S.B. 161

[StoneyGirl]

I got this from DPFOR:

Rick Bayer wrote:
> Hi DPFOR and thanks Laird.
>
> I did a Copy & Paste of Laird's attachment below. And the PDF version from
> www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0161.intro.pdf
> is up and many of us find easier to read (it has the bold print for the
> changes unless one tries to copy and paste it to plain text like DPFOR).
>
> So far, if I read SB161 dash zero correctly,
>
> 1. Section 1 (6)(a) allows for background checks
> 2. Section 2 (5)(b)© allows OMMP to deny registration for court orders
> 3. Section 2 (7)(a)(B)(i) requires physicians to say "mj may help" annually
> instead of just patient chart note verifying debilitating condition;
> practically, it pushes physicians and patients to use OMMP forms instead of
> chart notes.
> 4. Section 2 (8) says your doctor may criminalize you immediately (or in a
> week) by saying mj is contra-indicated for you and your card is revoked.
> There is no time for a second opinion so patient's might be criminalized
> even for not paying his/her doctor bill. This is bad and DHS knows it.
> 5. Section 2 (10) allows OMMP to revoke card for noncompliance
>
> As Laird says, "here is the first mmj bill- this from the OMMP- the summary
> still does not match the bill as to the affirmative defense removal (its not
> in this bill) and the limit to four patients at a grow site still seems to
> relate to if the caregiver or patient is not present."
>
> I agree with Laird. I see nothing limiting caregivers to four patients. And,
> I see nothing that creates affirmative defense removal not in SB 1085 but
> realize AD interpretation for noncardholders can vary from county to county.
> I don't think SB 161 changes that so far.
>
> OK political colleagues; Laird and I analyzed SB 161 and risk being
> incorrect so let's get some more eyeballs working so we don't overlook
> anything. This is the big 2007 DHS bill but the parts that are missing may
> easily be added with "dash amendments" to SB 161. Tell us what you find and
> what you think of DHS's "big OMMA fix". Then let's talk about what testimony
> would be appropriate to fix this or should we patients just take our lumps?
>
> Plus, how does the ACMM feel about the DHS concepts, SB 161, and is there a
> role for ACMM in fixing this bill? Thoughts?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Rick Bayer
> --------------
>
> 74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session
>
> NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
> amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
> signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
> { + braces and plus signs + } .
>
> LC 539
>
> Senate Bill 161
>
> Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
> President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
> rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
> of the President (at the request of Governor Theodore R.
> Kulongoski for Department of Human Services)
>
> SUMMARY
>
> The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
> measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
> consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
> brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
> introduced.
>
> Requires Department of Human Services to conduct criminal
> records check of person responsible for marijuana grow site.
> Authorizes department to deny application for registry
> identification card of person prohibited by court order from
> obtaining registry identification card. Requires department to
> revoke registry identification card issued to person prohibited
> by court order from participating in medical use of marijuana.
> Modifies documentation that registry identification cardholder
> must provide to department annually and circumstances that
> require cardholder to return card to department.
> Eliminates affirmative defense to certain criminal charges of
> person producing medical marijuana at place other than authorized
> marijuana grow site. Limits multiple-person grow site to
> production of medical marijuana for four eligible persons
> concurrently. Modifies restrictions on marijuana grow site
> registration card issued to person convicted of certain crimes.
>
> A BILL FOR AN ACT
> Relating to medical marijuana; amending ORS 475.304, 475.309,
> 475.316 and 475.320.
> Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
> SECTION 1. ORS 475.304 is amended to read:
> 475.304. (1) The Department of Human Services shall establish
> by rule a marijuana grow site registration system to authorize
> production of marijuana by a registry identification cardholder,
> a designated primary caregiver who grows marijuana for the
> cardholder or a person who is responsible for a marijuana grow
> site. The marijuana grow site registration system adopted must
> require a registry identification cardholder to submit an
> application to the department that includes:
> (a) The name of the person responsible for the marijuana grow
> site;
> (b) The address of the marijuana grow site;
> © The registry identification card number of the registry
> cardholder for whom the marijuana is being produced; and
> (d) Any other information the department considers necessary.
>
> (2) The department shall issue a marijuana grow site
> registration card to a registry identification cardholder who has
> met the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.
> (3) A person who has been issued a marijuana grow site
> registration card under this section must display the
> registration card at the marijuana grow site at all times when
> marijuana is being produced.
> (4) A marijuana grow site registration card must be obtained
> and posted for each registry identification cardholder for whom
> marijuana is being produced at a marijuana grow site.
> (5) All usable marijuana, plants, seedlings and seeds
> associated with the production of marijuana for a registry
> identification cardholder by a person responsible for a marijuana
> grow site are the property of the registry identification
> cardholder and must be provided to the registry identification
