Jump to content
flowerspice420

Clare County Compassion Busted?

Recommended Posts

If a secondary caregiver isnt an option or implied, then why would they have ever used the wording Primary CareGiver when the law was written. I also agree with Bob statement about the out of state folks that are supposed to be protected. Where were they supposed to get their meds from???? I believe the intent of the law was to allow for pt2pt transfers and it is our AG who decided to say "No" thats not what the law says. I believe if you read the law in plain language that it does allow for PT2PT and CG2CG and CG2nonregisterdPT.....Anxiously waiting to see if the Supreme Court agrees.....

My 2 cents anyway.....

 

Peace,

Wildman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then we need to know about the people from other States are they not Not connected but also protected

The fact that Michigan will recognize an out of state card as giving protection to a patient does not mean they have different rights based on their situation. The act gives the same protections to those patients. So they have the same protections as carded patients that are registered in our state.

 

Assuming they have some sort of "extra" protection is sheer folly. What we're discussing here is whether a cg can transfer to an unconnected pt. I think a plain reading of the act indicates the answer is no. Assuming that an out of state patient has a special predicament and therefore special rights is wrong. The act reads that the out of state card has, ". . . the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department." That means the same rules apply, not different ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a secondary caregiver isnt an option or implied, then why would they have ever used the wording Primary CareGiver when the law was written. I also agree with Bob statement about the out of state folks that are supposed to be protected. Where were they supposed to get their meds from???? I believe the intent of the law was to allow for pt2pt transfers and it is our AG who decided to say "No" thats not what the law says. I believe if you read the law in plain language that it does allow for PT2PT and CG2CG and CG2nonregisterdPT.....Anxiously waiting to see if the Supreme Court agrees.....

My 2 cents anyway.....

 

Peace,

Wildman

It is clear that sec 4 protections are offered to a registered primary caregiver. That is explicit. I think the lack of mention of a secondary caregiver is as much a denial of those protections to the secondary cg as anything else. In other words, the act makes it clear that a primary cg can be protected and the implication,or suggestion, is that a secondary cg is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to make sure I wasnt taken the wrong way...I am not suggesting to anyone to make any kind of transfers of any sort...but It is my opinion that the transfers I mentioned above "pt2pt" and "gc2cg" and "gc2non tied pt" were intended to be allowed by the law....again...they are currently NOT!!! I do believe they will be after the Supreme Cout rules on the Lansing CA case....I believe that CA of Lansing is going to win their case in the Supreme Court. :yahoo-wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical

use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The

presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of

alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating

medical condition, in accordance with this act

 

I believe that these are just small issues that the the leo's are using to break our law.. but we need to change the law if everyone thinks that we are restricted to only helping 5 patients.. I don't believe the law was designed to help only 5 patients.. cause if its that way we need to fix it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that these are just small issues that the the leo's are using to break our law.. but we need to change the law if everyone thinks that we are restricted to only helping 5 patients.. I don't believe the law was designed to help only 5 patients.. cause if its that way we need to fix it..

 

yes, I would agree, if we could change it to more than 5 patients, primary and secondary caregivers with the same protections, caregiver to caregiver transfers to redistribute overages and make up for short falls, and yes, even farmers markets, that would go a long way to making the act far more user friendly.

 

eventually, I'd like to see something like a 'handicapped' license that is good for years if the need for the card is perm, descheduling on the federal level, followed by eventual legalization.

 

But these things are a ways off, and we need to simply spend some time working on the mindset of the authorities and general public first. Make it part of society again, then go for the next step in the chain.

 

Dr. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow so this place has gone from having a conservative view of the law to keep patients safe, to agreeing with the AG opinion of the law.

If I agreed with the AG I would tell you that you need each patient's plants kept in separate enclosed locked facilities. Don't be so foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a secondary caregiver isnt an option or implied, then why would they have ever used the wording Primary CareGiver when the law was written. I also agree with Bob statement about the out of state folks that are supposed to be protected. Where were they supposed to get their meds from???? I believe the intent of the law was to allow for pt2pt transfers and it is our AG who decided to say "No" thats not what the law says. I believe if you read the law in plain language that it does allow for PT2PT and CG2CG and CG2nonregisterdPT.....Anxiously waiting to see if the Supreme Court agrees.....

