About this page
LTEs, the HB 3460 related Letters to the Editor, Legislator or Other People of Interest
the NotePad, our HB 3460 Bulletin Board
Legislation Station; section index
Initiative! process, How To
in Oregon State:
Legislative Items past and present
2014, Legislative items
Senate Bill 1531, Medical - Specifies that governing body of city or county may prohibit the establishment or regulate or restrict the operation of medical marijuana facilities.
Senate Bill 1556, Legalization - Declares that person 21 years of age or older legally should be able to possess, transfer or produce marijuana.
2013, Legislative items
Senate Bill 82, to Remove 6-month Drivers License suspension for Cannabis (Marijuana) possession
Senate Bill 281, to add PTSD to the OMMP
2012, Legislative items
Legislative Concept 1749, to add PTSD to the OMMP
Attorney General Race, the Good and the Bad
Initiative 9 -- Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA)
Initiative 24 -- Oregon Marijuana Policy Intiative (OMPI)
2011, Legislative items
HB 3664, the "Sum Of All Fears" bill
SB 5529, Increases OMMP Fees
2010, Legislative items
I-28, the Dispensary Initiative continues
2009, Legislative items
I-28, the Dispensary Initiative
SB 388, changes the Program for Law Enforcement; Decreases amount of marijuana that may be possessed by persons responsible for marijuana grow sites to 24 ounces, etc.
SB 426, Expands ability of employer to prohibit use of medical marijuana in workplace
SB 427, Relates to drug-free workplace policies; Requires applicant for medical marijuana registry identification card to notify employer before using marijuana, etc.
HB 2313, a Land Use bill that could effect Dispensarys
HB 2497, Relating to employment; Expands ability of employer to prohibit use of medical marijuana in workplace
HB 2503, Relating to medical marijuana in the workplace; Prohibits discrimination in employment under certain circumstances, etc.
2007, Legislative items
SB465, a Fire-em-All-and-let-God-sort-out bill
2005, Legislative items
SB1085, needs your attention
HB2693, the "dumb bill gone bad" bill
HB3457, the "Forfeiture" bill
SB717, the anti-Medical Marijuana bill
SB772, the pro-Medical Marijuana bill
HB2485, the anti-Meth & Marijuana bill
SB294, the Hemp bill
SB397, Denies Benefits
HB2695, DUI & 2nd-Hand Smoke
HB5077, the "Rob the Sick and Dying Pot-heads" bill
2003, Legislative items
HB2939, a previous bad Medical Marijuana bill
Need more info?
How to OMMA
Grow Tips - for Medical Cannabis (Marijuana)
The MERCY Gift Shop - get neat stuff, support the cause.
Current Whats Hap
all Events page. Like ...
XS+Med*Fest! and other items on the ...
Search the Net
MERCYs' public info on House Bill 3460 as well as any related Issues.
Got a related item?
Also Bulletin Board so you, too, can add to the body of
[ Also this Session >
Session index ]
About this page ...
House Bill 3460 Sponsored by Representative BUCKLEY, Senator PROZANSKI; Representative FREDERICK, Senator DINGFELDER
-- Relating to medical marijuana.
HB 3460 -- Directs Oregon Health Authority to establish registration system for medical marijuana facilities for transferring usable marijuana from registry identification cardholders, designated primary caregivers of registry identification cardholders or marijuana grow sites to medical marijuana facilities and from medical marijuana facilities to registry identification cardholders or designated primary caregivers of registry identification cardholders.
You can read the full proposed measure here:
passed House and Senate (and House again) - Awaiting Governors Signature.
House BILL 3460 - filed
2013 Regular Session. Current Location: Governors Office - Awaiting Signature
Next Hearing Date: Wednesday, 6/19/2013, 4:30:00 PM, HR F
We encourage you to follow the bill here >> olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB3460 << and look forward to seeing how this issue progresses and we hope that you stay in touch as the session continues.
See - http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/agenda/webagendas.htm - for schedule.
Go to -
- to lookup and see list of Bills this session by keyword.