> cardholder upon request.
> (6)(a) { + The department shall conduct a criminal records
> check under ORS 181.534 of any person whose name is submitted as
> a person responsible for a marijuana grow site.
> (b) + } The department shall restrict a marijuana grow site
> registration card issued to a registry identification cardholder
> who has been convicted of { + a first offense of + } violating
> ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) to prohibit for a period of five years
> from the date of conviction the production of marijuana otherwise
> authorized by this section at a location where the registry
> identification cardholder is present.
> { - (b) A registry identification cardholder who has been
> convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) may not be
> issued a marijuana grow site registration card within five years
> of the date of the conviction for violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or
> (b) if the conviction was for a first offense to prohibit for a
> period of five years from the date of conviction the production
> of marijuana otherwise authorized by this section at a location
> where the registry identification cardholder is present. - }
> © A person other than a registry identification cardholder
> who has been convicted of violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) may
> not produce marijuana for a registry identification cardholder
> within five years of the date of the conviction for violating ORS
> 475.840 (1)(a) or (b) if the conviction was for a first offense.
> (d) A person convicted more than once of violating ORS 475.840
> (1)(a) or (b) may not be issued a marijuana grow site
> registration card or produce marijuana for a registry
> identification cardholder.
> (7) A registry identification cardholder or the designated
> primary caregiver of the cardholder may reimburse the person
> responsible for a marijuana grow site for the costs of supplies
> and utilities associated with the production of marijuana for the
> registry identification cardholder. No other costs associated
> with the production of marijuana for the registry identification
> cardholder, including the cost of labor, may be reimbursed.
> SECTION 2. ORS 475.309 is amended to read:
> 475.309. (1) Except as provided in ORS 475.316, 475.320 and
> 475.342, a person engaged in or assisting in the medical use of
> marijuana is excepted from the criminal laws of the state for
> possession, delivery or production of marijuana, aiding and
> abetting another in the possession, delivery or production of
> marijuana or any other criminal offense in which possession,
> delivery or production of marijuana is an element if the
> following conditions have been satisfied:
> (a) The person holds a registry identification card issued
> pursuant to this section, has applied for a registry
> identification card pursuant to subsection (9) of this section,
> is the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder or
> applicant, or is the person responsible for a marijuana grow site
> that is producing marijuana for the cardholder and is registered
> under ORS 475.304; and
> (b) The person who has a debilitating medical condition, the
> person's primary caregiver and the person responsible for a
> marijuana grow site that is producing marijuana for the
> cardholder and is registered under ORS 475.304 are collectively
> in possession of, delivering or producing marijuana for medical
> use in amounts allowed under ORS 475.320.
> (2) The Department of Human Services shall establish and
> maintain a program for the issuance of registry identification
> cards to persons who meet the requirements of this section.
> Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the
> department shall issue a registry identification card to any
> person who pays a fee in the amount established by the department
> and provides the following:
> (a) Valid, written documentation from the person's attending
> physician stating that the person has been diagnosed with a
> debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of
> marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's
> debilitating medical condition;
> (b) The name, address and date of birth of the person;
> © The name, address and telephone number of the person's
> attending physician;
> (d) The name and address of the person's designated primary
> caregiver, if the person has designated a primary caregiver at
> the time of application; and
> (e) A written statement that indicates whether the marijuana
> used by the cardholder will be produced at a location where the
> cardholder or designated primary caregiver is present or at
> another location.
> (3) The department shall issue a registry identification card
> to a person who is under 18 years of age if the person submits
> the materials required under subsection (2) of this section, and
> the custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for
> health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age signs
> a written statement that:
> (a) The attending physician of the person under 18 years of age
> has explained to that person and to the custodial parent or legal
> guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the
> person under 18 years of age the possible risks and benefits of
> the medical use of marijuana;
> (b) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility
> for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age
> consents to the use of marijuana by the person under 18 years of
> age for medical purposes;
> © The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility
> for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age
> agrees to serve as the designated primary caregiver for the
> person under 18 years of age; and
> (d) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility
> for health care decisions for the person under 18 years of age
> agrees to control the acquisition of marijuana and the dosage and
> frequency of use by the person under 18 years of age.
> (4) A person applying for a registry identification card