My 2 cents anyway.....

 

Peace,

Wildman

 

 

I spoke to Karen O'Keefe from MPP on that topic last summer. She said it was left in the law in error. They cobbled together multiple state bills to come up with the Michigan hybrid. They failed remove the "primary" word in the sentence you cite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow so this place has gone from having a conservative view of the law to keep patients safe, to agreeing with the AG opinion of the law.

 

To say I or anyone in here agrees with Bill Schuette simply because there is a more conservative bent to the interpretation of the Act (which is designed to keep people safe) is absurd. It has been announced in TC that I personally made Schuette 'sad' by exposing his 'clearing the air' agenda in the Saginaw News the weekend before his meeting there. Now if I was buddy buddy with him why would I make my 'buddy' sad?

 

Please confine any disagreement to a well constructed, logical argument rather than simply name calling. The latter rarely adds to the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to Karen O'Keefe from MPP on that topic last summer. She said it was left in the law in error. They cobbled together multiple state bills to come up with the Michigan hybrid. They failed remove the "primary" word in the sentence you cite.

 

Our law is not perfect as written. There are mistakes that were made by MPP. Their "model language" is taken or used as a template by the state it will be used in and molded to fit into that particular states law as well as possible. In the case of Michigan, the MPP model language was amended some by state activists and then written to fit michigan law by the law firm Dykema Gosset. In my opinion, the attorneys at Dykema Gossett didnt fully understand the intricacies of the MPP model language and flawed on adjusting some of the language into what is the MMMAct now.

 

One example is this use of "primary" caregiver. In MPP's model language they use "primary" because their overall model language covers patients being allowed to have two caregivers; a "primary" caregiver and a "secondary" caregiver. This can be seen in Rhode Islands language for an example. Also, MPP has model language that allows for "compassion centers" and allows for patients to assign a center as one of their caregivers.

 

The intent of MPP is that we will eventually pass legislation that allows for "compassion centers" or as in Michigan, " provisioning centers". The language for HB 5580 is based upon MPP's model language for "compassion centers". MPP offered their "model language" to MACC whom took the language, changed it around and added and removed what they wanted to, then submitted said language to obviously Rep. Callton who then used MACC's model language to come up with HB 5580.

 

Some other issues which MPP has since resolved in their "model language" is that they have added a sunset clause for felons to be caregivers after 10 years. This was actually done in the summer/fall of 2008, which unfortunately, was 6-8 months too late since the Michigan law was already going to the ballot. Bummer. Also, they resolved the medibles issue in their model language too. That happened in 2009.

 

 

So,... someof the language in our law is "messed up" and the law could be better, obviously. Live and learn. MPP has. Michigan is merely an experiment in this cause known as medical marijuana. A stepping stone which is used to understand how to make future laws better by learning from our mistakes or shortcomings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To say I or anyone in here agrees with Bill Schuette simply because there is a more conservative bent to the interpretation of the Act (which is designed to keep people safe) is absurd. It has been announced in TC that I personally made Schuette 'sad' by exposing his 'clearing the air' agenda in the Saginaw News the weekend before his meeting there. Now if I was buddy buddy with him why would I make my 'buddy' sad?

 

Please confine any disagreement to a well constructed, logical argument rather than simply name calling. The latter rarely adds to the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

 

name calling? I was called foolish, not sure what name I called any of YOU. If your talking to cav, respond to him.

Imo our law is in trouble with people like you at the helm.

Imo making an observation without a well constructed logical argument is ok, I give myself permission

Imo saying an argument is absurd by tooting your own horn is absurd

Imo this forum used to promote dispensaries, then just the market, and now clubs.

Imo although leadership has changed, ownership has not.

imo the people in charge now, do not seem like compassionate people

Imo making schuette feel sad is irrelevant.

