Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Courses

Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

Colorado 420 Cannabis Activists

Cannabis Hemp Academy

Peter Loyd Weber Marijuana Law

Westword Marijuana Blogs

Cannabis Science

Danyel Joffe Medical Marijuana












Colorado Cannabis Medical Marijuana Business Directory

Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Courses

Online Shop: Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Information

Silver Surfer Vaporizers

Cannabis Trade Council

4.20 Money Bomb

Colorado 420 Coalition - Marijuana Legalization




Upcoming Marijuana/Cannabis Training Classes

Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Classes

Signup on our email list to be informed of all upcoming classes.
We have Colorado medical marijuana legal compliance training classes regularly.
Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

Colorado Marijuana and Medical Marijuana Classes

Bookmark and Share

ACTION ALERT: February 26, 2015


Stop attacks on patients and caregivers!!!

SB 15-014 Requires Unconstitutional Caregiver Registry


SB 15-014 will have its first public hearing today at the state Capitol. The state legislature is once again attacking sick patients who use cannabis as medicine and trying to subvert the Constitution. Due to lobbying by recreational marijuana businesses such as those belonging to
the Marijuana Industry Group (MIG), who see the medical program as competition to their highly taxed cannabis, the legislature continues its "crackdown" on patients and caregivers.

SB 15-014 would:
- Require caregiver registration with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and with the Department of Revenue
- Subject caregivers who fail to register to criminal penalties and a lifetime ban on ever again serving as a caregiver under the constitution
- Allow law enforcement to destroy the plants of a caregiver who fails to register (Right now, the plants constitutionally protected until a caregiver has been convicted of a crime.)
- Forbid caregivers from growing more than 6 plants for a patient, even if their physician has recommended more
- Eliminate caregiver confidentiality. The bill contains little or no protection for confidentiality of the caregiver Registry, leaving plant counts and grow locations open to law enforcement inspection at will

Letter from Rob Corry:
Read attorney Robert J. Corry Jr.'s letter to the committee, which also contains information on a new, secret version of the bill that his not available to the public.

Read SB 15-014:

Senate Health and Human Services Committee
Hearing on SB 15-015
Thurs., Feb. 26, 2015
TIME: 1:30pm
LOCATION: Capitol Building, 200 E. Colfax, Denver, CO
ROOM: Room 271

Capitol Bill Room
Always call the Bill Room for any last minute time changes to the hearing
time/date. (303) 866-3055

If you can't be there in person, the best way to participate is to listen
live online and email the committee live during testimony. This actually
has the added benefit of being able to counter lies and questionable
testimony through email that you might not be able to address in person.





The Honorable Senator Kevin Lundberg,
The Honorable Larry Crowder, Vice-Chair
The Honorable Irene Aguilar
The Honorable Beth Martinez Humenik
The Honorable Linda Newell
Senate Health and Human Services Committee
Colorado State Capitol
Denver, CO 80202

Dear Senators:

I request that you vote NO on SB 15-014, the bill that would require registration of caregivers who provide medical marijuana for patients.

The provisions of SB 15-014 requiring caregivers to register with the state are unconstitutional. Amendment 20, Colorado's medical marijuana constitutional amendment, allows for the compassionate use of cannabis by medical patients suffering from a debilitating medical condition.

A20 allows a patient to designate a caregiver to provide cannabis for them. In A20, there is no requirement for either patient or caregiver to register with the state.

The patient can choose to become part of an optional Registry, but since the confidentiality of this Registry has been compromised, many patients have chosen not to register.
See Auditor's report of June 2013:

Even without registration, these patients still enjoy the full protection of the constitution for their cannabis use.

In addition, A20 was passed by voters to protect patients and caregivers from law enforcement scrutiny. SB 15-014 is contrary to this intent, as it opens patients and caregivers up to *more* law enforcement interaction, not less.

Remember, many caregivers are the husbands or wives of sick and dying cancer patients. Why would you want to add another layer of stress to a family that is already dealing with the overwhelming pressure and constant worry that comes when dealing with a terminal illness? Show some compassion to these the sick and dying, and uphold the will of the voters who enacted A20. Vote NO on SB 15-014




We apologize for late notice of this bill, but CTI receives no funding from anyone, limiting our ability to function as patient advocates. We haven't had a donation from a dispensary in over 5 years, as most dispensaries now see CTI's attempts to protect patient rights as a threat to their profits. Please consider making a donation today.

Marijuana Fifth Amendment Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Self-Incriminating State Licensing Requirements

Businesses would revert back to pre-2010 business models
protected by the Constitution


Colo. Board of Health Rulemaking Hearing
Sept. 16, 2014

Colorado Board of Health
Rulemaking Hearing for 5 CCR 1006-2, Medical Use of Marijuana
Tues., Sept. 16, 2014
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Old Supreme Court Chambers
State Capitol Building - Second Floor
200 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO, 80203

Click here for complete rulemaking packet and agenda:

1) SEND EMAILS by Sept. 16 (see below 'cut and paste' sample letter and email addresses)
2) ATTEND HEARING. Public comment will be taken at the hearing, and a strong turnout of patients and advocates opposed to these rules is very important.

Click here to read CTI/PCRLP official comments regarding these proposed rules:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is proposing new rules for the state's medical marijuana program that would force patients who shop at Medical Marijuana Centers (MMCs) to provide confidential medical information to the Department of Revenue to be stored in a new non-confidential database that is open to all law enforcement. The proposed rules also would limit caregivers to serving no more than 10 patients.

As part of the official rulemaking procedure, CDPHE is required to solicit public comment on the proposed rules. The Board of Health is the regulatory authority regarding rulemaking, so they will preside over the hearing on Sept. 16 and have the final vote on the proposed rules.

Below is a summary of the major issues that patient advocates have with the proposed rules. At the end is a sample letter and email addresses so that you may submit your public comment on these proposed rules.


Proposed new rules to be added to CCR 1006-2, Medical Use of Marijuana

1) CDPHE's proposed rules force patients to give medical information to
Department of Revenue.

The CDPHE proposes rules that would let them stop collecting patient Medical Marijuana Center (MMC) designations and patient plant counts as part of the confidential Registry. Instead, the CDPHE says that patients who shop at MMCs will be forced to use the Department of Revenue's new non-confidential database and tracking system to track their MMCs and plant counts. There are NO CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS whatsoever for the DOR's handling of this information. The DOR has always admitted that they regularly share data from MMCs with state, local and federal law enforcement. Now confidential patient medical information will be part of
the DOR's data collection for the first time.

2) CDPHE's proposed rules limit caregivers to serving no more than 10 patients.
This is unconstitutional, as Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution (Am. 20), contains no limits on the number of patients a caregiver can serve. Amendment 20 contemplated a method of cannabis distribution handled primarily by caregivers, not by MMCs. MMCs were created by HB 10-1284 in 2010, a state statute whose authors admitted it was designed to destroy the caregiver model.

This new rule is targeted at only 4 people. According to the CDPHE rulemaking packet, only 4 out of 2,896 caregivers that have voluntarily registered with the CDPHE have more than ten patients. That means these proposed caregiver rules are targeted at 0.001% of the caregivers that have voluntarily registered.

Eliminating caregivers will harm patients by forcing them to purchase medicine at Medical Marijuana Centers. The caregiver model has worked well without problems for over 14 years in Colorado. If these new rules are enacted, patients will be harmed when their caregivers are eliminated. MMCs are often more expensive, have lower quality medicine, and have fewer
varieties and preparations of medicines than those provided by caregivers. Also, MMCs are banned in many locations, including almost all of eastern Colorado and a good portion of the Western Slope. These proposed rules will put undue hardships on patients, forcing many to travel hundreds of miles to obtain lower quality medicine at a higher price.

3) CDPHE's proposed rules require patients to register their caregivers with the CDPHE.
Proposed new Regulation 2 (2) (a) requires patients to register their caregivers with the CDPHE. There is no Constitutional requirement for caregiver registration under Amendment 20. Once again, the CDPHE seeks to over-step its Constitutional authority.

