- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

Colorado Board Of Health Patient And Caregiver Rulemaking Hearing Tomorrow

0
Share.

colorado marijuanaCannabis Therapy Institute apologizes for delaying in getting this Action Alert out, but it is critical that you submit comments on these rules IMMEDIATELY in order for them to become part of the official rulemaking record.

The Colorado Board of Health will hold a rulemaking hearing on Wed., June 15, at 9am concerning sweeping changes to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s rules and regulations regarding medical marijuana patients and caregivers.

*ATTEND HEARING*
Board of Health Public Rulemaking Hearing
Restrictions on Patients and Caregivers
Wed., June. 15, 2011
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Sabin Conference Room
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO
Time: 9am and 12noon (They have inexplicably broken up the Patient and Caregiver comments. The hearing on caregiver rules will be in the morning and the hearing on patient rules will be at 12noon.)

*SEND EMAIL COMMENTS*
1) Cut and paste the following text, or put it in your own words.
2) Email it to the two email addresses in the letter.

SAMPLE TEXT:

cdphe.edobohcomments_patientrules@state.co.us, cdphe.edobohcomments_primarycaregiverrules@state.co.us

 

Subject: Patient and Caregiver Rulemaking

June 14, 2011

To the Board of Health:

In regards to the proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Medical Use of Marijuana (5 CCR 1006-2) for patients and caregivers, please accept these comments for the official record.

Rules for Patients

Colorado House Chamber

1) I object to Regulation 12 (C) (6), which states that a patient shall not
“operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any vehicle,
aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of medical marijuana.”
There is no proof that marijuana causes impairment in operation of a motor
vehicle. This criminalizes patients with debilitating medical conditions,
who must continuously medicate to control their chronic conditions. The
state statutes regarding “driving under the influence of drugs” (DUID) is
already adequate. The CDPHE does not have the authority to create a new
crime called “DUIMM”.

2) I object to Regulation 12 (C) (1), which states that a patient shall not
“undertake any task while under the influence of medical marijuana, when
doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.” This
regulation is vague, unenforceable, and potentially harmful to patients. It
is without any rational basis.

3) I object to Regulation 2 (B) (2), which states that the Patient
Confidential Registry application may now contain a space for a Medical
Marijuana Center to be listed. The CDPHE has no authority to collect
information on Medical Marijuana Centers (MMC). Article XVIII, Section 14
of the Colorado Constitution, Colorado’s medical marijuana amendment, only
authorizes the CDPHE to collect the name of the patient and the patient’s
caregiver, if designated, and to keep this information confidential.
Additionally, the CDPHE has no regulatory authority over MMCs, which are
regulated through the Department of Revenue. The collection of MMC
information by the CDPHE shows their intent to share this information with
the DOR, in violation of patient privacy guarantees in the Constitution.
The Board of Health shall pass no rules that infringe on patient’s
constitutional right to confidentiality or that allow the CDPHE to share
information with the DOR.

4) I object to Regulation 2 (E), which states that a patient may change his
primary caregiver once per month. First, the CDPHE has no authority to
state how often a patient may change caregivers. Additionally, under DOR
rules, a patient cannot change his MMC more than once every 120 days. The
CDPHE Regulatory Analysis stated that the reasoning behind this was to
protect the investment of the cannabis medicine provider, by allowing the
plants to get through a 3 to 4 month grow cycle. In this light, this
provision is unfair to caregivers, as they will not have their investment
protected for as long as MMCs.

5) I object to Regulation 2 (I), which states that patients who have been
convicted of a criminal drug offense, ordered by a court to drug or
substance abuse treatment, or sentenced to the division of youth
corrections must reapply to the registry if they wish to continue in an
active status on the registry. This regulation unfairly punishes patients
who have been convicted of, or forced to plead guilty to, any kind of drug
offense. Drug convictions do not have any bearing on a person’s right to
use medical marijuana under the Constitution. There is no rational basis
for this regulation.

Rules for Caregivers

1) I object to Regulation J (6), which states that a primary caregiver
shall not “operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any
vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of medical
marijuana.” There is no proof that marijuana causes impairment in operation
of a motor vehicle. This criminalizes patients with debilitating medical
conditions, who must continuously medicate to control their chronic
conditions. The state statutes regarding “driving under the influence of
drugs” (DUID) are already adequate. The CDPHE does not have the authority
to create a new crime called “DUIMM”.

2) I object to Regulation J (3), which states that a primary caregiver
shall not “undertake any task while under the influence of medical
marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional
malpractice.” This regulation is vague, unenforceable, and potentially
harmful to patients. It is without any rational basis.

3) I object to Regulation 9 (C), which states that the CDPHE is going to
start collecting names of people who want to be primary caregivers, but
don’t have any patients, and allow the CDPHE to give names of caregivers to
any registered patient. The CDPHE has no authority to collect names of
primary caregivers. This appears to be another way for the CDPHE to help
the DOR create the database of everyone even remotely interested in growing
medical cannabis in Colorado. There is no authority for this in the
Constitution or in statute.

3) I object to Regulation 9 (L), which states that if patients do not
require caregiver service other than the provision of medical marijuana,
then the patients shall not designate a primary care-giver. This violates
patient’s Constitutional right to use their caregiver of choice. If a
patient does not need additional services, the CDPHE has no authority to
deny the patient the right to use their husband, wife, brother, sister or
anyone from serving as their caregiver. This regulation is cruel and
malicious and has no rational basis.

I respectfully submit these comments.

Sincerely,

————————-
Click here to read the rules in their entirety:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/bh/index.html

————————-

Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
P.O. Box 19084, Boulder, CO 80308
Phone: 877-420-4205
Web: www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com
Email: info@cannabistherapyinstitute.com

Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply