Last week Texas Cannabis Collective broke a story regarding the language defined in an Amendment (Seante Bill 406) to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act, New Mexico’s Medical Cannabis Law. In the Amendment, the definition of “qualified patient” changed from stating that a qualified patient had to be:
“a resident of New Mexico who has been diagnosed by a practitioner as having a debilitating medical condition and has received written certification and a registry identification card issued pursuant to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act”
to
“a person who has been diagnosed by a practitioner as having a debilitating medical condition and has received written certification and a registry identification card pursuant to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act on the basis of having been diagnosed, in person or via telemedicine, by a practitioner as having a debilitating medical condition; provided that a practitioner may only issue a written certification on the basis of an evaluation conducted via telemedicine if the practitioner has previously examined the patient in person.”
The Amendment also adds other provisions to the law like reciprocity to medical cannabis card holders from other states and for the use of medical cannabis in schools, for kids that have been recommended medical cannabis by a doctor. These provisions of the Amendment aren’t set to take effect until March 2020.
Reading the way the law is written now, it could be interpreted that as long as you are “a person”, and can be approved by a doctor, you should be able to access a New Mexico medical cannabis card. In a statement to NM Political Report, the New Mexico Department of Health clarified that “Persons who are not residents of New Mexico cannot be enrolled in the NM Medical Cannabis Program.” Lawsuits are expected to ensue from this predicament surrounding the language of the bill, because of the way the law reads. We will see, come next year.
The aforementioned article even states that the owner and CEO of Ultra Health, Duke Rodriguez, even purchased radio ads in Southeastern New Mexico stating that Non-New Mexico residents would be able to apply to become a medical cannabis patient. The question is… why? That tells us that Mr. Rodriguez and Ultra Health were the ones that created the mass confusion with the issue at hand.
I am sure that Mr. Rodriguez knows the cannabis is still illegal in Texas, and not only that, but concentrates are a felony and crossing state lines from New Mexico to Texas can carry even greater charges. I can’t fathom a reason why someone would do that, especially targeting people/patients in a state which currently views cannabis possession as an arrestable offense, with some offenses carrying a felony charge. Do you know how many parents waiting to be able to treat their children with cannabis in El Paso? This seems like a money move, preying on those that so desperately seek relief for themselves or their children – which in turn, could have cost someone their livelihood all while they were just trying to find relief for their kid. What would have happened had people go to see the doctor at Ultra Health (according to the radio advertisements), pay to see the doctor, be approved by the doctor and then get shut down by the New Mexico Department of Health for not being a resident? How much money would people have lost, and how much would Ultra Health and their doctor that was going to be on site gain?
So in conclusion, no, you can not get a New Mexico medical cannabis card if you are no a resident of the state and it is still illegal in Texas, regardless if you have a card in a legal state or not. Stay safe!
Photo Credit: Medical Jane
If I remember correctly, the attorney for that individual is the speaker of the house in NM and he said he is going to court to defend his client on this matter. The New Mexico Department of Health is trying to claim that the language was not intended to do that, while a house member who leads the house is obviously going to argue different and be the one that really gets to claim what the intent may have been. This will be a case to keep an eye on. I wonder if the court is going to require that attorney to recuse themselves, and will they be able to testify?