House And Senate Voted To Amend The Act Last Night

[Fat Freddy]

Actually, MS in and of itself is not a covered condition. What the law reads is: severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

My thought is that only those medical issues that present the types of muscle spasms characteristic of multiple sclerosis are covered. Not all muscle spasms, just those types.

 

The point on seizures includes those conditions with the characteristic of epilepsy, not directly epilepsy itself.

 

But then, I’m not a doctor, and I don’t sign certifications.

 

Seizures can be very painful, ask a person dealing with epilepsy. For that matter ask people that have sever muscle spasms. Not fun!

[ozzrokk]

Seizures can be very painful, ask a person dealing with epilepsy. For that matter ask people that have sever muscle spasms. Not fun!

 

 

Trust me not fun at all.... And yes cannabis does help alot.

[peanutbutter]

Actually, MS in and of itself is not a covered condition. What the law reads is: severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about. That "condition" is ANYTHING that produces a specific symptom.

 

That is the way that this law uses the word "condition." The use of the word "condition" is slightly different than is used in the medical world.

[peanutbutter]

Sec. 3. As used in this act:

(a) "Debilitating medical condition" means 1 or more of the following:

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

Please note that section 3 is the definition section.

 

Number 2 is something that is defined, within this law, as a "Debilitating medical condition."

[peanutbutter]

The Assistant Attorney General, John Wright, said that the conditions recommended by the panel would be added to subsection 1 after approval by the director of the department.

 

I give up .. new conditions must be approved by BS ahead of time.

 

With that in mind, this exercise was a waste of time.

Edited December 16, 2012 by peanutbutter

[SFC]

Thanks again to you and all the others Zap that went to the conditions panel. We are winning this war, slowly but winning none the less.

[Ms Chocolate]

Your views on muscle spasms are very restrictive. As a patient, I have experienced cannabis help with muscle spasms associated with chronic pain and also the lung muscle spasms due to asthma.

It's not that I am being restrictive, nor am I saying that cannabis is not helpful for your, mine, or other peoples ailments; but the law does say " muscle spasms characteristic of multiple sclerosis". All spasms, and maybe most, do not fit that description.

[Restorium2]

It's not that I am being restrictive, nor am I saying that cannabis is not helpful for your, mine, or other peoples ailments; but the law does say " muscle spasms characteristic of multiple sclerosis". All spasms, and maybe most, do not fit that description.

The law says;

severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis

[Ms Chocolate]

No, both seizures and muscle spasms are in the symptoms section 3(a)(2).

Not any and all seizures and muscle spasms, just those that are characteristic to specially named conditions. I am not saying that seizures and muscle spasms are not painful (trust, I could never say that), but the coverage would be pain, not seizures and muscle spasms.

[Ms Chocolate]

The law says;

severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis

The characteristic of spasms found in MS is not the same found in something like asthma

[Restorium2]

The characteristic of spasms found in MS is not the same found in something like asthma

That's exactly why it says 'not limited'.

[Ms Chocolate]

That's exactly why it says 'not limited'.

"Not limited" to MS, but has the characteristic of.

 

Anyway, I'm not a doctor. I will let this lie.

[shishka]

Actually, MS in and of itself is not a covered condition. What the law reads is: severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

My thought is that only those medical issues that present the types of muscle spasms characteristic of multiple sclerosis are covered. Not all muscle spasms, just those types.

 

The point on seizures includes those conditions with the characteristic of epilepsy, not directly epilepsy itself.

 

But then, I’m not a doctor, and I don’t sign certifications.

 

I don't agree with that at all. It's like saying "you can have any color crayon in the box, including, but not limited to blue" and then saying that really means the crayon has to be blue. NO, It can be blue, doesn't have to be blue.

Edited December 16, 2012 by shishka

[+Malamute]

I would rather just get asthma added as a condition.

 

:-)

 

Nip all that right in the bud.

[Ms Chocolate]

I would rather just get asthma added as a condition.

 

:-) Nip all that right in the bud.

 

Touché

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ms Chocolate

[Restorium2]

I would rather just get asthma added as a condition.

 

:-)

 

Nip all that right in the bud.

Right. But we have to get there with either chronic muscle spasms or chronic pain in the lungs. Wouldn't that be the way to approach the panel with asthma? Or would you want to prove cannabis is a broncial dialator? We have to decide on the right approach. The best position of strength. I thought that the muscle spasms would be the most direct route since they are already mentioned.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Restorium2

[Ms Chocolate]

I don't agree with that at all. It's like saying "you can have any color crayon in the box, including, but not limited to blue" and then saying that really means the crayon has to be blue. NO, It can be blue, doesn't have to be blue.

 

Any shade of blue would be included, but not red, yellow, black, brown, or white

[Restorium2]

The laws say, in my opinion, that the muscle spasms of a lot of different conditions qualify, and since the ones associated with MS are of a different variety then most, they had to talk about muscle spasm in this way, so we would NOT get limited. It looks to me like muscle spasms came first and then they wanted to make sure the ones associated with MS were not excluded.

 

severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis

[peanutbutter]

The laws say, in my opinion, that the muscle spasms of a lot of different conditions qualify, and since the ones associated with MS are of a different variety then most, they had to talk about muscle spasm in this way, so we would NOT get limited. It looks to me like muscle spasms came first and then they wanted to make sure the ones associated with MS were not excluded.

 

severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis

 

Bill told then it has to be blue.

 

Doesn't matter what it says. What matters is what he says.

 

So .. no more classes of symptoms being called a condition, because Bill said so.

[shishka]

How about this.

 

If they had wanted to limit spasms to MS they wouldn't have said "not limited to". Rather, they would have said "limited to".

 

Big difference between "limited" and "not limited"

[Restorium2]

The way I think about it is like this;

 

If you take the part of the law that talks about muscle spasms, and take the definition of asthma, put those two things together, the panel will see that asthma does qualify, hands down. It's an easy path to getting asthma on the list. Maybe that's not how the panel works?

[Restorium2]

I think they will consider each condition on its own, based on how things went Friday. The chair stated at the beginning of the meeting that the panel was not responsible for those conditions already on the list, that they were there by law.

No extrapolating off the list then? Using the list as back up for like conditions?

[peanutbutter]

No extrapolating off the list then? Using the list as back up for like conditions?

 

Sounds like it will be available to get conditions already covered to be added.

[+Malamute]

Sheesh.

 

What a bunch of whiney beeches.

 

We have serious shots at getting new conditions added, and this is what people are worried about?

 

Take a look at how many conditions have been added as "new conditions" in all other 17 medical cannabis states combined.

 

Time to look at this in perspective and realize we have an open minded friendly panel to work with.

 

Let's hope for the best.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with adding specific conditions that MAY already be covered to the list of qualifying conditions.

 

Are people gonna whine because say we get Asthma, Parkinsons Disease or wtvr added to the list?

 

Pishaw.

 

I will be thankful for each and every condtion we manage to get added,... if any. I honestly didnt think they would add any new conditions for years. After that first hearing, i have some serious hope of influencing mostly open minds on that panel to recommend conditions to LARA. We may blow away other states in adding proper new conditions. :-)

Edited December 17, 2012 by Malamute

[Zerocool]

Sheesh.

 

What a bunch of whiney beeches.

 

We have serious shots at getting new conditions added, and this is what people are worried about?

 

Take a look at how many conditions have been added as "new conditions" in all other 17 medical cannabis states combined.

 

Time to look at this in perspective and realize we have an open minded friendly panel to work with.

 

Let's hope for the best.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with adding specific conditions that MAY already be covered to the list of qualifying conditions.

 

Are people gonna whine because say we get Asthma, Parkinsons Disease or wtvr added to the list?

 

Pishaw.

 

I will be thankful for each and every condtion we manage to get added,... if any. I honestly didnt think they would add any new conditions for years. After that first hearing, i have some serious hope of influencing mostly open minds on that panel to recommend conditions to LARA. We may blow away other states in adding proper new conditions. :-)

well the next time you are at one of these meetings ask them or file a form for spondyloarthropathy. what is this you ask, it is a form of Arthritis

it is a degenerative arthritis,it's just like Cancer, but it kills you slow