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

[Dr. Bob]

With ongoing care from your primary, I would think it would be easier to prove that your certification condition was still 'current'.

 

I went to a little island north of here once, no cars are allowed but they have police. Denied the speeding and traffic violations that most road cops seem to devote their time to (because there are no cars) these intrepid boys in blue adapted and overcame. Radar speeding tickets for bicycles, accident reports for knocking a bike over, etc.

 

The point I am making is where there is a will there is a way, and in light of this ruling, one of their major prosecution tools was removed. I think this will turn the attention of the prosecutors to the certification process. Certain things clearly will open patients up to risk of having the certification declare to not be 'bona fide'. A prime example would be a renewal through the mail signed by a doctor that never had contact with the patient.

 

I think folks should take a hard look at the certification they seek and ask some questions. What kind of records or history were required, is a chart being built that will defend me? Is the doctor current about rulings and does he/she set up the process specifically to defend the patient in the event the cert was brought up in court? Can the doctor be found if needed? Is there a cost for the doctor to come to court? The latter may be more of a factor as prosecutors shift focus.

 

I'm going over my procedures.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

All of that is interesting, however there is no such thing as a section 4 defense.

 

Section eight is the tool for courts.

 

Please correct me if I get this next part wrong:

 

To use the section eight defense, it must first be presented at pretrial. Then it MIGHT still be able to be presented to the jury.

 

There are distinct elements of a section eight defense.

"locked facility" isn't one of those elements. Correct?

ID card isn't one of those elements. Correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't state section 4 contained a "defense." Did you read what I wrote or are you just making a general comment?

[+mayorherb]

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/mich-sup-ct-issues-1st-med-pot-rulings But the ruling from the Supreme Court very clearly laid out two layers of protection for patients.

 

The first is that someone who has a medical marijuana card and acts in compliance with the law cannot be arrested or charged under the law.

 

The second is that if someone with a medical opinion from a doctor, but never registered for that state registration card, is caught with a reasonable amount of marijuana that they use for medical purposes, they can be arrested and charged -- but the case will likely be thrown out when it gets to court.

 

If it is unclear whether or not a defendant meets the criteria, the case goes to a jury.

 

Additionally, affected individuals need to have received the medical opinion before their arrest in order to use that defense.

Listen to your common sense.. and common reading of the law.. that is now what MUST happen..

 

We understand the other two pts of the aff defense must be met.. and then it SHALL be dismissed!!

[CaveatLector]

Interesting .. did we both just say the same things?

 

When we're talking about things like Simpson oil, larger quantities are required.

 

In CA they do juicing. It takes 90 plants per patient. Every day the patient harvests one plant and starts another new one. All plants stay in veg cycle. they never flower them.

Is 90 plants reasonable?

 

It just needs to be shown that much is being rationally used.

 

Did the Dr recommend 90 plants for juicing? I think that if you are going to argue that you "needed" x plants to ensure a continuing supply then you need to present a legitimate reason why and not just because you "hear" this is how they do it in CA.

 

What if I say I like to juice 1000 plants per day and take a nice long bath in the juice daily? Does that mean I can have 1000 plants because I have decided that that is something I want to do? I think at some point the number of plants will depend on the recommendations of the Dr as to how to utilize marijuana. The idea isn't just that the Dr recommends that you can receive benefits. In theory those benefits will come from some specific method of use. In theory the Dr advises on how to use. If the Dr believes it will help you then obviously s/he has to tell you HOW.

[Dr. Bob]

Very good point. Too many see something that gives an inch and look at it as permission to do anything they want.

 

The recommended use aspect is a little touchy for a doctor. There is very little basis to recommend specifically how much of what type by what method, and we have to be careful about a recommendation vs a prescription. It is illegal to write a prescription for cannabis in this setting, we can only evaluate and make a statement that it would be of help in general terms.

