HB'S: HB 5032, HB 2306, HB 2298

[grammychronic]

ok, boys and girls....here we go....

bad, bad, bad bills

links:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/

pdf is the easiest to read..
in general bold is new (additions/changes) to the law, italic's are out (removed) and normal text indicates what is/is (stays the same)not changed

[StoneyGirl]

2298 - Creates crime of possession of controlled substance by
consumption. Punishes by maximum of six months' imprisonment,
$2,500 fine, or both. Expands possession of marijuana diversion
program to include persons charged with possession of controlled
substance by consumption.

This is sponsored by Andy Olson, (Rep), Albany
503-986-1415
900 Court St. NE. H-491
Salem, OR 97301

Do we have an Albany chapter?

5032 - Approves certain new or increased fees adopted by Department of
Human Services.
Declares emergency, effective July 1, 2007

Remember the "emergency" when they needed to raid the OMMP surplus last time?

[daniel@mamas]

3) Refusal to submit to a drug test as required by this
section is an admission that the public official has taken a
Schedule I or II controlled substance without legal
authorization. + }

THis is an interesting aspect of 2306.
I can't tell if there is an increase of $100 or if it is just stating the current fee in 5032.

THe real scary one of the three is the last one especially this:

A person commits the crime of possession of a controlled
substance by consumption if the person knowingly consumes a
controlled substance and the controlled substance adversely
affects the person's mental or physical abilities to a
perceptible degree.

I noticed a convo on another thread where people were arguing over who can and can't use the patients medication, and the best discussion I've heard on that line was Lee's assesment at the recent ACMM meeting where he stated(a rebute I believe in regards to an earlier convo at the sept. ACMM??) stating that it is not a crime to have consumed it is simply a crime to posses (something that as Mmj patients we are exempted from and still would be under the change in this law). This law would have a negative effect on anyone who uses cannabis with out the protection of the OMMP, which IMHO does not include cg's and persons responsible for the gs (as the law sits.)




ok, boys and girls....here we go....

bad, bad, bad bills

links:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/

pdf is the easiest to read..
in general bold is new (additions/changes) to the law, italic's are out (removed) and normal text indicates what is/is (stays the same)not changed[/b]

[Infiniti]

This law would have a negative effect on anyone who uses cannabis with out the protection of the OMMP, which IMHO does not include cg's and persons responsible for the gs (as the law sits.)[/b]

that was exactly my point earlier, although they don't come out and say it, thats what this portion of this bill will do. it'll make it illegal for cargivers and growers to consume. why else would they even bother with something like this if that wasn't the case. seems they are using the feedback they are getting to make things tougher on us. i said it before and i'll say it again. they don't want us to have this program and the only way to truely get positive change is going to be by taking it to the voters. I think Mr. Bergers proposal should go to the people to be voted on. then we'd actually have a chance of getting what we need from this program. besides how many people wouldn't vote to make LEO have to pay, literally, for their abuses.

[Bigred69]

AsI read it: The only caregivers or growers who can't consume are the ones who ARE NOT a patient themselves.If they are patients of the OMMP, they have nothing to worry about.IMHO Mike

[daniel@mamas]

AsI read it: The only caregivers or growers who can't consume are the ones who ARE NOT a patient themselves.If they are patients of the OMMP, they have nothing to worry about.IMHO Mike[/b]
-[/color]exactly, being a patient registered with the OMMP protects you from local (ie state, local, county) prosecution and offers the protections outlined in OMMA.

<span style="color:#000000">"it'll make it illegal for cargivers and growers to consume. why else would they even bother with something like this if that wasn't the case. seems they are using the feedback they are getting to make things tougher on us." infiniti

[color="#FF0000"]don't narrow the scope of this little bill's intentions, many states have similar laws in place and oregon has been sitting as an anomoly (SP?).
Unless by us you meant anyone who consumes any schedule One drug.
This is a financial and tactical move by LE and is intended to affect alot more than just OMMP registrants.</span>

[kareem ahvunyun]

A Caregiver and a PRMG are still exempt from the Possession part of the Law.

This entire thing contradicts itself!!!

[StoneyGirl]

It's a present to drug prevention specialists/ treatment facilities to make up for all the OMMP patients they can't force into treatment.

[kareem ahvunyun]

3) Refusal to submit to a drug test as required by this
section is an admission that the public official has taken a
Schedule I or II controlled substance without legal
authorization. + }[/b]

I like that "THEY" finally have to fill a Cup.
I am sure that it will be announced well in advance as well.

[Madfingers]

This is the part I think could be trouble for caregivers and growers who are not patients and imbibe . . . .

(5) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if the
controlled substance:
(a) Has been prescribed by a practitioner and is used in the
manner prescribed by the practitioner;
(b) Is administered or used under the supervision of a
practitioner; or
© Is marijuana and was consumed by a person authorized to
engage in the medical use of marijuana under ORS 475.306. + }

[kareem ahvunyun]

I do know that I must now lose a Patient...

[Madfingers]

I do know that I must now lose a Patient...[/b]

No you don't . . . we can't let that happen .. . nothing is anything but talk
so far . .. . .

[grammychronic]

notice that LEO is NOT on the list of pee'ers...the state police will be passing the cup to everybody else to fill....
give the nature of their job duties i should think they would have had to pee a LONG, LONG time ago...

[Sequoiacrone]

-[/color]exactly, being a patient registered with the OMMP protects you from local (ie state, local, county) prosecution and offers the protections outlined in OMMA.

<span style="color:#000000">"it'll make it illegal for cargivers and growers to consume. why else would they even bother with something like this if that wasn't the case. seems they are using the feedback they are getting to make things tougher on us." infiniti

don't narrow the scope of this little bill's intentions, many states have similar laws in place and oregon has been sitting as an anomoly (SP?).
Unless by us you meant anyone who consumes any schedule One drug.
This is a financial and tactical move by LE and is intended to affect alot more than just OMMP registrants.[/b]


[color="#0000ff"]</span>

[grammychronic]

well, one question i have...
will the victims of HB2306 (mandatory UA's for employment and the state employees) be automatically cited under HB2298 (possession by consumption)?