MMJ Public Hearing on October 20, 2010

  • Thread starter JeromeGarcia
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
I got the below email from CTI - I basically there is a public hearing tomorrow, and all are encouraged to attend and make a public comment about it. This is the same forum (Board of Health) that established the high CG/Patient count after being advocated by 100+/- people at the hearing. Please attend.

~J

For immediate release: October 18, 2010

CTI Demands Board of Health Lower Medical Marijuana Patient Fee

Public Hearing on Indigent Standard on Wednesday

{Denver} -- The Cannabis Therapy Institute has sent a letter to the
Colorado Board of Health demanding that they lower the patient fee of $90
to $10 for all patients and is encouraging patients and supporters to
attend the Board of Health public hearing this Wednesday to testify in
favor of lower patient fees.

The annual patient registry fee was initially set at $90 after Amendment 20
passed in 2000 based on the estimate that only a few hundred patients a
year would use the registry. However in the past year, there have been over
100,000 new applicants, far surpassing the original estimate upon which the
$90 fee was based.

On Wednesday, the Board of Health will hold a public hearing to address two
rulemaking changes regarding the medical marijuana program. The Board will
make changes on how new debilitating medical conditions are added to the
list of qualifying conditions. The Board will also discuss setting a
standard for indigent patients for the purposes of waiving the $90 annual
application fee.

Despite intense lobbying by Sensible Colorado and other groups to the Board
of Health to set a reasonable standard for indigent patients, the Board of
Health's proposed rules would only allow patients to qualify for indigent
status if they are "over 65, blind, disabled (according to rigid SSI
standards), or whose net income is less than $903 a month and on food
assistance."
http://sensiblecolorado.org/

CTI is encouraging patients, caregivers and other advocates to contact the
Board of Health and demand that they lower the patient fee to $10 for all
patients. Article XVIII, Section 14 (3) (i) of the Colorado Constitution
(Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment) clearly states that the medical
marijuana Registry fees shall only go to pay "any direct or indirect
administrative costs" of the program. This language was included precisely
because the authors wanted to prevent the government from charging
exorbitant fees to patients. The fees were only meant to cover the costs of
the program.

The Registry fund currently has a surplus of over $9 million and there is
at least another $6 million in uncashed checks in applications that have
yet to be processed. In August, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter expressed his
intention to steal $9 million out of the patient registry fund and transfer
it to the state's General Fund to help alleviate budget shortfalls in other
areas of government.


The Constitution states that they registry fees are only for administrative
costs of the program. If the Board of Health will not act to stop the
illegal diversion of money out of the patient fund, they must act
immediately with emergency rules that lower the patient fees to $10 to
prevent the surplus of money from continuing to increase. The Board of
Health is illegally charging fees in excess of those necessary to run the
Registry program. This theft of patient money must end.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1) Attend the public hearing and testify for a lowering of patient fees for
all patients
Date: Wed., October 20, 2010
Time: 9:30 am
Sabin-Cleere Conference Room
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Bldg. A, First Floor
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246,

Click here for full meeting agenda:


2) Submit your comments in writing. By law, the Board of Health must accept
all written comments up to the time of the public hearing.

Colorado Board of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South EDO-A5
Denver, CO 80246-1530
FAX: 303-691-7702
E-mail: [email protected]
 
Mr.Sputnik

Mr.Sputnik

1,010
63
I say pay your $90 and let the state spend the money. It looks REAL nice when the roads are paved with weed money. It helps to legitimize MMJ when politicians openly accept a surplus of money. Dirty money is still money.

Don't forget money talks! It's talking ALOT louder than most MMJ advocates have been for the last year or so..

I would be WAAAYYYY more concerned with the standard of adding new debilitating conditions than some $90 vs $10 fee.

$90 is reasonable for a 1.5yr card IMO. Put that surplus into education on meth for middle school kids.
 
