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

[Highlander]

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

 

That's so true. Matt had him fumbling for words. HA!

[peanutbutter]

PB, in case you missed it the first time, here is the black and white of the law.

 

I didn't miss it .. and I answered.

 

That location talks about the requirements placed on the doctor. When the doctors exam takes place the doctor must evaluate the current medical condition.

 

THAT is the "current."

 

It has nothing to do with the age of the document after the doctor signs it.

 

Is there anyone else hear that reads this the same way Dr. Bob does? Please .. anyone read it his way?

[peanutbutter]

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

 

What he tried didn't work. The SC was not impressed with that.

 

They are smart enough to realize when someone if trying to manipulate them by trashing out the defendant.

 

He may have pointed and fired, but he discovered he was firing blanks ..

[peanutbutter]

So far, the SC (even if in dicta) has stated:

 

1. issued after the law went into effect.

2. issued before an event leading to arrest.

 

That's it. Maybe later they will set an expiration date.

 

For the time being that is the law of the land.

[peanutbutter]

re the letter of the law ..

 

One thing that the AG worried. Section four does not distinctly say the ID card has to be current to apply.

 

BS asked that the word "valid" be inserted just before "ID card" in the law. He views it as a loophole that needs to be plugged.

 

If his fears come true, there would be no advantage at all to renew the card.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

If someone turned off my edit function, would you please fix the spelling in the last word?

 

Nobody did.. just needed to reboot.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

sorry .. overheated.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[+Malamute]

So far, the SC (even if in dicta) has stated:

 

1. issued after the law went into effect.

2. issued before an event leading to arrest.

 

That's it. Maybe later they will set an expiration date.

 

For the time being that is the law of the land.

 

Well, basicly yes.

 

This validity of a doctors recommendation will be fought in the courts during Sec. 8 Defenses.

 

There are areas that can be disputed and can vary from case to case. First things to come to mind is the "reasonably necessary" provision. That can vary from case to case and varied results will likely not be overturned and no absolute number will ever be determined.

 

Same for "freshness" of a doctors recommendation. It will vary from case to case depending on a myriad of factors. Most will be determined by the trier of fact. That result will vary from case to case.

[Dr. Bob]

The supreme court did not give us an all-encompassing and navigable path through the MMA. The court dealt with the issues before it as it is required by law. The court isn't allowed to deal with issues not presented on appeal. Doing that is known as an advisory opinion and generally an advisory opinion is unconstitutional. Furthermore, any advisory opinions that come out of a court's opinion cannot set precedent.

 

Dr. Bob is 100% correct in his analysis. The act indicates that the Dr opinion must be based on your "current" medical condition. This is the same reasoning behind drs not giving a lifetime prescription for your asthma medicine. Asthma is generally accepted as a lifetime condition but there are OTHER factors involved when prescribing meds. We've been down this road before and this is a rehashed argument.

 

If your recommendation is 10 years old (in 2019 let's say) then that is not based on your CURRENT condition. A dr could very well tell you that marijuana is not good for you because of interactions with other drugs for other conditions or maybe because it raises or lowers your BP too much and you've grown older and, along with that, are experiencing hypo or hypertension. Maybe there even is a better drug now available and your dr would not prescribe mm because s/he would rather prescribe some other magic bullet.

 

Those are a FEW of the reasons why a rec. has a shelf life. What is the shelf life? That is to be determined based on interpretations of the act when, and if, it comes before a court. Remember, "current" isn't an "extra" word in the act. It has meaning.

 

There ya go PB. And from an actual legal expert.

 

BTW, it was on page 24. Why are you continuing to argue a resolved issue?

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

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

 

How long does a rec last if you ARE going to send it in to the State? Haven't we been telling people it's good for 60 or 90 days?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Restorium2

[Dr. Bob]

How long does a rec last if you ARE going to send it in to the State? Haven't we been telling people it's good for 60 or 90 days?

 

The rec has to be within 60-90 days of the expiration date (before, not after) in order to be accepted on a renewal or new patient application. The recommendation has to be repeated every year under the current status of the laws and rules. You have to renew your cert annually, and you have to see the doctor to do it. Once you see the doctor, you have a certain amount of time to send it into the state or you have to get a fresh certification, that is just part of the process of the renewal/new cert process. What everyone is discussing here is how frequently do you have to see the doctor to have a 'current' assessment of your condition. The answer is once a year.

 

To think otherwise, you have to answer the two questions I gave PB, questions that have not been answered. I'll give them again.

 

1/ why 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.

 

If you plan on going down the rabbit hole of FBL and say your cert lasts forever, if you can not answer those questions to the jury, you are going to jail.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

I will stick by my original statement that it will vary from case to case for a myriad of reasons and no "absolute" will likely evolve from it.

 

The laws terminology(Sec. 8) unfortunately/fortunately is vague and leaves certain aspects to the trier of fact.

 

At some point there will be a "generally accepted" time frame possibly that could come from it. "Generally" (complete guess for sake of discussion) 6 months to 2 years if still supported by the recommending physician for the patients current(past) medical condition.

 

Until then, procede at your own risk.

 

 

Addendum: Also, using the Acts reference to a 1 year card could be useful for some to show a recommendation is good for that long. Also though, that most physicians never give "prescriptions" for more than a year(usually less now) without seeing the patient again. No telling what will hapen for sure. But, All examples that support the defendant in court are okie dokie by me. Sec.8 is not governed by the time frames in the rest of the Act, but if it used as reference to get someone out of prosecution... Than peachy keen, go for it. :-)

Edited July 24, 2012 by Malamute

[Highlander]

(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;

 

I'd have had to side with PB that the law doesn't give a sunset on the Dr.'s opinion in Section 8.

 

But that's where I think this little detour ends, because the rec. would have had to come in the course of a bona fide relationship, and if you got your cert. and then didn't see a Dr. for three years, I believe a reasonable conclusion would be that the Dr-pt. relationship wasn't bona fide in the first place.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Highlander

[Restorium2]

Once you see the doctor, you have a certain amount of time to send it into the state or you have to get a fresh certification,

 

So a certification is fresh if it's not over 90 days old. Who's to say the courts might, or might not, want a 'fresh one' for a section 8 defense? Maybe you need a fresh one. No one can say that they will decide that it's a year exactly that a cert is good for. The courts will decide. We can guess.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Restorium2

[Dr. Bob]

Once you see the doctor, you have a certain amount of time to send it into the state or you have to get a fresh certification,

 

So a certification is fresh if it's not over 90 days old. Who's to say the courts might, or might not, want a 'fresh one' for a section 8 defense? Maybe you need a fresh one. No one can say that they will decide that it's a year exactly that a cert is good for. The courts will decide. We can guess.

 

I'll make this very clear. I don't generally speak in absolutes, like Mal I don't agree they are reliable. When I am discussing this, I am talking very strong evidence and the ACTUAL OUTCOME WILL BE CLOSE to what I am saying.

 

With that clearly understood. No I don't think the courts will demand a 90 day cert (I'm still trying to make sure you understand what that refers to). I do think that 1 year is reasonable and defensible. So to might be someone going to the doctor for the chronic problem several times a year and addressing cannabis during those visits. There is a good argument for the last one whereas the annual eval is solid.

 

This nonsense of getting one cert, refusing to participate in the registry, and expecting it to be good forever is just that. Nonsense and that has clearly been pointed out. The fact it is still being argued reminds me of the pages and pages of insistance by PB that an 'enclosed secured' grow site didn't mean 'locked'. In fairness to PB and others that wish to argue points like this, yes, you can sit back, split frog hairs and make an argument why your position is correct and you can point to a few things in the law to support your position. But these arguements are right along the line of claiming a US flag with gold fringe around it is NOT a civilian US flag, and if it is hanging in a courtroom you aren't subject to the authority of the court.

 

Yes that has some basis in fact, but it has been ruled on by the courts and it isn't an argument that I really wish to waste time on. We have serious issues to deal with, and quite frankly this kind of thinking makes us look silly in the eyes of the general public.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 25, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[quietone]

If someone turned off my edit function, would you please fix the spelling in the last word?

 

No one has messed with you're account. You can edit any of your pots.

[Restorium2]

He just needed to log in.

 

Anyway, a judge may see it that if you wanted a year you should have sent it to the state. If you are sitting on the fence, you have 90 days, and can use the sec. 8 for that time period. That's not so far fetched. It's definitely in the realm of possibility. And if that IS possible, should we be leading people to believe it does last a year, even if you don't send it in? I think we should leave it with a big question mark on it. That's the right thing to do.

We can be sure it lasts 90 days, that's all. Don't assume anything else.

[peanutbutter]

The fact it is still being argued reminds me of the pages and pages of insistance by PB that an 'enclosed secured' grow site didn't mean 'locked'.

 

You miss a very simple principle of law. If a word or phrase is defined within a law, forget what that word or phrase means to you. Just forget it. Your current understanding of the word or phrase is irrelevant.

 

For that law, the word or phrase MUST be understood and applied as defined within that law.

[peanutbutter]

The rec has to be within 60-90 days of the expiration date (before, not after) in order to be accepted on a renewal or new patient application. The recommendation has to be repeated every year under the current status of the laws and rules. You have to renew your cert annually, and you have to see the doctor to do it. Once you see the doctor, you have a certain amount of time to send it into the state or you have to get a fresh certification, that is just part of the process of the renewal/new cert process. What everyone is discussing here is how frequently do you have to see the doctor to have a 'current' assessment of your condition. The answer is once a year.

 

To think otherwise, you have to answer the two questions I gave PB, questions that have not been answered. I'll give them again.

 

1/ why 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.

 

If you plan on going down the rabbit hole of FBL and say your cert lasts forever, if you can not answer those questions to the jury, you are going to jail.

 

Dr. Bob

 

"Current assessment" is what is required that the doctor evaluates when writing the letter.

 

That's the action required of the doctor.

 

Once the letter is written, there isn't any requirement listed in the law about when that letter expires and a new letter is required. Not for section eight.

 

For section four protections, the letter has to be issued again to receive a new ID card. TO APPLY FOR THE CARD.

 

Both BS and the SC agree that that is an option and not a requirement. That is, applying for the card.

 

I'm thinking you're seeing a ~60-90 day limit on the validity of the letter for the purpose of applying for the card. In the rules, not the law.

 

So the letter expires before the card? If the doctors letter becomes invalid, doesn't that negate the card?

[peanutbutter]

So if you put an expiration date on the letter, you have notified the state, IN WRITING, that it is a temporary condition that is not expected to last long.

 

A doctor can notify the state, in writing, that the medical condition no longer exists. That triggers the card being canceled.

[Restorium2]

Once the letter is written, there isn't any requirement listed in the law about when that letter expires and a new letter is required. Not for section eight.

 

Here we go again. If it isn't in the law then you look for other like things to compare it to. Like a doctor's advice on a prescription drug. It lasts up to 6 months. You can only sit on a doctors rec for other drugs for up to 6 months. A judge will look at that. We can only guess what the judge will finally decide is right.

[peanutbutter]

He just needed to log in.

 

Anyway, a judge may see it that if you wanted a year you should have sent it to the state. If you are sitting on the fence, you have 90 days, and can use the sec. 8 for that time period. That's not so far fetched. It's definitely in the realm of possibility. And if that IS possible, should we be leading people to believe it does last a year, even if you don't send it in? I think we should leave it with a big question mark on it. That's the right thing to do.

We can be sure it lasts 90 days, that's all. Don't assume anything else.

 

However .. the SC has just ruled that application for the ID card is optional. Not required.

[peanutbutter]

Once the letter is written, there isn't any requirement listed in the law about when that letter expires and a new letter is required. Not for section eight.

 

Here we go again. If it isn't in the law then you look for other like things to compare it to. Like a doctor's advice on a prescription drug. It lasts up to 6 months. You can only sit on a doctors rec for other drugs for up to 6 months. A judge will look at that. We can only guess what the judge will finally decide is right.

 

Yes .. to arrive at an expiration date, you have to look outside the law itself.

 

Which doesn't count. If X,Y and Z are presented, then the case must be dismissed.

 

This issue would be element 'w.' Not in the law itself. Not involved in x,y and z. Not a part of it.

 

Key elements involved require the current condition be evaluated AT THE TIME OF THE LETTER BEING ISSUED.

[Restorium2]

However .. the SC has just ruled that application for the ID card is optional. Not required.

Of course it is optional. Why else even mention sec. 8? But that does not factor in on how long you can sit on a doctor's rec for a drug that will help you. Another close cousin is the prescription, which only lasts up to 6 months. Maybe the judge will see that the same reasons apply to a rec for marijuana? We just don't know.

[CaveatLector]

Yes .. to arrive at an expiration date, you have to look outside the law itself.

 

Which doesn't count. If X,Y and Z are presented, then the case must be dismissed.

 

This issue would be element 'w.' Not in the law itself. Not involved in x,y and z. Not a part of it.

 

Key elements involved require the current condition be evaluated AT THE TIME OF THE LETTER BEING ISSUED.

 

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.