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

[ozzrokk]

Ok my smug donkey stands corrected:

However, the Court of Appeals also held that defendant could reassert the affirmative defense at trial, despite his failure at the evidentiary hearing to establish the existence of a timely physician’s statement under § 8(a)(1). This was error, and we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ holding.

 

We have three SC decisions:

 

1. Don’t need to satisfy Section 4 to assert Section 8. Reversal of COA opinion we hated. YAY!

2. Must have Dr. rec. after MMMA effective but before “medical use” Reaffirmed COA ruling we didn’t like BOOO!

3. Can be denied Section 8 defense at trial if failed to establish Dr. cert at pre-trial. Reaffirmed COA ruling we hated. BOOO!

 

Ok the SC ruled twice against the COA and once with. And in those three rulings, we got one positive ruling and two bad.

Point is, the folks on the bench aren’t tripping over their robes trying to make life easier for cannabis patients.

 

 

Of course they are not tripping over their robes to make life easier but I trust them more than anything to do and interpret THE RIGHT THING.

[peanutbutter]

Ok my smug donkey stands corrected:

However, the Court of Appeals also held that defendant could reassert the affirmative defense at trial, despite his failure at the evidentiary hearing to establish the existence of a timely physician’s statement under § 8(a)(1). This was error, and we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ holding.

 

We have three SC decisions:

 

1. Don’t need to satisfy Section 4 to assert Section 8. Reversal of COA opinion we hated. YAY!

2. Must have Dr. rec. after MMMA effective but before “medical use” Reaffirmed COA ruling we didn’t like BOOO!

3. Can be denied Section 8 defense at trial if failed to establish Dr. cert at pre-trial. Reaffirmed COA ruling we hated. BOOO!

 

Ok the SC ruled twice against the COA and once with. And in those three rulings, we got one positive ruling and two bad.

Point is, the folks on the bench aren’t tripping over their robes trying to make life easier for cannabis patients.

 

And they are not drinking the BS cool aid at all.

 

The one item I was glad they mulled over and asked for help understanding. In fact they asked several times:

 

There are two lists in the law that contain the same list of words. The list first shows up in section 3 as the definition of "medical use."

The same list exists in section eight as actions protected under that section.

 

The question asked several times by the court:

How do you select which ones apply and which ones don't? Where are the instructions IN LAW that says HOW to split the lists.

How can you cherry pick what applies and what doesn't?

 

There was no answer.

 

Many people feel that in section eight, if you are not registered then you only qualify to hold a gram or two and the rest of the list doesn't apply.

Some people might feel that "use" and "possession" apply to unregistered patients.

Some people think that "acquire" belongs in the list of these things for the unregistered patient.

 

So which words apply to the unregistered patient?

Some folks thing "transfer" doesn't belong on the list of things a unregistered patient can do.

 

Where in the law, in ANY law, is the reasoning to select which words the unregistered patient CAN'T do?

 

Asked but unanswered in oral arguments before the supreme court.

The look on the face of the rep from BS was wonderful to see. He came to the crashing realization that the entire list might apply.

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

How about this piece of common sense;

 

Sec. 8 applies in those days between when the doctor recommended you and when you get your card. For people who are really sick and can't wait. I think that's why it's there. Not for those dragging their feet to register. Now it's a shining tool for the most sick, not a cloak of protection for those who didn't want to get a card.

[peanutbutter]

How about this piece of common sense;

 

Sec. 8 applies in those days between when the doctor recommended you and when you get your card. For people who are really sick and can't wait. I think that's why it's there. Not for those dragging their feet to register. Now it's a shining tool for the most sick, not a cloak of protection for those who didn't want to get a card.

 

Ahh!! Yes the BS rep said that also.

I noted the SC ignored "common sense" arguments, when they asked again "how do you decide which item apply and which ones don't?"

 

And the rep from the AGs office agreed that someone COULD choose to NOT register.

 

A signed confession to the state, that could be used against you in court, can't be required to receive the benefits of a law.

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Ahh!! Yes the BS rep said that also.

I noted the SC ignored "common sense" arguments, when they asked again "how do you decide which item apply and which ones don't?"

It was an original thought for me. Working from a position of someone writing the law and imagining the troubles of the most ill.

[Restorium2]

And the rep from the AGs office agreed that someone COULD choose to NOT register.

 

Well, maybe that doctor rec is only good for 90 days then? It's your choice.

[peanutbutter]

It was an original thought for me. Working from a position of someone writing the law and imagining the troubles of the most ill.

 

The SC is interested in seeing words contained within law.

 

They distinctly rejected "common sense" arguments.

 

After being chastised, the office of the AG said they "hoped" people would register, but the law didn't require it.

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

And the rep from the AGs office agreed that someone COULD choose to NOT register.

 

Well, maybe that doctor rec is only good for 90 days then? It's your choice.

 

So with words IN LAW instead of "common sense," where is that?

