Stormy Ray coop bill introduced to Oregon Legislature contact your Rep

On February 1, 2011, on the first day of the 76th Oregon Legislature Assembly, Representative Mike Schaufler (D, Happy Valley) introduced the controversial cooperative bill written by Stormy Ray as HB 3046. Stormy Ray was one of the co-chief petitioners of the original Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) in 1998.  She was also the "poster child" that helped garner the public support for medical marijuana by providing an image of a woman with multiple sclerosis who is wheelchair-bound, to contradict the typical "stoner" image that is conjured up by conversations about marijuana reform and illustrate that real patients with real illnesses are affected by this topic.

However, in more recent years, Stormy has spent very little time coordinating with the rest of the medical marijuana patient community, and ironically, she has become highly focused on what law enforcement wants, instead of what the patients need.  Both times that a dispensary measure has made the ballot, Stormy has been very vocal in her opposition.  One of the main reasons she has claimed to be opposed is due to the high price patients would be forced to pay under a dispensary model, as she explained in a 2006 editorial written for Alternatives Magazine:

It is my belief that there needs to be a way for all patients to access medical marijuana, but dispensaries like in California are not the answer. Prohibition and the black market have increased the street price of marijuana beyond what most patients can afford. As long as the price is artificially inflated by marijuana’s prohibition, medical marijuana will never be sold at a reasonable price. California dispensaries are selling marijuana for higher prices than on the black market: a price that rivals that of gold. We need to stop the gold rush!

"Patients have done a phenomenal job of managing the system," she says. "They own the medicine, they own the plan, and they network with each other. I've seen people rise above their own illnesses to work together. Measure 33 would destroy that heart and soul."

1. Requires at least 10 patients to join together to start a cooperative.  Many patients who cannot grow for themselves, and currently rely on a grower caring for three or more patients lack the networking within the community to find 9 other patients to start a cooperative -- and will have no choice but to join and/or shop at a cooperative.  As of January 1, 2013, this bill would require that all gardens be for no more than two patients at any one location.  Even if patients can locate 9 other individuals willing to start a cooperative, there are a lot of things that can go wrong when trying to get at least 10 people to agree on how best to operate and structure a cooperative that teeters on the line between legal patients (under the OMMA) and felony drug possession (under federal law).
    
2. Patients that are said to "own" their medicine through a cooperative will have to "buy" it from themselves at a heavily taxed rate.  Under this bill, there is a 10% tax imposed on "net profits," in addition to all other traditional taxes that would be due by any other business.  However, there is no such thing as "net profits" for marijuana businesses, according to the IRS, since a little-known tax code prevents the deduction of any expenses related to "trafficking in controlled substances" (marijuana is a Schedule I substance according to the federal government, and even though Oregon rescheduled marijuana to a Schedule II drug in 2010, it remains a controlled substance).
    
3. Mandates that all cooperatives sign a waiver allowing inspection by law enforcement anytime during business hours, and any other time that law enforcement deems necessary.  Stormy Ray has often been portrayed as a spokesperson for patients by law enforcement; however, many patients feel that Stormy Ray has become the spokesperson for law enforcement's concerns instead.  While law enforcement representatives often claim excessive abuses of the OMMA, the statistics do not support this claim.  For instance, one of the counties highly touted as having "rampant abuses" according to law enforcement is Douglas County.  In 2009, Lt. Dingeman of the Oregon State Police gave a presentation in multiple forums indicating a 33% abuse rate in Douglas County.  A KPIC article from March of 2010 states, "In Douglas County, Dingeman says that 37% in 2008 and 33% in 2009 are Marijuana investigations out of compliance here locally."  As I explained in an earlier article in response to a law enforcement claim of "rapidly growing abuse" of the OMMA on these same statistics:
   
   "The Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) is one of the LEAST "abused" programs in Oregon.  There is less than a 1% abuse rate in the current program, and even the statistics provided by law enforcement demonstrate a very minimal "problem."  For instance, while law enforcement states that there is 33% abuse in one particular county, the statistics only refer to law enforcement investigations and not medical marijuana patients.  The investigations include both medical marijuana patients/growers, as well as non-medical illicit grows.  The percentage given to demonstrate abuse above is actually a total of 72 investigations, and 24 of the investigations are "out of compliance" cardholders - the other 48 are nonpatients.  These statistics come from Douglas County in 2009, where there are currently 1649 cardholders as of October 1, 2010 - roughly 1% are "investigated" for being out of compliance, and there are no statistics available on how many of those 24 "investigations" resulted in "convictions!"  Douglas County is considered to be one of the higher areas of "abuse" by most law enforcement officials!  Roughly 1% is NOT "rapidly growing abuse" after 12 years of the OMMP."