This link will take you to a very cool part of the website that makes it
really easy to find all related info by bill, committee, report, sponsor,
etc (and from the main website >>
And, all bills may be viewed at the state web site here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/
You may also get hard copies if you are in Salem by going to the bill room downstairs in the Capitol.
3-18(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
3-21(H) | Referred to Health Care.
4-8(H) | Public Hearing and Work Session held. See
4-17(H) | Work Session scheduled. See
4-22(H) | Recommendation: Do pass and be referred to Ways and Means.
4-22(H) | Referred to Ways and Means by order of Speaker.
5-7(H) | Assigned to Subcommittee On Human Services.
5-16 (H) Public Hearing held.
6-13(H) | Work Session held.
See - Details
6-13(H) | Returned to Full Committee.
6-19(H) | Work Session held.
See - Details
6-20 (H) Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
6-21 (H) Second reading.
6-24 (H) Third reading. Carried by Buckley. Passed.Ayes, 31; Nays, 27--Barton, Bentz, Berger, Cameron, Conger, Davis, Esquivel, Freeman, Gilliam, Hicks, Huffman, Jenson, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McKeown, McLane, Olson, Parrish, Richardson, Smith, Sprenger, Thatcher, Thompson, Weidner, Whisnant, Whitsett; Excused, 2--Hanna, Unger.
6-25 (S) First reading. Referred to President's desk.
6-27 (S) Referred to Ways and Means, then Rules.
6-28 (S) Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng and be referred to Rules by prior reference.
6-28 (S) Referred to Rules by prior reference.
6-29 (S) Work Session held.
See - Details
7-1 (S) Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng.)
7-2 (S) Second reading.
7-3 (S) Third reading. Carried by Prozanski. Passed.Ayes, 18; nays, 12--Baertschiger, Boquist, Close, Girod, Hansell, Johnson, Knopp, Kruse, Monroe, Olsen, Thomsen, Whitsett.
7-6 (H) Rules suspended. House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.Ayes, 31; Nays, 28--Barton, Bentz, Berger, Cameron, Conger, Davis, Esquivel, Freeman, Gallegos, Gilliam, Hanna, Hicks, Huffman, Jenson, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McLane, Olson, Parrish, Richardson, Smith, Sprenger, Thatcher, Thompson, Unger, Whisnant, Whitsett; Excused, 1--Weidner.
7-8 (H) Speaker signed.
7-9 (S) President signed.
See - http://apps.leg.state.or.us/MeasureInfo/Measure - for latest on status.
(1) Call the Gov, make sure he signs.
(2) Contact your Rep and Senator and
-1- Thank them if they voted Yes,
-- or --
-2- Spank them if they voted No and prepare to work on their opponents campaign next election.
Keep it simple. In the Gov's case, Just ask him to support the bills concept and sign.
Keep it short. Your call should be under 3 minutes. Don't get bogged down in details. At this point it is a numbers game.
Keep it pleasant and remember to smile. Even though they can't see it, your smile will come through.
Act Today! House Bill 3460 will mean ...
Safe Access Point for Community
more Income for local Economies.
Phoning Your Legislator. During a legislative session, you may call your legislators by contacting the WATS operator. Within Salem, call 503-986-1187. Outside of Salem, please call 1-800-332-2313.
Find Your Legislator online at -www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/findset.htm. Visit: www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/home.htm - and fill out the form entering your home address. Then click on the "submit" button and you will then be given your state and US legislators.
Write your legislator online. To send a message to your State Senator or State Representative please visit: www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/ and fill out the form. By entering your information, you will be automatically matched to either your State Senator or your State Representative. Click "submit" when you are ready to send your message.
TESTIFYING | Staff will respectfully request that you submit 15 collated copies of written materials at the time of your testimony and, if possible, an electronic copy of materials provided to staff 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Persons making presentations, including the use of video, DVD, PowerPoint or overhead projection equipment are asked to contact committee staff and provide an electronic copy 24 hours prior to the meeting.
ADA accommodation requests should be directed to Karen Hupp, or Juliene Popinga, ADA Coordinators, at email@example.com or by telephone at 1-800-332-2313. Requests for accommodation should be made at least 72 hours in advance.