Imo this is way off topic

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks..And so are we..We do not even have our own building..We use the library in Clare..Which they love us..We been there think over 3 years now...ONE of the ONLY clubs allowed n a library still..

 

I knew it wasnt you guys, Because of the fact I knew you were in the library. and Even though I realy dont know you, and sometimes I get in a whinning match with annie, I knew it was not you folks! We may not agree on some things, but I have a feeling we agree on alot more than We think!

 

Im Glad you put it out there because most prob thought it was the clare club like reported!

 

Everyone needs to see The News sux! they are frickin liars and or decievers, we only know what big brother wants us to know, Free Speach!

 

Aint nothing FREE!

 

Peace Herb Your C,C that follows the rules!

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

name calling? I was called foolish, not sure what name I called any of YOU. If your talking to cav, respond to him.

Imo our law is in trouble with people like you at the helm.

Imo making an observation without a well constructed logical argument is ok, I give myself permission

Imo saying an argument is absurd by tooting your own horn is absurd

Imo this forum used to promote dispensaries, then just the market, and now clubs.

Imo although leadership has changed, ownership has not.

imo the people in charge now, do not seem like compassionate people

Imo making schuette feel sad is irrelevant.

Imo this is way off topic

 

I am sorry you are so dissatisfied with the current political/legal climate. You can always show your displeasure by voting with your feet.

 

Take care my friend.

 

Dr. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

name calling? I was called foolish, not sure what name I called any of YOU. If your talking to cav, respond to him.

FYI you were called foolish because you were being foolish. It isn't name calling, it is a perfectly appopriate adjective that described your behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI you were called foolish because you were being foolish. It isn't name calling, it is a perfectly appopriate adjective that described your behavior.

 

Reread, I never said you "name called" bob did. Now you are just being ....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is being quite correct, foolish behavior results in being called foolish. I don't recall calling you foolish, but may be mistaken.

 

Dr. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI you were called foolish because you were being foolish. It isn't name calling, it is a perfectly appopriate adjective that described your behavior.

 

that is one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while.. guess with that one this will close.... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while.. guess with that one this will close.... lol

Are we on the 3rd grade playground now? I call a spade a spade. If I cannot use a legitimate adjective to describe behavior then what do you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are we on the 3rd grade playground now? I call a spade a spade. If I cannot use a legitimate adjective to describe behavior then what do you suggest?

Cav, I never said you called me a name. I'm a big boy. this should get back on topic eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct, this nonsense of anyone with a card being connected to anyone else with a card or any caregiver is just that, nonsense.

 

It is unfortunate it is still being put out there on the board.

 

Dr. Bob

 

May I ask, Do you, as a Dr. have the ability to work for Any Medical Facility that will Hire you? That is, considering your License from the State Board is Current?

I guess I am Asking, as a State Licenced Dr, do you have to do anything specific to work with a Patient? any Patient?

 

As an Insurance Sales Agent, I have to hold a License with the State. That License allows me to deal with insurance specific situations with anyone in the state.

Now, if the State mandated I coud only underwrite policies to Citizens in the State of Michigan, then I would be restricted to those individuals that are ONLY Citizens of Michigan. If they further stated I could only offer policies for those with a Active State Drivers License, then I would be restricted to that group.

 

But until the State mandates I, as an authroized LIA, must only work with a specific class of a group of people, then I have the ability to underwrite LIPs to anyone that desires one, and can pay the monthly premiums.

 

 

 

Speaking of Groups. A Group Medical Policy is basically what the medican marihuna act is. It creates a Group of Citizens that have specific medical needs.

Now, the Insurance Industry is very well regulated (too much in favor of the Companies if you ask me personally) If one person of that group is allowed to have a benefit, then all participants of that group is allowed the same benefit.

 

The Law passed creates one group, with 4 sub catagories. Patients, Caregivers, Minor Patients, and Visiting Patients, but all participants are part of the same Lead Group.

it further creates two classes. registered, and not register, but again, these people are too under the same Lead Group.

