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]

Nor can you argue with the logic of people standing firm to own the rights that they have granted to themselves.

[GregS]

When the schit hits the fan, some stand firm, and some run and hide.

[pic book]

My rayPed er Raid

What raid?

[GregS]

I do not recall that I put anyone down, but rather described the nature of this discourse.

 

By all means. Everyone is capable of making their own decisions where, when, and how to approach the issue. I am not about to let the argument that we must stand down and continue to abide as if law enforcements' rogue misconduct is the compelling issue. They have unarguably defined themselves as azzhholes who are too lazy or stupid to see and understand the writing on the paper.

 

The fact remains that patients have not heretofore been allowed to be kept off the battlefield. We have been abused and butt raped, and have zero obligation to the government to contine taking it.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

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

 

Exactly.

[GregS]

This thead is, yes, coming to conclusions where the issues will soon be resolved and the players will be comfortable, or not, with them.

[Herb Cannabis]

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

 

Thanks, you made me laugh right out loud! :lolu:

[GregS]

Thanks, you made me laugh right out loud! :lolu:

 

Happy to brighten your day (bows deeply).

[CaveatLector]

This is out of control.

 

The original intent of this thread was to advise people to be sure they are properly covered in the event they must exercise the aff def.

 

This isn't about whether you should be worried for having 50 plants for one patient. That's on you. You can take the chance of convincing a jury if you so choose. For those that feel yesterday's opinions create a magical "get out of jail free" license I wish you the best. For the rest, read the first post in this thread and make sure you do what is necessary to cover yourself.

[peanutbutter]

No we did not. You said 12 and 2.5 are the minimum needed, I said they are maximum allowed without justification. If you have more than that, expect to be arrested and have to justify why you need them to a jury that doesn't know the difference between simpson oil and wesson oil. But they can count to 2.5 and 12.

 

Dr. Bob

 

LOL you love to fight, don't you ..

 

I was saying that amounts over 12 and 2.5 would have to be justified. AND COULD BE JUSTIFIED.

 

I have no idea what you think I was trying to say.

 

I believe there would be a presumption it was a reasonable amount if it was anything less than the 12 + 2.5.

[GregS]

This is by no means out of control, except for those who are in over their heads. I am guessing that there are about as many posts that advocate a "stand firm and own the issue" posts as there are those that insist that we "stick our heads in a warm soft place."

[CaveatLector]

This is by no means out of control, except for those who are in over their heads. I am guessing that there are about as many posts that advocate a "stand firm and own the issue" posts as there are those that insist that we "stick our heads in a warm soft place."

This thread wasn't started to advocate running with your tail between your legs. It was started to to advise that if you are going to use the AD then be sure you are fully qualified! It has degenerated...

 

I was hoping it would help people be sure to do what is necessary to remain covered by the AD. It's now 5 pages of mostly crap to wade through...

Edited June 2, 2012 by CaveatLector

[GregS]

This thread wasn't started to advocate running with your tail between your legs. It was started to to advise that if you are going to use the AD then be sure you are fully qualified! It has degenerated...

 

Continue please. To what?

[GregS]

I think I am obliged to explain that while on a bipolar high, which this event has unarguably kicked in, I am INVINCIBLE!!! I have absolute control over time and space.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[AKenewell]

This is out of control.

 

The original intent of this thread was to advise people to be sure they are properly covered in the event they must exercise the aff def.

 

This isn't about whether you should be worried for having 50 plants for one patient. That's on you. You can take the chance of convincing a jury if you so choose. For those that feel yesterday's opinions create a magical "get out of jail free" license I wish you the best. For the rest, read the first post in this thread and make sure you do what is necessary to cover yourself.

 

I echo Cav on this one. The intent was advising people to be sure they are covered...Let's get this thread back on topic please!

[GregS]

I echo Cav on this one. The intent was advising people to be sure they are covered...Let's get this thread back on topic please!

 

Sure thing. We as patients are protected in any and all activities defined under the term "medical use," which is the plain, unadulterated, and conclusive requirement of the law.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[peanutbutter]

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

 

We need to be able to kick the walls a little. Find ways to explore the limits of the law in ways that it is clearly understood it is a lab. A work in progress.

 

We can't start with the most restrictive view and refuse to discuss anything else. If we do so the system is likely to accept our dim view of our legal protections. How tightly do we wish to tie our bonds?

 

So there is a need to provide a "school" where people can learn to be safe. While at the same time we need to stand ready to retain every iota of protections that we have. To do that requires the ability to explore views that may not have been considered yet.

 

Just sayin .. we need to be able to kick the tires ..

[peanutbutter]

Sure thing. We as patients are protected in any and all activities defined under the term "medical use," which is the plain, unadulterated, and conclusive requirement of the law.

 

But wait!! In section eight it's "medical purpose!!"

 

"Medical use" is something that a registered patient does.

[+washtenaut]

I think I am obliged to explain that while on a bipolar high, which this event has unarguably kicked in, I am INVINCIBLE!!! I have absolute control over time and space.

 

Ahh, I see. I thought you were extra feisty this evening.....lol

[GregS]

"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.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

"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.

[peanutbutter]

"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.

yep ..

 

However what the patient does in section eight are for medical purpose. The items listed for medical purpose happen to contain the same items as listed in "medical use."

[AKenewell]

yep ..

 

However what the patient does in section eight are for medical purpose. The items listed for medical purpose happen to contain the same items as listed in "medical use."

 

I know Cav just said this but let me repeat it. "STOP" hijacking this thread..medical use was not the issue in this thread. EVERYONE..back on topic or start a new thread about medical use! AK

[CaveatLector]

You know what, AK, feel free to lock this thread. It came so far off topic it's ridiculous. It was meant to be helpful and provide guidance. Instead it has become 6 pages to wade through.

[GregS]

Before anyone insist this thread be iocked, CL; please explain your reasons; something more than "it's off topic." I fail to see that it speaks in any more than very small part to unreasonably or unnecessarily tangent or deranged positions and statements and insist that it is topically relevant.

 

Having said that, please feel free to go and soak your head p'nut.

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS