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

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

I agree that courts could rule in many ways. Why? because it's not in the law. So when the issue comes up, there will be a lot of possibilities presented. 30 days, 60, 90, one year, forever.

 

Remember this line "if the law doesn't distinctly permit it, it is illegal."

 

The expiration date concept doesn't distinctly exist within the law. Yeah, I know .. I got twisted there. apples and oranges. still it is not distinctly within the act itself.

 

I'm sure OConnel would say it expires in seven days. Or the moment the patient walks out of the office.

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

There is no requirement in the law to evaluate the patients future medical condition. The evaluation is about the condition when the patient is in front of the doctor.

 

There is no requirement that the doctor certify the condition will still exist in 60,90 days. Or the full one year.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

There is no requirement in the law to evaluate the patients future medical condition.

If the medical condition is in the past then it is not FUTURE. The law requires an evaluation of the pt's "current" medical condition. Now you can argue that current modfies the condition as presented at the time of evaluation for the initial recommendation. However, that sort of interpretation leads to an absurd result. A result that would be unacceptable in the medical community. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it will be interpreted that way.

[Restorium2]

There is no requirement in the law to evaluate the patients future medical condition. The evaluation is about the condition when the patient is in front of the doctor.

 

There is no requirement that the doctor certify the condition will still exist in 60,90 days. Or the full one year.

Ah, but why then is the rec only good for 90 days when sending it in? If it's good for a section 8 for longer than that then they would also have to change their 90 day policy for sending it in.

[peanutbutter]

If the medical condition is in the past then it is not FUTURE. The law requires an evaluation of the pt's "current" medical condition. Now you can argue that current modfies the condition as presented at the time of evaluation for the initial recommendation. However, that sort of interpretation leads to an absurd result. A result that would be unacceptable in the medical community. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it will be interpreted that way.

 

If the condition goes away the doctor is supposed to notify the state. Who will then cancel the card.

 

Without the notification it is assumed the condition still exists and the letter is still valid.

 

Of course that is for the ID card process. Section four stuff.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

Again, we are talking in circles and not listening. I've put out the reasoning from the standpoint of the medical community. 1 year, and said why. CL has put it out from the legal profession. 1 year and said why. It is one year. Period. The 60-90 days is simply a paperwork requirement for the application.

 

Consider some absolutely foolish ideas.

 

The prosecutor tries to argue in court on a section 8 defense that the 'doctor letter' is only good for 60 days, so unless you go and get recertied every 2 months, you can't use the section 8 defense.

 

The patient argues that since he was seen by a doctor in 1991 and can produce a note from the doc that he had a sprained ankle, informed his doc that he was smoking pot for the pain, and the doc was ok with it, he is 'good for life' for a section 8 defense.

 

The caregiver argues that since he has 5 patients, he can grow 72 plants and so can his 24 caregiver roommates so their 1800 plant outdoor garden is 'legally compliant' and secured with 'no tresspassing' signs every 100 feet of the parameter (just like posting hunting land)

 

None of us can legally be tried in a court that has a flag with gold fringe around the boarder, because that is no longer an American Flag and we are only subjected to American Courts.

 

Get the point? All of these are frog hair splitting, FBL arguments that turn on very questionable interpretations of a rather simple law. Get certified, register, repeat each year. If you want to make a point or show you aren't 'bowing to the man' by refusing to take part in the registry, relying instead on the section 8 defense, see the excellent discussion of that put up by CL. And make sure you are otherwise following all the rules, which includes annual recertification by a physician.

 

The best way to look at some of these proposals being put up by PB and others is to put them in your back pocket in case you ever get your hands caught in the cookie jar and end up on the block in court. At best they are a hail mary play and you better have a sharp attorney to pull them off. To even suggest they are a logical way to run your life now, when you have FAR better alternatives- even if your plan is to rely on the section 8 defense alone, is shall we say, not helpful to the community.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

If the condition goes away the doctor is supposed to notify the state. Who will then cancel the card.

