ACMM Meeting Agenda

[Madfingers]

Just in . . .

Please attend if possible . . .

The Oregon Building
800 NE Oregon Street

Close to the Lloyd Center

Ground Floor by Cafeteria


Madfingers

[AlphaMale]

Knock em dead MF. Wish I could be there. There is tons of work to do and the committee has problems. Looking forward toyour report of todays meeting.

best,
AM

[Theon]

Close to the MAX line (either red or blue)! Easy to get to. Come one? NO!!! http://www.oregongreenfree.us/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif COME ALL!

Theon

[ndeep]

TODAY? I think it's tomorrow AlphaMule....guess I'd better get started today though, even WITH directions!! http://www.oregongreenfree.us/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[StoneyGirl]

It's today.

[shabad]

~Warm joyful wishes~

Yeppers begins 10am.

I even have a clean OGF t-shirt to wear today!!

Hope to see lots of folks there. Those that aren't able, will let ya know what goes on there!!

Sat Nam
(truth is the Name)

[StoneyGirl]

You should be aware that the legislative proposals for this session include:



1. Authority for program to do criminal background checks.

2. Clarification that a caregiver can grow for four patients at any given
time.

3. Authority for the OMMP to revoke a patient's card if the attending
physician believes medical marijuana is contraindicated.

4. Allow OMMP to revoke an individual's registration card for as long as
there is a valid court order restricting the use of medical marijuana.

[MrFixit]

I was there this morning for an hour.
It seems that M. Martinez, head of the local norml chapter, is trying to make MJ and in particular MMJ more illegal in oregon than it is now. :angry: :o
Why would the head of an organization who's purpose is supposed to be making MJ more legal support something that makes it more illegal? :huh:
Sounds like a cop in the portland norml house. ;)

One good thing that did happen is they agreed to a rule change proposal to DHS to allow those on Food Stamps to also fall into the low income bracket for the $20.00 cards. :thumbsup_anim:

[Madfingers]

The Food Stamp recipients getting low income rates is great and long over do!

I really have to thank all the OGFers that came and everyone else to, it sent shivers up my spine to hear the applause especially when the motions to get our teenagers back was presented . . .

All of the different proposals have at least that in common and we will still have to fight to get this to become a reality, but for anyone to be so closed off to the fact that all cardholders want this is a sure sign of bias ulterior motives contradictory to the wishes of those who utilize the program for what it was intended.

There is also a concerted effort by the powers to be within the program to disseminate information that is not based in legal fact in the handbook such as who may or may not medicate.

There will be another emergency meeting to discuss more legislative proposals in January . . .

I still need time to digest all that transpired today.

Santa was there I hope he was listening . . .

Madfingers

[Theon]

Thanks Madfingers for the post.
I was asked by a couple of OGFers to post what happened after they left and to let them know about the next meeting date. Here is an overview--others can share and correct as needed.

The morning sessions was largely consumed by the "Govenor's Bill". The DHS OMMP office representatives went over the bill which was a surprise to many of us. There seems to be little that DHS OMMP can do to modify this as it is going to be presented "as is" by the Govenor, but it was clear that DHS OMMP was involved in the draft of the bill and that ACMM was not consulted. However, DHS OMMP did seem to listen to some of the concerns, particularly about a "grace period" for those whose Doctors change their minds about a patients need for MMJ.
The afternoon session was largely consumed with Lee Berger's recommendations to change some of the wording of the OMMA. The ACMM approved most of these recommendations; however, it is uncertain what the legislature will do with any or all of these changes. Yes, the 12x12 rule was eliminated in Berger's recommendations, but it is still in the Governor's bill.
Finally, the last 30 minutes was the opportunity for patients and the public to share their concerns. At times this was moving--hearing horror stories and the concerns of several persons.
The next meeting will be in January, but the date has not been determined.
Thanks to all who came to the meeting.
Theon B}

[rancher]

[quote]
The afternoon session was largely consumed with Lee Berger's recommendations to change some of the wording of the OMMA. The ACMM approved most of these recommendations; however, it is uncertain what the legislature will do with any or all of these changes.


I am attaching the memo that includes Lee's recommendations. We modified some of these slightly. I will post the final version as soon as I get it.

[Infiniti]

Thanks for posting that Rancher and please Thank Mr. Berger for us.

[MrClone]

I agree thanks for posting that, It was a bit frustating to sit in the back of the room and strain to listen to what was going on and not have a copy of the proposal to follow. But I was impressed with the amount of work that got done yesterday. Some very good discussions and decisions that if implented would fix a lot of the problems with the program now.

I had to take off a little early yesterday, so missed the public comment portion of the meeting, but hope there was some praise for the work that the ACMM is doing for US..

Thanx to all that participate to make OURs the best MMJ program in the country...

See ya in Jan.

M.C.

[ndeep]

Well.....I finally got back on the board.......and am happy to read of the results :) . I couldn't get out yesterday, so I suppose the date (I had wrong) was irrelevant. WHY can't MM be ousted from her position? What good is she doing for the MMJ patient?