> pursuant to this section may submit the information required in
> this section to a county health department for transmittal to the
> Department of Human Services. A county health department that
> receives the information pursuant to this subsection shall
> transmit the information to the Department of Human Services
> within five days of receipt of the information. Information
> received by a county health department pursuant to this
> subsection shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure,
> except as required to transmit the information to the Department
> of Human Services.
> (5) { + (a) + } The department shall verify the information
> contained in an application submitted pursuant to this section
> and shall approve or deny an application within thirty days of
> receipt of the application.
> { - (a) - } { + (b) In addition to the authority granted to
> the department under ORS 475.316 to deny an application, + } the
> department may deny an application { - only - } for the
> following reasons:
> (A) The applicant did not provide the information required
> pursuant to this section to establish the applicant's
> debilitating medical condition and to document the applicant's
> consultation with an attending physician regarding the medical
> use of marijuana in connection with such condition, as provided
> in subsections (2) and (3) of this section; { - or - }
> (B) The department determines that the information provided was
> falsified { - . - } { + ; or
> © The applicant has been prohibited by a court order from
> obtaining a registry identification card. + }
> { - (b) - } { + © + } Denial of a registry identification
> card shall be considered a final department action, subject to
> judicial review. Only the person whose application has been
> denied, or, in the case of a person under the age of 18 years of
> age whose application has been denied, the person's parent or
> legal guardian, shall have standing to contest the department's
> action.
> { - © - } { + (d) + } Any person whose application has
> been denied may not reapply for six months from the date of the
> denial, unless so authorized by the department or a court of
> competent jurisdiction.
> (6)(a) If the department has verified the information submitted
> pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section and none of
> the reasons for denial listed in subsection { - (5)(a) - }
> { + (5)(b) + } of this section is applicable, the department
> shall issue a serially numbered registry identification card
> within five days of verification of the information. The registry
> identification card shall state:
> (A) The cardholder's name, address and date of birth;
> (B) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry
> identification card;
> © The name and address of the person's designated primary
> caregiver, if any;
> (D) Whether the marijuana used by the cardholder will be
> produced at a location where the cardholder or designated primary
> caregiver is present or at another location; and
> (E) Any other information that the department may specify by
> rule.
> (b) When the person to whom the department has issued a
> registry identification card pursuant to this section has
> specified a designated primary caregiver, the department shall
> issue an identification card to the designated primary caregiver.
> The primary caregiver's registry identification card shall
> contain the information provided in paragraph (a) of this
> subsection.
> (7)(a) A person who possesses a registry identification card
> shall:
> (A) Notify the department of any change in the person's name,
> address, attending physician or designated primary caregiver; and
> (B) Annually submit to the department:
> (i) Updated written documentation of the person's debilitating
> medical condition { + and that the medical use of marijuana may
> mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating
> medical condition + }; and
> (ii) The name of the person's designated primary caregiver if a
> primary caregiver has been designated for the upcoming year.
> (b) If a person who possesses a registry identification card
> fails to comply with this subsection, the card shall be deemed
> expired. If a registry identification card expires, the
> identification card of any designated primary caregiver of the
> cardholder shall also expire.
>
> (8) A person who possesses a registry identification card
> pursuant to this section and who has been diagnosed by the
> person's attending physician as no longer having a debilitating
> medical condition { + or whose physician has determined that the
> medical use of marijuana is contraindicated for the person's
> debilitating medical condition + } shall return the registry
> identification card to the department within seven calendar days
> of notification of the diagnosis { + or notification of the
> contraindication + }. { - Any designated primary caregiver
> shall return the caregiver's identification card within the same
> period of time. - }
> (9) A person who has applied for a registry identification card
> pursuant to this section but whose application has not yet been
> approved or denied, and who is contacted by any law enforcement
> officer in connection with the person's administration,
> possession, delivery or production of marijuana for medical use
> may provide to the law enforcement officer a copy of the written
> documentation submitted to the department pursuant to
> { - subsections - } { + subsection + } (2) or (3) of this
> section and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of
> the documentation to the department. This documentation shall
> have the same legal effect as a registry identification card
> until such time as the person receives notification that the
> application has been approved or denied.
> { + (10) The department shall revoke the registry
> identification card of a cardholder if a court has issued an
> order that prohibits the cardholder from participating in the
> medical use of marijuana or otherwise participating in the Oregon
> Medical Marijuana Program under ORS 475.300 to 475.346. The
