CO Board of Health Weakens Medical Marijuana Caregiver Rule at Stealth Hearing

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:48:00 PM EST
Tags: medical marijuana (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: The amendment to the rule defining "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient" for marijuana caregivers, prompted by last week's Colorado Court of Appeals decision, passed unanimously just before noon, but not without a fight, when the Board refused to hear public comments. The old rule, 5 CCR 1006-2, passed in July and made effective in August, 2009, is here. It defines the responsibility of a caregiver as:

“Significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient” means assisting a patient with daily activities, including but not limited to transportation or housekeeping or meal preparation or shopping or making any necessary arrangement for access to medical care or services or provision of medical marijuana. (my emphasis)

Question: How long will it be good for? Colorado's State Administrative Procedures Act provides that resolutions passed at agency emergency hearings are generally only valid for three months. A copy of the revised rule passed today (and rule on emergency hearings) is here (pdf). A full public hearing will be held Dec. 16. When will the appeals (pdf) begin? [More...]

What's the test for the validity of a rule change?

Rules adopted by an administrative or regulatory agency are presumed valid, and the challenging party has a heavy burden to establish a rule’s invalidity. Colo. Ground Water Comm’n v. Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd., 919 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1996). The invalidity of a rule may be established by demonstrating that a rulemaking body (1) acted in an unconstitutional manner; (2) exceeded its statutory authority; or (3) acted in a manner contrary to statutory rulemaking requirements. Section 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. 2006; Brown v. Colo. Ltd. Gaming Control Comm’n, 1 P.3d 175 (Colo. App. 1999).

Original Post: CO Board of Health to Hold Stealth Meeting on Medical Marijuana: Via Sensible Colorado:

EMERGENCY ALERT-- PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY**
CO Health Board to vote on Tuesday (11/3) to Weaken Medical Marijuana Law

In an underhanded move, the Colorado Board of Health will be voting to weaken the medical marijuana law at an "emergency" meeting on Tuesday, November 3 at 10:30am in Denver. At this stealth meeting the Board will be voting to redefine what a "caregiver" is to require such individuals to provide supplementary-- and often unnecessary-- services beyond simply providing sick patients with medical marijuana.

This meeting, which was announced in a late afternoon email to a small handful of patient advocates, is another example of the state engaging in underhanded tactics in their effort to undermine the medical marijuana law and the will of the Colorado voters. Please help hold them accountable.

Here's How You Can Help:

(1) Attend the Meeting. This meeting will occur at 10:30am on Tuesday, November 3 in the Snow Room, 1st Floor Building A of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver CO.

(2) Call-in to the Meeting. While we strongly prefer that you attend in person, you can also call-in at 1-866-899-5399, conference code 3529725

(3) Spread the Word. Please tell friends and family to attend the meeting and forward this alert widely!

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Steeped In Village Think >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CO Board of Health Weakens Medical Marijuana Caregiver Rule at Stealth Hearing | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm surprised that a caregiver (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MyLeftMind on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:17:34 AM EST

isn't already defined as more than just someone who sells pot to patients.

BTW, the will of the Colorado voters might have been that marijuana be made available to sick people only, not to the many, many people who get marijuana permits just because they want to smoke pot.

I believe people should be able to smoke pot if they want, but I don't think medical marijuana permits should be used by pot heads who fake illnesses.

Figures... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:05:25 AM EST

sick people feeling better with less hassles would be considered an emergency by a state health board...makes perfect sense in the United States.

"no man's life, liberty (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:34:37 AM EST

or wallet is safe, while the legislature is in session."

it would appear, in CO at least, that the legislature needn't even be in session, for the above to hold sway.

it's my suspicion that this is a done deal, the "emergency" meeting held merely as a required formality. otherwise, why hold it, absent some actual public health emergency? unless the use of pot has suddenly evolved into a contagious disease, there isn't one.

i suggest that all legal options be researched, should the effort to disuade the commission fail.

This happens everty time (none / 0) (#4)
by SeeEmDee on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:53:11 AM EST

Every time the people assert their political will in engaging in drug law reform, that is.

The Powers-That-Be don't want the Great Unwashed deciding their own destiny; they're supposedly too ignorant to know what's best for them, hence this unwarranted paternalism translating into covert anti-democratic political activity.

These wonks need to be publicly spanked for their temerity.

The only problem is (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:48:31 AM EST

If what this post says is true - that this "special" meeting was called and the public at large wasn't informed, but rather a few people on one side of an issue, then this doesn't seem very democratic. Is it because they're afraid of pushback?

Folks (rightly) decried the Bush White House for secret meetings (although the Obama secret meetings have largely been ignored). Why is this kind of stunt ok, just because you happen to agree with what they are trying to do?

Democratic, or legal either (none / 0) (#10)
by rdandrea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:37:55 PM EST

Colorado has an open-meetings law. I'd be interested in the details of how/when this meeting was called, how it was advertised, or whether the agenda was posted.


: It was posted yesterday on their website (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:51:09 PM EST

and emailed to those who registered with them to receive notices. Sensible Colorado got one and put the word out last night.

what makes you think it is? (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:26:47 AM EST

Why is this kind of stunt ok, just because you happen to agree with what they are trying to do?

i am opposed to secret meetings, of public entities, absent some significant showing that national security might well be at stake otherwise. this should be a very rare event.

it doesn't matter to me which side is doing it, it's wrong.

agreed MLM:

quite frankly, they shouldn't have to, smoking pot, for whatever reason, for adults, should be as legal as drinking alcohol presently is. subterfuge shouldn't be required of adults.

: It's mindboggling (none / 0) (#9)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:44:37 AM EST

What is the basis for the laws against marijuana? It sure isn't public safety, or marijuana would be legal and alchohol and cigarettes would be banned out of existence.
It also isn't political on a domestic front, so it must be political internationally. Do we have some agreement with Mexico and the other suppliers that we won't allow competition inside our borders?
Is CO afraid that big pharma will lose a few customers ... I'll bet they make plenty of money with all the doctors saying, "let's try this and if it doesn't work, I'll write a prescription for something else." I filled a gallon ziploc bag with those kinds of prescriptions (just the pills, dumped the bottles separately) after my mom died.