TALKING POINTS: tba

Here is HB 3460 the medical marijuana facility bill the Sugerman Group and Collective Voice has been advocating for.

this is a complicated issue with no quick or simple fix that was likely debated by the drafters of this bill's language.

it seems to me that the rationale is to keep things as close as possible to the status quo by merely allowing patients to 'authorize' excess to be channeled to facilities.

the other solution would require changing the entire fundamental structure of omma by making the medicine and plants the property of the person responsible for a growsite or a caregiver. many more provisions of omma would have to be changed in a system that took this route.

-B

Bradley and all,

This is an issue that has existed since the beginning and has lost many good growers to any relationship at all. I agree that the current cardholder relationships should not me changed, But what we really lack is a grower to sap relationship that does not have compliancy or ownership connection to specific patients.

Segregating needs of (outside the already existing OMMA) by independent permit, allows each to confine to the auditing and taxing purposes. For instance medicine is not taxed but the legal sales of cannabis for personal use can as well as hemp.

And I have to agree with Anthony Taylor in the need for us to have gotten together in solidarity a bill as Peter wants so that we do not have something that we do not find as strong for all patients that can be.

Jim

Friends of Jim Klahr
99942A Winchuck Rv. Rd.
Brookings, OR. 97415
541-469-4380
503-201-9756 cell

Hi all-

HB 3460 could well be a solution we have been seeking to the problem of not being able to transfer excess medicine to other patients through an outlet. I may see a flaw in the wording, however. It seems to me that 3460 would allow cardholders, caregivers and growers to sell mmj to a "facility" but current statute gives ownership of all mj and plants to the cardholder. That would not allow anyone but the cardholder, and not the caregiver or grower, to make such a transfer (without a cardholder's permission) lawfully. Am I missing something?

Laird

Sam

There is nothing whatsoever "technical" about patients ownership of the medicine, including when it is in plant form. It is no more 'technical' than any other personal property right. It is an important protection for patients with unscrupulous growers. Please stop describing this important right as 'technical'

Its also important to acknowledge that while patients can, but are not required to, reimburse their growers for the costs of supplies and utilities only, and no other costs, including labor, the proposed authorization from the patients would allow growers to be fully reimbursed for all costs from med mj facilities.

Thanks

Lee

On 3/18/2013 9:14 AM, Sam Chapman wrote:

Hi Laird et all,

Great question!

The bill allows for patients -- who technically own the marijuana being produced by a registered grower -- to authorize the transfer of marijuana from their grower to a medical marijuana facility and from the facility to a registered cardholder or their primary caregiver. *

The legislation allows for reimbursement of costs to the MMF and allows the MMF to compensate the grower for production costs. *

It does not change the relationship between a patient and their grower. The MMFs may only receive marijuana from a registered grow site and must account for the marijuana coming into and leaving the facility.** *

Hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any other questions relating to HB 3460.*

Best,

Sam

Bill Introduced To License And Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Oregon

A bill to license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries was introduced Friday in the Oregon House of Representatives by State Rep. Peter Buckley and State Senator Floyd Prozanski. House Bill 3460 will establish a system under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program where patients, growers and medical marijuana facilities will all be working together to ensure that patients have safe access to medicine they need.

The bill would require medical marijuana facilities to seek a license from OMMP similar to the license that patients and registered growers are required to obtain under current law. The bill sets out a series of regulations the medical marijuana facilities must meet and allows the Oregon Health Authority to draft additional rules and regulations to ensure patients are protected.

When the original medical marijuana act was passed in 1998, it allowed patients to grow their own medicine, or to designate someone to grow it for them. Many patients patients don't have the means to produce their own medicine, and often have a hard time finding someone to grow for them. In recent years, well over 100 dispensaries have started operations across the state. In many communities, Portland for example, law enforcement has generally taken a hands-off attitude. But in other communities these dispensaries have been raided and shut down.

The bill allows for patients - who technically "own" the marijuana being produced by a registered grower - to authorize the transfer of marijuana from their grower to a medical marijuana facility and from the facility to a registered cardholder or their primary caregiver. The legislation allows for reimbursement of costs to the MMF and allows the MMF to compensate the grower for production costs. It does not change the relationship between a patient and their grower. The MMFs may only receive marijuana from a registered grow site and must account for the marijuana coming into and leaving the facility.

The bill is expected to be referred to a House Committee early this week.

This community should get solidly behind HB 3460. It would bring the current dispensaries out of the gray area and create a regulated supply that would help all patients. Right now the bill is relatively simple and straightforward and has a chance of passing. We should all be contacting legislators and urging them to support it.