> cardholder shall return the registry identification card to the
> department within seven calendar days of notification of the
> revocation. If the cardholder is a patient, the patient shall
> return the patient's card and all other associated Oregon Medical
> Marijuana Program cards. + }
> SECTION 3. ORS 475.316 is amended to read:
> 475.316. (1) No person authorized to possess, deliver or
> produce marijuana for medical use pursuant to ORS 475.300 to
> 475.346 shall be excepted from the criminal laws of this state or
> shall be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to
> criminal charges of which possession, delivery or production of
> marijuana is an element if the person, in connection with the
> facts giving rise to such charges:
> (a) Drives under the influence of marijuana as provided in ORS
> 813.010;
> (b) Engages in the medical use of marijuana in a public place
> as that term is defined in ORS 161.015, or in public view or in a
> correctional facility as defined in ORS 162.135 (2) or youth
> correction facility as defined in ORS 162.135 (6);
> © Delivers marijuana to any individual who the person knows
> is not in possession of a registry identification card;
> (d) Delivers marijuana for consideration to any individual,
> even if the individual is in possession of a registry
> identification card;
> (e) Manufactures or produces marijuana at a place other than
> { - : - }
> { - (A)(i) One address for property under the control of the
> patient; and - }
> { - (ii) One address for property under the control of the
> primary caregiver of the patient that have been provided to the
> Department of Human Services; or - }
> { - (B) - } a marijuana grow site authorized under ORS
> 475.304; or
> (f) Manufactures or produces marijuana at more than one
> address.
> (2) In addition to any other penalty allowed by law, a person
> who the Department { + of Human Services + } finds has willfully
> violated the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346, or rules
> adopted under ORS 475.300 to 475.346, may be precluded from
> obtaining or using a registry identification card for the medical
> use of marijuana for a period of up to six months, at the
> discretion of the department.
> SECTION 4. ORS 475.320 is amended to read:
> 475.320. (1)(a) A registry identification cardholder or the
> designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess up to
> six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana.
> (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if a
> registry identification cardholder has been convicted of
> violating ORS 475.840 (1)(a) or (b), the registry identification
> cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder
> may possess one ounce of usable marijuana at any given time for a
> period of five years from the date of the conviction.
> (2) If the marijuana used by the registry identification
> cardholder is produced at a marijuana grow site where the
> cardholder or designated primary caregiver is not present, the
> person responsible for the marijuana grow site:
> (a) May produce marijuana for and provide marijuana to a
> registry identification cardholder or that person's designated
> primary caregiver as authorized under this section.
> (b) May possess up to six mature plants and up to 24 ounces of
> usable marijuana for each cardholder or caregiver for
> { - which - } { + whom + } marijuana is being produced.
> © May produce marijuana for up to four registry
> identification cardholders or designated primary caregivers
> { - per year - } { + concurrently + }.
> (d) Must obtain and display a marijuana grow site registration
> card issued under ORS 475.304 for each registry identification
> cardholder or designated primary caregiver for
> { - which - } { + whom + } marijuana is being produced.
> (e) Must provide all marijuana produced for a registry
> identification cardholder or designated primary caregiver to the
> cardholder or caregiver at the time the person responsible for a
> marijuana grow site ceases producing marijuana for the cardholder
> or caregiver.
> (f) Must return the marijuana grow site registration card to
> the registry identification cardholder to whom the card was
> issued when requested to do so by the cardholder or when the
> person responsible for a marijuana grow site ceases producing
> marijuana for the cardholder or caregiver.
> (3) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this
> section, a registry identification cardholder, the designated
> primary caregiver of the cardholder and the person responsible
> for a marijuana grow site producing marijuana for the registry
> identification cardholder may possess a combined total of up to
> six mature plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana for that
> registry identification cardholder.
> (4)(a) A registry identification cardholder and the designated
> primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess a combined total
> of up to 18 marijuana seedlings or starts as defined by rule of
> the Department of Human Services.
> (b) A person responsible for a marijuana grow site may possess
> up to 18 marijuana seedlings or starts as defined by rule of the
> department for each registry identification cardholder for
> { - which - } { + whom + } the person responsible for the
> marijuana grow site is producing marijuana.
> ----------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org [mailto:owner-dpfor@drugsense.org]On
> Behalf Of Laird Funk
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:46 AM
> To: dpfor@drugsense.org
> Subject: DPFOR: mmj bill
>
> Hi all-
> here is the first mmj bill- this from the OMMP- the summary still does not
> match the bill as to the affirmative defense removal (its not in this bill)
> and the limit to four patients at a grow site still seems to relate to if
> the caregiver or patient is not present.
>
> Laird
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/26QSZ6HPevhBE.html
>
> Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/mmjXbill.htm
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/sb0161.intro.pdf
>
>
Rick

