Unexpectedly, the MMED has slashed its staff by a rather substantial number.  This cut comes as a result of dramatically lower than expected receipts on license fees.  According to an article in the Westword, the change may be reversed in as little as three months.

The gap between budget and receipts looks to be nearly 5 million dollars.  Not a paltry some, especially to a state still reeling from dramatic cuts to education and other services after recessionary retreats in tax income.

A portion of the shortfall has been attributed to local communities banning dispensaries from the retail environment.  These communities include Fort Collins, Fruita, Crawford, Louisville and others.  The bans have precluded receipt of licensing fees and as such have somewhat reigned in the full vision of the MMED to regulate.

The reason the MMED thinks that there will be a return to levels of funding previously anticipated, is the looming end to the moratorium on new dispensaries coming up on July 1st.  There is a great deal of anticipated growth and consolidation that will take place at that time, because it will allow successful dispensaries to expand their operations.

It is not entirely unheard of to have such budgetary miscalculations in government and most staffers are being reassigned.  The resulting MMED has just over half the staff they were utilizing prior to making cuts.  The significance of changes to the MMED is probably not going to be noticed much by MMJ patients given that they do not interact with the MMED.

At the time of writing this article, the CDPHE (responsible for licensing MMJ patients) has not reported similar cuts.  It should be noted, however, that CDPHE is 45+ days behind in processing applications and that does impact regular MMJ patients by way of extending the time that you may have to wait before legally acquiring meds from a MMC.

One really interesting consequence of medical marijuana has been the changes in cultural dynamics; somewhat unexpectedly it has united folks towards common ideals despite sometimes having to overcome partisan rifts.  The debate on MMJ has opened up a lot of dialog about the safety and efficacy of medical cannibis and it has steadily progressed to eventually deal with the stigma and reality of benefits realized by patients using MMJ.

In an earth shaking endorsement, Pat Robertson of The 700 Club television show has endorsed MMJ!  To what ends this will effect popular opinion on marijuana remains to be told, but Robertson made the following statement on the subject:

“I just think it’s shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they had a possession of a very small amount of a controlled substance,” Robertson said on his show March 1. “The whole thing is crazy. We’ve said, `Well, we’re conservatives, we’re tough on crime.’ That’s baloney.”

It is really amazing to see this kind of dialog because in all likelihood, this statement would never have been made if not for the efforts initially of activists promoting marijuana for medical use.  While Mr. Robertson’s statement is undoubtedly a brilliant change of paradigm for many in the religious right, it was precipitated by the efforts of many that were derided in the past as ‘hippies’ or ‘pot-heads’ with an agenda to manipulate laws for purely selfish desire to adjust their perception of reality.

The new paradigm seems to be that the ends must justify the means.  In this case, if the ends are social justice and social good, the measurement must show that the means are improving those metrics.  Time and again we look to prohibition as the source of authoritarian laws, egress upon personal sovereignty, right to privacy and the general application of surveillance upon a civilian population.

Safety is important and it is the government’s job.  However increasingly we see even those of the political party more closely identified with upholding social order are shedding strict positions inherited through moral absolutism in favor of more egalitarian rules that embrace good science and presumption of a right to privacy.  In many ways, as seen with Pat Robertson, these beliefs seem to fall in line closely with moral beliefs because they discourage abrasive criminalization and access to medicine that works for many people.

The Colorado Independant ran the story on Colorado Republicans’ support of Medical Marijuana.   It shows an even greater degree of support (73% of republicans supporting) of The State of Colorado being allowed to regulate its medical marijuana dispensaries on its own.  We have covered in previous blogs the role that the DOJ plays in MMJ and their obvious concerns regarding illicit distribution of cannabis to states without medical marijuana or by criminals.  We understand the concerns they have in this regard.  It is interesting to see the direction of public opinion diverging somewhat from the implied motivations in this case.

Above all else, we want to see patients maintain safe, affordable access to medicine.  To what ends that goal bears fruit in the form of improving the level of discourse an perhaps even eventually the social contract remains to be seen.

The Releaf Center has had a lot of patients come in with renewal paperwork in hand.  CDPHE regulations do not allow dispensaries to provide medicine without a red card in hand for a renewal patient.  While we are still allowed to accept paperwork for new patients, WE CANNOT ACCEPT PAPERWORK FOR RENEWAL.  

We wish that we could help our patients, but if you do not have a new red card in hand, we cannot help you.  So The Releaf Center is will be sending reminders out 60 days via email plus reminders in store.  It has been taking a minimum of 45 days for our patients to receive their reissued red cards.

In an effort to help with the cost of renewal The Releaf Center is offering a $75 store credit when you bring in your new red card and sign up The Releaf Center as your primary center for one year.  Keep in mind that license fees have been reduced to $35 this year as well.

If you do not have a primary physician to see you in regards to your recommendation, these are two doctors offices that have provided excellent care for patients in our experience.

Dr. Kenneth R Lampkin, M.D.

2460 W 26th Ave., Building C, Suite 180

Denver, CO 80211

720-202-6854 Phone

303-586-6263 Fax

MMD Medical Doctors

600 Grant St, Suite #350

Denver, CO 8 0203

720-287-3440 Phone

How Jason Beinor’s Case Applies To You

We would love if you could attend the One Love benefit.  You may want to know about the person for whom the event is being organized.  Jason Beinor is a MMJ patient that lives in Denver, he was fired from a job working for the Service Group Inc. as a street sweeper for failing a drug test.  The issue at hand is whether or not patients utilizing medical marijuana in Colorado have a standard of rights they should be presumed to have which bestow upon them protections in regard to the medically prescribed use of marijuana.

To quote from the westword article on the subject, attorney Andrew Reid frames the argument, “If those rights don’t exist, there’s no argument.  If they do, patients and caregivers have a broader argument to make.”

After being fired, Beinor filed unemployment, he was initially approved.  His employer appealed the decision and the appeals panel ruled in the employer’s favor citing Article XVIII in the constitution for the State of Colorado.  The article states that an employee who tests positive during work hours for controlled substances with no medical prescription do not qualify for benefits.  The appeal board voted 2-1 against Beinor in the decision.

The root of this decision is the argument put forth from Attorney General John Suthers which states that there is no fundamental right to medical marijuana in Colorado.  This contradicts the amendment to the state constitution, Amendment 20, which arguably grants those rights specifically and as such, the argument for Beinor’s denial would be invalid as would some other precedents set previously in the implementation of state legislation which regulates and limits dispensary conduct and also defines medical marijuana centers and caregivers specifically.

The problem in this case are the repercussions for the precedent that is set by Attorney General John Suthers, for if there is no fundamental right to medical marijuana, there are implications for the actions of every MMJ patient as criminals for growing or consuming marijuana to relieve side effects of sickness.  The possible eventuality would be that there could possibly be prosecutions of MMJ patients for possession as their license has been invalidated by court precedent.

Advocates of medical cannabis, specifically Kathleen Chippi have been working to bring the case to the State Supreme court to challenge the presumption set by the Attorney General.  Depending on the direction the case goes, it could have major ramifications on the ability for patients to use medical marijuana.  A judgement overturning the decision by the Court of Appeals could have major implications on a wide spectrum of court decisions and laws in place.  It could require cities to allow enough dispensaries for patients within the city to have reasonable access to medication.

On the topic of patients rights, this issue is incredibly important because as the precedent stands today, a terminally ill patient could lose their employment or possibly even disability payments because of the use of medical marijuana to treat their symptoms.  State Attorneys have showed no indication they would pursue such cases, however they may have the standing to do so if the case against Beinor stands.

If these issues are important to you, please come to the benefit on Thursday, March 29th and help Beinor and his advocates in making an argument to the State Supreme Court in favor of patients right to prescribed medication.

Cited: Westword Article: CO Supreme Court asked to review Jason Beinor case about MMJ rights

EVENT: One Love at Hayters, a fundraiser for Amendment 20 MMJ Patient Rights Thurs. 3/29 @ 6:30PM

ACT4 Colorado and Cannabis Business Alliance Present:

ONE LOVE at Hayters

One Love is the collaboration of the MMJ industry, patients and people who understand that protecting the rights of one patient will help protect the constitutional rights of all patients.  All are welcome at this kickoff event.

Proceeds benefit Jason Beinor’s legal defense fund.

DATE: Thurs. March 29, 2012

TIME: Doors Open at 6:30

MUSIC BY: Whiskey Tango, Buggsy Mogues & DJ Nikka T

PLACE: Hayters: 1920 Blake Street, Denver

SPONSORS:  ACT4 Colorado, Cannabis Business Alliance, CARE, Hayters & Co, Westword, Kush, Craig Hoggatt Design, Whiskey Tango, Culture, The Hemp Connoisseur, Cannabis Health News Magazine, Joseph Starr Sound, Essential Extracts.

Oh January 31st, Colorado Senator Steve King introduced another bill to the state senate with the idea of limiting legal blood cannibinoid levels and establishing guidelines for DUI for prosecutors and police.  The Bill, 12-117 proposes to use the definition of DUI to include drugs like marijuana and other Schedule 1 controlled substances.  Right now there isn’t a strict definition of what it is that constitutes too much of a drug in the blood.   As you probably know, the law states that you are guilty of a DUI for driving with a BAC of above .08. There is no guideline yet for marijuana intoxication.

The idea is that establishing a guideline will make it easier to provide a definitive proof of intoxication by way of a standardized test.  In this case they will look for a level of THC in excess of 5ng per ml (nanograms per milliliter) of blood.  The implications of this are fairly diverse and opinions from legislature this time around seem more favorable towards establishing a limit.

Many folks are quite concerned about this rule, with some good reason.  The fear of course is that a patient that requires a high amount of THC in order to achieve relief of symptoms may be above the legal limit when not medicated.  Last year, the rule was defeated in part due to a proponent of MMJ who was also a patient utilizing medical marijuana that was given sobriety tests and a blood test which showed he was well above the 5ng limit and not at all impaired.

According to the NHTSA :

It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking. Dronabinol and THC-COOH are present in equal concentrations in plasma and concentrations peak at approximately 2-4 hours after dosing.

It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method. Mathematical models have been developed to estimate the time of marijuana exposure within a 95% confidence interval. Knowing the elapsed time from marijuana exposure can then be used to predict impairment in concurrent cognitive and psychomotor effects based on data in the published literature.

It is hard to arrive at an objective conclusion that a 5ng limit is going to be either useful or pertinent in the assessment of intoxication in a driver that has used marijuana based products or medicine.

Before pulling out pitchforks and torches, however, it is important to remember that the goal that lawmakers are pursuing here is to establish safety for drivers.  There is probably a point where someone is too medicated to drive, although it seems as though the amount of THC in blood might be radically higher in order to indicate as much.

More difficulty is added to the conversation when considering that there are going to be some MMJ patients with exceptionally low tolerance that are more intoxicated than others.  Is it appropriate to establish guidelines that may leave many MMJ patients vulnerable to wrongful prosecution?  Is there a way to establish more thoughtfully applied standards based upon science?

This law additionally will relieve the prosecutor from establishing evidence against you proving that your driving was impaired.  As such, being suspected of consuming marijuana may in and of itself establish reasonable cause in demanding a blood test with refusal resulting in the revocation of driving privileges for a year.  Currently the onus of proof is on the prosecution to provide evidence that the driver isn’t able to exhibit clear judgement, care of control while driving.  The other side of this is that you can be charged with a DUI with any amount of marijuana in your blood.

The new law has the following rules defining intoxication on marijuana:

1. a milliliter of a person’s blood contains five nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (more commonly known as “THC”); or
2. a person’s blood, urine, or saliva contains ANY amount of a Schedule I controlled substance other than THC.

The goal is a good one; safety for drivers and pedestrians.  However, what is the real solution?  How dangerous is a driver with 5ng per ml?  What are the dangers of this law in terms of overreach and prosecuting potentially innocent patients?  How do patients work with lawmakers to help establish rules that protect everybody?

In light of the information here, it seems as though these are very important questions.  Answers must be sought objectively from all sides.  It is neither good to protect the dangerously intoxicated nor the responsible patient.  There seem to be more questions than answers in the pursuit of this this.  Perhaps you can lend some insight of your own.