I appreciate Clifford repeatedly reminding us to not overlook the low income patients who really need help as we move forward with marijuana reform. I also appreciate what Jen is saying - that taking care of poor patients should be everyone's responsibility not just dispensaries'.

If we spend too much time trying to tweak the bill it will never get off the ground.

John Sajo
johnsajo@hughes.net

No tweaks necessary. I think that Clifford (or someone who has the time) should approach the Outcomes Subcommittee and ask them to consider developing billing codes when a Safe Acess bill is passed, or even planning for the contingency that one might be passed. It would be a support to HB3460 and give us an opportunity to educate policymakers in Safe Access to Medical marijuana.I have already asked them and they have already agreed that if legislation for Safe Access is passed, they will have to do it so it is important that we remind tham that legislation is pending and this issue should at least be discussed again. We might even win some supporters among policy makers if we can demonstrate that we are seeing cost containment in program participants.

The Oregon Health Fund Board is developing their Healthcare reforms and they are who you need to approach on this issue. Billing codes must be developed before OHP can pay for medical marijuana and medical marijauan services. They have already been approached (by me) and you should talk to them again to follow up on my previous work and remind them that if a Safe Access bill is passed, medical marijuana products and services should be provided as an option to OHP clients because of the cost containment value of the program. Don't forget to address the Evidence Review Boad and ask for cost/benefit studies and risk/benefit analysis as well.

Private entities should not be required to pay for public responsibilities: it is the taxpayer's responsibility to provide medicine to the poor. Creating an unsustainable system serves no one. Pay the farmer and don't expect special taxes on him or the caregiver: why should either of them be subjected to special taxes? It discourages participation and creates unnatural shortages. Remember, patients will pay for those costs in the end, so why generate them in the first place when the responsibility really lies on the General Population? Stop expecting the cannabis community to provide funding when the responsibility for funding medication from OHP is from the General Fund, NOT OMMP. Yes, OHP should fund medical marijuana products and services, but OMMP should not provide that funding. The General Fund should provide that funding.

Jen
jen@gro4me.com

Jobs is a big part of it, but not just for those who wish to grow for specific patients. All farmers need jobs or what they really need is a new crop, whether it be Hemp or Cannabis for all. We are pigeon holing and losing many that would vote for the farmer job issue by keeping the arguments ourselves in the demonization world.

Jim

I don't think the effects of HB 3460 on low income patients are nearly as clear as Clifford presents.

First, do we really have any idea how much free medicine is given to patients? To how many patients?

Second, Being able to get compensated some of the time will allow some growers to give away more medicine. This may well encourage some people to expand their gardens and give away more. And if all the growers are trying to sell all their excess at dispensaries it might bring the prices down.

I think establishing the regulated supply system as HB3460 does will be good for all patients.

Should we get prohibit pharmacies because they don't give away free medicine to the poor? Of course not. My perspective is also from someone who may have given away more free marijuana than anyone else. I can live with making improvements to our laws in increments - it is far better than not making improvements. There is no simple solution to helping low income patients in the context of the OMMA. We should continue to help needy patients as best we can, and I believe farmers who can earn a living can help others better than farmers who are starving themselves.

Like I said before, if we complain too much that this good proposal isn't perfect, we are likely to get nothing.

Your suggestions for helping the needy are not in the form of proposed amendment to the bill that get into the details. We both know from drafting these things in the past that writing workable language that directs the Health Authority about how to regulate dispensaries giving discount medicine to patients is extremely complex. That means it requires a lot of rules and regulations and bureaucrats to administer it. That gets expensive and who will pay for it?

I agree that this should be addressed at some point. But I have come to the conclusion that it will have to be after we take the simpler step of ending the prohibition on paying the farmer, the pharmacist, and the caregivers.

JS

I disagree

there is no distribution of the patient's medicine to the med mj facilities under 3460 without the consent of the patient. patients are free to cultivate for themselves, to designate a grower and receive the medicine and the excess, or to allow the grower to distribute to med mj facilities. Also, there is no limitations on from which med mj facility a patient can obtain medicine.

other than legalization, a well regulated distribution system is the best thing that can happen to patients.

Lee

On 3/18/2013 9:24 PM, Clifford Spencer wrote:
Lee,

With all due respect, I have to take issue with, "You can't legislate compassion..." Certainly we have welfare, don't we? And SNAP (food stamps). And the Oregon Health Plan. SO, "distributors" are the ones who have been doing this lobbying? Obvioiusly they have THEIR OWN best interests in mind that they have been presenting, NOT, necessarily, the best interests of A L L OMMP patients. Let's make this something we CAN ALL get behing! Include a program for low income patients!

Sincerely,