Thanks to all that were there, it's great to hear about, and to hear there is another chance in January :smiliz19:

[AlphaMale]

Sorry if anyone went a day early. jeez, what a maroon. Sounds as though some business occurred at this one. Berger has obviously been listening and has produced some laudable suggestions for changes. Particularly the "incentive" to LEO to play by the rules or pay. I predict they are gonna respond aggressively. Would like to catch the reaction.
I want to see them produce tangible evidence of any allegations they make re. enforcement "problems" they claim stem from mmj.
Interesting also, Bergers inclusion of the term "teenagers". Isn't that an OGF original?

The food stamp qualifier is cool too. Should be that way. I would also like to see SSD income considered as qualifier for lower rate also. I got a raise of $9.00 per month, take home for '07. I would call SSD a fairly fixed income and most are unable to supplement it that much with lite work.
I am looking forward to our man Fingers take on meeting. Thank you, so much...those who were present and especially those who spoke up. OGF Rocks!!!

best,
am

[ndeep]

Sorry if anyone went a day early. jeez, what a maroon. Sounds as though some business occurred at this one. Berger has obviously been listening and has produced some laudable suggestions for changes. Particularly the "incentive" to LEO to play by the rules or pay. I predict they are gonna respond aggressively. Would like to catch the reaction.
I want to see them produce tangible evidence of any allegations they make re. enforcement "problems" they claim stem from mmj.
Interesting also, Bergers inclusion of the term "teenagers". Isn't that an OGF original?

The food stamp qualifier is cool too. Should be that way. I would also like to see SSD income considered as qualifier for lower rate also. I got a raise of $9.00 per month, take home for '07. I would call SSD a fairly fixed income and most are unable to supplement it that much with lite work.
I am looking forward to our man Fingers take on meeting. Thank you, so much...those who were present and especially those who spoke up. OGF Rocks!!!

best,
am[/b]I was too ill yesterday to show up.......moroon or not ya chithead. Plus, the site was down so pppttthhhhhhttt! :huh:

[AlphaMale]

I was too ill yesterday to show up.......moroon or not ya chithead. Plus, the site was down so pppttthhhhhhttt! :huh: [/b]


Dear ndeep....I certainly was not refering to YOU as a Maroon. :o I was refering mice elf. I am sorry you are ill. :( I am working on the chit . Was that pth thang your attempt at imitating a duck? Did you hear bout the chicken in the windstorm? Turned her back to the wind and laid the same egg 5 times!
Hope you are better. You gonna call me this weekend?

quack,
am

ps yer kinda cute when your mad. :P

[ndeep]

Dear ndeep....I certainly was not refering to YOU as a Maroon. :o I was refering mice elf. I am sorry you are ill. :( I am working on the chit . Was that pth thang your attempt at imitating a duck? Did you hear bout the chicken in the windstorm? Turned her back to the wind and laid the same egg 5 times!
Hope you are better. You gonna call me this weekend?

quack,
am

ps yer kinda cute when your mad. :P[/b]
I am better thanks, esp now that I know YOU are the Maroon :D . That pth thang is like sticken your tongue between yer lips and blowing hard. And I HAD a hen that that same thang happened to, when I ived in Perry :o . I might ...... shit, grandsons got here, and forgot wehat I was going to type........oh, I might call, but the cell that has free week-end minutes got ummmm....coffee inside somehow :rolleyes: . One last thing (for now, lol) I am NEVER cute so ptttttthhhhhhhhhhtttttttt!!

(your are tho, I'd die for those lashes ;) )

[rancher]

More reflections on the meeting

Thanks to all who attended. There was a good showing of OGF and Voter Power volunteers.

Sandee Burbank did an excellent job (as chair) of keeping things moving. Most of the 10 committee members were there to get things done and the results showed it. There was some queston about whether we would discuss the handbook again. Stormy Ray had suggested in an email that we start over on the handbook because her suggestions had been ignored. (She had provided numerous edits in earlier drafts but apparently forgot to bring them to the meeting because when repeatedly asked at the previous meeting for alternative language, she couldn't provide any.)

During one of the breaks, Jerry Wade, who is Stormy's associate called chairperson Burbank a liar in a disagreement over versions of the handbook. This was the second ACMM meeting where he called the chair a liar. At the Salem meeting he attacked Rick Bayer, although I never understood what he was upset about that time.

One highlight later in the meeting was when Jerry was complaining about the committee voting to recommend adding the teenagers back, described the problem as people being able to quadruple their output of medicine. The audience apparently didn't see this as a problem and broke out in applause.

This highlights a philosophical difference. Some, like Jerry, think it is most important to make sure that there is zero abuse. Others of us think the most important thing is to make sure qualified patients can actually obtain their medicine.

Much of the meeting was spent going over legislative proposals from OMMP and from Leland Berger. The Voter Power proposals will be considered next at the special meeting.

ACMM voted to allow doctors to rescind a card and to require the doctor to state that "marijuana might mitigate" to get a renewal. Some patients had been renewing by merely providing doctor records showing that they continued to have the qualifying condition. I voted for these changes because I think the doctor recommendation is the foundation of the program. I don't think we can justify a patient qualifying against the advice of their physician. We did vote to allow the patient a 120 day period to find another doctor to qualify them.

