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

[GregS]

And you cannot stand to leave me on ignore. You poor soul.

[GregS]

We were on topic untl you insisted that we sidetrack into a peripheral topic that has no place in the thread. Please stop now.

[GregS]

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

 

That's the second time you changed substantial text of your post to disappear the silly comments that you first made. Let's just lock in in with a quote.

[GregS]

It is strange that there is no response to the matters at hand, but rather defensive and illegitimate statements of hyperbole and irrelevancies. You are beyond saving face.

 

By all means. Knock yourself out. The further you wade in, the deeper and more lost you will find yourself.

 

This is my element.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Well thank you CL, excellent discussion on the Section 8 defense. The rest of this is getting wayward, would better be served with different threads. Folks come here looking for information on the section 8 defense and run in to fluff after the first couple of pages. Others come in looking for an argument and shoot off half cocked without reviewing the conversation. I've not seen anything of note the last couple of pages.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

And Dbob would like to shut it down to avoid having members read his drivel.

 

It would be better to reengage the topic and continue to pursue it. There is no real reason not to. It is to be expected that idiots will try to hijack the conversation, but the Section 8 v Section 4 differences are the single most compelling issue at hand. There is no need to deprive our readers from that. It is because we have been led on wild goose chases and hijack attempts that new people are coming here, scratching their heads, and wondering where the explanations necessary to understand the SC ruling on due process are.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:46 PM

 

GregS, on 01 June 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

"Section 8 (1) 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, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"

 

It is still necessary to recognize and stand firm on that.

WTF??????? Medical use wasn't the issue in regard to this thread. Go start your own thread and bark about medical use. Several of you have pretty much destroyed the usefulness of this thread and its original intent. You completely took focus off the point of this thread.

• Back to top
  
• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Blog This
  

[Dilligaf]

Wow, what a profound, logical argument promoting your position! Wow, I am just amazed at your command of the subject and must bow to your book lernin Jethro....

 

And yes, they do, they can contain methane. Source CRC manual and a couple of years of freshman organic chemisty. And the white stuff is a smile, try one sometimes.

 

You are back on ignore after one or two earlier posts that actually made sense. Way to go.

 

Dr. Bob

 

A couple years, what not smart enough to pass it the first time?

[GregS]

Tha

Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:46 PM

 

GregS, on 01 June 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

"Section 8 (1) 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, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"

 

It is still necessary to recognize and stand firm on that.

WTF??????? Medical use wasn't the issue in regard to this thread. Go start your own thread and bark about medical use. Several of you have pretty much destroyed the usefulness of this thread and its original intent. You completely took focus off the point of this thread.

• Back to top
  
• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Blog This
  

 

That is only a part of the argument, taken to its wider application in the overarching concepts at play. It is a necessary and pertinent part of the law that engages and underpins several fundamental protections that we expect to enjoy, rather than be glassy eyed and happy drones who will fall in line behind the schitheads in the AG's office and the courts as their version of perfect little boyzngrrlz. Maybe you really don't get it after all.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

A couple years, what not smart enough to pass it the first time?

 

Wow, what a contributing comment!!!

 

well lets see, organic chemistry was my not my strongest subject (though the posting was in jest). but that begs the question, how did you do in organic chemistry? if well, hey more power to you, we all have our strong points. if you never took it, what exactly is your point, to show I am stupid because I struggled with something you didn't even try?

 

Again, I am struggling right now with trying to figure out the point of your comment related to the topic, medical marijuana, or anything other than just a cheap shot at me because I don't agree with you or see the world the same way you do. Very petty, unimaginative, and unhelpful. And you wonder why I put posters such as yourself on ignore. you don't contribute to the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Tha

 

 

That is only a part of the argument, taken to its wider application in the overarching concepts at play. It is a necessary and pertinent part of the law that engages and underpins several fundamental protections that we expect to enjoy, rather than be glassy eyed and happy drones who will fall in line behind the schitheads in the AG's office and the courts as their version of perfect little boyzngrrlz. Maybe you really don't get it after all.

 

Ah, change the subject to one of your choosing when you are called on it. Droning on and on about your pet theory and your faith. Your element? You would think you would be better at it then.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, good night everyone, tomorrow is another day, I'll let you try and come up with your next approach to get the attention you crave and promote your farmers markets and fuzzy logic approach to the act.