   It is worth noting that the 37% abuse rate in 2008 was even fewer investigations - a total of 49 investigations, in which 18 involved OMMP caregivers, growers and/or patients.  Russ Belville did a great presentation called The Gold Standard of Government Programs, illustrating many of these fallacies in detail and showing how effective the OMMA has proven to be.  
    

4. Grants immunity to law enforcement and other officials.  While the above statistics clearly fail to show "rampant abuse" in the OMMA, there are plenty of stories that indicate how law enforcement abuses the OMMA and patients.  The OMMA specifically states that law enforcement is not allowed to use the confidential information obtained through the state registry for ANY reason other than verification; yet, repeatedly and in full defiance of the law, many law enforcement officers and agencies have openly shared that confidential information, including names of registered patients and even their home and growsite addresses!   (this occurs even when they are a victim of a crime in many instances -- we are not only addressing when they are accused of a crime; however, even if they are accused, their confidentiality should not be breached unless/until they are convicted of a crime).  The Director of the OMMP informed me that, while this was in direct violation of the law, the OMMA did not provide any penalties for this violation, so there was nothing that could be done about this illegal use of confidential patient information.  He suggested that a remedy might be to introduce penalties through the legislature to discourage law enforcement from divulging this confidential information.  Instead of doing so, Stormy Ray's bill states, "The authority and employees and agents of the authority acting within the course and scope of their employment are immune from any civil liability that might be incurred or imposed for the performance of or failure to perform duties required by this section."  After repeatedly placing patients in jeopardy by disclosing their status as a patient and their addresses, Stormy Ray grants them blanket immunity for even "failing" to do their job!
    
5. Requires that patients identify the tax lot of their medical marijuana garden.  While this information is likely readily available *somewhere*, this isn't common knowledge.  Under Stormy Ray's bill, patients would be required to acquire and note the tax lot number on their application for the OMMA.  While that creates an unnecessary burden on all patients, it remains unclear to me whether or not multiple patients could rent apartments at the same property - I believe that an apartment complex is typically one tax lot number, and the bill appears to prevent more than two patients to grow on a single tax lot.  If my understanding is accurate, this provision is as poorly thought out as the tax provision above!  But I admit that I know very little about property tax lots, and this is an area that I am still looking for clarification on.  (If you have information, please post it in the comments!)

1. Remove the tax provisions, and replace them with a flat fee to the state per patient that joins the cooperative if revenue is an important factor in the bill (maybe an additional $50 per year per patient who assigns their grow to a cooperative?  If 1/2 of patients opt for a cooperative, that would be approximately 20,000 patients paying $50 per year, or 1 million per year to the state).  Any taxes that would be required for net gains would still apply, revenue from the program would be easy to determine, and patients would not be burdened with heavy taxes and tax codes that are often confusing, particularly in such a grey area as medical marijuana.  Further, this wouldn't require a lot of additional administrative positions and money from the state to determine if cooperatives were properly accounting for their tax burden - it would simply be an additional fee paid with the annual renewal.
    
2. Minimize the intrusiveness of law enforcement provided in the current bill by mandating certain circumstances that allow for an inspection or particular intervals between inspections; the cooperatives are structured around patients and should not require such intensive oversight as currently provided in the bill.  Further, introduce penalties for divulging confidential information by law enforcement and other authorized individuals with access to the patient registry and finally, remove the clause for immunity.  Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard, not given immunity for failure to do their job.
    
3. Do NOT remove 3 and 4 patient gardens.  If large multi-patient gardens are of concern to the legislature, they should consider restricting caregivers to the same as growers currently are (4 patients), and ensure that the cooperative bill is actually a viable option for the patients currently utilizing large grows (ie greater than 4 patients at one property).  If the cooperative bill is realistic and truly provides patients with an alternative, this would regulate the large gardens that are of concern to law enforcement without penalizing the patients dependent on them.
    
4. Remove the minimum number of patients required for a cooperative.  The cooperative only allows as many plants as would be allowed if each patient grew independently; however, it much more tightly regulates the gardens.  There is no reason why 5 patients shouldn't be allowed to open a collective, or 7 patients.  While the bill does make an allowance for those in rural areas, it is a silly arbitrary provision that serves no real purpose.  For me personally, I had a very hard time finding a single person who shares my perspective on how to grow medical marijuana.  I could not imagine trying to find 10 individuals who shared my perspective.  Likewise, I have noticed that there are as many perspectives on this as there are growers - no two growers agree on how best to grow medical marijuana.  Why should a patient need 10 like-minded individuals to pursue a cooperative growing arrangement?