Thus extending the 90 days to a year because of that avenue for interaction between the doctor and the state. You are making the case for the 90 day expiration now. How does the doctor cancel a rec that isn't sent into the state? He can't. So it's not valid as long. That's how a judge will look at it after he/she mulls over it for weeks.

[peanutbutter]

Ah, but why then is the rec only good for 90 days when sending it in? If it's good for a section 8 for longer than that then they would also have to change their 90 day policy for sending it in.

 

Because the state wants to do everything it can to nullify the law. They want any excuse to deny a card app.

 

So they made a rule to do so.

[Restorium2]

Because the state wants to do everything it can to nullify the law. They want any excuse to deny a card app.

 

So they made a rule to do so.

Right. But what they say is that it is to monitor the patient after the 90 days for any chance the doctor says they should not be using it anymore. That same concern will stand with section 8.

[Dr. Bob]

Personally I don't think the 90 days will come into play. The law is set up for annual renewal already, putting 90 days in there is trying to put something in the law that isn't there. See the doc on an annual basis and you are compliant with the law. Don't over complicate things.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

Again, we are talking in circles and not listening. I've put out the reasoning from the standpoint of the medical community. 1 year, and said why. CL has put it out from the legal profession. 1 year and said why. It is one year. Period. The 60-90 days is simply a paperwork requirement for the application.

 

Consider some absolutely foolish ideas.

 

The prosecutor tries to argue in court on a section 8 defense that the 'doctor letter' is only good for 60 days, so unless you go and get recertied every 2 months, you can't use the section 8 defense.

 

The patient argues that since he was seen by a doctor in 1991 and can produce a note from the doc that he had a sprained ankle, informed his doc that he was smoking pot for the pain, and the doc was ok with it, he is 'good for life' for a section 8 defense.

 

The caregiver argues that since he has 5 patients, he can grow 72 plants and so can his 24 caregiver roommates so their 1800 plant outdoor garden is 'legally compliant' and secured with 'no tresspassing' signs every 100 feet of the parameter (just like posting hunting land)

 

None of us can legally be tried in a court that has a flag with gold fringe around the boarder, because that is no longer an American Flag and we are only subjected to American Courts.

 

Get the point? All of these are frog hair splitting, FBL arguments that turn on very questionable interpretations of a rather simple law. Get certified, register, repeat each year. If you want to make a point or show you aren't 'bowing to the man' by refusing to take part in the registry, relying instead on the section 8 defense, see the excellent discussion of that put up by CL. And make sure you are otherwise following all the rules, which includes annual recertification by a physician.

 

The best way to look at some of these proposals being put up by PB and others is to put them in your back pocket in case you ever get your hands caught in the cookie jar and end up on the block in court. At best they are a hail mary play and you better have a sharp attorney to pull them off. To even suggest they are a logical way to run your life now, when you have FAR better alternatives- even if your plan is to rely on the section 8 defense alone, is shall we say, not helpful to the community.

 

Dr. Bob

 

A lot of what if's there.

 

The SC has already said the letter, more specifically "said," has to have taken place after the law became active. So that 1991 question has already been answered by the SC. We have a solid answer. In black and white. I disagree with that. Which doesn't matter, because it is the way it will be handled from now on. A clear line. Clear lines are what we need.

 

Expiration date is NOT a clear line. That MAY be brought in by the SC later, but it doesn't exist now.

 

Age of the doctors letter was NOT a factor listed by the SC for a section eight defense.

 

Is it likely that patients will be abused for a 14 month old letter? Just about a 100% probability.

 

Even a higher probability when our own community is urging the state to do so.

Edited July 25, 2012 by peanutbutter

[+mayorherb]

i for one agree that is does say what you have posted but would add if you are going to do this and may end up in court it will cost you more then money it will cost you years of stress that no one will every get back even if your case gets dismissed you won't be happy the rest of someones life it changes' you in a way no one could imagine

I agree also..It realy bites that if we follow the law as written.We get punished.

