1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.

New Amendments to Oregon mmj laws

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by Snake Plissken, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    http://www.oregon.gov/oha/mmj/Documents/333-008-FINAL-TEMP.pdf

    These are the new dispensary requirements in Oregon as of 3/31/14. I like the idea of mold and pesticide testing, but it doesn't seem implemented well enough to trust. No real means of actually matching paperwork to product as far as I can see.

    I see they snuck in a clause that says they need to record what patient is purchasing how much. What other patients prescription medicine is reported to the state? The very 1st line in the Oregon bill is that mmj is to be treated like every other prescription medicine. Most every statement, mandate and action after that basically contradicts this statement.
     
    CarolKing, grokit and Grim Chiclets like this.
  2. Grim Chiclets

    Grim Chiclets Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    Detroit Metro, Michigan
    I'm all for Quality Assurance/Control, but logging...?
     
    CarolKing and Snake Plissken like this.
  3. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yeah, I hadn't even noticed that was in the new disp's regs. Seems like it's more of a patient issue/concern than a disp's. Just seems like info being compiled to use against you at a later date.
     
    Grim Chiclets and grokit like this.
  4. Vicki

    Vicki The Bionic Woman

    Messages:
    5,806
    Every time I have my Oxycodone filled, it is reported to the state's data base, including the amount.
     
  5. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yeah, that's screwed too. No medical privacy to speak of. While there should be oversight, it usually shouldn't be governmental.
     
    Vicki likes this.
  6. Grim Chiclets

    Grim Chiclets Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    Detroit Metro, Michigan
    Goes right over the doctor-patient confidentiality agreement from what I can tell... I'd personally start growing or get a caregiver in that situation- at the risk of sounding like a fool- that's fucked.
     
    CarolKing likes this.
  7. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    This is it right there. The State looks at all of that. You got vicodin from the dentist? That was logged. You get Adderall from the doctor for your ADHD? That goes on a government list too. How do you think they catch "Hollywood doctors" that basically write Rx's for $ or addicts who "doctor shop" to get duplicate perscriptions?

    Point being, it seems as though they actually are treating it like other prescription drugs that can be abused or subverted for sale on the black market?

    Maybe I just enjoy playing Devils advocate?

    http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/rx_monitor.htm
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
    CarolKing likes this.
  8. Vicki

    Vicki The Bionic Woman

    Messages:
    5,806
    I was thinking the exact same thing.
     
    Caligula likes this.
  9. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    What? That I like playing Devil's advocate? :D
     
    grokit likes this.
  10. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    I am my own grower and just use disps for varieties sake or in between crops. Many others don't have this option though. Many patients are disabled to varying degrees (hence the prescription in the 1st place), and as such, the ada should be all over this w/o any prompting.

    I would guess that in vicki's case she is seeing a pain specialist (which all attending physicians are supposed to refer long term narcotics users to). Part of that program is signing your rights away in order to receive meds. mmj users never agreed to any such thing. It was actually spelled out in the bill that if leo suspected someone of having/growing/using mj, the 1st thing they were supposed to do was call the registry. At that point, the only info the registry was supposed to give was to say if the person was registered or not. If the person is registered, leo is supposed to walk away.

    I see the end game for most of these guys to be abolishing grower rights. For example: 'how can we know the quality, strength, amount, etc a patient is using if we don't monitor it?' or for someone w/ high usage amounts: 'they must be distributing'. At the least, it is a weapon to use against you down the road. In a conflict, their 1st move is usually an attempt to discredit, dehumanize and ridicule the opposition. I can't count the times I've heard a variation of: 'the officers shot the suspect 147 times, but he had drugs in his pocket'. Most people's reaction is either 'what else was he involved w/' or 'probably had it coming'. Obviously a gross generalization and people are becoming more tolerant to cannabis, but true nonetheless.


    edit: just saw the previous posts and I assume they catch 'Hollywood doctors' by subpoenaing
    their records w/ a court order once there is reasonable suspicion.
     
  11. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!

    Reasonable suspicion based on what? The inordinately large number of narcotic Rx's LE isn't supposed to know about without reasonable suspicion?

    This is how prescription drugs work in this country. This is also what people who pushed for, or are using "medical" marijuana need to accept. This is also why decriminalization is the better path for MJ.

    It is what it is, however these regulations were in place well before MJ was being talked about in public as being medicinally acceptable. Take that for what it is, but if you want MJ to be allowed as a medicine you have to realize it will be regulated as such.

    Also even if you get your Rx from your family doctor on a single dispense basis, it still gets reported to the State once its filled. It doesnt have to be from a "pain mngmnt specialist".
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
  12. Vicki

    Vicki The Bionic Woman

    Messages:
    5,806
    You would be guessing wrong. :)

    My GP prescribes my Oxycodone and my name only goes into the states database from the pharmacy when I fill my prescription. I have also been getting some Oxycodone from Orthopedic surgeon, but I also just had major surgery on my wrist.

