Medical marijuana advisory committee shuts down, health dept. rejects caregiver definition

Vicente calls the timing "somewhat suspicious. Certainly, the health department has a long history of resorting to any tactic possible to prevent the public from commenting and observing their activities. They've held public hearings with twelve-hours notice and on election day. And now they've said comments will end on 4/20" -- a time that "smells funny," in his opinion.

Thumbnail image for coloado department of public health and environment symbol.JPG
Regarding the rejection of the advisory committee's caregiver language, Vicente admits that "we were pretty surprised. The advisory committee was comprised of law enforcement and treatment specialists, and in many ways, it seemed to be stacked against patient and caregiver rights. So when they came out with what we thought was a pretty common-sense definition of caregiver, which allowed them to provide medical marijuana to patients and have that be sufficient, we were pleased. And then to have that rejected by the CDPHE -- it was pretty shocking."

He concedes that the committee's recommendation "wasn't binding, but I think all of its other recommendations were adopted by the CDPHE. And one that actually expanded and protected patients rights was rejected."

As for the AG office's opinion, Vicente says "they didn't provide any legal backing for their argument nor publicize their memo. And we feel it's simply political posturing on their part to push their anti-medical marijuana agenda -- the same agenda they've been pushing for ten years."

With that in mind, Vicente encourages people to share their views with the CDPHE by e-mailing the department at cdphe.MMRAdvisoryCommittee@state.co.us prior to 5 p.m. today. He also urges folks to share their views at a yet-to-be-scheduled public hearing of the Board of Health, at which the rule can be formally adopted; it's likely to take place in May.

Until then, Vicente says, "I'd like to stress that the new language is bad for patients. They should have the choice of which caregiver to work with, and some patients do not need supplementary services like housekeeping and so forth. Many patients just want to get medicine from their caregiver, and they should be allowed to do so. I feel like the system has worked for the past eleven years, and there's no compelling need for them to make it more restrictive now."

More from our Marijuana archive: "THC blood test: Pot critic William Breathes nearly 3 times over proposed limit when sober."

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
Henry Higgins
Henry Higgins

Yup, I remember hearing Brian testify in favor of HB1284 last year, along with the Josh Stanley crew. There is no part of 1284 that was good for patients. Why did Brian support it?

Enough is enough!
Enough is enough!

Brian agrees the patients are getting screwed yesterday and today at the NORML conference he just finished telling everyone recreational legalization can be worked into the mmj program that already exists in CO.

The patients and caregivers are UNDER ATTACK, so why would we put that serious burden on everyone? Yeah, lets screw everyone! But Brian will have a paying job. Notice, just like, Josh Stanley and Matt Brown and CMMR, Brian (while operating as Sensible CO), who on record supported hb1284, is now not representing Sensible CO but the new group CAMR.

THANKS, BUT NO THANKS, Brian Vicente, Mason Tevrt, Sensible, Safer, CMMR, CAMR, NORML, MPP, DPA, NCIA, MMIG or whatever the fuck their shell names are. The money is coming from the same few people one being George Soros.

Robert
Robert

If these organizations really want legalization here, they need to pay attention to what Colorado is telling them. We have had it collaborationists. Anyone who sanctions the General Assembly's marijuana distribution system over caregivers' constitutional prerogative to supply it is not on the side of patients.

instntkrma
instntkrma

If you want to actually make a DIFFERENCE in Colorado, send some money to these folks - http://www.cannabislawsuits.co...

Just Wondering
Just Wondering

instntkrma, do you know the answer to my questions?

What kind of entity is the PCRLP? You're accepting donations, so how are they declared? Have you released a budget or an annual report? Are you a nonprofit? Are you accountable to your donors in any way? How do I know that my money has gone to something other than something you burn in your bowls?

High Country Caregiver
High Country Caregiver

Only a madman would say that Colorado offers protection to medical marijuana patients

Guest
Guest

Too bad stan garnett didn't get elected for state attorney general. Colorado needs an AG that will stand up for state laws regardless of what his/her personal biases may be, or at least an AG that doesn't actively fight state laws. The AG is a lawyer and legal advisor for the people.....not a judge and jury. John suthers: why is your new language necessary for the medical marijuana patients of colorado? Please explain why you are listening to a state agency and state employees instead of the people influenced by the language being changed and the state appointed advisory board. The cdphe continues to fight the patients and program they are obligated to support...I don't get it.

Robert
Robert

Robert D. ChaseColorado Coalition for Patients and CaregiversDenver, CO 80218(720) 213-6497

Christopher E. UrbinaColorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive SouthDenver, CO 80246

April 20, 2011

Dear Dr. Urbina:

I am writing to condemn the Department’s complicity in rejecting its own Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee’s proposed rules regarding caregivers who supply medicinal cannabis to patients whose doctors have recommended its use. The Department cannot be guided by any supposed “determination” of the Attorney General, because he is engaged in open defiance of Article XVIII, Section 14 of Colorado’s constitution, and to do so would continue a pattern of malfeasance. The MMAC’s proposed rules are entirely consistent with the Colorado’s constitution, statutes, and legal precedent, and the Attorney General is fully aware of this fact; he is abusing the power of his office and attempting a criminal subversion of our Constitution to further his witless prohibitionist agenda.

The Department has a sorry history of disregard for the letter and spirit of the provisions which make it the agency of state government responsible for implementing the People’s determination that cannabis is medicine. The disdain for and ignorance of the issue on the part of the Department may well reflect that of most of Colorado’s medical establishment. I believe that not a single local physician not already recommending cannabis attended last year’s Plant Medicine Expo in downtown Denver. Considering that the event featured presentations by those doing clinical research and publishing in the scientific literature on the subject of cannabis, such incuriosity and contempt reflect very poorly on Colorado’s clinicians. If you are aware of the current state of understanding of the endocannabinoid system and some of the exciting results now being obtained in studies of cannabis’ therapeutic use, you will see that Colorado and the CDPHE not only disobey the supreme Law of our State, but squander a tremendous opportunity by disregarding cannabis as medicine.

The CDPHE’s attempts to impose an arbitrary limit of five patients per caregiver and to force caregivers to also be personal assistants to their patients has embroiled the Department in several unnecessary legal battles which it has consistently lost and in which it has been found to have violated our Open Meetings Law (Title 24, Article VI), exposed the Department to richly deserved ridicule, and demonstrated an ongoing hostility to the intent of Amendment 20, which accords caregivers great latitude in managing the well being of qualified patients through the provision of cannabis. The Amendment does not saddle caregivers of patients who use medical cannabis with additional duties, nor is this the effect of the decision in People v. Clendenin. The provision cited as being inconsistent with the MMAC’s proposed rule (C.R.S. § 25-1.5-106(3)(b)(I)) very clearly allows the provision of education about the appropriate use of cannabis by caregivers to patients to constitute the extra-constitutional additional responsibility of caregivers beyond the provision of cannabis itself stipulated by the General Assembly. I urge you to read the relevant sections of statute; the Department cannot allow a man already forsworn to use the CDPHE to abrogate caregivers’ constitutional prerogatives and patients’ constitutionally mandated access to medicine. Reinstate the MMAC’s proposed rules regarding caregivers and submit them for the consideration of the Board of Health. Let Suthers repeat his lies in Court, if he dares.

Sincerely,Robert D. Chase

Choice222233
Choice222233

Good looking out Robert now everyone flood them with this information

From the Vault

 

©2013 Denver Westword, LLC, All rights reserved.
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places Denver / Boulder

    Voice Places

    Find everything you're looking for in your city

  • Happy Hour App

    Happy Hour App

    Find the best happy hour deals in your city

  • Daily Deals

    Daily Deals

    Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city