 

What I do is make some rather generic recommendations that don't restrict patients but help them justify things. Generic in that I recommend medibles and vaporizers over smoking, I suggest that most conditions could be treated with an ounce or so a week or less, but there are exceptions, etc. That way if a patient is caught with 3-4 ounces of a medible or needs oil I can come in with some credibility and say that is a reasonable amount and was discussed.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The enforcement of the total number of allowable plants is now a function of the federal government, which is bandied about here as one hundred.

[GregS]

And, again per section 8, this ruling permits medibles in any medically necessary quantity.

Edited June 1, 2012 by GregS

[Dilligaf]

@Cav, I see many in this thread stating that you are a lawyer. If I remember correctly you work in the legal field bu are not a lawyer, I may be mistaken. Just to clear any questions up are you a lawyer or just in the legal field?? Thanks.

 

Mike

[Dr. Bob]

12 plants per patient max unless you are willing to try and justify it to a jury. Be mindful of the total number of plants per facility to avoid running afoul of the feds. To tell folks the state can't enforce limits or they are only responsible for federal limits is irresponsible.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Nice little story about the island cops Dbob. We are seeing the story now of brave people who saw their appeals through to the end. They meet every definition of heroes, rather than tourists.

[Dr. Bob]

And, again per section 8, this ruling permits medibles in any medically necessary quantity.

 

2.5 oz. unless you want to take your chances in court.

[Dr. Bob]

Nice little story about the island cops Dbob. We are seeing the story now of brave people who saw their appeals through to the end. They meet every definition of heroes, rather than tourists.

 

They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and rose to the occassion. They showed courage and folks believed in them and helped.

[GregS]

Determining dosage is a simple matter of asking how much the patient finds necessary to titrate.

[GregS]

If police continue to load the courts up with cases that cannot be won by prosecutors, which they will, they will be instructed not to waste valuable court time and costs.

[Dr. Bob]

If police continue to load the courts up with cases that cannot be won by prosecutors, which they will, they will be instructed not to waste valuable court time and costs.

 

I agree with this, and we need cardholders/patients on the juries to hasten it along.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I can just see O'Connel and Schitte. They likely don' know whether to schit or go blind.

[+Annnie]

12 and 2.5 are section four.

 

reasonable amount is section eight

 

12 and 2.5 are the bare minimum amounts that are reasonable .. I figure.

 

So then .. how much topical oil, that you can't get high on, is a reasonable amount?

 

Hi Annie

 

:-) Hi Pb..

[GregS]

Also not true.

 

How not true please?

[Tomato]

It really is that simple. Be safe, do safe things. OBEY THE LAW!

[bobandtorey]

They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and rose to the occassion. They showed courage and folks believed in them and helped.

or as i say we were set up from day one

[bobandtorey]

It really is that simple. Be safe, do safe things. OBEY THE LAW!

 

we did just that but we were a test case as was Kingpinn

[Dr. Bob]

If you are talking about uninterrupted supply, it has not yet been litigated and we do not know what kind of lame criteria will be used until it happens. We will have another long road to the Supreme Court on some of these issues, with bad law from the COA along the way. We need to tread lightly on our newly resurrected right, not throw anything out there that might work. Again.

 

Very true Zap, we can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by letting our imaginations run away from reality and doing 'un smart' things.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Tread lightly hell! The Court affirmed that the plain language of the law is required to be followed. For too long we have been deprived of that, and now that we have more than clearly been granted just that, we are being told to cower and hide?! That is just plain offensive.

[Flybare]

Well, Kind People, it seems this thread is wobbling. I am an attorney at law, but am not here to pontificate lecture or advise. I do want to say that ab initio, from the beginning, the MMMA has made clear distinction between compliance by registration or by the seat of your pants. Both are in a better state by Kolonek, but those that want to claim swift & correct justice should try to comply, or pay the piper for your exoneration. IMHO

[GregS]

I am not telling you to do it, Greg. You do whatever you want.

 

Gee. Thanks.

 

I am fed up with people telling me that I should or must avoid the plain protections of the law.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS