[
WORD (doc) version |
Adobe (PDF) version |
Library index ]
Department of Human
Services
Oregon Medical
Marijuana Program
Advisory Committee on
Medical Marijuana
Thursday, September 21, 2006
McKenzie Center (DHS)
2885 Chad Drive, Room 1
Eugene, OR 97048
10:00 am – 2:30 pm
The Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana (ACMM) provides an opportunity for public to discuss administrative issues with the OMMP management.
Meeting called to order by Dr. Richard Bayer at 12:38
pm.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Bayer commenced the meeting with introduction of the ACMM members: Richard Bayer, MD, Chair of ACMM, Chris Iverson, Todd Dalotto, John Sajo, Madeline Martinez, Sandee Burbank, Vice Chair of ACMM, Leeland Berger, Laird Funk, Darryl George, DO, Jim Klahr, and Stormy Ray.
HANDOUTS: ACMM Order of Business, June 22, 2006 Meeting
Minutes, By-Laws
·
Before the review of the
June 22, 2006 meeting minutes, Dr. Bayer corrected the ACMM Order of Business,
Part I of the OMMP Administrative Reports with ACMM discussion, it should state
June 22, 2006 minutes rather than June 21, 2006 minutes.
REVIEW OF JUNE 22, 2006 MINUTES
·
The ACMM was asked to
review the meeting minutes for corrections or additions. Ms. Burbank requested
a minor change on page 7, second bullet, second to the last line of the meeting
minute. The June 22, 2006 meeting minutes with corrections were passed and
deemed approved.
OMMP ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
·
Present for the
Administrative Reports were: Christian Grorud, Program Support Manager, Pamela Salsbury,
OMMP Manager, and Choua Vue, Administrative Specialist I from OMMP.
Handouts: September 21, 2006 Program Update Agenda, Cash
Transactions Received by Month, Workflow Stage Duration Report
PROGRAM UPDATE
·
Ms. Salsbury apologized
for the time mix-up and the delay at the meeting.
Backlog
·
Ms. Salsbury stated
Program’s goal to eliminate backlog will hopefully be accomplished by the end
of December.
Data Entry
·
Due to processing about
13,000 grow cards for current patients, the OMMP is approximately three (3)
weeks behind in data entry. As outlined on the Workflow Duration Report
handout, the timeline of an application is about eighteen (18) days for
creation to cards issued status. However, Ms. Salsbury cautioned the
application may be entered in weeks after the received date.
Criminal
History Request (CHR)
·
The process of
completing CHR background checks on all current patients has been completed.
However, there are roughly 600 patients that did not respond to the notice and
the Program plans to send out a final notice to ensure that all patients are in
compliance.
·
L2K is currently in the
planning stage with the starting target date in March of 2007. Any statistical
information the ACMM would like to track should be given to Ms. Salsbury as
soon as possible to be added with the planning of new database.
Staffing Update
·
There are currently
eight Administrative Specialist 1 (AS1), one AS1 temporary hire, and one Office
Specialist 2. Recruitment for two additional AS1 positions is currently being
conducted.
Office Construction
·
The office construction
is complete where the Program has a receipting office; Suite 260 is open Monday
to Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Patient
Questions and Concerns
Patient Medication
·
The Program has received
questions regarding the use of medication by the patient’s caregiver and/or
grower. Ms. Salsbury explained the statutes do not state whether they can or
cannot and Mr. Berger clarified they are not protected to do so. However, the
Program has been told by patients there is advocacy group giving out this
misinformation, along with information of where to purchase medication.
Threats by a Grower
·
There have been complaints
concerning caregivers and/or growers restricting patients from grow site
knowledge using deadly threats. Further, the Program has been told by some
patients these caregivers and/or growers are referred by advocacy groups. Ms.
Salsbury recommended patients to list caregivers and/or growers they trust and
can submit changes at anytime and request the cards be returned.
Plant Size Definitions
·
The Program receives
frequent calls regarding plant size definitions. There are incorrect
interpretations and the Program would like to work on education and outreach to
ensure that patients, caregivers, and growers are receiving correct
information.
Responsibility for Checking Grow Sites
·
During harvest season,
law enforcement agencies may fly over potential grow site locations. Ms.
Salsbury clarified that the Program does not check for compliance of grow site
addresses nor conduct grow site inspections.
Legislative
Concepts
Medical Marijuana Clean-Up
·
Legislative concepts have
been submitted to legislation for changes to the statutes, which includes the
authority for the Program to run the criminal history checks, clarification
that a caregiver can grow for four (4) patients at any given time as well as
the grower, authority for the Program to revoke a patient’s card if the
attending physician believes medical marijuana is contraindicated, and the
ability for the Program to revoke an individual’s registration card with a
valid court order restricting the use of medical marijuana.
DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS FROM ACMM
·
The Program has
implemented a process to verify and determine physicians and if the applicant
is a patient to the listed physician, which confuses many patients. When the
medical documentation portion of an application is complete, a verification
letter is sent out to the physician. Additionally, the verification process was
put in place to decrease forgery in documents.
·
Dr. Bayer requested a
copy of the legislative concepts be made available for the Committee. Ms.
Salsbury stated the language has not been returned and the process is
relatively new to the Program, but will contact the Committee with more
information.
·
The Chair stated the
Handbook will not mention buying marijuana, as it will recognize that patients
will seek medicine elsewhere if a patient does not have it. He also stated
buying marijuana is not illegal for a patient because possession, growing, and
selling are illegal and would like DHS to recognize that patients are not
committing a crime in purchasing marijuana.
·
Ms. Burbank objected to
the Chair’s comment regarding the ACMM sending patients to buy marijuana off
the black market if they cannot find other means for their medicine.
·
Ms. Ray interceded that
if a patient breaks the law, they are committing a crime. She disagrees with
the Chair on this particular point and will not send a patient into a situation
where they will be unprotected from Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) laws.
·
Mr. Berger went over the
statutes of patient, caregiver, and grower protections and restrictions. He
concluded the loss of protection from Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) is
delivery, not in the buying or selling marijuana. Additionally, he would like
the Program to inform patients they do not advocate for patients to buy
medicine, but patients will not be arrested or prosecuted if they do. Ms.
Salsbury responded the Program cannot answer patient’s questions regarding this
topic due to the inability to give legal advice and interpretation of the
statute. The Program encourages patients to contact advocacy groups and would
hope the advocate’s research information before relaying information to
patients.
·
Mr. Berger requests the
Program to update the ACMM by the next meeting regarding how the Program tries
and persuades Law Enforcement to be consistent with the medical marijuana act,
in addition with education about the medicinal value of marijuana and the
safety and security of registered grow sites. Ms. Salsbury stated the Program
currently offers training and education to Law Enforcement agencies regarding
the OMMA to requesting agencies and information will be provided at the next
meeting.
·
Ms. Burbank asked how
long the Program responds to Law Enforcement inquires. Ms. Salsbury informed
the ACMM the Program responds to Law Enforcement inquires within thirty
minutes, unless there are multiple names and locations. With multiple names and
addresses, the Program ensures correct information is given back with multiple
staff researching, taking more time to respond. Ms. Salsbury further stated the
Program responds with Law Enforcement with “yes” or “no” answers and the main
contact is through the District Attorney. Dr. Higginson requested, via Ms.
Salsbury, the committee to deliberate a way to reach out to Law Enforcement for
education of the rules and statutes.
·
It was clarified the
Program does look into agencies or officers making multiple inquiries;
additionally, there are reports provided from the 24/7 Law Enforcement Data
System (LEDS) for possible misuse.
·
Ms. Burbank recommended
the ACMM, advocacy groups, and people of the community to contact Law
Enforcement agencies about requesting education and training from OMMP to
overcome barriers in communication.
·
Mr. Dalotto requested
updated reports on Law Enforcement inquiries by county at the meetings. The
Program will provide these statistics at the meetings and informed they are
also posted quarterly on the OMMP website.
·
Mr. Iverson suggested a
small portion of the budget for statewide education training to Law Enforcement
agencies from a subcommittee. He also requested the Program to provide the
exact average cost of processing an application to help locate the number of
low income patients participating in the Program on Oregon Health Plan (OHP)
and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to see if Food Stamps could qualify
for the reduced fee.
·
Mr. Berger stated his
disappointment with the Program on the topic of revoking cards; if the
physician rescinds the statement, the Program should not disqualify the
patient’s eligibility. Also, he discussed the stipulations of probation and
parole issues as they vary from one county to another and a legislative change
is needed.
·
Mr. Klahr asked how the
Program responds to complaints made by a patient, caregiver, or grower. The
Program determines whether or not the individual is willing to take the
necessary steps for resolution and then requests the complaint be made in
writing. If the complaint is regarding an illegal activity, it is important the
individual is willing to turn it over to Law Enforcement and participate in the
investigation.
·
The Committee discussed
the statutes and rules regarding patients seeing their grow site. Ultimately,
the patient does have the right to know where the grow site is, as listed on
the application and cards, but it is not stated the patient has the right to
see the location. However, a patient has the ability to maintain an application
copy for $5 per application year, which will include grow site information.
·
Dr. George inquired
about the Program’s process for caregivers and/or growers who are removed and
the registry identification cards attached to those individuals. Ms. Salsbury
responded removed individuals are required to return the cards within seven (7)
calendar days upon notification of removal, according to the statutes and
rules. As soon as a change is received, the Program will void the cards
associated with the removed caregiver and/or grower and send a letter to the
patient to return those specific cards to the Program. If the patient cannot
return the voided cards, they may write the Program informing they have
attempted to do so but cannot retrieve them. The Program will issue new
caregiver and/or grower cards regardless of whether the patient has returned
the void cards within seven days.
·
Dr. Bayer questioned and
requested an explanation how the ACMM email system operated with multiple users
and how to ensure it is public records. Ms. Salsbury explained the Department
established an email for the ACMM, OHP.ACMM@state.or.us, which is managed by
her to ensure emails are sent to every member of the ACMM. Ms. Salsbury will
research if the ACMM email can be established so the email can be managed by
the Committee.
Administrative
Reports with ACMM adjourned by Dr. Bayer at 1:45 pm.
Meeting called to order by Dr. Bayer at
1:55 pm.
·
Dr. Bayer noted the
By-Laws were discussed and passed back in March 2006.
Handouts: Bylaws of the Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana
Vol. 4.1 and Proposed Draft Bylaws of the Advisory Committee on Medical
Marijuana Vol. 3.0
Article II, Section 1, Composition of
the Advisory Committee
·
Dr. Bayer corrected the
first page, line 17 of volume 3.0, should state 2006.
Article III, Section 2, Terms of Office
·
Regarding terms of
office on page 2, line 17, Mr. Berger asked why the Committee cannot have the
authority to appoint and remove members and determine the length of service.
DISCUSSION
AND COMMENTS:
·
Mr. Iverson agreed that
the committee should have the authority to make decisions for the ACMM. Ms. Ray
reminded the Committee the mission is to advise the Director without giving
changes and should be able to provide input and advise the Director.
·
It was decided Mr.
Berger will draft a motion to address the issue and discuss the topic at a
later time.
Article III, Section 3, Removal of
Members
·
Ms. Burbank motioned to
approve or deny lines 19-25.
·
Mr. Berger stated he
believes that the statute interpretation of Ms. O’Fallon, Assistant Attorney
General (AAG), is incorrect where the Director can remove a Committee member as
it is not stated in legislative rules. He further urged the Committee to reject
Ms. O’Fallon’s recommendation and request for lines 19-25 removed for the power
to remain in the Committee.
·
Dr. Bayer motioned to
agree with Mr. Berger’s proposal to retain Article III (3)(b). Eight Committee
members voted in favor were 8, leaving three voting against. Page 2 was
accepted without vote.
Article III, Section 4(i), Duties and responsibilities
of a member
·
The Committee feels if
there is a topic, they should be able to communicate with the AAG or the
Program without contacting the Chair or Vice Chair to do so.
·
Mr. Berger motioned to
accept this section; Dr. Bayer moved forward the motion and was passed through
general consent.
Article VI, Section 4, Quorum
·
Dr. Bayer explained this
section to clarify that a quorum must be in order to function.
DISCUSSION
AND COMMENTS:
·
Ms. Silverwolf asked the
Chair to consider situations where a member may resign a quorum may not exist.
Dr. Bayer responded members who resigned would be replaced and a quorum would
be in order.
Article VI, Section 5, Committee Action
·
This section was
approved and passed by the Committee.
Article VI, Section 6, Special Meetings
·
Mr. Berger stated the
authority should not include the Director; the authority should belong to the
Committee. Mr. Funk motioned to accept this section as modified by Mr. Berger.
DISCUSSION
AND COMMENTS:
·
Ms. Ray requested
clarification if the Committee’s mission is to advise the Director as well as
advising the Director’s choice of direction and she stated she is against this
motion.
·
Mr. Berger stated this
section does not preclude the Director, it allows the Committee to hold special
meetings as well.
