I just felt to those of you that are trying to keep up with this HB 1284 Bill out of curiosity or because it may concern you as a citizen of this state perhaps... either way, I felt I should try to explain why this new bill passed recently IS NOT so cool for many of us in this state and legal. I mean shit just last year things were going smoothly and now many of us are sitting here like WTF?!?! So anyway, take it or leave it that is all up to you; but since I was bored I thought I'd share.
Muah, Hugs, & Legal Nugs Always!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Medical marijuana is a medical treatment that needs to be treated as such. If we are going to legalize marijuana then lets do that. Colorado's House Bill 1284 provides way too many mixed messages, and potential problems for the people who actually benefit from what Amendment 20 in the Colorado State Constitution was intended to do.
According to section 2, physicians would be prevented from investing in any dispensary; however it doesn't address the doctors who invest in pharmaceutical companies. It would also discriminate against those under the age of 21 in regard to medical treatment received. Those under 21 do not require two prescriptions for narcotic pain killers. Why is this being addressed so recreationally by the people who are accusing patients of being recreational users in disguise?
21 and over, similar to an authority regulating alcohol? This bill asserts more recreational use of medical marijuana than anyone who "abuses" the system. At least the people who "abuse" the system aren't creating law by doing so. This atrocity will do way more harm by approaching this situation with such disregard for those who need this medicine to live a better life. It is offensive that the health of so many people is being regarded with such a lack of empathy by people who not only lack understanding of the urgency involved when someone is sick or severely injured; but have also turned this issue into a political game of antiquated discriminatory propaganda.
When did we start disciplining everyone for the faults of a few bad examples? Are we working on the problem of pharmaceutical abuse, too? We need to establish a common idea of how to approach medical cannabis before we can start throwing out bills, especially when those bills lack any substance in regard to solving problems without penalizing those who follow the rules.
Moving on, the bill requires that no caregiver be registered with more than five patients at any given time. This rule would require more people to grow the medicine, further distributing it throughout neighborhoods, and limiting the availability to patients. HB 1284 would offer a "confidential" referral to an available caregiver if needed, but the fact that this is even necessary from the impact of this bill is absurd. The whole concept of limiting caregivers to five patients would make the cost of medicine go through the roof, and the patients will be the ones paying for this restriction. Why does the government want to be the new weedmaps of medical marijuana caregivers? Exceptions could be made to the five patient limit, but it would have to be approved by the State Health Agency.
Next, the bill would enact a one-year moratorium on new dispensaries, and all current dispensaries would have to be re-licensed within that year. This creates another expense for dispensaries to pass along to the customer or patient. It amazes me how those who wrote this bill, and similar ones, don't understand that when they inflict financial punishment upon dispensaries that cost is absorbed by the patient.
It seems possible that the one concession for edibles is supposed to make up for all these restrictions. The bill does also say that the state licensing board that would be established would be required to make an official request of the federal government by January 1, 2012 to reschedule marijuana to a schedule II substance. This is the kind of support we need from our legislators.
The bill requires intensive background checks and fingerprinting of dispensary owners, officers, and employees in order to issue an ID card to those people. Beyond this, the security of those people is limited in regulation to alarms and lights.
One of the more disturbing parts of this bill is Part 3. "Good moral character" is called into question of any potential or current dispensary owner. The owner must provide defense for their moral character to the licensing authority at a public hearing prior to being granted a license. This involves having witnesses testify on behalf of the person's moral character, providing petitions and other testimony from businesses and citizens of the neighborhood where they hope to open their business.
I'm still trying to figure out how one can legally define morality. What are the definitions of "good moral character?" Is there a scale used to measure this? Where can I buy one? It seems this part of the bill would require that all persons assigned to the board be certified as "rational" according to the definition of morality according to Stanford University.
One of the biggest areas of contention with this bill is the requirement it makes upon all dispensaries to operate as a non-profit. Liquor store and pharmacies are not held to this restriction. Theres also a regulation on the hours a dispensary can operate, which would be any day from 8am to 7pm.
HB 1284 would limit the amount of cannabis that can be purchased by a dispensary to 10% of its allowed inventory, and do the same for the seller. On top of this, the bill would require that cannabis only be purchased and sold between licensed Colorado marijuana centers.
Now onto the part that strikes me as a sort of violation of the first amendment. A dispensary may not use any images of marijuana plants in their advertisements, can't use their logo, and can't put any prices in their ads. The same logo may not be present on the one allowable sign for the business location either. I am not aware of any other businesses that are restricted in this way, however if a dispensary violates one of these rules they could lose their license if HB 1284 passes. Those who violate a suspended or revoked license can be fined up to $100,000, too.
As I continue making my way through this 45 page bill, I can't help but think that this bill is slightly over-ambitious. By being so ambitious the chance for the bill to be destructive becomes more likely. It seems this bill should be several different bills, and all the sections need refinement. I can't help but say that this bill has some positive aspects; however they are drowning in a sea of poorly constructed discriminatory law and ambiguity.
Continuing on...
This bill seems like an attempt to back up some of the efforts of SB 109, one being the patient-physician relationship. [Insert new bill here as seems appropriate] Similar distinctions are made in HB 1284, but additional restrictions are made. A patient must visit their recommending doctor regarding their condition prior to the appointment where the doctor fills out the patient's marijuana permit papers. If you have ever had Kaiser health insurance, you are well aware of the fact that this concept would kill most of their patients if applied to prescriptions for pharmaceuticals, since a lot of Kaiser patients rarely see the same doctor. Again, this bill neglects the timeliness and the nature of healthcare.
If passed, HB 1284 would make the patient registry no longer confidential. So much for the medical concept of medical marijuana, and the protection of sensitive healthcare information.
Also like SB 109, HB 1284 would require patients between the ages of 18 and 21 to obtain two doctor recommendations for their permit. Apparently, when someone turns 21 they are suddenly blessed with the wisdom that only two doctors can provide in unison. This is a completely discriminatory and unnecessary part of this bill, especially with everything else in it.
To further twist the knife into the age discrimination, this bill would require a person be at least 21 years of age to own a dispensary. Here's more discrimination. No peace officer can own a dispensary, nor can any family member of theirs; however there is no clarification on how far removed one must be. Oh, and any potential dispensary owner must be current on all taxes, can't be a convicted felon, can only employ those who can pass the background check, and ironically the FBI is consulted for these background checks.
Basically, the only way for the ownership of a dispensary, under this bill, to be transferred is if someone dies. Otherwise, the whole process must be completed by the new owner, and approved by the board just like a new licensee.
Anytime an employee leaves, the licensing authority must be contacted within 10 days and that employees ID card be returned to the authority. All new employees must pass the background check before they can begin working.
For those who grow the medicine, HB 1284 would not allow them to work in conjunction with another grower to cultivate the medicine. These growers would also have to be designated as the patient's primary caregiver. These caregivers would have to make available all the patient information and registry cards 24 hours a day, seven days a week, basically forfeiting their 4th amendment rights by simply being a caregiver. HB 1284 would restrict the use of medical cannabis from any correctional facility or school, which could have horrific implications for any children who must consume the medicine in edibles at lunch time, or any prisoners who have been granted permission to use medical cannabis. Again, another aspect of neglectful thinking by people not versed in the various realities of being sick or severely injured.
Reference Address:
http://www.examiner.com/x-17593-Drug-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d2-CO-HB-1284-Is-the-best-we-can-do
Muah, Hugs, & Legal Nugs Always!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Medical marijuana is a medical treatment that needs to be treated as such. If we are going to legalize marijuana then lets do that. Colorado's House Bill 1284 provides way too many mixed messages, and potential problems for the people who actually benefit from what Amendment 20 in the Colorado State Constitution was intended to do.
According to section 2, physicians would be prevented from investing in any dispensary; however it doesn't address the doctors who invest in pharmaceutical companies. It would also discriminate against those under the age of 21 in regard to medical treatment received. Those under 21 do not require two prescriptions for narcotic pain killers. Why is this being addressed so recreationally by the people who are accusing patients of being recreational users in disguise?
21 and over, similar to an authority regulating alcohol? This bill asserts more recreational use of medical marijuana than anyone who "abuses" the system. At least the people who "abuse" the system aren't creating law by doing so. This atrocity will do way more harm by approaching this situation with such disregard for those who need this medicine to live a better life. It is offensive that the health of so many people is being regarded with such a lack of empathy by people who not only lack understanding of the urgency involved when someone is sick or severely injured; but have also turned this issue into a political game of antiquated discriminatory propaganda.
When did we start disciplining everyone for the faults of a few bad examples? Are we working on the problem of pharmaceutical abuse, too? We need to establish a common idea of how to approach medical cannabis before we can start throwing out bills, especially when those bills lack any substance in regard to solving problems without penalizing those who follow the rules.
Moving on, the bill requires that no caregiver be registered with more than five patients at any given time. This rule would require more people to grow the medicine, further distributing it throughout neighborhoods, and limiting the availability to patients. HB 1284 would offer a "confidential" referral to an available caregiver if needed, but the fact that this is even necessary from the impact of this bill is absurd. The whole concept of limiting caregivers to five patients would make the cost of medicine go through the roof, and the patients will be the ones paying for this restriction. Why does the government want to be the new weedmaps of medical marijuana caregivers? Exceptions could be made to the five patient limit, but it would have to be approved by the State Health Agency.
Next, the bill would enact a one-year moratorium on new dispensaries, and all current dispensaries would have to be re-licensed within that year. This creates another expense for dispensaries to pass along to the customer or patient. It amazes me how those who wrote this bill, and similar ones, don't understand that when they inflict financial punishment upon dispensaries that cost is absorbed by the patient.
It seems possible that the one concession for edibles is supposed to make up for all these restrictions. The bill does also say that the state licensing board that would be established would be required to make an official request of the federal government by January 1, 2012 to reschedule marijuana to a schedule II substance. This is the kind of support we need from our legislators.
The bill requires intensive background checks and fingerprinting of dispensary owners, officers, and employees in order to issue an ID card to those people. Beyond this, the security of those people is limited in regulation to alarms and lights.
One of the more disturbing parts of this bill is Part 3. "Good moral character" is called into question of any potential or current dispensary owner. The owner must provide defense for their moral character to the licensing authority at a public hearing prior to being granted a license. This involves having witnesses testify on behalf of the person's moral character, providing petitions and other testimony from businesses and citizens of the neighborhood where they hope to open their business.
I'm still trying to figure out how one can legally define morality. What are the definitions of "good moral character?" Is there a scale used to measure this? Where can I buy one? It seems this part of the bill would require that all persons assigned to the board be certified as "rational" according to the definition of morality according to Stanford University.
One of the biggest areas of contention with this bill is the requirement it makes upon all dispensaries to operate as a non-profit. Liquor store and pharmacies are not held to this restriction. Theres also a regulation on the hours a dispensary can operate, which would be any day from 8am to 7pm.
HB 1284 would limit the amount of cannabis that can be purchased by a dispensary to 10% of its allowed inventory, and do the same for the seller. On top of this, the bill would require that cannabis only be purchased and sold between licensed Colorado marijuana centers.
Now onto the part that strikes me as a sort of violation of the first amendment. A dispensary may not use any images of marijuana plants in their advertisements, can't use their logo, and can't put any prices in their ads. The same logo may not be present on the one allowable sign for the business location either. I am not aware of any other businesses that are restricted in this way, however if a dispensary violates one of these rules they could lose their license if HB 1284 passes. Those who violate a suspended or revoked license can be fined up to $100,000, too.
As I continue making my way through this 45 page bill, I can't help but think that this bill is slightly over-ambitious. By being so ambitious the chance for the bill to be destructive becomes more likely. It seems this bill should be several different bills, and all the sections need refinement. I can't help but say that this bill has some positive aspects; however they are drowning in a sea of poorly constructed discriminatory law and ambiguity.
Continuing on...
This bill seems like an attempt to back up some of the efforts of SB 109, one being the patient-physician relationship. [Insert new bill here as seems appropriate] Similar distinctions are made in HB 1284, but additional restrictions are made. A patient must visit their recommending doctor regarding their condition prior to the appointment where the doctor fills out the patient's marijuana permit papers. If you have ever had Kaiser health insurance, you are well aware of the fact that this concept would kill most of their patients if applied to prescriptions for pharmaceuticals, since a lot of Kaiser patients rarely see the same doctor. Again, this bill neglects the timeliness and the nature of healthcare.
If passed, HB 1284 would make the patient registry no longer confidential. So much for the medical concept of medical marijuana, and the protection of sensitive healthcare information.
Also like SB 109, HB 1284 would require patients between the ages of 18 and 21 to obtain two doctor recommendations for their permit. Apparently, when someone turns 21 they are suddenly blessed with the wisdom that only two doctors can provide in unison. This is a completely discriminatory and unnecessary part of this bill, especially with everything else in it.
To further twist the knife into the age discrimination, this bill would require a person be at least 21 years of age to own a dispensary. Here's more discrimination. No peace officer can own a dispensary, nor can any family member of theirs; however there is no clarification on how far removed one must be. Oh, and any potential dispensary owner must be current on all taxes, can't be a convicted felon, can only employ those who can pass the background check, and ironically the FBI is consulted for these background checks.
Basically, the only way for the ownership of a dispensary, under this bill, to be transferred is if someone dies. Otherwise, the whole process must be completed by the new owner, and approved by the board just like a new licensee.
Anytime an employee leaves, the licensing authority must be contacted within 10 days and that employees ID card be returned to the authority. All new employees must pass the background check before they can begin working.
For those who grow the medicine, HB 1284 would not allow them to work in conjunction with another grower to cultivate the medicine. These growers would also have to be designated as the patient's primary caregiver. These caregivers would have to make available all the patient information and registry cards 24 hours a day, seven days a week, basically forfeiting their 4th amendment rights by simply being a caregiver. HB 1284 would restrict the use of medical cannabis from any correctional facility or school, which could have horrific implications for any children who must consume the medicine in edibles at lunch time, or any prisoners who have been granted permission to use medical cannabis. Again, another aspect of neglectful thinking by people not versed in the various realities of being sick or severely injured.
Reference Address:
http://www.examiner.com/x-17593-Drug-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d2-CO-HB-1284-Is-the-best-we-can-do