Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[CaveatLector]

Ganja, don't you mean the Irish travelers?

[restlesslegs]

I tend to put toadies and FPL posters on ignore. I saw one posted in response to my last one, so I thought I'd give the courtesy of a reply. I think your inability to see the sources (the law, attorneys, the owner and administrators of this site, CPU members, etc) reflects your unwillingness to accept any challenge to your faith. You don't see the logic of arguments because you have no concept of what logic is. You were given courtesy until such time as it became apparent you didn't return it or deserve it. The best you can do is an occasional personal shot at me, SFC, or anyone that doesn't see things in your way. Your fans are obviously amused by it because they share your view of the world.

 

You say you give me a nod for persistence. You and those like you are a source of amusement to me. Every court needs a jester, restless has run back to Joe so I am pleased we have you...

 

Dr. Bob

I don't run and I don't hide, I never went anywhere, I just refuse to engage in conversation with NPD folks.

[Dr. Bob]

Well welcome back restless, guess you got tired of talking to yourself over at Joe's. Been rather peaceful over here for the last month, nice of you to stop by.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

I am curious what the King Gypsy is actually protesting now? And how are 6 or 7 of you going to carry 320 signs? Oh yea, and has anyone offered a bid on his leather jacket yet, if not I will bid .32 cents!

[MiDelServ]

That simply is not true. Section 8 requires:

 

A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship...

 

It requires a full assessment of the pt's med history. Right? And why? Because it doesn't make sense to recommend a treatment (in this case mm) without knowing how it may affect the pt's other conditions. That being said, fast forward several years. What if the recommendation is 10 years old and use of mm has never been revisited by the doctor? In that case the pt has accrued years and years of medical history that has gone unevaluated by the Dr. Therefore, the recommendation has not considered the full medical history at that point. There is room for interpretation within the law when the law requires a full assessment of history and a recommendation made based on "current" medical condition.

 

Arguing that the rec. is limitless and has no shelf life is preposterous. Similarly, arguing that a limit is not written into the law is also preposterous. What you fail to realize is that the law will be INTERPRETED. Rules of statutory construction require us to interpret a law such that it does not lead to an absurd result. Arguing that ANY recommendation made by a Dr is still good 10 years from now is absurd. No doctor, practicing in this country, will tell you that s/he would recommend a medicine for a patient for 10 years without follow-up evaluations. None. That is simply so far beyond the standard of care it isn't even funny. Therefore, your argument leads to an absurd result and cannot stand.

 

 

What do you Expect from Someone who works in Law. Caveats Worry is JOB SECURITY.

 

when People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate.

[MiDelServ]

What, you don't have free will?

 

I suggest you put everyone on ignore who doesn't agree with you. That way you can have all of the necessary ego tweaks without being bothered with anyone calling you out.

 

Here is a suggestion for you. Go to your office and call your buddy Bull Schuette, and tell him, your useless as you just cant break the will of the smart ones.

[cristinew]

People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate

 

You got that one right some people on here want to profit off sick people with their oil, or their 50 an 1./8 buds

[Restorium2]

What do you Expect from Someone who works in Law. Caveats Worry is JOB SECURITY.

 

when People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate.

So Cav tells everyone to be careful and that gets him job security as an attorney? And you say you are one of the SMART ONES? Make some sense then and maybe someone would listen.

[cristinew]

a delivery service saying others here are out for profit too funny,,

[CaveatLector]

About as smart as jojo telling everyone that Dr Bob only wants to "get rich off patients." Last I checked Dr. Bob supports full legalization. Odd position for someone who needs patients to get rich.

 

This guy has outed himself. Clearly intelligence and logical reasoning is not his strong suit. Reminds me of someone...

[Dr. Bob]

Here is a suggestion for you. Go to your office and call your buddy Bull Schuette, and tell him, your useless as you just cant break the will of the smart ones.

Here is a suggestion for you. Go to your office and call your buddy Bull Schuette, and tell him, your useless as you just cant break the will of the smart ones.

 

This is exactly the type of nonsense being pulled by those out for their own bottom line at the expense of patients that will destroy the Act. In one breath this 'delivery service', which suggests that the poster makes his living violating the act, acknowledges that CL is speaking as an attorney, and in the next breath says he is 'too smart' to listen to that. Why would CL put this out? Well according to the poster because, as an attorney, it is in HIS financial interest to hold everyone to the law, to make sure that folks know what the law says, and this somehow results in 'job security' for him as an attorney. The implication is that CL wants a tight interpretation so that he can spend years either prosecuting or defending those that violate that 'tight' interpretation. And while he is at it, the delivery guy tosses in the CL must be working for Bill Schuette or is somehow associated with him, not only questioning his motives but suggesting that he is some sort of a plant on the board.

 

Well sir, you are the plant, and you are the problem. The entire idea of 'yes he is an expert, but I am too smart to listen to him if it gets in the way of the profits I make off the backs of the sick' has nothing but my contempt. You sir are the plant, sent by those more interested in the profits of your service than the safety of the patients and protection of the Act. CL doesn't make a dime off patients when he explains things to people or works to protect the act in his own way, according to his own expertice. You simply come in here to disrupt the board, to promote your agenda, and to personally attack those that don't agree with your own distorted view of reality.

 

Grow up, grab your buddies and head back to your 'rally' on the 19th. Hopefully it is as well attended as the last one, all 30 of you. In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing your type of 'I'm too smart to listen to the truth' argument, with a smattering of 'you are an agent of Bill Schuette's' tossed in can contribute to serious discussions of these issues.

 

I for one know very little about these proposed dispensary bills and many other aspects of this community, and I plan on spending far more time listening in the next few weeks than talking, because my goal is to educate myself and give good advice to my patients. I suggest if you really want to contribute to the discussion, you first be quiet and listen to folks like CL so that you can educate yourself on the subject, as I am doing. Until then your 'opion' is worthless to those of us that want to know the truth about the subject and make real decisions for our own situations to keep ourselves safe and in compliance with the law. If we don't like a bill, it will be because we understand the specifics of the bill, not simply because it is 'legislation' or it affects our 'delivery service', farmers market, or whatever else our personal finances dictate we should be concerned with.

 

Have a nice day....

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

About as smart as jojo telling everyone that Dr Bob only wants to "get rich off patients." Last I checked Dr. Bob supports full legalization. Odd position for someone who needs patients to get rich.

 

This guy has outed himself. Clearly intelligence and logical reasoning is not his strong suit. Reminds me of someone...

 

Getting rich is never the goal of a professional, it is being the best there is at what they do and being effective- which makes you sought after in your field. I've done that. I've helped to set the standards of safety in this field, and none of my patients has ever had a certification overturned, nor are they likely to. I'm not concerned with cannabis, I am concerned with suffering and cannabis has helped many of those I've treated.

 

As for legalization, it has NOTHING to do with my success as a doctor, or my bank account. Yes, that is right, nothing, because the relief of suffering (which is what I do) is not tied to the legality of cannabis, but to the intelligent use of it from whatever source it comes from and many other modalities that I use in my practice. My interest in the legalization effort was to stop patients from exposure to the criminal justice system for using medicine to ease their own suffering.

 

As for the 'logic' used by that other poster, I've discussed that and it isn't worth my time to re-address it. I have more important things to do, as do we all.

 

Dr. Bob