    Pretty much all of your post. :)
     
    Caligula likes this.
  13. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yeah, that's why I bolded guess, you never know for sure. So you are saying that everyone who gets a narcotics prescription filled in this country has their info (name and quantity) automatically given over to the gov? Every time your dentist gives you a vicodin? While I know all this info is accessible to the authorities, I have never heard of medical practitioners volunteering it. There is a big difference in keeping accurate records and giving away confidential info w/ no court order. Do they also voluntarily report instances of depression, reproductive concerns, viagra prescriptions, drug addictions, alcoholism, etc? Would it be any less a breach of confidentiality if they did?
     
  14. Vicki

    Vicki The Bionic Woman

    Messages:
    5,806
    I never said that. I said my information was given over to the state's data base, meaning my state. I am not sure how it is in every state.
     
  15. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    Each state is different as far as whats collected, if anything.

    Regardless, privacy rights do not apply in this case no matter what state you're in.

    http://www.namsdl.org/library/BB52D3BB-1372-636C-DD90AC3AAB8D724F

    HIPAA generally preempts a provision of state law that is contrary to a Privacy Rule standard, requirement or implementation specification. A state law requiring the transmission of specified dispensed prescription data to a PMP could potentially be deemed contrary. However, HIPAA identifies several exceptions to the preemption which may apply to PMPs. A contrary state law will not be preempted if the Secretary of HHS determines that the provision:



      • has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing or other control of any controlled substance (as defined under federal or state law).
      • a provision of state law provides for reporting of disease or injury . . . or for the conduct of public health surveillance, investigation or intervention.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
  16. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    Obviously decriminilazation is the better path, but not the subject at hand.

    I don't know how to interpret your first two sentences. #1: so crime is committed, so all people should be suspects and subjected to loss of constitutional rights? There are a lot of guns on the street. The next time you get pulled over for a minor traffic infraction should you be treated like a gangbanger/bank robber? #2 anyone who 'pushed' for medical rights should expect different than the passed bill explicitly states?

    I really think you are confusing ca mmj w/ or mmj. A lot of us 'pushed' for exact language protecting us from this kind of interpretation. While the bill was light years from perfect, there were protections included that are being violated.

    (1) Possession of a registry identification card or designated primary caregiver identification card pursuant to ORS 475.309 (Registry identification card) does not alone constitute probable cause to search the person or property of the cardholder or otherwise subject the person or property of the cardholder to inspection by any governmental agency.

    (2) Names and other identifying information from the list established pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be released to:
    (a) Authorized employees of the authority as necessary to perform official duties of the authority; and
    (b) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies, only as necessary to verify that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. Prior to being provided identifying information from the list, authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall provide to the authority adequate identification, such as a badge number or similar authentication of authority.
    (3) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies that obtain identifying information from the list as authorized under this section may not release or use the information for any purpose other than verification that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. [1999 c.4 §12; 2005 c.822 §5; 2009 c.595 §972]

    (3) ORS 475.300 (Findings) to 475.346 (Short title) are intended to allow Oregonians with debilitating medical conditions who may benefit from the medical use of marijuana to be able to discuss freely with their doctors the possible risks and benefits of medical marijuana use and to have the benefit of their doctors professional advice; and
    (4) ORS 475.300 (Findings) to 475.346 (Short title) are intended to make only those changes to existing Oregon laws that are necessary to protect patients and their doctors from criminal and civil penalties, and are not intended to change current civil and criminal laws governing the use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. [1999 c.4 §2]

    Not to mention the confidentiality clause between dr and patient.

    edit: This is what I saw in that link:

    As noted by the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    (HHS), “[a] major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health
    information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to
    provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well
    being.” Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
    (HHS), OCR Privacy Brief, Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule 1 (2003).
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
  17. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Im not arguing for or against anything other than fact.

    Your State enacted its own PMP act in 2010, and thus opened the doors and afforded the DEA and other government agencies the opportunity to access this data.

    Thats a fact.

    The DEA has already abused this in YOUR state, however not for marijuana:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...escription-database-is-unconstitutional.shtml

    Regardless, there is obviously a database kept in your state which came about by your local voting public and/or their representatives.

    Bitch and moan all you want about it, and argue with me until your keyboard dies... it wont change anything. Im just the messenger here.


    NYC's "stop and frisk" policy did manage to get a lot of illegal guns off the street.

    Just saying.

    http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/fewer-guns-seized-since-stop-frisk-ruling/
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
  18. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    I'm not trying to change your mind, just offering insight to people who might listen to you.

    Again, from the article you cited:

    The DEA probably didn't expect to encounter much resistance to its subpoenas. After all, drugs are bad and the DEA is fighting the good fight. But the state of Oregon wasn't impressed with the DEA's warrantless tactics and filed suit with the assistance of the ACLU. The ACLU is now reporting that a federal judge has ruled in its (and Oregon's favor) and the DEA (along with other law enforcement entities) will no longer be able to skirt the state's warrant requirement. For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their drug prescription records, and that law enforcement must obtain a warrant in order to search such information…

    “This is a victory for privacy and for the constitutional rights of anyone who ever gets drug prescriptions,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case last month. “The ruling recognizes that confidential medical records are entitled to the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. The court rightly rejected the federal government’s extreme argument that patients give up their privacy rights by receiving medical treatment from doctors and pharmacists.”As the ruling points out, citizens have long associated privacy with medical treatment, something that has gone hand-in-hand dating back to the 4th century B.C.E. and the origin of the Hippocratic Oath. It also points out the obvious: federal law itself (HIPAA) contains built-in privacy protections. (Hence the form you have to sign, the privacy info sheet you're handed on every visit, and signs everywhere telling you to stand behind them for the privacy of the patient in front of you.)