ACMM, on my motion, opposed those sections you highlighted (at least as
to your numbers 3, 4, and 5) and passed a resolution advising the
governor to not introduce these sections. I don't know whether such a
letter was sent or not, however. My recollection is that the vote was
unanimous and without abstentions although no minutes of the meeting
have as yet been distributed, and I could be remembering some of this wrong.

Lee

[MrFixit]

They are just trying to rape our program and make it harder and harder for legitimate patients to get cards and get help.
Doctors can CRIMINALIZE someone?
What the f*ck is that? Since when did Dr's become Judges? I thought there was something in this country called Due Process.

I will stop there as I could go on & on about the stupidity in this bill. :diablo:

[Madfingers]

Stay informed . . .


http://www.oregonchannel.org/

[StoneyGirl]

This bill makes judges and doctors interchangeable: judges can take away your medicine, and doctors can make you a criminal!
Everyone needs to make an appointment with their legislators and let them get to know the medical marijuana community.

[fatgreenbowl420]

its time to take up arms and rid the british from our shores !
errrrrr
tyranity is the same injustice anywhere
yes its time to fight!
WAR!
GOD WILLS IT!

[daniel@mamas]

Madfingers et al
There were some excellent corrections/recommendations from the ACMM that made this alot more patient friendly (the suggestion that this is status quo and a physician can deny the verification signature), I don't see mention of them here?
They could still be added as dash amendments?

[Madfingers]

Madfingers et al
There were some excellent corrections/recommendations from the ACMM that made this alot more patient friendly (the suggestion that this is status quo and a physician can deny the verification signature), I don't see mention of them here?
They could still be added as dash amendments?[/b]

There were including the 90 or 120 day grace period while a patient finds a new doctor. Higginson did also mention that his reading was the way it was going to be submitted and that has come to be the way it is. Legislators can tweek on it as can committees so if anyone has a constituant that they can influence to do so that is the only way I can see to get these changes made. Higginson even made the comment that the department admin were not against an extention.

Madfingers

[daniel@mamas]

Thanks MF,
I am a little concerned with the title and corresponding animosity of this thread.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.� -Sun Tzu

This is an opportunity to educate congress(critters) and invites us to call/send letters/meet with people that we can build bridges with, make changes with and ensure that nothing like what happened with 1085 happens again.


There were including the 90 or 120 day grace period while a patient finds a new doctor. Higginson did also mention that his reading was the way it was going to be submitted and that has come to be the way it is. Legislators can tweek on it as can committees so if anyone has a constituant that they can influence to do so that is the only way I can see to get these changes made. Higginson even made the comment that the department admin were not against an extention.

Madfingers[/b]

[Theon]

Another issue that has not been addressed in this thread is that Govenor's bill maintains the status quo of SB1085 concerning the 12x12 rule = 18 plants under 12x12 inch. This needs to be amended if at all possible.

From what I remember being said by DHS Admin at the ACMM meeting, this bill was to be submitted without any changes to it.

As it is the Govenor's bill, does that mean it has more clout?

How do we get the Senate to ammend the Govenor's bill, especially this 12x12 problem???

Theon B}

[fatgreenbowl420]

well if this was happening I would be upset
you gotta fight for your right
if thats the thing you need to live without toxic chemicals you have rights
this is suposto be america
if the entiere country went on strike to protest shrub stealing the election again there would be results
passive resistance needs to be implimented
letters petions are great
we need to fight !
anyway possible stand up take personal responsibility
if this is hurting our cause we should be making a differance where we can

[daniel@mamas]

From your experience I thought this quote might shed some light on my proposal to "Fight" for our rights, the most martial of arts is the art of fighting with out fighting:

"Parsons: The art of fighting without fighting? Show me some of it.
Lee: Later."


well if this was happening I would be upset
you gotta fight for your right
if thats the thing you need to live without toxic chemicals you have rights
this is suposto be america
if the entiere country went on strike to protest shrub stealing the election again there would be results
passive resistance needs to be implimented
letters petions are great
we need to fight !
anyway possible stand up take personal responsibility
if this is hurting our cause we should be making a differance where we can[/b]

[StoneyGirl]

> > Hi all-
> > Yesterday sb 161 was referred to the Senate Human Services Committee,
> > members of which are listed below.
> >
> > Health and Human Services
> >
> > Membership:
> > Bill Morrisette, Chair
> > Jeff Kruse, Vice-Chair
> > Gary George
> > Laurie Monnes Anderson
> > Joanne Verger
> >
> > Staffing:
> > Ilana Weinbaum
> > Anna Wuitschick
> >

Note that Laurie Monnes Anderson is on the Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Programs and is one of the writers of The Domino Effect.

[daniel@mamas]

There's some good news on that committee

> > Hi all-
> > Yesterday sb 161 was referred to the Senate Human Services Committee,
> > members of which are listed below.
> >
> > Health and Human Services
> >
> > Membership:
> > Bill Morrisette, Chair
> > Jeff Kruse, Vice-Chair
> > Gary George
> > Laurie Monnes Anderson
> > Joanne Verger
> >
> > Staffing:
> > Ilana Weinbaum
> > Anna Wuitschick
> >

Note that Laurie Monnes Anderson is on the Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Programs and is one of the writers of The Domino Effect.[/b]

[Infiniti]

the legislators never wanted this program. the people mandated it by voting for it. now the legislature WILL widdle as much out of it as possible. LEO continues to harrass patients and violate peoples right, yet ,the legislature attempts to make it harder and harder for this program and those that don't subscribe to thier views. they go on believing the lies that have been preached to us for years and years. then they are supported in the media by the propoganda the LEO community spouts and don't show the positives and miracles that happen everyday within this program. they show people taking advantage of the progam for personal gain and for being criminals and project that onto us. it's a media campain against this program and they will try to take it away unless we take it to the people. the ACMM obviously carries no weight with it's recommendations. which is sad but after just a short time in this state, and perhaps because of that, i understand it. they have state health care but good luck trying to find a doctor to take it. it's unconcienable that a person should have to drive 75 miles to be able to see a dentist and then be told that she can't change her health plan esentially barring her from getting desperately needed help. this a person that has the infection creeping deeper and deeper into her head which is endangering her life and has allergies to most antibiotics, yet they do nothing to help her get the care she needs. they can say "we have health care" which is true they have a program ,but, how many people are sick or dying and they do nothing about it. these are the same people that we expect to be compassionate about people smoking pot? wake up! get your proposals out to the people and get them on a ballot!

although i believe in my heart the only way to truely effect positive change is going to be by taking it to the people i urge everyone to contact the people in Daniels post below to urge them to not support SB 161.

[daniel@mamas]

Let see what we can do with Ms. Anderson, but; OGF'rs start your fingers...dial...type...email:

Senator Bill Morrisette
Party: D District: 6
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1706
Interim Phone: 541-746-1378
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., S-309, Salem, OR, 97301
Interim Address: 348 G Street, Springfield, OR, 97477
Email: sen.billmorrisette@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/morrisette

Senator Jeff Kruse
Party: R District: 1
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1701
Interim Phone: 541-673-7201
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., S-211, Salem, OR, 97301
Interim Address: 636 Wild Iris Lane, Roseburg, OR, 97470
Email: sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/kruse

Senator Gary George
Party: R District: 12
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1712
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., S-214, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: sen.garygeorge@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/george

Senator Joanne Verger
Party: D District: 5
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1705
Interim Phone: 541-267-7611
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., S-301, Salem, OR, 97301
Interim Address: 2285 N 13th Ct., Coos Bay, OR, 97420
Email: sen.joanneverger@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/verger

[Infiniti]

that was actually kinda fun. all answered except Senator Kruses office all were polite and made sure to take down my opinion and name.

the lady in Senator Morrisettes office was a very nice lady, too.

