This post is C&P of several posts @www.pikespeaknorml.org, posted by dogsoldier about the process the State must follow and explaining what the State is trying to do.
Hello all. Yes, you should be freaked out. I have the proposed rules, and you had ALL better go and take a look. Here is the link:
http://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/real...p_rule_id=3070
That page, assuming I linked it correctly, is the statement of when, where and HOW to participate in this very draconian rulemaking proceeding. It is CRITICAL that you understand that ALL position statements (I'll get to that later) and comments are received at CDHPE by March 2. Then, at the discretion of the person chairing the process on the 18th, you may be allowed to make oral comments. I'll give you some detail about that, too.
The proposed changes to the current rules are linked on the above page. Look for "Text of Proposed Changes" and click on the link. You had better be sitting down when you read it, although it is very short (6 pages in .pdf format).
PLEASE, for the sake of the salvation of this program, CROSSPOST THIS EVERYWHERE!!!!
Process first: Every change to every rule or policy of every department in the State of Colorado must go through the process defined under the Administrative procedures Act. In short, it is the act which secures due process as required by law. So, in order to meet their burden of "notice", the CDPHE sent us all letters with those links (or not, since I haven't gotten one yet.) I always get notices by e-mail of proposed rule changes for several state departments, the CDPHE being one of them. I have to because of what I do as a disability rights advocate/legal eagle for CCDC. Anyway, that DORA announcement came to me by e-mail on February 3, the next business day after the completed draft. My bad for not knowing how to reach others in our community, and big kudos to the Kush Master for cluing me in.
Before March 2, every organization, agency, business (like doctors), or other entity can submit "position statements" as comments. It's
very important to the process and can stop it altogether. A position statement should say why these proposed rules are good/bad and should also state whether or not this will increase costs or pose a potential harm to the citizens (stakeholders) it may effect.
If you do not get in your written comments as individuals by this date, the agency does not have to take anything you say into consideration at the oral phase. The oral commenting is, as stated before, on March 18 at 1:15 pm at the Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, in the Sabin-Cleere Conference Room. It looks to me like they don't expect any opposition because of the shortened length of hearing time. Normally, they must hold two separate hearings and they must be public.
In my next installment, I'll give some suggestions as to how to mobilize against this enormous infringement of rights.
I hope everyone reads my new post I'm putting up a little further down on this thread. It's the post I sent to ASA, marijuana.com and a couple of other action alert boards. It will be up in a sec. Just have to copy/paste.
The State of Colorado is attempting to roll back the clock to somewhere past the 70's but before the turn of this century. The medical marijuana program is under attack by the agency in charge of the program, offering up some of the most draconian changes to an otherwise fair program. Not great, but fair. Here is a little of what is up for comments on proposed rules.
Colorado proposes to redefine the term "caregiver". They are now proposing that a caregiver be someone "who has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition." In English, this means that they are planning to redefine a caregiver as someone who is on a par with an in-home health aide or better, and mean to use the standards for in-home health caregivers under another Colorado Department: the Department of Health Care Policy and Finance. In plain English, MEDICAID definitions. It's a very bad idea because the standard of both "care" and "debilitating medical condition" are established as any condition that meets the nursing home level of care required to maintain a person in their home or community. It means that the caregiver must be an employee of a home health agency or part of some consumer directed attendant support program.
Next. Colorado proposes that the "primary caregiver", besides being a health care attendant, cannot be a caregiver for "more than 5 patients at any given time." Now, for argument's sake, let's say that you have an attendant or health maintenance provider who is employed under one of the two available defined options. That person will have to LOSE wages/patients if they have more than 5 MMJ participants on their case load. So, while the first rule creates costs to be born by the state or individual with a mandate of "significant responsibility" to be carried out by someone qualified as a home health worker, the second rule then cuts the employment opportunities for that "caregiver" with a restriction of 5 patients.
Next. Colorado wants a copy of a secure and verifiable identity document. No examples of what that means but best guess is anything from a drivers license to a passport.
Next. Every application, with a non-refundable pre-paid fee of $90, must be notorized. Additionally, the signatures on related forms, such as the physician's statement, must be notarized. Every time you change your address, doctor or caregiver, that, too, must be notarized. However, you will not get a new registration certificate if you make these changes. Since the name of the caregiver is supposed to be on the certificate, but if you change to another caregiver they won't give you a certificate indicating the new caregiver's name, this places the new AND old caregiver at risk of law enforcement reprisal, until law enforcement gets around to verifying the change by calling the Registry. Ooops...so sorry to have held you without cause because it took us 30 days to make that phone call...
This forum has one of the largest and most active memberships on the 'net. The medical marijuana patients of Colorado need your help NOW. Organizations, agencies, physicians from anywhere can submit position statements in writing to:
Colorado Board of Health
C/O Linda Shearman, Program Assistant
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South EDO-A5
Denver, CO 80240-7702
FAX: 303-691-7702
e-mail:
[email protected]
IMPORTANT: ALL comments in writing, e-mail or FAX have to be received no later than March 2, 2009. The public hearing on these proposed rules is scheduled for March 18, 2009 at 1:15 pm at the Department's Sabin-Cleere Conference Room. If you cannot be there in person to make comments, under the ADA you have the right to request a teleconferencing accommodation (they e-mail you a number to call and a code to enter the room). You have to place that request in writing, stating that you want this reasonable accommodation of policy and practice per the ADA, so make that request part of your letter or e-mail or FAX.
Please crosspost this or forward this message EVERYWHERE. When we were in the rulemaking process for the reformation of the ADA we had people from all parts of the country and all walks of life making comments. It's your right and it's required for due process. If Colorado gets away with these proposed rules the damage to the entire program will be incalculable.
One last thing. As I see it, the rules themselves make NO provisions for certified cultivators. In Colorado, getting your weed/seeds is your problem, but you OR your caregiver can have up to 6 plants in varying stages of growth legally growing at any given time. You OR your caregiver may also be in possession of no more than 2 ounces at any given time. If the rules were changed to include a definition of a certified cultivator, who could be assigned responsibility for growing and designating by tagging plants grown for the 6 plants per program participant, it would remove the restrictions on what a "caregiver" is by definition. A good reason to have certified cultivators is to provide quality medical marijuana to persons living in public housing or Section 8 rentals where all growing is prohibited by federal law. There may also be others who do not know how to grow or may be too ill to grow on their own. As it stands now, this notion is completely unaddressed. In very rural areas there is no such thing as a "dispensary". If you're in public housing you may be forced to acquire prescriptions from your doctor for Marinnol: a VERY expensive but ineffective pharmaceutical alternative. It is not covered by Medicaid or Medicare unless you are prepared to appeal and go to hearing.
So, you guys need to help spread the word around. States considering legalization of medical marijuana look to other states as models. I don't think anyone wants Colorado's proposed model, which is why defeating the state arguments is so critical. The caregiver definition is the most dangerous, and their reason for it is to insure that "a caregiver is providing more assistance than simply providing medical marijuana to the patient." Using HCPF standards of nursing home level of care is beyond scary.
Hope this helps everyone understand how backwards thinking these changes are.
Pp69
No wait, it will only be for five patients so it won't be that bad I guess. 