TALKING POINTS: tba

Not liking this, a huge monopoly is the worst part, but I have broken down my other concerns below.... Here is my breakdown of concerns, and correct me if Im wrong, I just went through it this AM At the end, a bit of math on the mono"ploy".... *Section 1* *(5) "Greenhouse site" means a site operated by a person who holds a permit issued under* *section 13 of this 2013 Act that authorizes the person to grow medical marijuana in a* *greenhouse.* Not sure why "greenhouses" are different than outdoor, can anyone explain why they are segregated out. *(8) "Marijuana" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.* Shouldn't we add a definition of edibles so they don't count the whole weight of a brownie... *Section 3* *(2) The commission consists of the following members appointed by the Governor:* Seems a tall order to fill all the spots with the qualified individuals - like : Doctorate in Chem, Doctorate in Plant Bio...One member plant researcher, One member chem and lab research etc.... *Section 6* *(3) The development of an interface by which stakeholders of the medical marijuana industry* *may interact; and* "Stakeholders" is too vague, who "is" a stakeholder. It should be defined and LEO left out, it is medicine and not criminal. *SECTION 11. * *(1) An attending physician may register with the Cannabis Commission as* *provided in this section for purposes described in section 12 of this 2013 Act.* *And Section 12* *(c) Dispense up to one ounce of a specific type of medical marijuana to a registry identification* *cardholder who is registered with the commission under section 9 of this 2013 Act* *for the purpose of determining whether that type of medical marijuana is an appropriate* *treatment for the registry identification cardholder's health needs;* *(d) Order medical marijuana from an outdoor site, greenhouse site, indoor site or research* *site for a registry identification cardholder; and* Doctor's dispensing medicine, I think it's great, but might be troublesome for the Medical Board...maybe not, and they should be able to handle it so they can understand it better. *SECTION 16. * *(1) A research site is authorized, at the location for which a permit has* *been issued under section 15 of this 2013 Act, to:* It specifies each purpose for research....too specifically I think. It should leave room for the commission to add other research purposes down the road. And then... *(i) Provide distributors with medical marijuana for delivery to registry identification* *cardholders, designated primary caregivers, other research sites* Why do research sites need to provide marijuana to distributors? It seems like the research sites are the same as the grow sites, with the added caveat that they can do research. It seems to me, if you are going to do research, you should do research...not be a distributor... *SECTION 27. * *The Cannabis Commission may issue only 18 permits under sections 13 and* *15 of this 2013 Act. Of those 18 permits:* This is crazy...18 grow sites? But, if you are a distributor, you can grow your own, right? oh....no...it appears not....going back to Section 19.... *SECTION 19. * *(1) The Cannabis Commission shall issue to an applicant a distributor permit* *that authorizes a person to transfer medical marijuana grown at an outdoor site,* *greenhouse site, indoor site or research site to a registry identification cardholder registered* *with the commission under section 9 of this 2013 Act or the designated primary caregiver* *of a registry identification cardholder registered with the commission under section 9 of this* *2013 Act if the applicant:* this is no good. 18 sites will have the *LUXURY* of producing all the medical marijuana that will be sold at ….any number of distributors...That is just crazy, I think. We need a way for *CURRENT GROWERS AND PATIENTS* to get rid of their excesses, and possibly provide an affirmative defense for *THEM*, so they can possess over 1 ½ pounds. I like many aspects of the bill, but I think the "research" part is cheesy, to say the least. Also, have 18 licensed grow sites will do *NOTHING * for current growers and patients who grow 24 plants outdoor, say in Southern Oregon, for 4 patients and have 10 pounds of excess medicine after harvest because they could only keep 6 pounds, or a ¼ pound off of each plant... This bill will set up 18 enormous farms, and allow "professionals" and "distributors" to distribute their medicine. I foresee a small industry raking in most of the revenue, with 18 farms setting up their own distribution. Quick math on this monopoly.... lets say about 1/3 of the 56,000 current patients have no safe acess and will utilize the dispensaries. That's about 18,500 patients. If those folks consume their allotted 24 ounces in a year, that's about 28,000 pounds of medicine! At a mere 140.00 an ounce (or only $5.00 a gram), the revenue generated would be $60,480,000.00! *That's 60 million dollars folks. Divided by 18 growers, that is 3.3 million a piece*! Even at a $2.50 a gram wholesale price, it would be 30 million, or 1.6 million per grower. -- *Keith Mansur* *Publisher Oregon Cannabis Connection 541-621-1723* www.oregoncannabisconnection.com Good questions and analysis, Keith. Warts and all, this bill being dropped makes it a vehicle for a Safe Access + Research bill. I'm sure a lot of amendments will be made during the session and before it goes to a floor vote we'll either like it, tolerate it, or want to kill it. So let's take part in constructively improving it. The big question on my mind is why limit the protection of licensees to affirmative defense instead of excepting them from criminal penalties? As far as I know with only affirmative defense protection, you can still be raided, arrested & prosecuted until you have the chance to assert an affirmative defense at your trial. Any comments on this Lee or Brian? ~todd~ Hi Keith and all, I had a couple of questions for Rep Buckley as my concern for control and #s are probably similar to others. This is very early and will be subject to many changes if it can be worked out and through. Rep Buckley said he is and it is written heavy on the research side and for what will be needed as The State makes up a new commission and all the needs yet to come. After watching the Rand people on CSPAN the other morning it is quite obvious that the Feds are drooling over the prospect of of controlling all forms of Cannabis in a monopoly fashion. I believe we, the people of Oregon have to create a system of controls so that we do not have to buckle under Federal Jurisdiction of any kind when it comes to the 4 Faces of Cannabis, (Hemp,Med,Choice,Sacrament) We have a lot better chance at the State Level to have voice in our personal agenda of any Face in Salem and not much at all in Washington DC. I believe the training issues under Sec 23 are good because we can't ask others to do things if we are not prepared to do the same. Rep Buckley did insure me that HB2919 does not infringe on any rights card holders of the OMMP have now. With that intact, and a Commission in place where only our person observations and vigor to change things we may disagree with. My last questions which were not answered were concerns of if the Commission can make major changes without going through legislation, it could be to early to know or something that will be up for amendments. Jim KlahrÂ

For links and help with contacting state reps and To check up on bills and such, visit our Legislative ToolShed for Tools, Tips, Tricks and More.

back to [ Top of Page ]