[CaveatLector]

Because the state wants to do everything it can to nullify the law. They want any excuse to deny a card app.

 

So they made a rule to do so.

 

I don't think so.

 

If the rec letter were good for an infinite amount of time then Joe Dokes could wait one year before sending it in and then get a card that is good for a year. That could mean that the Dr's evaluation was 2 years old for the last week your card is still valid. Of course you can extend that out to any number of years. If you wait 5 years, then send it in, then you have a valid card based on a condition that was evaluated up to 6 years ago. That wouldn't be acceptable in the medical profession.

 

Making the rec letter good for 90 days means that if you apply then, in theory, the dr evaluation is no older than 1 year and 3 months (minus one day) while your card is still valid.

 

I think the reasoning behind the expiration of a rec letter is related to how long they want the card to last before you are re-evaluated. Making it expire in 90 days forces you to be re-evaluated every 15 months or sooner.

[Restorium2]

Personally I don't think the 90 days will come into play. The law is set up for annual renewal already, putting 90 days in there is trying to put something in the law that isn't there. See the doc on an annual basis and you are compliant with the law. Don't over complicate things.

 

Dr. Bob

Annual renewal with an avenue for the doctor to adjust the medicine in that one year period. No avenue for adjustment with a sec. 8. Just that one shapshot in time from the doc. It's a line with and endpoint at the time the rec. was written with no adjustment available after the rec. How long can something like that stand? The state says it's 90 days when you send it in.

[peanutbutter]

I don't think so.

 

If the rec letter were good for an infinite amount of time then Joe Dokes could wait one year before sending it in and then get a card that is good for a year. That could mean that the Dr's evaluation was 2 years old for the last week your card is still valid. Of course you can extend that out to any number of years. If you wait 5 years, then send it in, then you have a valid card based on a condition that was evaluated up to 6 years ago. That wouldn't be acceptable in the medical profession.

 

Making the rec letter good for 90 days means that if you apply then, in theory, the dr evaluation is no older than 1 year and 3 months (minus one day) while your card is still valid.

 

I think the reasoning behind the expiration of a rec letter is related to how long they want the card to last before you are re-evaluated. Making it expire in 90 days forces you to be re-evaluated every 15 months or sooner.

 

You keep defending the state .. noted.

[peanutbutter]

Annual renewal with an avenue for the doctor to adjust the medicine in that one year period. No avenue for adjustment with a sec. 8. Just that one shapshot in time from the doc. It's a line with and endpoint at the time the rec. was written with no adjustment available after the rec. How long can something like that stand? The state says it's 90 days when you send it in.

 

For the purposes of applying for the ID card, yes. The letter can NOT become invalid while the card is valid. The card is a representation of a valid letter.

[+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. :-)

 

I will still stick by original statement here. Can we all just agree with me and move on!

 

Hahaha... just kidding.

 

All sorts of angles and issues will come up surrounding the broadness or lack thereof of Sec. 8 defenses. It is made that way on purpose to allow the widest array of people to ATTEMPT to present a defense that would in the end cause dismissal. There are very few absolutes in Sec 8 besides dismissal if meeting the guidelines. The issue is, the guidelines are broad and purposefully worded to allow judicial discretion. Same as a justified murder case.

 

When undefined on the recommendation validity question, the court will turn to other references such as dictionaries, precedent, common practices and generally accepted standards.

 

These interpretations will vary from case to case(purposefully) and allows for 3 specific and broad points to be determined by the trier of fact.

 

We are debating an answer that will likely never exist in an absolute term. There will likely be a range of outcomes, fully justifiable, that will eventually become generally accepted standards based on previous justifications of dozens if not hundreds of dismissed or not dismissed cases.

 

You can and absolutely have the right to argue your 3 year old rec is legitimate and dam well best hope you have a physician that will testify for you and you MAY get your case dismissed. Again Judicial discretion intermingles witht he 3 requirements of a Sec. 8 defense.

 

So yea..

Edited July 25, 2012 by Malamute

[peanutbutter]

I will still stick by original statement here. Can we all just agree with me and move on!

 

Hahaha... just kidding.

 

All sorts of angles and issues will come up surrounding the broadness or lack thereof of Sec. 8 defenses. It is made that way on purpose to allow the widest array of people to ATTEMPT to present a defense that would in the end cause dismissal. There are very few absolutes in Sec 8 besides dismissal if meeting the guidelines. The issue is, the guidelines are broad and purposefully worded to allow judicial discretion. Same as a justified murder case.

 

When undefined on the recommendation validity question, the court will turn to other references such as dictionaries, precedent, common practices and generally accepted standards.

 

These interpretations will vary from case to case(purposefully) and allows for 3 specific and broad points to be determined by the trier of fact.

 

We are debating an answer that will likely never exist in an absolute term. There will likely be a range of outcomes, fully justifiable, that will eventually become generally accepted standards based on previous justifications of dozens if not hundreds of dismissed or not dismissed cases.

 

You can and absolutely have the right to argue your 3 year old rec is legitimate and dam well best hope you have a physician that will testify for you and you MAY get your case dismissed. Again Judicial discretion intermingles witht he 3 requirements of a Sec. 8 defense.

 

So yea..

 

Looks like a fair statement to me.

 

Thanks.

 

Also note there is something else in the works.

 

There is a possibility, that someone could be arrested, with only a doctors letter, then apply for the card before the court case can start.

 

That would, in theory, give the person the protections of not being eligible for being prosecuted or punished.

 

Waiting to see if this works out. Strong possibility that it will. After several "test cases." Don't be a test case.

[Dr. Bob]

I'll agree with Mal, we'll know when there are test cases. Test cases will occur when folks try to avoid the registry and rely on section 8. If you make the personal decision to risk your liberty and fortune by becoming that test case, your best chances are with a doctor's recommendation on an interval equal to the registration process for the reasons clearly outlined.

 

That means annually.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

I'll agree with Mal, we'll know when there are test cases. Test cases will occur when folks try to avoid the registry and rely on section 8. If you make the personal decision to risk your liberty and fortune by becoming that test case, your best chances are with a doctor's recommendation on an interval equal to the registration process for the reasons clearly outlined.

 

That means annually.

 

Dr. Bob

 

100% agree.

 

Test cases have been involved in every iota of this law .. except section 6. The state has always been in perfect compliance with that section. At least there has never been an arrest of a government official for breaking the law.

[CaveatLector]

You keep defending the state .. noted.

Great response pb. I see that if I don't adopt your opinion then that automatically makes me a confederate. Give me an f-ing break. Next I'll get the old, "are you LEO???"

 

Lastly, how is it I am even remotely defending the state? I have a reasonable view of the law based on many factors and adequate consideration of all factors involved. You don't like that so that means I'm defending the state. Why don't you go skulk and sulk for a while. You are, afterall, known for that after someone hands you your arse.

 

Last lastly, have you stopped beating your wife?

[peanutbutter]

Great response pb. I see that if I don't adopt your opinion then that automatically makes me a confederate. Give me an f-ing break. Next I'll get the old, "are you LEO???"

 

Lastly, how is it I am even remotely defending the state? I have a reasonable view of the law based on many factors and adequate consideration of all factors involved. You don't like that so that means I'm defending the state. Why don't you go skulk and sulk for a while. You are, afterall, known for that after someone hands you your arse.

 

Last lastly, have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Naaa .. I'll just put you on ignore. Stop letting you suck me into multi page pissing matches.

[CaveatLector]

Naaa .. I'll just put you on ignore. Stop letting you suck me into multi page pissing matches.

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.

[GanjaWarrior]

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.

 

 

you go....i know call him joe cain...

[SFC]

Ganja, don't you mean the Irish travelers?