 

Let me ask you my good Dr. How would you bill insurance companies (providing covering cannabis health sciences was allowed) for your services and determine the medication they need? And would it be right for that patient to only be allowed to fill that Cannabis RX at just one location? or any reasonable pharmacy?

 

I may like this place.

Edited by MiDelServ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav, I never said you called me a name. I'm a big boy. this should get back on topic eh

Yes, and we covered that. I have no problem with you in this regard, it's the uninformed in the crowd that want to get their 2 cents in that I was addressing.

At any rate, you derailed the topic by suggesting that the site is adopting the AG's opinion of the law. You were being pejorative which is inappropriate. The fact that paths may cross between what the AG thinks and what others think does not mean the others (eg myself) agree with the AG's opinion. Being accusatory in that manner is, in itself, a method of "name calling." It smacks of McCarthyism. What if I said, "oh you think blond hair and blue eyes is attractive, therefore you agree with Hitler's opinions?" Silly isn't it?

 

So if you want to argue name calling you should come to the table with clean hands and not undertones of deragatory put-downs.

 

With regard to being on-topic, the idea here is to try and interpret the law in such a way as to keep people safe but still give it its geatest effect. One of the biggest problems I see is people parsing the law. They take sections out of context and expect that they stand alone. People need to keep in mind that the law will be interpreted based on rules of statutory interpretation. Many of these sections that I see quoted are modified by other sections within the law. You have to read the law as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask, Do you, as a Dr. have the ability to work for Any Medical Facility that will Hire you? That is, considering your License from the State Board is Current?

I guess I am Asking, as a State Licenced Dr, do you have to do anything specific to work with a Patient? any Patient?

 

As an Insurance Sales Agent, I have to hold a License with the State. That License allows me to deal with insurance specific situations with anyone in the state.

Now, if the State mandated I coud only underwrite policies to Citizens in the State of Michigan, then I would be restricted to those individuals that are ONLY Citizens of Michigan. If they further stated I could only offer policies for those with a Active State Drivers License, then I would be restricted to that group.

 

But until the State mandates I, as an authroized LIA, must only work with a specific class of a group of people, then I have the ability to underwrite LIPs to anyone that desires one, and can pay the monthly premiums.

 

 

 

Speaking of Groups. A Group Medical Policy is basically what the medican marihuna act is. It creates a Group of Citizens that have specific medical needs.

Now, the Insurance Industry is very well regulated (too much in favor of the Companies if you ask me personally) If one person of that group is allowed to have a benefit, then all participants of that group is allowed the same benefit.

 

The Law passed creates one group, with 4 sub catagories. Patients, Caregivers, Minor Patients, and Visiting Patients, but all participants are part of the same Lead Group.

it further creates two classes. registered, and not register, but again, these people are too under the same Lead Group.

 

Let me ask you my good Dr. How would you bill insurance companies (providing covering cannabis health sciences was allowed) for your services and determine the medication they need? And would it be right for that patient to only be allowed to fill that Cannabis RX at just one location? or any reasonable pharmacy?

 

I may like this place.

 

Rather long and multifacited question but I'll see if I can help.

 

I can treat anyone in an emergency, I can practice medicine and charge for it within the borders of states in which I am licensed, I cannot recommend particular pharmacies or DME companies, and billing is based on level of service, new or returning patient, and setting. As far as cannabis goes, I can't be a caregiver, I can be a patient, I can't recommend a specific caregiver for ethical concerns but can refer to a group of them, I can't write a prescription or recommend a specific amount and frequency of use (though I do use an oz or less as a ROUGH and very GENERAL guideline for an amount that will treat MOST people- it helps justify amounts if the question ever comes up yet has wiggle room),

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Dr. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to me how my Aunt, which is coming into the state next week and has just been diagnosed with Breast Cancer in late stage 3, is supposed to "Legally and Safely Acquire" the meds she needs?

 

 

Ask a Lawyer .. i would suggest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...