Should Dispensaries Stay Open?

[bobandtorey]

 

 

Oh yeah? That seems like about as good a bet as the dispensary owners made to this point.

 

Are we really expected to go along with the next stupid bet these people make? The only system that can serve patients without creating excessive risk for EVERYONE involved, in the current environment, is the caregiver system. Hint: that is why the law was written that way and little has changed, or is expected to change, in the near future.

 

We should be trying to make it better rather than replacing it. I

 

I agree fight for what we have not what we don't once we get the law Implemented ( to work)

For all then we can move on from their

[bobandtorey]

Then join his fan club Bob, with you now there is one.

 

I only want us all to have their own opinion I didn't say I agreed with anything

Bashing people is not my MO. it's yours

[SFC]

It is Bob. XXXXXXXXX

Edited February 25, 2013 by mibrains
removed offensive line

[Dr. Bob]

Then join his fan club Bob, with you now there is one.

 

Not a fan, but he is my friend. He had an idea as did others, he was wrong. It could have been any of those that came up with the idea of dispensaries. He believed and fought it, and lost. At least it settled the matter.

 

But it doesn't change that he was a friend. Many in here were wrong on things, including me, in the past. We are all still friends. I even like Gersh, and sort of think he likes me too.

 

Except for you SFC, I still hate you....lol

 

Dr. Bob

[knucklehead bob]

It is Bob. But only idiots...

Please sir/madam , pray tell , what is it like to sit at the right hand of your Deity ? Edited February 25, 2013 by knucklehead bob

[SFC]

It feels pretty good KB. And whoever XX'd my post, if you are going to delete a post delete the whole thing. And it is Sir. You all are free to coddle whoever you like. I am free to call out BS just the same.

Edited February 25, 2013 by SFC

[maxmax]

I think the tongue-in-cheek that I detected was lost on you. Once again, either being obtuse or . . .well, you know.

The same obtuse as Shawshank Redemption the move

[maxmax]

 

 

I tell them to read section 8, then read the ballot language, then decide. That is what they have to work with, and they should understand it well.

 

The first prong of a section 8 is about the doctor? how is that going to work for The owner of a dispensary

The doctor must come to court and tell the judge he signed the recommendation for medical reasons for that person not all of his Patient

 

Or would they call every ones doctor that buys mmj from them it's going to be a mess for the courts

and the Dispensary owner won't even get that far it seams as it was a big mistake to have the locker system go to the S.C and it also seams as the Attorneys didn't know how much of a impact it was going to be for the patients

All of this for only a Public nuisance ticket we needed a more solid case first like Mr. King did it

[maxmax]

I said no, because even with local licensing, they still operate in defiance of federal law (and ignore the Justice Department memos). I do not think a state law can effectively protect dispensaries and commercial grows, and I think trying to do so will draw unwelcome attention to our entire program.

 

True the courts have already took 1 part of the Law witch said you could use its protection for ANY MARIHUANA nothing about Medical use only

And now you must have your Rec. before arrest

[Restorium2]

True the courts have already took 1 part of the Law witch said you could use its protection for ANY MARIHUANA nothing about Medical use only

And now you must have your Rec. before arrest

The law clearly said that you had to have seen a doctor before the 'occurance'. That one is really easy to see.

[CaveatLector]

True the courts have already took 1 part of the Law witch said you could use its protection for ANY MARIHUANA nothing about Medical use only

And now you must have your Rec. before arrest

Nothing about medical use only? Where di you come up with that?

[GanjaWarrior]

its the LAW PB get over it,, or Move to a dispensary state,, like New Jersey ,, you would be very happy ther

 

Just leave me and my Law Alone Please ,

 

its not your law, its just as much pbs law as it is yours. see I am a voter a pt and a cg...im no fan of disp, but as it is now, its not the same law we voted on. If you think it is just go hide and we can fix it without you.....no i wont just leave, my laws all fd up now and its going to be fixed. to hell with disp, farmers markets is the only rational response, and it helps pts and cgs stay legal and healthy.

[Restorium2]

its not your law, its just as much pbs law as it is yours. see I am a voter a pt and a cg...im no fan of disp, but as it is now, its not the same law we voted on. If you think it is just go hide and we can fix it without you.....no i wont just leave, my laws all fd up now and its going to be fixed. to hell with disp, farmers markets is the only rational response, and it helps pts and cgs stay legal and healthy.

No. It's not going to get fixed. Your only choice is to mess it up more. The deciders are of that frame of mind if you haven't noticed. Vote in some new deciders if you want to see any new desicions. You can't argue with that logic.

[maxmax]

 

 

Who knows there may be one in the system right now...

 

Eric V would know if and when a case is at the S.C and I am waiting to see how the judge rules in Mr. King's case it just may go back to the high court again

 

I hope not for him because it will then be all about the only part of the Law that's left Section 8 and B&T was @ the S.C first but they Withdrew it as I understood

it was because of Section 8 would have been on the chopping block not like Mr. King he was their for a section 4 but he came back from it only to find out he only had section 8 and only if the judge would allow it

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxmax

[maxmax]

Please sir/madam , pray tell , what is it like to sit at the right hand of your Deity ? He is a god?

[SFC]

You just now figuring that out Max? lol

[maxmax]

 

McQueen do you think they will charge him again but this time it will be Criminal charges?

They just might

[beourbud]

close = no jail....problem solved

[maxmax]

 

The law clearly said that you had to have seen a doctor before the 'occurance'. That one is really easy to see.

Oh you mean like the part of the Law that says you can't be arrested if you have a card ?

[Restorium2]

Oh you mean like the part of the Law that says you can't be arrested if you have a card ?

No. The part that clearly states, at a reading level we all understand, that you HAD TO HAVE seen a doctor before you can use the law at all. It's that simple. No one needed any clarification on that. Go read the law again if you are doubting. It's so clear anyone can see it.

[maxmax]

The law clearly said that you had to have seen a doctor before the 'occurance'. That one is really easy to see.

 

The AD may be asserted by a patient or the patients “primary caregiver” for any marijuana charge(s) pending on or issued after December 4, 2008. A case is considered “pending” from the time the charge(s) is formally issued until there is a resolution of the charge(s) by a guilty/no contest plea, a finding of guilt after a trial, or the outright dismissal.

[CaveatLector]

The AD may be asserted by a patient or the patients “primary caregiver” for any marijuana charge(s) pending on or issued after December 4, 2008. A case is considered “pending” from the time the charge(s) is formally issued until there is a resolution of the charge(s) by a guilty/no contest plea, a finding of guilt after a trial, or the outright dismissal.

Yes, but you must satisfy the elements of the AD before it can be asserted. One of those elements is:

 

 

(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;

 

The court has interpreted, "has stated" to mean that the recommendation must have occurred prior to the arrest/prosecution. In other words, "has," being past tense, refers back to prior to prosecution or arrest.

[Restorium2]

Yup. HAS STATED is very clear and easy to understand.

[bobandtorey]

Yes, but you must satisfy the elements of the AD before it can be asserted. One of those elements is:

 

 

(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;

 

The court has interpreted, "has stated" to mean that the recommendation must have occurred prior to the arrest/prosecution. In other words, "has," being past tense, refers back to prior to prosecution or arrest.

 

right has stated so to me it would be as long as you and your Doc has talked about it and he was OK with it no Rec is needed? just his word as being OK with it

[Restorium2]

right has stated so to me it would be as long as you and your Doc has talked about it and he was OK with it no Rec is needed? just his word as being OK with it

HAS STATED means he wrote it down Bob. Like when you get a note from your doctor about something. I'm sure you already understand that from your other life experiences. You don't actually need a form. But he has to have written it down somewhere and dated it.