Medical Marijuana Absurdities In Michigan: Patients Can't Share

[Highlander]

Possibly because B*B insists that I am using multiple accounts and computers. I do not need to do that, and am offended that it would be suggested with cheap shots.

 

So you think I and Dr. Bob are the same guy?  I guess I don't understand.  Where/when did I accuse you of using multiple accounts over the YEARS we've posted on the same site?

 

Maybe I am stooopid?  Because I don't see where I ever even hinted you had multiple accounts. 

 

Maybe I'm a windmill you tilt at?  Stop.

[douga]

Possibly because B*B insists that I am using multiple accounts and computers. I do not need to do that, and am offended that it would be suggested with cheap shots.

 

I'm sure Greg would rather address the content of opposing viewpoints, rather than have to defend his integrity or identity. If Dr. Bob would cease his ridiculous accusations then we all could discuss a lot more. I'm guessing due to the recent moderation of this board, dissenting viewpoints were never really an issue for him (Dr. Bob). Now that he is confronted with several dissenting viewpoints all at once, it is more than he can handle. A prime example of response to an episode of cognitive dissonance.

Edited June 27, 2013 by douga

[GregS]

So you think I and Dr. Bob are the same guy?  I guess I don't understand.  Where/when did I accuse you of using multiple accounts over the YEARS we've posted on the same site?

 

Maybe I am stooopid?  Because I don't see where I ever even hinted you had multiple accounts. 

 

Maybe I'm a windmill you tilt at?  Stop.

In that case I beg your pardon.

[Highlander]

In that case I beg your pardon.

 

I think we're good.

[GregS]

I think we're good.

TY

[GregS]

I don't see that there is real consensus regarding sec. 8, and maybe that is to be expected. There are those who fall back on the law as written. Others minimize or ignore that and replace it with unfounded speculation. Trying to divine the agendas why is proving a problem, and I think there are those at work that are dishonest. B*B, in his ad hominem comments, and without addressing the facts, is a disgrace to the community and his profession.

[douga]

I don't see that there is real consensus regarding sec. 8, and maybe that is to be expected. There are those who fall back on the law as written. Others minimize or ignore that and replace it with unfounded speculation. Trying to divine the agendas why is proving a problem, and I think there are those at work that are dishonest. B*B, in his ad hominem comments, and without addressing the facts, is a disgrace to the community and his profession.

 

Agreed on all points. And a very well thought out statement. The first 3 sentences particularly.

[GregS]

..i just wasted 20 minutes of my day reading this thread and i may have lost a few iq points doing so.

Good to have you. We don't feel so all alone any more.

[Dr. Bob]

I thought he was referring to Nate and douga myself until ya jumped in. *shrug*

goes to the point, can't keep the id's straight...lol.

 

Greg, you are GREAT over on RIU.  Right down their alley.  Why don't you, bloody/cheese, and the rest of the merry band go amuse yourself there?  This is a little higher level crowd here.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I'm sure Greg would rather address the content of opposing viewpoints, rather than have to defend his integrity or identity. If Dr. Bob would cease his ridiculous accusations then we all could discuss a lot more. I'm guessing due to the recent moderation of this board, dissenting viewpoints were never really an issue for him (Dr. Bob). Now that he is confronted with several dissenting viewpoints all at once, it is more than he can handle. A prime example of response to an episode of cognitive dissonance.

You mean to say you think he actually believes his own schtick?

 

THAT is bizzare.

[GregS]

goes to the point, can't keep the id's straight...lol.

 

Greg, you are GREAT over on RIU.  Right down their alley.  Why don't you, bloody/cheese, and the rest of the merry band go amuse yourself there?  This is a little higher level crowd here.

 

Dr. Bob

Why, because I so like the pleasure of your company sweet cheeks.

[Celliach]

This is why I suggest a signed document, possibly carbonless copy, and possibly signed by a witness, attesting to the pt/cg affiliation that protects both, and meets that evidentiary prong in sec. 8. Part of that document would be the pt's attestation to, and likely copies of, the physician recommendation available in, say, office files. That would eliminate the need for the pt to appear, unless there are questions of material fact that would require an appearance. That is hard to imagine under these circumstances.

This wouldn't hold up in court.  Any document is hearsay evidence.  the patient will need to be there to testify.  A signed attestation doesn't prove anything.

[douga]

 

 

goes to the point, can't keep the id's straight...lol.

 

Greg, you are GREAT over on RIU.  Right down their alley.  Why don't you, bloody/cheese, and the rest of the merry band go amuse yourself there?  This is a little higher level crowd here.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Bottom level Dr. Bob

I think Dr. Bob needs a 24-hour "cool-off" time-out

Edited June 27, 2013 by douga

[Celliach]

Unfortunately, those members that don't "tow the company line" of the forum leaders of the mmma are often censored and silenced. Please don't continue the policies of Joe Cain. This forum should be an area of open conversation and discourse, with dissenting viewpoints not only allowed and tolerated, but welcomed. In the absence of that, the forum will decay into nothingness. We are better than that. And patients deserve better than that. Permit dissenting viewpoints and restore the greatness of this democratic forum.