In addition, the proposed rules to register caregivers through the CDPHE contain no provisions for confidentiality, effectively creating a list of cannabis cultivators that is open to law enforcement. Since marijuana is a violation of federal law, this registration requirement violates the U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment and the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section18, which both protect citizens from self-incrimination.

4) CDPHE proposed rules illegally use over-collected patient fees to pay for the Colorado Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program.
Article XVIII, Section 14 of the state Constitution requires that patient fees can only be used to pay for "administrative costs" of maintaining the confidential Medical Marijuana Registry (MMR). According to the state Auditor's report in 2013, the CDPHE had a $12 million surplus from over-collected patient fees and was failing to keep the Registry
confidential. The proposed Colorado Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program is clearly not an "administrative cost" of maintaining the Registry, therefore the proposed rules creating it should be rejected. Patient money should be returned to them. Patients can voluntarily choose to contribute to a research program, but to withhold their over-collected fees is unconstitutional.

5) CDPHE did not been adequately notify patients of the proposed rulemaking hearing.
The CDPHE has consistently failed to adequately inform stakeholders about the changes in medical marijuana Registry rules.

The fact that surveys about these issues generated only 129 responses proves that patients do not know about these proposed changes. According to Attachment B, page 6 of the rulemaking packet (Stakeholder Survey Responses & Comments), the survey the CDPHE posted on their website for 7 weeks only had 129 respondents. There is no breakdown of how many of the respondents were actually patients or caregivers on the Registry, but even if they all were, it would only represent 0.0005% of the 250,000+ current and former patients and caregivers on the Registry.

On page 18 of the rulemaking packet, CDPHE admits that emails were only sent to 580 "contacts". Most of these "contacts" are not patients. Many are government officials and law enforcement.

In 2007, patients withdrew a lawsuit against the CDPHE on the stipulation that the CDPHE agreed to inform patients of all future rulemaking hearings. In LaGoy v Colorado, Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves ruled that the CDPHE had not provided adequate notice of a rulemaking hearing.

On November 15, 2007, the Court signed a joint stipulated Order that settled all claims in this case. The Court's Order/settlement of November 15, 2007 provided in relevant part that:

(3) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shall provide
notice to all state-registered medical marijuana patients, caregivers, and
the parties to this action of any meeting to discuss possible policy
changes or regulatory changes to the Colorado medical marijuana law when
such notice is required by the Colorado Open Meetings Act, C.R.S. 24-6-401
et seq. and/or the Administrative Procedures Act, C.R.S 24-4-101, et seq.

Despite repeated requests by patient advocates, and despite Judge Naves' court order, CDPHE has consistently refused to notify patients by mail or email of any rulemaking hearings, surveys or requests for input.

6) The caregiver system will be essential if HB 10-1284 is repealed.
House Bill 10-1284, which created the Medical Marijuana Center (MMC) model, is scheduled to be repealed (sunset) in July 2015.

If HB10-1284 is allowed to sunset, MMCs will be eliminated and forced to convert to A64 Retail Marijuana Stores. This will make the right of caregivers to serve multiple patients even more important than it is now.

7) The proposed rules violate Equal Protection rights.
The proposed rules treat medical cannabis patients like second-class citizens. Other medical patients can use whatever medicine they need from any provider, but medical cannabis patients are discriminated against.

Click here to read CTI/PCRLP official comments regarding these proposed rules:


(Copy and paste, or use your own)

Dear Board of Health:

Please accept this letter as part of the official rulemaking record concerning proposed Amendments to 5 CCR 1006-2, Medical Use of Marijuana, with a rulemaking hearing set for September 16, 2014 at 8:30am at the State Capitol.

I strongly oppose many of these rules.

I oppose the proposed rules that would force patients who shop at MMCs to become part of a non-confidential database run by the Department of Revenue. Patient confidentiality is the most important part of any medical marijuana program. The DOR has no provisions for any patient
confidentiality in their data collection and regularly shares data from MCs with state, local and federal law enforcement.

I oppose the proposed rules that would limit caregivers to serving 10 patients. Caregivers are the only model of cannabis distribution protected under the Constitution. Medical Marijuana Centers are only protected by statute, and that statute is set to "sunset" (be repealed) in July 2015. If all MMCs close next year when HB 10-1284 is allowed to sunset, patients will need more caregivers than ever.

I oppose the CDPHE's proposed rules that require patients to register their caregivers with the CDPHE. This is beyond the scope of the CDPHE's mission to maintain a confidential Registry of medical marijuana patients and violates the caregiver's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The proposed rules treat medical cannabis patients like second-class citizens and do not provide equal protection under the law. Other medical patients can use whatever medicine they need from any provider, but medical cannabis patients are discriminated against, even though medical cannabis is the only medicine protected by the Constitution.

Finally, I believe the CDPHE has not done an adequate job of reaching out to stakeholders who are affected by these rules. CDPHE needs to do more to notify patients and caregivers about rulemaking hearings.




EMAIL SUBJECT: Public Comment on Proposed Rules Regarding Medical Marijuana

DEADLINE: Send comments by Sept. 16 at 5:00 pm.

Please copy and re-distribute this announcement.

Marijuana Tax Fifth Amendment Hearing

UPDATE (8/22/14): Denver District Court Honorable Judge John Warren IV denied the request for a preliminary injunction on a technicality, but said the case had merit enough to move forward. The judge says the issues are "fascinating" and that he is "looking forward" to hearing the rest of the case at trial. On to the next step! Read John Ingold's coverage at the Denver Post

ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE: There will be a preliminary injunction hearing in Denver District Court on Friday in a lawsuit brought by marijuana civil rights activists seeking to protect their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Plaintiffs will argue in front of The Honorable Judge John Madden IV that payment of marijuana taxes violates a citizen's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law.


Date: Friday, August 22, 2014
Time: 9am to 12noon
Location: Denver District Court (Old Building)
1437 Bannock St.
Denver, Colorado
Courtroom #203: The Honorable Judge John Madden IV

Note: Please dress nicely and maintain quiet in the courtroom. Bring a photo ID with, as you may have to show it to get through courthouse security.

Attorney Robert J. Corry, Jr. filed the lawsuit on June 9, 2014 seeking to permanently end Colorado's marijuana taxes, on the grounds that payment of the taxes forces citizens to incriminate themselves as criminals under federal law.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed licensed medical and retail marijuana center, the "No Over Taxation" issue committee (which campaigned against Proposition AA, the marijuana tax issue approved by Colorado voters in 2013) and several individuals, including Kathleen Chippi, Larisa Bolivar, Miguel Lopez and William Chengelis.

Corry is seeking unspecified damages and a refund of all tax monies collected by the state.

If successful, Corry's lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on the same grounds. As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to identify oneself would result in a "real and appreciable" risk of self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in federal crimes.

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:

Corry cites a 1973 Colorado Supreme Court case (People vs. Duleff) that overturned a man's conviction for "selling marijuana without a license" because compliance with the licensing requirement would have required that person to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and reveal a violation of federal law. Corry writes, "The Colorado Supreme Court held specifically that the Fifth Amendment prohibits state licensing requirements that force a person to reveal a violation of federal law."

From the Duleff decision, Corry quotes the Colo. Sup. Ct.:
"The Fifth Amendment prohibits licensing requirements from being used as a means of discovering past or present criminal activity which is subject to prosecution by calling attention to the licensee and his activities....There is no doubt that the information which Duleff would have been required to disclose would have been useful to the investigation of his activities, would have substantially increased the risk of prosecution, and may well have been a direct admission of guilt under federal law. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from such compulsory, incriminating disclosures and provides a complete defense to prosecution." -- Colorado Supreme Court (1973)

Corry also cites a 1969 US Supreme Court case (Timothy Leary v. United States) in which the the highest court in the country overturned Leary's marijuana possession conviction and ruled that the federal Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was illegal, due to the fact that a person seeking a tax stamp and complying with the law would be forced to incriminate himself, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Corry writes, "Marijuana-specific taxes require plaintiffs and any other person paying said taxes to incriminate themselves as committing multiple violations of federal law, including but not limited to, participating in, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit a 'continuing criminal enterprise' and 'money laundering.' These illegally-collected taxes are ultimately laundered by the State of Colorado through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which also participates knowingly in the continuing criminal enterprise." Item 67, Corry complaint filed 6/9/14.

Corry concludes, "It is illegal for government to retain tax monies illegally collected in violation of the constitution, so all amounts must be returned, and all records related to previous tax payments, destroyed."

Corry asks the Court to:
"Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or permanent injunction ordering the Defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the marijuana tax statutes, to cease and desist from any further collection, deposit, or laundering of the marijuana taxes, for a full refund of marijuana tax monies paid by any person or entity, and for destruction of all tax records and identifying information after full refunds are made."

"The state can't have it both ways. If it's illegal under federal law, you cannot collect taxes on it," says Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff and member of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project. "We have another case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court now, Coats v. Dish Network, where Colorado Attorney General John Suthers argues that medical marijuana patients can be fired from their jobs for using medical marijuana off-duty, even though it is legal under state law. Suthers argues in the Coats case that, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, patients have no rights."

"Yet Suthers and Hickenlooper, as kingpins in their continuing criminal enterprise, happily collect and spend the marijuana taxes, even though they were collected in spite of multiple clear violations of federal law," Chippi concludes.

Read Boulder Weekly article on Federal Preemption issues and the Coats v.
Dish Lawsuit (5/22/14):


Click here to read the complaint
No Over Taxation, et al, v. Hickenlooper, et al

People v. Duleff (Colorado Supreme Court case)

US v. Leary (US Supreme Court case)

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project

Denver 420 Rally

Law Firm of Robert J. Corry, Jr.


Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
Phone: 877-420-4205
Email: info(@)

ACTION ALERT: March 28, 2014

Colorado Proposes Caregiver Limits - Patients Will Suffer

Edibles and extracts supplied by caregivers would be eliminated.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is having a "Town Hall" meeting on Friday, March 28 in Denver to discuss "proposed legislation" to limit patient and caregiver rights. The CDPHE has refused to supply CTI with a copy of the "proposed legislation", but the agenda for the meeting indicates that they want to limit caregivers to cultivating 6
plants. If passed, this legislation would restrict caregivers' ability to provide edible cannabis or cannabis extracts like Rick Simpson Oil, used as a cancer-fighting medicine.

Pot Caregiver Crackdown Rekindled in Colorado

Friday, March 28, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Old Supreme Court Chambers
State Capitol Building (2nd Floor)
200 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80203

Also on the agenda for this meeting will be:
- Limit caregivers to 6 plants per patient
- Limit caregivers to 5 patients: This is already in statute, but CDPHE can make exceptions. It is unclear why this needs to be re-addressed.
- overview of the CDPHE's failed state audit last year
- CDPHE's new policy on medical necessity review: CDPHE has refused to provide CTI with an advanced copy of this "new policy"

Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Constitution (popularly known as Amendment 20), states that a caregiver can supply a patient with whatever amount of medicine is "medically necessary" to treat their condition. A 6 plant limit per caregiver would abrogate this Constitutional right.

Proponents of a "caregiver crackdown" claim that there are caregivers all over the state selling cannabis openly for profit for multiple patients. If this were true, there are already statutes in Colorado that limit caregivers to no more than 5 patients each and prohibit caregivers from
making a profit on their medicine. These laws were part of the HB1284-era of laws supported by dispensaries in 2010 and 2011, which eliminated 90% of the caregivers in Colorado. If there are any caregivers breaking the law, they can be prosecuted right now, so there is no need for new laws.

Amendment 20 contemplated a compassionate system of medical marijuana distribution where the patients would be protected from criminal prosecution, and the medicine would be supplied by caregivers. This system worked without problems from 2000 until 2009, when the government crackdown began.

With the passage of House Bill 1284 in 2010, the government gutted the caregiver model for medicinal cannabis distribution, even though this was the system approved by voters. They forced patients to shop in Medical Marijuana Centers (which are not caregivers and therefore not protected by the Constitution). MMCs did not have the same quality and variety that caregivers provided, so patients suffered.

Now with the passage of Amendment 64 (recreational marijuana), the government wants to shut down the medical program altogether and force patients to shop in A64-stores, where cannabis is highly taxed to fund law enforcement, government propaganda campaigns and some school construction. MMCs are not subject to the A64 40%+ additional taxes, so patients can find less expensive medicine there.

According to the Denver Post, the CDPHE meeting on Friday may be being held as a "last-minute attempt to placate lawmakers, not a genuine attempt to listen to caregivers."

Indeed, there is evidence of this. The CDPHE's "Town Hall" Meeting is set from 1pm to 4pm, with the 1:30pm to 3:30pm time slot allocated exclusively for public comment. So, clearly, the main purpose of this meeting is for public comment. However, the CDPHE has done everything they can to make sure attendance at, or even knowledge of, this meeting is as minimal as
- CDPHE announced the meeting on their website on Monday afternoon, giving only 4 days notice
- CDHPE scheduled the meeting for Friday afternoon, probably the worst time of the week if you want to maximize attendance
- CDPHE claims that they sent an email to all those on the email notification list, but people who are known to be on the list received no such email
- CDPHE refused to send an email to the 200,000+ active and inactive patients and caregivers on the Registry, with no explanation why.
- CDPHE deceptively named the meeting a "Town Hall" meeting, indicating a local city or town was having a discussion, not that a statewide body was meeting to discuss a statewide issue.
- CDPHE refused to give CTI a copy of the "proposed legislation" that was to be discussed at that meeting
- No member of the General Assembly will be in attendance at the meeting, only CDPHE employees. If the purpose of the meeting is "proposed legislation", why are no legislators going to attend?

If you would like to attend the meeting, you are certainly encouraged to voice your opinion in person. But since no one from the General Assembly will even be in attendance to hear your concerns and the CDPHE has no authority to propose bills or enact statutes of their own, who will you be talking to? CTI will be there to report on what happened at the meeting.

We do encourage you to send an email and have all your friends send an
email. It is VERY IMPORTANT that the General Assembly hear your concerns.



Dear General Assembly:

Please do not enact any laws that restrict the amount of cannabis that a caregiver is allowed to grow. Many patients need more than 6 plants because their medical condition requires therapies (like edibles), which are produced with more raw material than 6 plants can produce. Under A20, a patient is allowed to have whatever amounts are "medically necessary". A restriction on caregivers' cultivation will deny patients this Constitutional right.

There is currently no evidence of any widespread problem with caregivers growing too much medicine. If there were, law enforcement has adequate tools now to investigate and prosecute caregivers. As you know, caregivers are already limited to 5 patients and are not allowed to make a profit, so if there is any problem, it can be addressed with current laws.

The intent of A20 was to allow a compassionate system of medical marijuana distribution where the patients would be protected from criminal prosecution, and the medicine would be supplied by caregivers. This system worked without problems from 2000 until 2009, when Medical Marijuana Centers were established and caregivers were restricted. Many patients don't like to shop at MMCs because of privacy concerns or because only their caregiver can supply them with the exact type of medicine they need. MMCs are not part of A20. Caregivers are. Please don't restrict patient choice any further than you already have.

PS -- I did NOT get notice of this proposed law from the CDHPE. I heard about the issue through a patient advocacy group. Please tell the CDPHE to do a better job of contacting patients and caregivers about issues that affect them.


Your name


CDPHE and Board of Health,,,,,,,

Colorado Senate

Colorado House of Representatives

CDPHE has set up a place to post your comments online.



Public Service Announcement of the
Cannabis Trade Council

Department of Revenue MITS System Illegally Accesses Confidential Patient Registry

Marijuana Inventory Tracking System (MITS) Contains Confidential Information

Patients say, "Get your MITS off my meds!"


Health Department Aids DOR in Patient Tracking

Click here for more information

Colorado A64 Marijuana and A20 Medical Marijuana News

Online Shop: Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Information

Sign up on CTI's email list for updates:
Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

PREVIOUS CTI POSTS (2011 - 2013)

PREVIOUS CTI POSTS (2009 - 2011)