Getting to the Capitol: 900 Court Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97301 * Hours: Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30 ~ Saturday: Closed ~ Sunday: Closed * Visitor Services Phone: 503-986-1388 * For more information on How to get to the Capitol, including things like Where to Park. visit: www.leg.state.or.us/capinfo/
Here is a link to text of HB 3460:
LTL Example #1 -
original Editorial -
Voters' vision for medical pot laws sent up in smoke
One wonders who Oregon legislators are listening to when it comes to medical marijuana.
Statewide, Oregonians voted against legalizing marijuana just last November and specifically against setting up dispensaries for the drug in 2010, both by about a 55 to 45 count. Yet Saturday, their lawmakers authorized state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries and sent the legislation to the governor for his signature.
Obviously, they're listening to the state's 55,000 medical marijuana cardholders, rather than the majority of its voters.
The big glaring problem with Oregon's medical marijuana system is its lack of control. Passage of House Bill 3460, the dispensaries measure, does little to help that.
That's because cardholders can still grow their own or have someone do it for them. All House Bill 3460 does is make it easier for those 55,000, many of whom are recreational users just using the medical marijuana system to get their pot.
Had the lawmakers outlawed "grow your own," that would have been another story. Then, police wouldn't have to work so hard to separate legal growing sites from illegal ones. Today, there are 24,000 registered growers, and who knows how many unregistered ones. Limiting them to a few large grow sites supplying dispensaries would have greatly reduced law enforcement's job. If they found any others, they were obviously illegal.
Police could then spend more of their time catching thieves, protecting the public and doing other more pressing duties, rather than trying to catch pot dealers hiding behind the medical marijuana program.
The export of illegal pot out of Oregon to other states has so frustrated the federal government that it's stepped in several times to bust dealers with way too much marijuana and confiscated their hundreds of plants.
The federal government still considers marijuana illegal, but has been content to sit on the sidelines while Oregon and other states have instituted medical marijuana systems. However, it could take only so much and raided grow sites with obviously more plants than allowed. The feds say one Southern Oregon operation busted was growing about 4,000 pounds of pot more than it was allowed, 127 pounds.
Scraps between the police and medical marijuana centers, clinics or whatever one wants to call them are relatively small skirmishes in the medical marijuana issue. Several have been busted locally for supposedly not abiding by the rules. For example, charging more than they're allowed for their marijuana.
In dealing with just this aspect, the state only ties up more resources to make sure cardholders get their pot. They tripped right past the 800-pound gorilla smoking a joint " grow your own.
This paper’s editor wonders who the legislators are listening to when it comes to medical marijuana. I wonder why the editor is so out of touch with reality when it comes to medical marijuana. Seemingly he believes the first job of medical marijuana laws and legislators is to mollify rural cops rather than to provide for the relief of the thousands of Oregonians who rely on this medicine. He could not be more wrong. Importantly, not only is his view of what would make life easier for the cops wrong, the cops themselves don’t even agree with him.
His tired one note samba that eliminating patient self supply (grow your own) in favor of giant marijuana farms would solve the problems he decries is out of tune with not only reality but indeed with the very cops he expresses apparent sympathy for. The cops, in the recent legislative session, not only expressed no desire for such giant farms, but actually demanded that the number of gardens be limited to only three patients, a move resulting in a major increase in the number of gardens, just the opposite of the editor’s ideas. But both parties are wrong.
The editor ignores the constitutional equality of the legislature and initiatives. Claiming that the voters, having turned down two dispensary initiatives, do not want anything to do with the idea and are being disrespected by legislators’ work on solving the dispensary dilemma is ludicrous. The voters voted down initiatives with specific weaknesses, but did not reject dispensaries entirely, in spite of the editor’s view. He apparently failed to read the entirety or perhaps any of the bill he is discussing. Reading the bill makes it clear that the faults of other attempts have been recognized and fixed.
The bill sets out clear guidelines for the sale of medical cannabis including testing for detrimental contaminants of the medicine and calls for inspections of dispensaries and their records to assure of compliance with the law. The bill actually puts a significant dent in diversion of medicine by allowing patients and their growers to sell any surplus to dispensaries rather than the black market. The prices paid for the medicine will likely reflect the fact that marijuana retail prices will need to be similar to black market prices to discourage diversion after the sale to patients, thus wholesale prices will need to closely follow prices being paid to those growers by black market buyers.
One clear indicator of the weakness of the editor’s position is that to buttress his arguments for eliminating “grow your own” he needs to cite growers busted with thousands of pounds of marijuana as examples of the failures of “grow your own”. While unfortunate, the growers busted cited were clearly not “growing their own” and therefore are poor examples to use in calling for eliminating the practice The fact is that for the vast majority of growers and patients supplied by them the process works quite well.
It is noteworthy that the editor’s words imply that cops throughout Oregon agree with the locals views regarding medical marijuana and its distribution. The reality differs significantly. Multnomah County, for example, the largest in the state, finds that real public safety problems, rather than marijuana violations, are of much more importance and almost never bothers to bust medical marijuana growers or distributors. That county can not justify the expense of marijuana enforcement and so does almost none of it, concentrating instead on crimes which injure persons or property. Police there (borrowing the editor’s words) “spend more of their time catching thieves, protecting the public and doing other more pressing duties,” actions the editor implies can only be accomplished if medical marijuana laws were changed to suit him. Multnomah County demonstrates that marijuana enforcement is actually voluntary and certainly not required to uphold public safety.
Were our local counties to follow Multnomah County’s example, foregoing the luxury of “feel good” marijuana busts in favor of spending more cops’ time catching thieves, protecting the public and doing other more pressing duties the situation regarding the repeated failure of county residents to fund law enforcement would likely change. As it is, none of the 10,000+ Josephine residents who hold one type or another of Oregon Medical Marijuana Program cards, or the thousands in neighboring counties have any incentive to vote for a levy. That would certainly change if this county and others put marijuana enforcement where it belongs in the ranking of duties, at the bottom.
TALKING POINTS: tba
Here is HB 3460 the medical marijuana facility bill the Sugerman Group and Collective Voice has been advocating for.
this is a complicated issue with no quick or simple fix that was likely
debated by the drafters of this bill's language.
it seems to me that the rationale is to keep things as close as possible to
the status quo by merely allowing patients to 'authorize' excess to be
channeled to facilities.
the other solution would require changing the entire fundamental structure
of omma by making the medicine and plants the property of the person
responsible for a growsite or a caregiver. many more provisions of omma
would have to be changed in a system that took this route.
Bradley and all,
This is an issue that has existed since the beginning and has lost many good growers to any relationship
at all. I agree that the current cardholder relationships should not me changed, But what we really lack
is a grower to sap relationship that does not have compliancy or ownership connection to specific patients.
Segregating needs of (outside the already existing OMMA) by independent permit, allows each to confine
to the auditing and taxing purposes. For instance medicine is not taxed but the legal sales of cannabis for
personal use can as well as hemp.
And I have to agree with Anthony Taylor in the need for us to have gotten together in solidarity a bill as
Peter wants so that we do not have something that we do not find as strong for all patients that can be.
Friends of Jim Klahr
99942A Winchuck Rv. Rd.
Brookings, OR. 97415
HB 3460 could well be a solution we have been seeking to the problem
of not being able to transfer excess medicine to other patients
through an outlet. I may see a flaw in the wording, however. It
seems to me that 3460 would allow cardholders, caregivers and growers
to sell mmj to a "facility" but current statute gives ownership of all
mj and plants to the cardholder. That would not allow anyone but the
cardholder, and not the caregiver or grower, to make such a transfer
(without a cardholder's permission) lawfully. Am I missing
There is nothing whatsoever "technical" about patients ownership of the medicine, including when it is in plant form. It is no more 'technical' than any other personal property right. It is an important protection for patients with unscrupulous growers. Please stop describing this important right as 'technical'
Its also important to acknowledge that while patients can, but are not required to, reimburse their growers for the costs of supplies and utilities only, and no other costs, including labor, the proposed authorization from the patients would allow growers to be fully reimbursed for all costs from med mj facilities.