 

Nobody "was silenced."  He was given a 24-hour time-out. That's being made to sit in the corner, not silencing.

[Celliach]

I don't see that there is real consensus regarding sec. 8, and maybe that is to be expected. There are those who fall back on the law as written. Others minimize or ignore that and replace it with unfounded speculation. Trying to divine the agendas why is proving a problem, and I think there are those at work that are dishonest. B*B, in his ad hominem comments, and without addressing the facts, is a disgrace to the community and his profession.

 

Your "unfounded speculation" is actually observance of the courts and how they've already handled these cases.  You're basing your argument on what you think is right.  .You are neither a lawyer or someone connected to the court system in any way.  Many of your past speculations of the law,  P2P and dispensaries being legal are two that come to mind immediately, have both been proven wrong by the courts.  I would trust the way the courts are responding to these cases over what you think any day to keep myself out of a jail cell.  

[GregS]

This wouldn't hold up in court.  Any document is hearsay evidence.  the patient will need to be there to testify.  A signed attestation doesn't prove anything.

This is from a good friend of the community:

 

"Well, if it wasn't ruled hearsay and excluded (which in my opinion it is admissible hearsay under the business records exception), then it would still be subject to the prosecutor's voir dire. Make no mistake, the prosecutor would attack the veracity of the document. At that point it would become an issue for the trier of fact (either the jury, or the judge if a bench trial). The trier of fact would decide how much weight to give the document based on witness credibility, etc. Also, one must realize that the practicality of introducing the contract into evidence would require someone to authenticate it. That would probably mean the defendant/cg would have to testify. That could potentially but a defendant in the line of fire.

 

AND:

 

Well a witness couldn't hurt.  Any corroborating evidence would be helpful.

[GregS]

Your "unfounded speculation" is actually observance of the courts and how they've already handled these cases.  You're basing your argument on what you think is right.  .You are neither a lawyer or someone connected to the court system in any way.  Many of your past speculations of the law,  P2P and dispensaries being legal are two that come to mind immediately, have both been proven wrong by the courts.  I would trust the way the courts are responding to these cases over what you think any day to keep myself out of a jail cell.  

I have never held that dispensaries are legal. As to p2p, there were many dedicated and smart people who advocated for it.

[+Malamute]

I would say that is a problem for your Gregs.  Your past credibility on advice on topics similar has been rather .... well... just completely wrong.

 

:-)

 

Your advice put people at risk of arrest.  Maybe you can live with that... I personally can't.

[GregS]

I've been kicking around a notary commission. They are very common.

Edited June 27, 2013 by GregS

[douga]

This is from a good friend of the community:

 

"Well, if it wasn't ruled hearsay and excluded (which in my opinion it is admissible hearsay under the business records exception), then it would still be subject to the prosecutor's voir dire. Make no mistake, the prosecutor would attack the veracity of the document. At that point it would become an issue for the trier of fact (either the jury, or the judge if a bench trial). The trier of fact would decide how much weight to give the document based on witness credibility, etc. Also, one must realize that the practicality of introducing the contract into evidence would require someone to authenticate it. That would probably mean the defendant/cg would have to testify. That could potentially but a defendant in the line of fire.

 

AND:

 

Well a witness couldn't hurt.  Any corroborating evidence would be helpful.

 

This is true.

Edited June 27, 2013 by douga

[+Malamute]

To me these posts aren't hypothetical.  People actually read this stuff and take it as truth.

 

I know for a fact they do and I know for a fact many have been arrested for listening to it.

 

Yes it is stupid to listen to bad advice but a conscious effort should be made to make sure people understand it is only hypothetical and should not be tested unless you have a fetish with the inside of a jail cell.

[+Malamute]

This is true.

 

 

 And exactly what we have said this entire thread.  ;-)

[Celliach]

Greg, is is legal to use an arrest report as evidence in a trial?

[GregS]

Your "unfounded speculation" is actually observance of the courts and how they've already handled these cases.  You're basing your argument on what you think is right.  .You are neither a lawyer or someone connected to the court system in any way.  Many of your past speculations of the law,  P2P and dispensaries being legal are two that come to mind immediately, have both been proven wrong by the courts.  I would trust the way the courts are responding to these cases over what you think any day to keep myself out of a jail cell.  

I'd like to see those cases. Can you connect me to them?

[Celliach]

I'd like to see those cases. Can you connect me to them?

Can you connect me to the ones where it has worked?