GreenThumbBill

GreenThumbBill

909
93
Roads aren't paved with MMJ money, and even if they were, MMJ money will never get credit where credit is due. $90 is a lot to some folks. If the $90 price point was set based on a few hundred patients registering, then it is definitely time to lower the fee significantly.
 
sky high

sky high

4,796
313
Fees will be waived for indigent patients. (which was the focus of the meeting, not lowering fees for everyone)


Colorado waives medical marijuana fees for poor
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 21, 2010; 11:52 AM

DENVER -- Poor medical marijuana patients in Colorado won't have pay state marijuana registration fees or sales tax on the pot they buy.

The Colorado Board of Health approved a plan Wednesday to waive the $90 registration fee for indigent medical marijuana patients, starting Dec. 1. Patients who want their fees waived will have to show that they meet other government standards for indigence, such as qualifying for food stamps.

The Denver Post reports that poor pot patients also will have notations on their cards waiving sales taxes on the pot they buy.

A new medical marijuana law passed by state lawmakers this year called for lower fees for indigent medical marijuana patients.
 
C

canaguy27

435
18
any word on being able to add other conditions. the day we tried to add ptsd was a freaking joke the way they handled it
 
sky high

sky high

4,796
313
I dunno, canaguy. A check of the State page just now says they should have also discussed procedures to add ailments/etc. at the same hearing...but so far I'm not seeing any info show up in the news outlets on that front.

pp69.....did you attend?

s h
 
P

pikes peak 69

226
18
No I didn't. I've been out of the loop for about a month now. Personal life is falling apart at the moment.
Sorry, I need to heal. Back later
pp69
 
Mr.Sputnik

Mr.Sputnik

1,010
63
PP69 you've got the get well wishes from me and I'm sure from the rest of us here. If you need a stand in just give a shout I'll do what I can.
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
I did go to this meeting.

There were 2 mmj items on the BOH's agenda for the day - 1. the fee wavier 2. Deciding on standards for what it takes to get new conditions on the official list for mmj (as far as I can tell this got no news coverage)

I only stayed for #2 (that item alone took 3 hours). The fee waiver was discussed after that.

The fee waiver issue was not something I could well-up any passion to speak about - even though I definitely do not enough make enough money.

My beef was with the regulation for deciding what conditions get added to the list. The issue was that they wanted Peer-reviewed, Randomized Control trials (RCT) to be the level of scientific standard that studies need to meet to be considered for consideration. This is not the highest level of standards (that would be double-blind,placebo controlled and randomized), but the standard is to high for various reasons. The most important reason is that since the endocannanbinoid system was only JUST discovered there is simply not enough RCT's out there. Another reason why the standard is to high is that the endocanninbinoid system is not taught at ANY major med schools, and again, there is not a lot of sci study because of this simple factor......

So... the BOH decided to NOT pass the regulation that called for the RCT's (WIN), but instructed the 'staff' to rework the regulation, with their concerns added, and to come back with that reg in January.

This is an important issue. Fortunately, it does look like the people I work with, and I, can do some good here. Currently, I am compiling a voting and info dossier on the BOH members, and will start lobbying/communicating with them next week. Thankfully I have a very good medical/physiological vocabulary and related knowledge, so I can speak with these people at, or above their own level.

Gotta run
 
alpine dank

alpine dank

51
6
Hey Jerome glad you could attend the meeting. I posted this in activist forum, but it also has merit here for ya too. You want med studies? How about 700+ listed a-z in condition order.



I also forwarded this to all b.o.h. members to no response.....
 
JeromeGarcia

JeromeGarcia

355
28
Alpine Dank - Thanks for the info.

Another one of the issues that they were debating was which database to "only" use to base their decisions on. The choices were using Pubmeb (this is the database that is supposed to have all the government funded medical research), or a higher standard DB - I for get its name - that only included peer-reviewed (& above) studies.

Obviously, to me, the lower standard is best in cannabis' case. I believe this because cannabis has a 10,000+/- yr history of use with no know dangers. This means there is a lot of "antecodal" evidence. This type of evidence is not considered with a high degree of confidence, in almost all cases. However, there are few other medicines that have such a long history. Therefore, it should be given a greater weight in this argument.

Sorry if my writing isn't clear - I'm not into sittin' inside on such a great Autumn day...
 
Top Bottom