Dictionary definition of “morality” is “that sneaking suspicion
that someone, somewhere, may actually be having a good time.” The case against
medical marijuana closely relates to this irrational mentality, typically held by
those individuals so dissatisfied with their own empty lives that they actually
obsess about the manner in which other unknown people alleviate their physical
conditions. Most of the complaints and concerns regarding medical marijuana
relate to the signage on the physical locations themselves. This can be attributed
mostly to a very vocal minority of fanatical biddies, grandmothers, and other
Communist nanny-types who are somehow “offended” that some suffering people
use a 10,000-year-old Old and New Testament-recognized scientifically-proven
4
holistic organic plant remedy instead of synthetic chemicals and pills. Until these
poisonous haters die off (from their own narcotic and alcohol addictions that could
be cured by the plant they hate), as an elected politician, you probably still have to
put some grease on these very irritatingly squeaky wheels. Thus, a reasonable
restriction on signage is probably an area that this community would reluctantly
compromise on and which government could properly regulate. Your bill does the
opposite by allowing unfettered advertising. We should discuss some acceptable
compromises in this area along the lines of the tobacco industry, which agreed to
limit its own ability to advertise.
Page 7, Lines 16-27:
This section provides that a person cannot refuse, even under the right to
remain silent against self-incrimination, to provide testimony to the apparently
god-like medical marijuana licensing authority. The Colorado State Legislature
can never repeal the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
should not even waste the court’s time in attempting to do so. I will file a lawsuit
against this bill in the unlikely event it becomes law over the objections of a
thousand screaming patients, but I would rather have a challenge instead of a
slam-dunk.
Page 8, lines 4-5:
This permits the all-powerful licensing authority to deny a license “in its
discretion.” For the reasons earlier expressed, government cannot be trusted to
exercise any real discretion regarding medical marijuana, or the power to deny a
license on a whim, regarding an alternative medicine it abhors.
Page 10, Lines 1-7:
This requires any growing location to post a sign on the planned grow
location visible to all in the neighborhood, including children. This is ridiculous.
This is an advertisement and open invitation for children and teenagers to break in
and steal the marijuana they think might be inside, and get shot or killed in the
process. This provision is dangerous and unenforceable, and must be eliminated.
Grow operations must be as discrete and unknown as possible. Any alternative
rule harms children and infringes on public peace and safety. No grower worth
anything will comply with this. This requirement would drive grow operations
back underground, all for the enjoyment and profit of foreign criminal drug
cartels. I expect the prison-industrial complex, led by Warden Suthers, to strongly
support this harmful provision, since it is full employment for them and their
government-funded satraps.
Page 10, Lines 8-11:
5
This allows so-called “parties in interest” and other nattering self-important
neighborhood nabobs to subpoena, cross-examine, and inquire into confidential
medical information. This has no place in the United States of America, still a
free country.
Page 11, Lines 22-23:
This would allow neighborhood residents to exercise a veto over location of
an existing or new dispensary or caregiver operation on their whim. It gives effect
to irrational prejudices against marijuana and must be eliminated.
Page 11, Lines 24-26:
This would allow the government, never a good assessor of supply and
demand (see the Former Soviet Union with its interminable bread lines), to deny
licensure of existing or new caregivers if there are already adequate (in the
judgment of government) suppliers in the area. This is anticompetitive and creates
government-imposed marijuana monopolies. Ironically, this is antithetical to the
purpose of the bill in that it locks in the early movers (who are presumably
offensive) and excludes the newer entrepreneurs who seek to bring their business
acumen to bear on this burgeoning industry. If the existing players are somehow
offensive, why would this bill lock in their market share in perpetuity and create a
government-sponsored syndicate that excludes competition, all in the worst
tradition of mob-style crime families?
Page 12, Lines 12-13:
Allows the government, with all of its evident knowledge about marijuana
and the medical needs of each patient, to create a “cap” on the number of patients
a particular caregiver can serve. This is illegal, and a violation of the
constitutional right of the patient to determine his or her own caregiver. It would
also harm the most vulnerable of patients who already have difficulties obtaining
medicine at a low cost.
Page 13, Lines 10-12:
Grants the government the subjective discretion to deny a clinic or grower
license based on the “character” of the applicant or its officers, if the government
thinks that violations of this statute might occur. This allows petty government
bureaucrats to completely shut down the medical marijuana supply chain on their
imaginary whims, and if past actions are any guide, they will abuse every inch of
power this statute gives them, and it gives them miles.
Page 13, Lines 13-18:
6
Again permits government to deny a license based on its own assessment as
to whether local customers are already served by existing businesses, thus locking
in a marijuana monopoly. Government as Al Capone. See comments above.
Page 14, line 10:
Prohibits government from issuing a license to “a person who is not of
good moral character.” This would apply to growing licenses and clinic licenses.
It is unlikely that Dr. James Dobson or The Pope will apply for these licenses,
therefore government could deny any other fallible human sinner a license and
effectively choke off the entire supply, or more probably just drive it back
underground. The judgment of “good moral character” is also based partially on
business persons/competitors and neighbors within the area, as determined by the
local government. So both the state and local governments get to determine the
“good moral character” issue. No real adult human being can survive such
scrutiny.
Page 14, lines 19-22:
Requires 100% of officers, directors and 90% of stockholders in any
business also be of “good moral character.” No company in the United States
could meet such a standard. No legislature in the United States could meet such a
standard. No city council in the United States could meet this standard. No
governor’s office could either. Marijuana should not be held to standards no other
entity can satisfy.
Page 15, Lines 4-5:
This prohibits a peace officer, or any member of a peace officer’s family,
from obtaining a clinic or grow license. As a criminal defense lawyer, I know that
a minority of police officers have difficulty complying with the “good moral
character” requirements in this bill, but most of them are upstanding moral
members of our community. If we do not trust police officers, or even more
strangely and arbitrarily, their families to help suffering people who need
marijuana, then who can we trust? One of my favorite dispensary clients has a son
who serves as a Sheriff’s Deputy, and there is no problem whatsoever with this
situation. This bizarre provision makes no sense, like the rest of this bill.
Page 15, line 23:
Requires clinic and grower licensees to provide fingerprints along with
“personal history information concerning the applicant’s qualifications” to obtain
a license. Like the “good moral character” requirements critiqued above, this
would only inspire local witch hunts against medical marijuana caregivers who
already have enough problems with conducting this controversial business. As for
“qualifications,” under this standard, a first-time beer brewer such a John
7
Hickenlooper probably would have been denied his permission to brew beer,
lacking any “qualifications” in this regard, so the man you may succeed as Mayor
might have been denied the business platform that launched him to the Mayor’s
Office in the first place. Someday, a dispensary owner may rise to be Mayor but
your bill would deprive the community of such new innovative career-changers
such as Mayor Hickenlooper.
Page 16, line 3:
Requires the State of Colorado to forward fingerprints, names, social
security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and other identifying data of growers and
clinics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a federal background
check. This makes the state government into a federal snitch, an unprecedented
development in the history of separation of powers in the United States of
America. With this extreme requirement, no self-respecting clinic or grower will
ever comply with this law, making it even more unenforceable then current
criminal prohibition against recreational marijuana, widely ridiculed by the
populace. The State of Colorado should be protecting its citizens from the
depredations of foreign sovereigns such as the federal government, which despite
President Obama’s pronouncements, continues its hostility against the voters of
the State of Colorado and our firm desire that medical marijuana be legal. Your
earlier proposal that the Colorado Attorney General be required to defend
Coloradoans persecuted by the federal government was a step in the right direction
and should be re-inserted into your bill. But this proposal goes the opposite
direction. Obviously the FBI cannot be trusted to respect state prerogatives
regarding medical marijuana.
Page 16, lines 25-27:
Prohibits a clinic or grower from being within 500 feet of a school or day
care center. There should be no arbitrary distance limit from schools and day care
centers, which would effectively ban the operations in many parts of the state.
There is no documented case of any child ever purchasing or obtaining medical
marijuana from a dispensary. A distance limit accomplishes nothing, as children
are mobile and can travel to dispensaries, if that were a problem which it is not. It
is unclear what “problem” a distance limit from schools “solves.” Why is 499 feet
from a school unacceptable but 501 feet acceptable? There is no answer to this
rhetorical question, i.e., the very definition of arbitrary. It is also unfortunate that
the State Legislature is asked to act as a local zoning board and asked to substitute
its judgment over local zoning decisions. Your Senate District is close to 9th and
Corona streets in Denver, which has a liquor store and a pharmacy directly across
the street from a public elementary school, with no documented problems for
decades.
Page 17, lines 3-5:
8
Prohibits a clinic or grower from being 20 miles from a Colorado state
border. This is insane. It could deny citizens in Fort Collins, Grand Junction,
Sterling, Burlington, Trinidad, Cortez, and other people and communities that
happen to be close to the arbitrary state border lines, access to medicine. This
seems utterly arbitrary, like most of these distance requirements. Are we
protecting citizens from other states?
Page 17, lines 22-23:
Any transfer of a clinic or grower license must be pre-approved by the
government, further locking in monopolies and devaluing the license. This is
more government interference in the free market that will only harm patients, and
participants will opt out of this non-transferable licensing scheme and go back
underground, all to the benefit of cartels.
Page 21, lines 14-20:
This would permit local governments to limit the number of medical
marijuana clinics and growers. It grants far too much power to locals, as many of
them have expressed and acted on their desire to ban medical marijuana outright,
so they would pass limits of “one” under this bill. Patients should decide through
their free choices how many clinics and growers there should be.
Page 21, Lines 22-25:
Requires clinics and growers to notify the state within ten days of any
employee change, an onerous requirement with which no other type of business in
Colorado need comply.
Page 22, lines 11-12:
Requires all officers and board members to be residents of Colorado. There
is no rational purpose for this, again a requirement that saddles no other business.
Page 22, lines 13-19:
Prohibits Sunday distribution of medicine or distribution outside of 8am
through 8pm, also prohibits on-site consumption. Colorado has grown past
antiquated “blue laws,” and this would only deny patients in difficult emergency
situations their medicine. Dispensary hours should not be limited. Pharmacies are
open 24 hours in some cases, since emergencies can occur and patients may need
medicine at all hours. That said, most dispensaries now choose to limit their own
hours, but should not be prohibited from having a 24-hour help line to provide
medicine to patients in emergency situations on an as-needed basis. On-site
consumption, if properly set up, can be an important aspect of dispensaries. Many
patients need to medicate in private area of dispensary since they have no other
9
private area to do so, and children may be present in their homes, and the
Constitution prevents use in “public view.” This would send people to public
places to medicate, which is unsafe and unsightly, and illegal.
Page 22, Lines 20-21:
Limits caregivers to 1500 patients, which is unconstitutional and irrational.
If a particular caregiver is compassionate and effective enough to accumulate
more than 1500 patients (as many are currently), patients should not be arbitrarily
restricted from selecting this caregiver. A similar objection exists to the
prohibition on holding an ownership interest in more than three clinics at one time.
This is yet another example of an attempt to repeal the laws of supply of demand,
which government cannot do.
Page 23, lines 2-9:
Requires clinics to report on and act as informants against their own
patients if the amount purchased exceeds two ounces per week. Although law
enforcement frequently overuses paid snitches/criminals to do its dirty work, this
bill would poison the confidential relationship between patient and caregiver and
place them in an unnecessarily adversarial posture. It would just drive this back
underground because no truly compassionate caregiver would comply with this
evil requirement.
Page 23, Lines 15-19:
Prohibits a grower from “directly” providing medical marijuana to a
patient. This is blatantly unconstitutional and inconsistent with reality.
Caregivers are permitted by the constitution to provide for their patients. It sets up
a required middleman, which increases costs to the patient.
Page 23, Lines 20-23:
Requires transactions be conducted by a “verifiable” payment method. I
assume the intent is to eliminate cash transactions, by far the most common
method in this business. Multinational credit card companies have shown extreme
hostility to medical marijuana as have some banks. Many patients are too poor or
disabled to have a credit card or a checking account and this provision only hurts
them.
Page 23, Lines 24-25:
Prohibits growers from operating in any areas not zoned for agricultural or
industrial uses. So now the State Legislature is acting as a local zoning board and
substituting its judgment for local zoning issues, which is the one area the locals
should retain some power.
10
Page 24, lines 10-26:
Grants the licensing authority extreme powers, including subpoena power,
to harass and probe into confidential patient, caregiver, and physician issues.