    Even your citations, supposedly to the contrary, agrees w/ me. If you had read the excerpts I'd posted, you'd see that there were specific guidelines on who could access the database, for what reasons and what they could do w/ that info. It's why the feds are on the losing end of a lawsuit right now.

    Am I arguing that feds don't attempt to break any law they can to further their position? of course not. I am saying that it is constitutionally illegal when they do so. I think that any progress we have made, whether it be recreational or medical, is from people standing up to and fighting for people's rights while opposing these illegal actions and educating others. I don't think one iota of progress we have made has been due to others who accept anything the gov tells them, says 'that's just how it is, move on.', and attempts to discredit people fighting for their rights by saying they are just ' bitching and moaning'.
     
  19. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    Dude, the whole point of me citing that article is to show you that your state does indeed have a prescription drug database and that it applies to pharmaceuticals as well as MMJ.

    Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to joust, but I assure you its just a windmill.

    Edit:
    To clarify again, only points I'm trying to make:

    • Oregon has a PMP act
    • The PMP database applies to both pharmaceuticals and (potentially, at the very least) MMJ.
    • Its not out of line to mandate MMJ be subject to the same regulations as any other prescribed, controlled substance.
    Nothing more.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
  20. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say. It seemed as if you also said:

    "Regardless, privacy rights do not apply in this case no matter what state you're in."

    and:

    "Your State enacted its own PMP act in 2010, and thus opened the doors and afforded the DEA and other government agencies the opportunity to access this data."

    What is allowed in my state is for leo to check to see if someone is registered or not (a yes/no answer) anytime there is a potential mj infraction, and if yes - for them to turn around and walk away - that is the limit of the data legally available to leo w/o a warrant. Not for them to gain specific info on the quantity a particular person purchases. The database did come about by 'the local voting public' to safeguard patients rights, not to infringe upon them.
     
  21. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
  22. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken Transcendentalist

    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Oregon
    It seems as if every time I call bs, you change the subject. Eventually, I will run out of energy and you can chalk it up as another 'win'.

    Your insistence on calling it a pmp and lumping it in w/ narcotics is the problem. Oregon has it's own database for mmj cardholders. It is a standalone program, not a pmp. I realize our topics got mixed up as people wanted to compare a plant w/ oxy and you provided a link about pmp's. There are definitely similarities, but more importantly - differences. Contrary to what you say (and no matter how often you repeat it) about the pmp applying to mj, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 'drug', and as such can not by definition be a part of a pmp.

    1)(a) The Oregon Health Authority shall create and maintain a list of the persons to whom the authority has issued registry identification cards, the names of any designated primary caregivers and the addresses of authorized marijuana grow sites. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the list shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure.

    (3) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies that obtain identifying information from the list as authorized under this section may not release or use the information for any purpose other than verification that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. [1999 c.4 §12; 2005 c.822 §5; 2009 c.595 §972]

    I and several others I know have benefited and been protected by this database. I know patients whose neighbors complained about smell, visibility, etc - to have leo say there is nothing they can do. W/o the registry, they would have had probable cause for search and seizure. In the old days, they would rip your plants up, drag your ballasts out by the cord and destroy your home. Once you proved in court that you were legal, you would get your brokeass equipment back, your plants would be dead, you would be out legal fees and a trashed house w/ no possibility of compensation. Now, they are legally required to check the registry before making a move, and walk away if you are registered.

    Of course I don't like being in a database or playing the game at all. Does leo always play by the rules? Of course not. That doesn't mean that I am willing to ignore and not fight for the few civil liberties I have left. I obviously consider the 4th amendment and the right to privacy among those liberties.

    My whole point in starting this thread was to share changes to Oregon mmj law and to express my distaste over the gov's violation of civil rights. Obviously some feel that these violations are not only to be expected, but it seems, justified.
     
    Gunky likes this.
  23. Caligula

    Caligula Maximus

    Messages:
    6,894
    Location:
    SB420 Land!
    How is directly quoting something you had just posted and questioning it "changing the subject"?

    Furthermore, I'm not here to "win" anything.

    http://www.nabp.net/news/oregon-boa...as-schedule-ii-drug-in-accordance-with-or-law

    On June 16, 2010 the Oregon State Board of Pharmacy acted to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance in accordance with an Oregon law that passed last year."

    So does the State run PMP abide by the classifications set by the feds, or the State?

    On a side note, you know what else is a Schedule II drug? Oxy.

    Who said anything was justified? I missed that part.
     

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors