Warning. Law Changes Will Take Place Instantly.

[peanutbutter]

Today, in Lansing, there was no testimony allowed in the Senate hearing.

 

None at all.

 

The rest of the process seems to be a rubber stamp procedure.

 

These new laws will take effect instantly.

 

Some things that were legal today will be illegal at that moment.

 

I'll step back and let others fill folks in on exactly what changes will take place.

 

It is very likely that areas like Oakland county will use these changes in the most harsh way they can. And will likely be ready to do so at a moments notice.

[Dr. Bob]

Zap, were there any amendments to the original house bills?

[Willy]

OF course there was... now we just need to know what.. can we know , or do we have to wait for greentrees?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Willy

[Dr. Bob]

Yes, there definitely were. Also, one amendment to the substitute proposed in committee that failed.

 

Care to elaborate a bit? Getting mixed reports and I need to know specifically what is going on.

[peanutbutter]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

 

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

 

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

[imiubu]

Basic list:

 

No felons

No photo on the card, but card must be presented with photo ID

Must be a Michigan resident to register

Prosecutors added to the list of probable cause registry access - no warrant needed but probable cause is intact

LARA outsourcing made optional

Program revenues no longer go to the general fund, but to a special fund where they can be more easily accessed by LARA

New condition panel must have a majority of doctors

Outdoor grows must not have visible plants

Bonafide doctor/patient relationship requires monitoring treatment

Section 8 jury trial language simplified to defer to Supreme Court ("Except as provided in 7b...")

 

Thanks for the recap.

[rockinlespaul]

Can we define the "no felons" a bit more please?

[peanutbutter]

Outdoor grows MUST be covered the day the laws pass.

 

Pretty much all outdoor grows in the state are marked.

 

You are already on a list if you have an outdoor grow. That list probably notes which grow is "visible" and which ones are not.

 

That means plastic sheeting around and possibly over the grow.

 

"Visible" is the key word here.

[peanutbutter]

No felons allowed to be caregivers at all.

 

Even for family members.

 

I believe this may negate many caregiver cards. Leading to arrests of felons growing more than 12 plants.

Edited August 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Willy]

well aint that nice.. NOT

[CaveatLector]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

 

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

 

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

A patient cannot be convicted for a doctor's mistake unless the patient was aware. Generally, intent is necessary to convict someone of a crime. This is a fallacy that jojo grabbed and ran with in an effort to fear monger.

 

What if a doc loses his/her license but continues to practice medicine...then prescribes you a medicine? Can you be convicted for filling the script and taking the meds? Not unless you KNEW the doc couldn't write a valid script.

[Dr. Bob]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

 

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

 

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

 

Actually I believe this will follow the line I predicted, that since the patient is no longer barred from mentioning the section 8 defense by motion, the next likely target is the certification. Better know what is needed. These mills are now going to be the undoing of your defense if you decide to take the easy way out. Better make sure you trust the doctor you see enough to be the one sitting at your defense table.

[mibrains]

question...

 

whose liability is it to conform to the doctor patient relationship?

is it ultimately the doctor who is responsible to conform to the regulation and therefore require these additional procedures, or is it up to the patient to make sure the doctor conforms?

 

in a court if the judge says to me, John

i am questioning your certification.

did your doctor do the requisite follow up questionnaire?

and i answer... no

is it my fault i didn't call the doctor, or the doctors fault he didn't call me?

ultimately whose responsibility are they placing these restrictions upon? are these requirements going to be put upon me or the certifying physicians?

 

is it not the doctors responsibility to ensure that before they sign my certification i am qualified and i have provided enough documentation to support my qualification into the program?

when a judge says to me they are attempting to invalidate my current certification wouldn't that have to be done by challenging the procedure and the doctor and bringing charges against the doctor for failing to comply to the regulations?

or is it up to me to make sure the doctor does their job?

ultimately where does the liability fall?

[peanutbutter]

Again .. this may take place instantly.

[Dr. Bob]

CL, I am very interested in your opinion on this, how do you think the Dr/Pt relationship issues would play in court? I tend to agree that unless it is something so outlandish, like a cert through the mail, or an absent doctor (something ANY patient should be uneasy about), they might not hold the patient accountable for that, but do you think they will try to attack the bonafide relationship as a way of sidestepping the section 8 defense?

 

What duty does a patient have to check out their doctor?

[ozzrokk]

A patient cannot be convicted for a doctor's mistake unless the patient was aware. Generally, intent is necessary to convict someone of a crime. This is a fallacy that jojo grabbed and ran with in an effort to fear monger.

 

What if a doc loses his/her license but continues to practice medicine...then prescribes you a medicine? Can you be convicted for filling the script and taking the meds? Not unless you KNEW the doc couldn't write a valid script.

 

 

I hightly disagree with this statement. Do you not think they will convict you or not allow your medical marijuana defense if they determine that your doctor made a mistake on your recommendation ? And in todays environment do you not think that some areas will do everything they can to do so. I do agree with the example you gave but is not the same thing and you gotta know it would be treated differently.

 

Edited to add does anyone have a link to todays Senate video? I just got home and was not able to watch any of it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by ozzrokk

[peanutbutter]

Actually I believe this will follow the line I predicted, that since the patient is no longer barred from mentioning the section 8 defense by motion, the next likely target is the certification. Better know what is needed. These mills are now going to be the undoing of your defense if you decide to take the easy way out. Better make sure you trust the doctor you see enough to be the one sitting at your defense table.

 

Jones was very specific about those "internet doctors."

[Dr. Bob]

question...

 

whose liability is it to conform to the doctor patient relationship?

is it ultimately the doctor who is responsible to conform to the regulation and therefore require these additional procedures, or is it up to the patient to make sure the doctor conforms?

 

in a court if the judge says to me, John

i am questioning your certification.

did your doctor do the requisite follow up questionnaire?

and i answer... no

is it my fault i didn't call the doctor, or the doctors fault he didn't call me?

ultimately whose responsibility are they placing these restrictions upon? are these requirements going to be put upon me or the certifying physicians?

 

is it not the doctors responsibility to ensure that before they sign my certification i am qualified and i have provided enough documentation to support my qualification into the program?

when a judge says to me they are attempting to invalidate my current certification wouldn't that have to be done by challenging the procedure and the doctor and bringing charges against the doctor for failing to comply to the regulations?

or is it up to me to make sure the doctor does their job?

ultimately where does the liability fall?

 

Excellent post and this is my question as well, I have some thoughts on it but I want to have CL discuss it first from a legal standpoint.

[peanutbutter]

CL, I am very interested in your opinion on this, how do you think the Dr/Pt relationship issues would play in court? I tend to agree that unless it is something so outlandish, like a cert through the mail, or an absent doctor (something ANY patient should be uneasy about), they might not hold the patient accountable for that, but do you think they will try to attack the bonafide relationship as a way of sidestepping the section 8 defense?

 

What duty does a patient have to check out their doctor?

 

I know you don't want to hear from me about it.

 

This inquisition will ONLY take place within the context of a criminal charge. Against the patient or caregiver.

 

This applies pressure on doctors to NOT recommend cannabis. In addition to providing a method to apply pressure on defendants to plead out.

 

BTW .. I don't think CL is an attorney.

Edited August 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

While he thinks that through, I'll mention just a couple of things from a medical standpoint. The reputation and history of the doctor with the medical board/malpractice/dea will come in to play to determine the 'qualifications' of the doctor to present 'expert' testimony I would THINK, so would the standard procedures of the clinic and the history of the clinic. The record keeping (especially retention of medical records used as the basis of the certification) will be important. So will the general knowledge and presentation of the doctor on the stand.

 

As for who has the responsibility, I'll leave that to CL. I will say if my safety is on the line, I sure as heck am going to make sure I protect myself rather than rely on some 'clinic' to hold the keys to my cell. I am going to check out the license of the doctor, check for a DEA license, look at what they do or don't require to do a certification as far as records, etc. I've got some good guidelines for what to look for on my website, I'll post here if folks want.

[pic book]

Can we define the "no felons" a bit more please?

CG may have no felony conviction for anything, anytime, anywhere.

[ozzrokk]

Of course they will try to use it to sidestep a section 8 defense. They have already been trying that and now it is nearly the only card they have left to play. Be prepared to see a deck full of ACES..... If ya know what I mean.

[ozzrokk]

I would say that any caregivers that have ANY FELONIES on their record had better start making plans for this in case it goes through. Cause right or wrong this may be stuffed right down your throat.

[Dr. Bob]

I know you don't want to hear from me about it.

 

This inquisition will ONLY take place within the context of a criminal charge. Against the patient or caregiver.

 

This applies pressure on doctors to NOT recommend cannabis. In addition to providing a method to apply pressure on defendants to plead out.

 

BTW .. I don't think CL is an attorney.

 

The truth doesn't depend on the source PB. I think you have some good points. Yes, it will only apply in the case of a criminal charge- it is not like they are going to screen all the patients and see who certified them. I don't necessarily agree with the second statement, that it will discourage doctors. I think that doctors like structure, like knowing what is and is not expected of them. The new standards got rid of the bad ones, but brought good ones out now that they knew what to do.

 

Bottom line, you better go to a real doc, not a clinic event, and one that you feel comfortable having at your defense table. I personally do every cert in a way I can defend. This changes nothing for my practice.

[peanutbutter]

Again, I think the interaction with Kiel is important to determine how this will play out in court, especially with respect to the "quality" of a certification.

 

Kiel MIGHT be only about the law as it exists. New law shouldn't apply to existing cases, if there is a difference between the new and old laws.

 

That would not apply to new arrests the day after the new laws are passed.