·
Dr. Bayer explained
there is not a problem in holding special meetings, but they must occur for
reasonable and valid reasons. Dr. Bayer
moved to vote to either support or oppose Mr. Berger’s recommendation regarding
holding special meetings; those in favor were 8, those against were 3.
(PLEASE NOTE THAT DR. BAYER MOTIONED MOST FOR
THE BYLAWS AMENDMENTS)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
·
It was agreed to
postpone the patient handbook topic for a later time.
·
Mr. Berger motioned to adopt
a “whereas” clause regarding the meeting with representatives from the Oregon
Mental Health and Addiction Services (OMHAS) and made the following
resolutions:
The Director transmit resolutions to the Governor and
the members of the legislatives, the Director take steps, as he deems
necessary, to ensure that no legislative action has been taken to increase the
patient registry fee, and the Director establish a DHS policy that the
registration fee continues to be the responsibility of the Program.
·
Dr. Bayer moved to vote
for the motion; the motion passed with majority vote.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS
·
Jim Grieg requested the
Committee, as a group or individual members, to write letters encouraging or
demanding rescheduling marijuana to the FA lawsuits. The Chair recommended Mr.
Grieg to submit his request in writing.
·
Debion Granger
acknowledged there is a buyer’s club in Victoria, B.C., where a patient can
receive marijuana by showing proof, such as a registry identification card and
suggested holding a potluck for current patients.
·
Javieria Lenart would
like to see a fee decrease; if there were an increase in the fee, the surplus
funds should be used for the Program and work towards the patient, not against.
·
Jerry Wade informed that
caregivers and/or growers providing for more than one patient with an excess in
plants can give to other patients in need of medicine. He understands, from Lt.
Dingman, law enforcement interprets that only a patient can give medicine to
another patient possessing a registered card. If there is a caregiver that is
redirecting medicine that belongs to a patient, they are stealing it and
redistributing it.
·
Reverend Will stated the
registration fee hurts patients and persons without health insurance appreciate
assistance, namely veterans and/or homeless patients. He suggested a
subcommittee to educate and research the medicinal use of marijuana.
·
Joseph Canfield
complimented the Committee members for a job well done and would like more
details regarding the Committee’s position on dispensaries. Dr. Bayer stated the ACMM does not yet have
a position, but believes that there may be one in three (3) to six (6) months
because there are some legislative proposals to be discussed at the next
meeting.
·
Cynthia Willis suggested
the illegal, confiscated plants be donated at a local non-profit organization
or patient advocacy groups, made note that dispensaries are needed for
patients, and recommended registry identification cards should renew at a four
(4) or eight (8) year interval for a higher fee.
·
Anthony Johnson stated
several complaints between patients, caregivers, and/or growers are unfair to
both sides; he encouraged others to read the American’s for Safe Access (ASA)
report on dispensaries. He asked the Committee to contemplate ways to initiate
dispensaries or increase the amount of medicine for patients.
·
Joe Adams received a
ticket for possession for a less than a gram of marijuana, although he showed
his registry identification card; the card was disregarded by the officer and
sergeant. He proposed Law Enforcement agencies need to be educated to recognize
and understand the laws because it is terrifying for patients.
·
Lindsay Bradshaw, a
strong supporter, stated the laws are ludicrous and undependable because it
depends on people’s honesty and interest, as growers are not growing for the
good of patients, and suggested a dispensary system be created or the
implementation a distribution system, not operated by the state.
·
Kat Coehn would like to
improve the public perception of the program with both Law Enforcement and
patients. She also proposed an idea of creating an informational short video
with Program funds to provide to Law Enforcement and interested parties,
instead state-wide travel. Lastly, she proposed no funding from the Program’s
budget be placed into OMHAS because it would denote the use of medical
marijuana leads to addiction, which is incorrect if scientifically researched.
·
Melodie Silverwolf
encouraged everyone to vote no on Term Limits during the upcoming election in
November and reminded that if Term Limits gets approved, it will remove some of
medical marijuana’s strongest allies in the legislator.
·
Joe Parker addressed the
usable material clause in the statutes. In California, the statutes count the
bud as usable material. If similar to the California law, the Oregon statute
would allow for more medicine.
·
Elvie mentioned
marijuana should be discussed and focused on in medical terms, not as a
narcotic drug.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Choua Vue, edited by
Jennifer Hiromura
[
WORD (doc) version |
Adobe (PDF) version |
Library index ]