There were many votes on small changes to the language of the OMMA.

I voted to prohibit judges from ordering patients to not use mmj while on probation or parole. I voted against the same protection for caregivers.

Most of the votes were 8-1-1, with Stormy Ray opposing and Madeline Martinez abstaining. Stormy did vote in favor of a few of the changes. As I recall she voted in favor of allowing caregivers/PRMGS to give medicine to other patients with the permission of the patient who "owns" the medicine. She also voted to prohibit judges from denying patients mmj on probation and parole.

Other OMMP proposals were to add statutory authority for the background checks and clarify that PRMGS could grow for four patients "at a time" not "per year".

I will post the complete list of motions as soon as I have a copy. The Berger proposals are included in the memorandum from him I posted earlier. A few were modified at the meeting.

ACMM also voted (unanamously) to allow patients who qualify for foodstamps to receive the discounted $20 registration fee. It was good to recommend that because this is something else we have been discussing for years.

As I said earlier, my lit of proposals, including compensation and dispensaries, will be considered at the next meeting. I am hoping to get more feedback on them between now and the meeting.

Thanks to all who are participating in this process.

rancher

[ndeep]

Many thanks to YOU rancher, for keeping those of us that are not attending, informed as to what is happening. There are of course others to thank, and I hope I have already......MadFingers, SequoiaCrone, GrammyChronic, kristi...well too many for my brain to process at the moment :)

THANKS TO ALL THAT ARE WORKING FOR US!!!!!!!!!!

[Bigred69]

Rancher, I am a little confused about the Dr thingy. My Dr works for the VA hospital in Boise ,Id.I live in Oregon. We all know the VA will not promote MMJ and especially the ones in Idaho where a small amount is still a major felony.Do you mean that I can no longer take his notes to the Clinics and get their Drs to approve me if this proposal passes? I am on SSD and cannot afford to go to regular Drs.The first 5 years I was disabled I didn't get on the OMMP because I could not find a MMJ Dr. till I saw a news article about the THCF clinic and called them. Please tell me that I am wrong on how I am reading the proposal.Thank You, Mike

[anthonyj]

Rancher, I am a little confused about the Dr thingy. My Dr works for the VA hospital in Boise ,Id.I live in Oregon. We all know the VA will not promote MMJ and especially the ones in Idaho where a small amount is still a major felony.Do you mean that I can no longer take his notes to the Clinics and get their Drs to approve me if this proposal passes? I am on SSD and cannot afford to go to regular Drs.The first 5 years I was disabled I didn't get on the OMMP because I could not find a MMJ Dr. till I saw a news article about the THCF clinic and called them. Please tell me that I am wrong on how I am reading the proposal.Thank You, Mike[/b]

As far as I remember, out-of-state doctor records were not affected by any proposal brought up at the ACMM meeting.

[rancher]

Bigred

The doctor rules that were discussed at the meeting were about the doctor that qualifies a patient later being able to change their mind and withdraw the recomendation. We argued that that was OK but only if the patinet had time (120 days) to find another doctor to qualify them.

These proposals do not change anything about what medical records a doctor can/must see to qualify a patient in the first place.

rancher

[Bigred69]

Rancher, what I'm confused about if they tighten controls, is will they now contact my VA DR or my THCF DR for verification.Sounds like they will be contacting my VA DR which in turn would cause me to lose my card.Due to VA's federal regs. Now if it is my THCF DR they are contacting, my concerns will disapear. I read the proposal to say verification will be with the DR who is treating me and not the Dr who signed my authorization paperwork.Correct me if I read that wrong.Thank You, Mike

[rancher]

Bigrede69 says:
Rancher, what I'm confused about if they tighten controls, is will they now contact my VA DR or my THCF DR for verification.Sounds like they will be contacting my VA DR which in turn would cause me to lose my card.Due to VA's federal regs. Now if it is my THCF DR they are contacting, my concerns will disapear. I read the proposal to say verification will be with the DR who is treating me and not the Dr who signed my authorization paperwork.Correct me if I read that wrong.Thank You, Mike

This is a bit complicated but I will try to explain it. There are two related situations we discussed at the meeting. The first is whn a doctor who has signed an attending physicain statement qualifying a patient later chooses to withdraw that qulification. This is rare but it does happen, usually when the physician receives additional information, finds out the patient lied, or observes hramful effects for the patient.
The second situation concerns an OMMP policy where patients could renew for OMMP by merely having a signed statement from a physician that they continue to have the diagnosed qualifying condition. This potentially had patients qualifying for the OMMP by physicians who were opposed to doing so. OMMP now sends any doctor qualifying a patient, a verification letter that the doctor must return for the patient to qualify. If a patient sends in their signed medical records indicating that they still have a qualifying condition but the doctor doesn't return the verification letter then the patient eventually is denied.

None of these changes meaqn that OMMP would contact any physician other than the one who signed your application. If you went to THCF then OMMP would only send those docs a verification letter but they would not contact any of your other doctors.

The only thing at issue here is whether a doc can undo their own recommendation. There is no circumstance where one doctor can undo the approval by another physician.

I hope this helps explain this.

rancher