[StoneyGirl]

Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson
P.O. Box 1513 (U.S. Mail)
Gresham, OR 97030
1333 N.W. Eastman Pkwy (visitors, fed ex, etc)
Gresham, Or 97030
(503) 618-3071
sen.lauriemonnesanderson@state.or.us


Go get her.

[Infiniti]

answering machine

[Joe Blow]

I read over this and can see teh point about Docs and judges and what not. But there are many more things I cant understand. Such as(and Ill list each concern with a brief comment.



What is up with the "Prohibited by court order"? Since when is it the job of teh court to dictate who can and cannot use medicine?



"Certain Criminal Charges" What are these charges? And once again who the hell can dictate to a sick person like this? Your a felon so no u cant have any medicine. Your medicine right has been taken away?



4 patients at one grow address? HMM!!!!!!!!!! Now why would this make any sense? At this point in the game there aren't enough caregivers out there so lets limit the ones we already got?



"Any info deemed necessary" What are the limitations? History has told us these need to be defined right down to the .



Just some concerns of mine. And I don't think anything in this should be over looked. Especially if you take into consideration the ass fisting we took last year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[daniel@mamas]

Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson
P.O. Box 1513 (U.S. Mail)
Gresham, OR 97030
1333 N.W. Eastman Pkwy (visitors, fed ex, etc)
Gresham, Or 97030
(503) 618-3071
sen.lauriemonnesanderson@state.or.us
Go get her.[/b]

Thank you SG, Infin et. al it feels good doesn't it! These people are civil civil servants and most of them aren't making decisions based on spite or anger, mostly ignorance and fear...that's where we come in.

[StoneyGirl]

I feel that the election that gave us OMMA legitimized the program with a voter's mandate. The people of Oregon said they wanted to allow the sick and dying to leave the field of battle in the War on Drugs. And the legislature and law enforcement have been working ever since to drag them back out on the battlefield. The program is under constant attack from law enforcement and drug prevention specialists, who have considerable political clout.

Your status as a felon or as someone who has never commited a crime should have no bearing on your medical care. The state is responsible for the medical care of people in jail. This bill, however, does not specify "convicted" felon, or even if a felony is required to remove your right to your medicine which means that a judge who doesn't like the program can kick you out of it for a jaywalking ticket, or while you are waiting for trial and not convicted yet which is a blatant violation of due process.

The Department of Justice ( that's the cops, judges, and district attorneys) were told by the Supreme Court in the Assisted Suicide ruling that they are not qualified to practice medicine because they do not have the medical training to make medical decisions. Taking someone's medicine away is practicing medicine.

When a doctor feels that a medicine is contraindicated, he advises the patient that they should discontinue use. If the police show up and find the medicine still in the patient's possesion, the patient does not go to jail. Under this legislation, the doctor could cut the patient off and 8 days later, if the police come and the patient still has marijuana, the patient will go to jail. Should patients go to jail so that Joe Public can feel better about OMMP? And 7 days does not allow the patient to get a second opinion which means their license can be revoked by their doctor for non-payment, and they would have no time for recourse.

The intent of OMMA was to stop putting sick people in jail. The intent of 161 is to whittle down the protections that OMMA granted to it's participants. It is an attempt to exclude some people from certain medical care deemed unacceptable to Law Enforcement.

[Infiniti]

thank you. you hit the nail right on the head.

[StoneyGirl]

The thing that bothers me the most about this bill is the priorities that it illustrates. Someone spent all day, possibly several, looking for ways to exclude seriously ill patients from protection from prison. Someone felt that the most important priority they had was to look for ways to make it possible to put some sick people in jail instead of dangerous people. Dragging as many of those people who were excused from the War on Drugs possible right back out onto the battlefield. Because we would all rather have a pothead in jail than a rapist, according to the scumbag who wrote this bill. I do understand: the police have lobbied relentlessly on this issue because they would rather deal with someone who is sick and weak than with someone who might shoot/fight back.