[CaveatLector]

I'm trying to stay out of this but I have to say, GregS it seems you are living in a glass house so I suggest you forego the stone throwing. I started the thread for the sole purpose of advising people what they needed to do to be sure they would be able to use the affirmative defense. In other words, to advise people to keep the requirements in sec 8 in mind if they wanted to keep the aff def available to them should they need it. You went off topic several times which is what contributed to the wayward meanderings of this thread.

 

If we were to shave all of the off topic posts from this thread it would lose 90% of its content. So, while your efforts to steer Dr. Bob on-topic are valiant, courageous, school-marmish, and altruistc, I would suggest that it is the equivalent of telling a fat kid that he could lose weight if he left one fry in the box every time he had a happy meal.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CaveatLector

[quietone]

Lets get this thread back on topic and please no taking cheap shots at each other.

[Dr. Bob]

Can I have some ranch dressing with those fries? I tend to agree with Mike, this was about the section 8 defense and I've made comments directed at that. I did respond to a comment about suboxone with my experience with it, and if that is getting off topic it is fair to say so, but it was in response to a specific comment.

 

I've not seen anything related to the section 8 defense in pages. Greg and some of the other seem to want to talk about pushing the limits of the SC decision, they might as well start their own thread. Let's see we could talk about not cooperating with the state registry and just going with the cert. Wait, PB already did that thread and the result was most in here thought it was a bad idea. We could talk about using the section 8 defense, but that was dealt with in this thread. We could talk about section 8 containing no limits to plants, weight or patients for caregivers/caregivers for patients- there you go, that is a pretty absurd idea but I see Greg wants to discuss it and it hasn't been beaten to death yet, so how about it greg, you want to start that thread?

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

Ok well this posting was about the section 8 defense, unless anyone has anything to say about that, it looks done.

 

Dr. Bob

i agree it's about Sec'8 we will be back in court soon and are hoping

[GregS]

i would just as soon keep the conversation right here. There is no need to distract from those remarks that have been on point.

 

And how about it ppl? Would a poll to determine how many would or would not be inclined to register or go without not be pertinent to the discussion?

[Dr. Bob]

i agree it's about Sec'8 we will be back in court soon and are hoping

 

Here is a good question for you, would your experience in court have been better or worse if you had relied just on the certification and not registered? Would not registering given you more leverage, or less?

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

Here is a good question for you, would your experience in court have been better or worse if you had relied just on the certification and not registered? Would not registering given you more leverage, or less?

 

Dr. Bob

if i had it to do over i would have not started my grow with a card or without a card

[Dr. Bob]

if i had it to do over i would have not started my grow with a card or without a card

 

While that is very understandable, it wasn't the question. Would you rather have been in court as a registered patient or an unregistered patient relying just on the section 8 defense?

 

Dr. Bob

[quietone]

Any off topic posts as determined by staff shall be deleted without warning. I said keep it on topic and I meant it. Sorry Ganja.

 

GregS can we start another thread on whether it is better to register or not. I think it has merit as a discussion and should have it's own thread.

[bobandtorey]

While that is very understandable, it wasn't the question. Would you rather have been in court as a registered patient or an unregistered patient relying just on the section 8 defense?

 

Dr. Bob

well am not so sure if this is a yes and no Question the Law say's if you have paper work and the 21 days have passed it the same as a card imho

[AKenewell]

Lets get this thread back on topic and please no taking cheap shots at each other.

 

I believe quiet one asked nicely..PLEASE EVERYONE..let's stop with the cheap shots at each other.

[cristinew]

GanjaWarrior ganja soldier are two different people......i think one is getting blamed for the others actions,

Edited June 27, 2012 by cristinew

[GregS]

Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:46 PM

 

GregS, on 01 June 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

"Section 8 (1) 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, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"

 

It is still necessary to recognize and stand firm on that.

WTF??????? Medical use wasn't the issue in regard to this thread. Go start your own thread and bark about medical use. Several of you have pretty much destroyed the usefulness of this thread and its original intent. You completely took focus off the point of this thread.

• Back to top
  
• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Blog This
  

Any off topic posts as determined by staff shall be deleted without warning. I said keep it on topic and I meant it. Sorry Ganja.

 

GregS can we start another thread on whether it is better to register or not. I think it has merit as a discussion and should have it's own thread.

 

Inasmuch as it is entirely germain to the topic, as is medical use, It should remain here. Even given the distractions, which are to be expected everywhere online, there is valuable stuff in this thread that address the reasons why and why not anyone would decide either way. To start that thread would likely serve to essentially be a continuation, and the same differences will appear. is there some benefit to having two funny, twisted threads rather than one?

 

Will someone get a stick this guy can bite on?

[GregS]

Changing the title of the thread?