On 3/18/2013 9:14 AM, Sam Chapman wrote:
Hi Laird et all,
The bill allows for patients -- who technically own the marijuana being
produced by a registered grower -- to authorize the transfer of marijuana
from their grower to a medical marijuana facility and from the facility to
a registered cardholder or their primary caregiver. *
The legislation allows for reimbursement of costs to the MMF and allows
the MMF to compensate the grower for production costs. *
It does not change the relationship between a patient and their grower.
The MMFs may only receive marijuana from a registered grow site and must
account for the marijuana coming into and leaving the facility.** *
Hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any other
questions relating to HB 3460.*
Bill Introduced To License And Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In
A bill to license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries was
introduced Friday in the Oregon House of Representatives by State Rep.
Peter Buckley and State Senator Floyd Prozanski. House Bill
establish a system under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program where
patients, growers and medical marijuana facilities will all be working
together to ensure that patients have safe access to medicine they need.
The bill would require medical marijuana facilities to seek a license from
OMMP similar to the license that patients and registered growers are
required to obtain under current law. The bill sets out a series of
regulations the medical marijuana facilities must meet and allows the
Oregon Health Authority to draft additional rules and regulations to ensure
patients are protected.
When the original medical marijuana act was passed in 1998, it allowed
patients to grow their own medicine, or to designate someone to grow it for
them. Many patients patients don't have the means to produce their own
medicine, and often have a hard time finding someone to grow for them. In
recent years, well over 100 dispensaries have started operations across the
state. In many communities, Portland for example, law enforcement has
generally taken a hands-off attitude. But in other communities these
dispensaries have been raided and shut down.
The bill allows for patients - who technically "own" the marijuana being
produced by a registered grower - to authorize the transfer of marijuana
from their grower to a medical marijuana facility and from the facility to
a registered cardholder or their primary caregiver. The legislation allows
for reimbursement of costs to the MMF and allows the MMF to compensate the
grower for production costs. It does not change the relationship between a
patient and their grower. The MMFs may only receive marijuana from a
registered grow site and must account for the marijuana coming into and
leaving the facility.
The bill is expected to be referred to a House Committee early this week.
This community should get solidly behind HB 3460. It would bring the current
dispensaries out of the gray area and create a regulated supply that would
help all patients. Right now the bill is relatively simple and
straightforward and has a chance of passing. We should all be contacting
legislators and urging them to support it.
I appreciate Clifford repeatedly reminding us to not overlook the low income
patients who really need help as we move forward with marijuana reform. I
also appreciate what Jen is saying - that taking care of poor patients
should be everyone's responsibility not just dispensaries'.
If we spend too much time trying to tweak the bill it will never get off the
No tweaks necessary. I think that Clifford (or someone who has the time) should approach the Outcomes Subcommittee and ask them to consider developing billing codes when a Safe Acess bill is passed, or even planning for the contingency that one might be passed. It would be a support to HB3460 and give us an opportunity to educate policymakers in Safe Access to Medical marijuana.I have already asked them and they have already agreed that if legislation for Safe Access is passed, they will have to do it so it is important that we remind tham that legislation is pending and this issue should at least be discussed again. We might even win some supporters among policy makers if we can demonstrate that we are seeing cost containment in program participants.
The Oregon Health Fund Board is developing their Healthcare reforms and they are who you need to approach on this issue. Billing codes must be developed before OHP can pay for medical marijuana and medical marijauan services. They have already been approached (by me) and you should talk to them again to follow up on my previous work and remind them that if a Safe Access bill is passed, medical marijuana products and services should be provided as an option to OHP clients because of the cost containment value of the program. Don't forget to address the Evidence Review Boad and ask for cost/benefit studies and risk/benefit analysis as well.
Private entities should not be required to pay for public responsibilities: it is the taxpayer's responsibility to provide medicine to the poor. Creating an unsustainable system serves no one. Pay the farmer and don't expect special taxes on him or the caregiver: why should either of them be subjected to special taxes? It discourages participation and creates unnatural shortages. Remember, patients will pay for those costs in the end, so why generate them in the first place when the responsibility really lies on the General Population? Stop expecting the cannabis community to provide funding when the responsibility for funding medication from OHP is from the General Fund, NOT OMMP. Yes, OHP should fund medical marijuana products and services, but OMMP should not provide that funding. The General Fund should provide that funding.
Jobs is a big part of it, but not just for those who wish to grow for specific patients. All farmers need jobs or what they really need is a new crop, whether it be Hemp or Cannabis for all. We are pigeon holing and losing many that
would vote for the farmer job issue by keeping the arguments ourselves in the demonization world.
I don't think the effects of HB 3460 on low income patients are nearly as
clear as Clifford presents.
First, do we really have any idea how much free medicine is given to
patients? To how many patients?
Second, Being able to get compensated some of the time will allow some
growers to give away more medicine. This may well encourage some people to
expand their gardens and give away more. And if all the growers are trying
to sell all their excess at dispensaries it might bring the prices down.
I think establishing the regulated supply system as HB3460 does will be good
for all patients.
Should we get prohibit pharmacies because they don't give away free medicine
to the poor? Of course not. My perspective is also from someone who may have
given away more free marijuana than anyone else. I can live with making
improvements to our laws in increments - it is far better than not making
improvements. There is no simple solution to helping low income patients in
the context of the OMMA. We should continue to help needy patients as best
we can, and I believe farmers who can earn a living can help others better
than farmers who are starving themselves.
Like I said before, if we complain too much that this good proposal isn't
perfect, we are likely to get nothing.
Your suggestions for helping the needy are not in the form of proposed
amendment to the bill that get into the details. We both know from drafting
these things in the past that writing workable language that directs the
Health Authority about how to regulate dispensaries giving discount medicine
to patients is extremely complex. That means it requires a lot of rules and
regulations and bureaucrats to administer it. That gets expensive and who
will pay for it?
I agree that this should be addressed at some point. But I have come to the
conclusion that it will have to be after we take the simpler step of ending
the prohibition on paying the farmer, the pharmacist, and the caregivers.
there is no distribution of the patient's medicine to the med mj
facilities under 3460 without the consent of the patient. patients are
free to cultivate for themselves, to designate a grower and receive the
medicine and the excess, or to allow the grower to distribute to med mj
facilities. Also, there is no limitations on from which med mj facility
a patient can obtain medicine.
other than legalization, a well regulated distribution system is the
best thing that can happen to patients.
On 3/18/2013 9:24 PM, Clifford Spencer wrote:
With all due respect, I have to take issue with, "You can't legislate
compassion..." Certainly we have welfare, don't we? And SNAP (food
stamps). And the Oregon Health Plan.
SO, "distributors" are the ones who have been doing this lobbying?
Obvioiusly they have THEIR OWN best interests in mind that they have
been presenting, NOT, necessarily, the best interests of A L L OMMP
Let's make this something we CAN ALL get behing! Include a
program for low income patients!
For links and help with contacting state reps and
To check up on bills and such, visit our Legislative ToolShed for Tools, Tips, Tricks and More.
back to [ Top of Page ]
also Information on
Cannabis by ...
MERCY in America; Medical Cannabis in the USA
Washington DC (District of Columbia)
The World of MERCY; Medical Cannabis around the Globe
Trinidad and Tobago
Virgin Islands (US)
United Kingdom (UK)
the United States
the Pacific (Oceania, Rim)
... plus Information on
Cannabis for ...
also Information on
Cannabis and ...
ADHD Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder
DIPG (Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)
Tinnitus (Ringing in the Ears)
CannaButter - a cannabis-infused medicinal application
Canna-Tea - Tea, a cannabis-infused medicinal application
Ticture - a cannabis-infused medicinal application
Canasol - a cannabis-based medicine
(RSO) - Rick Simpson Oil
(GHO) - Golden, Honey Oil
Seeds - for Medical Cannabis and related info
Strains - of Medical Cannabis and related info