Page 25, lines 8-9:
Allows the clinic or grow license to be “summarily suspended without
notice,” which devalues the license altogether. Most will bypass this onerous and
worthless license in favor of going back underground.
Page 26, lines 26:
Fines paid by licensees are credited to the General Fund, which is
unconstitutional, just like the legislature’s own $258,735 money grab on 4/20/09
(coincidental date?). The Constitution requires that all monies collected for
medical marijuana be used to fund the administration of the program.
Page 29, lines 15-18:
Requires physician do perform follow-up care to the patient, even if the
patient does not need or request it. This and other micromanagement of the
ancient confidential doctor-patient relationship is without precedent in American
law.
Page 30, lines 1-3:
Requires physician to have never had his or her Drug Enforcement
Administration registration suspended, another unconstitutional requirement. The
constitution requires a doctor to only have a current license to practice medicine in
Colorado. Many doctors eschew the DEA process as it is too intrusive and
bureaucratic, and they are not interested in making their patients addicted to
synthetic narcotics.
Page 30, 22-27:
Requires the registry card to have the doctor’s name on it, a further
violation of confidentiality, that will enhance witch hunts against the courageous
physicians who do the right thing for their patients even in the face of government
intimidation.
Page 32, lines 1-7:
11
Requires caregivers to obtain government approval before acting as such,
another unconstitutional requirement. It is the patient who decides who his or her
caregiver is, and only the patient.
Page 33, lines 1-6:
Further restricts patient choice by arbitrarily limiting them to four changes
of caregiver per year. Some patients have more than four caregivers at any one
time, and many patients change them frequently as the supply of medicine is quite
inconsistent.
Page 34, lines 13-20:
Allows the government to deny a registry card or revoke it if the
government decides, without a hearing or jury trial, that this bill or the constitution
was violated. This is unconstitutional. The government’s only constitutionallypermitted
role regarding cards is to issue the card if the physician’s
recommendation and other information is valid.
Page 35, lines 1-11:
Prohibits a physician from being compensated in any way for his or her
work, except by the patient directly. This is a requirement that no doctor in any
other specialty must follow. Most doctors are compensated by the hospitals in
which they practice, and doctors rarely collect money directly from their patients.
Pages 35-36:
Creates yet another layer of bureaucracy, the “Medical Marijuana Review
Board,” set up to intrude upon and interfere with confidential physician decisions
regarding individual patients under the age of 21. The specter of these vulnerable
young patients facing a Governor-appointed board of overseers for “permission”
to access his or her constitutionally-protected, physician-recommended medicine
does not belong in a free country. This Board’s very existence is unconstitutional.
What Should be in the Bill
This is a constitutionally-protected medicine that is currently overpriced
because of high demand and low supply. Patients depend on this medicine in
some cases for their lives. Further restricting supply only drives up the cost for
patients, who would be harmed by crushing regulations. The most vulnerable of
patients are harmed the most.
This community is not opposed to reasonable regulations designed to help
patients, but will oppose those that will restrict supply or quality. Some of the
legislative ideas that should be considered are purity and quality labeling; warning
12
labels; prohibition on local infringement on the constitutional right to medical
marijuana; prohibitions on discrimination in employment, education, professional
licensure, housing, parenting, child custody, based on status as Medical Marijuana
patient; statutory protection for entry-level caregivers to start operations without
fear of prosecution; expansion of the power to provide recommendations to
licensed chiropractors, licensed nurses, and licensed physical therapists; and
creation and establishment of a University of Colorado research program into
medical marijuana.
In conclusion, in working to help build this industry over the past nine
years, I understand that marijuana remains a controversial medicine, although that
is rapidly shifting with even the conservative American Medical Association
endorsing its medical benefits. Luckily, the majority rules, and Colorado’s
compassionate voters are more numerous than those who would deny others this
miracle medicine.
In conceptualizing this bill, it is helpful to consider another controversial
medical issue, abortion. As we discussed previously, it would be interesting to do
a “find & replace” on your bill and replace all references to “medical marijuana”
with “abortion.” I am sure Colorado’s creative pro-life organizations would
appreciate this blueprint for further regulation of that industry. Your statement
that, because you are pro-choice, you would vote against a parallel regulatory
regime for abortion providers, speaks volumes.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please call me at