[ndeep]

That is exactly why I would NOT call LEO when I saw tweeker deals going on, car after car at my complex.....neighbor across the hall go out and deliver..collect the cash, saw him getting paid a huge wad. I was concerned of course!! But if LEO brought their drug dog in as they once did and took him upstairs....and he smelled the dutch skunk from my apt?? I could see ME being arrested instead of the steady stream........come on, how blind can LEO be??? :verymad: :verymad:

[Bigred69]

What I'm reading into this bill is the push to put more people under the watchfull eye of the medical clinics that specialize in rehabilitation and drug treatment.I guess the clinics want more people so that they can get more money from the government and other sources.They don't believe that our medicine is good for our bodies and that our illness is mental not physical. They(LEO) want to tighten up the qualifying conditions to only terminal patients. Thats why Uncle Teddy is giving more money to LEOS and to the correction facilities to house us all. They all say now THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN with our votes, but we are going to do what we want to and the voters will have to accept it until the next voting time.Thats why some are already postering on some topics because it is their turn to be re elected in 2 years. Just the same ole same ole they all do and have done for decades now. So it doesn't surprise me that they are trying to take the voice out of the ACCM.They created this committee so that they would get our emails, letters, and phone calls and they would not be bothered by US. Thats why we do have to contact them directly or we will not be heard.And if they stop listening to us, then it's up to us to get them out of their position.We need to have things gotten done to help ourselves and not just be pacified with just their words. Like I was taught"Talk is Cheap". Action speaks louder than words!!! Mike

[AlphaMale]

That is exactly why I would NOT call LEO when I saw tweeker deals going on, car after car at my complex.....neighbor across the hall go out and deliver..collect the cash, saw him getting paid a huge wad. I was concerned of course!! But if LEO brought their drug dog in as they once did and took him upstairs....and he smelled the dutch skunk from my apt?? I could see ME being arrested instead of the steady stream........come on, how blind can LEO be??? :verymad: :verymad: [/b]

It is so sad to see patients with OMMP card in the wallet and full legal rights to possess and consume mmj afraid to call the cops when they see a crime in progress. I am sorry those fears exist. I don't think you would have a problem, ndeep. But the fact that you fear there is a possiblity is troubling.

The cops seems to be less and less an ally of the citizen victim of crime, and more and more an enemy of society in general and someone to be avoided at all costs.

while it would be wrong to label all cops as immoral liars, their interaction with the general public has taught us that most of them are. Enough of us have faced a lying bastard of a cop or prosecutor to know they lie at the drop of a hat and will NEVER admit to being wrong. This is true with all of the efforts on behalf of LEO when it comes to the OMMP.

Every LEO related action involving the OMMP, it's patients and programs, has been aimed at making the program more difficult for or unworkable for the patient. None of them are to be trusted, nor are their minions or political allies. They are all immoral liars and should be treated with the same disdain they display toward us and our program.

We need to pass legislation prohibiting them from lying and misrepresenting stats and anecdotal justification for their tactics and attacks on the OMMP. As a patient, I am sick of the hypocrisy displayed by LEO and those in bed with them, helping them to screw us at every opportunity. Down with dangerous efforts by cops with agendas and lawman egos. Down with overzealous, small minded probation officers and judges.

We need a law, curbing the constant barrage of anti mmj activities from Law Enforcement and the creeps who front for them.

AM

[pebbles]

It is so sad to see patients with OMMP card in the wallet and full legal rights to possess and consume mmj afraid to call the cops when they see a crime in progress. I am sorry those fears exist. I don't think you would have a problem, ndeep. But the fact that you fear there is a possiblity is troubling.

The cops seems to be less and less an ally of the citizen victim of crime, and more and more an enemy of society in general and someone to be avoided at all costs.

while it would be wrong to label all cops as immoral liars, their interaction with the general public has taught us that most of them are. Enough of us have faced a lying bastard of a cop or prosecutor to know they lie at the drop of a hat and will NEVER admit to being wrong. This is true with all of the efforts on behalf of LEO when it comes to the OMMP.

Every LEO related action involving the OMMP, it's patients and programs, has been aimed at making the program more difficult for or unworkable for the patient. None of them are to be trusted, nor are their minions or political allies. They are all immoral liars and should be treated with the same disdain they display toward us and our program.

We need to pass legislation prohibiting them from lying and misrepresenting stats and anecdotal justification for their tactics and attacks on the OMMP. As a patient, I am sick of the hypocrisy displayed by LEO and those in bed with them, helping them to screw us at every opportunity. Down with dangerous efforts by cops with agendas and lawman egos. Down with overzealous, small minded probation officers and judges.

We need a law, curbing the constant barrage of anti mmj activities from Law Enforcement and the creeps who front for them.

AM[/b]
hear hear head these words!!!