 

You DO wish to present an accurate picture to the readers, correct?

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

So with words IN LAW instead of "common sense," where is that?

 

You DO wish to present an accurate picture to the readers, correct?

Isn't there a set precedent as to how long a doctor's written advice is valid? The card extends this to a year. It's your choice to make depending on your condition.

 

As for the readers, they need to follow the law as the courts decide it in real time, weighing in what kind of risk they find acceptible. Right now, sec. 8 is not outlined and they would be helping outline it if they get caught testing it. And in 'helping', I mean paying an attorney and donating a lot of time in court, and otherwise, to help outline it.

[Restorium2]

Judges do need to see a law as workable. To that end they will use common sense.

[peanutbutter]

Isn't there a set precedent as to how long a doctor's written advice is valid? The card extends this to a year.

 

Good to know .. now if you, or anyone, would kindly supply those words in law?

 

You know .. opinions and .. everyone has one. Where in ANY law is that stated?

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Good to know .. now if you, or anyone, would kindly supply those words in law?

Everything doesn't have to be written in the law. If it isn't written then it is as it was. The doctor rec is good as long as any other document from a doctor before the law.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

Good to know .. now if you, or anyone, would kindly supply those words in law?

 

You know .. opinions and .. everyone has one. Where in ANY law is that stated?

Presciptions are good for 6 months.

[peanutbutter]

Everything doesn't have to be written in the law.

 

The SC disagrees.

[Restorium2]

The SC disagrees.

So you say. I think you read too much into their commentary. But that's just my opinion.

[SFC]

PB are you saying Judges do not make political decisions based on their own or their parties belief? A novel idea it may be, but definitely not realistic in the least.

[peanutbutter]

PB are you saying Judges do not make political decisions based on their own or their parties belief? A novel idea it may be, but definitely not realistic in the least.

 

No I'm saying that I went there and watched each judge very carefully. I went there to try to understand how they think.

 

These judges place the most value in black and white. They greatly dislike "legislating from the bench."

 

Other judges are willing to rule on their own "common sense" without the benefit of black and white text.

 

These judges do NOT.

 

So to follow their logic, where is the black and white text?

Edited July 24, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(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;

 

There ya go PB glad to help. If you are interested in the legal implications of this section of the law, and don't want to have me explain it again, why don't you review the excellent presentation CL did on it last month.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PB, in case you missed it the first time, here is the black and white of the law. This issue is 'current medical condition' and the law makes it clear, in the case of registration, that the condition needs to be reassessed each year to be current.

 

Certifications alone (without sending the paperwork to the state) last 1 year. If the law changes to a two year registration, they will last 2 years.

 

Now since you don't seem to want to believe that, please present your argument that

 

1/ the requirement for an 'unregistered patient' should be different than for a registered patient

2/ why 'current' means something different for an unregistered patient compared to a registered patient.

 

To play devils advocate, the ONLY way I can possibly see around this is for an ongoing condition that you regularily seek the care of your personal physician for, and during those visits he specifically addresses and recommends your use of marijuana for that condition (which must be a qualifying condition according to the act). This situation is a variation on the actual certification visit that meets the requirements of a certification.

 

Unless you can present a valid argument PB to points 1 and 2 above, this entire conversation is moot and will only endanger patients.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 24, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Certifications alone (without sending the paperwork to the state) last 1 year. If the law changes to a two year registration, they will last 2 years.

 

I'm not so sure on that one Doc. Why would they last even longer than a prescription?

[Dr. Bob]

because the MMMA law says a year is good.

 

It is not a prescription it is a recommendation.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

Well, Sec. 8 isn't bound by the rest of the Act(except say Sec. 7) so the 1 year timeline isnt necessarily a baseline.

 

This will be one of those areas you will have to convince a Judge . It will likely take the physicians testimony that he/she still supports the recommendation based on the patients current medical condition etc.

 

Sometimes vague is good, sometimes not so much.

 

On that basis, i am guessing very few physicians will support a recommendation they wrote 2 or more years ago in which they have not been regularly updated/visited by the patients condition and progress.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Malamute

[Dr. Bob]

Maybe the input of a physician, an expert in the field of certifications, might shed some light on the issue?

 

Oh wait, one already has.

 

Dr. Bob

[Kingpinn]

I still want to know how that assistant A.G. got away with spewing Lie's at the S.C.at the last minute. Saying i planned to sell the marijuana. Was never brought up in court. Its all on video thank you Eric

Edited July 24, 2012 by Kingpinn

[Highlander]

I still want to know how that assistant A.G. got away with spewing Lie's at the S.C.at the last minute. Saying i planned to sell the marijuana. Was never brought up in court

 

I wondered about that too. I remember that slimy, punky MAGNET toad saying that at the pre-trial .

[Kingpinn]

Well you seen how long that guy lasted on the stand . And then the Assistant A.G. tells that foolish lie ???? On video thanks again Eric

Edited July 24, 2012 by Kingpinn