Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[GregS]

From personal interaction with you #1 and #2 from four years of reading your postings.  Nuff said..

So your opinions are the acme of truth?

 

Puleeze

[SFC]

My opinions definitely carry more weight than yours bro. Truth..

[CaveatLector]

So what you are saying is that you didn't bring a section 8 motion in circuit court.  Yet you keep pounding the same drum and telling everyone that it doesn't work . . .

Seriously, the more I look into this the more I smell a rat.  You took a plea deal without even first running a section 8 hearing in circuit court.  Why is that?  Is there something we don't know?

 

Then you pound away on these forums telling everyone how you were legal but that sec 4 and sec 8 are worthless.  You didn't even give section 8 a chance to work.  Why?

 

This reminds me of one peanut.  He ran around pushing a sure fire cure for cancer only to secretly use traditional treatment rather than his own cure.  But what did he tell everyone here?  He told us that he used his own cure and his tumor disappeared from his treatments, when all the while he really went and got it surgically removed.

[Dr. Bob]

Demolished you just now on riu, you should go deal with that before you lose all your support Greg.  You won't find allies here.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

My opinions definitely carry more weight than yours bro. Truth..

1. As do mine.

    

    

[Dr. Bob]

I think Buckaroo f*rst darted that. Pet names are fun when someone keeps giving you are hard time and calling you names like say, "manic fool" (Oops ***) >noticing the hipocracy as the world turns.

It is called calling a spade a spade.  Manic fool is a pretty accurate description, but I am more interested in tearing down his illogical argument.  His personality is what it is, but his manic pursuit of this section 8 based fallacy is what I was referring to mostly.  Calling me an arse is not the same as attacking my logic. Surely you see that Abe.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I have more intelligent conversations with my twelve year old grandson.

 

Again. More bloated opinions. Facts simply cannot work in your arguments. That would require honesty.

[Dr. Bob]

So your opinions are the acme of truth?

 

Puleeze

I've heard the same from several sources, and you do nothing but confirm what I've heard.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I've heard the same from several sources, and you do nothing but confirm what I've heard.

 

Dr. Bob

You really are this dense. It dismays and sometimes astounds me when people I know cannot fathom the most rudimentary forms of rational argument. But it happens.

[Natesilver]

Per sec. 8, a caregiver is defined: 3(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

 

There is no requirement in sec. 8 that requires registry.

 

You could do us all a favor and read King/Kolanek, which clearly determines that sec. 4, which does require registration, and sec. 8 are entirely separate from each other. The court unanimously agreed that unregistered persons can use the AD.

 

These are facts. Will you please produce yours to support your statements? For instance, any indication in the AD that does require registration?

Dr bob, stop deflecting and answer the above.

[solabeirtan]

Excuse me, but would the real Nate Silver please stand up? Hey Nate congratds on the new gig.

 

"

Nate Silver quits New York Times to take up 'dream job' at ESPN

"

 

 

 

Guardian.uk.More:  

[imiubu]

Excuse me, but would the real Nate Silver please stand up? Hey Nate congratds on the new gig.

 

"

Nate Silver quits New York Times to take up 'dream job' at ESPN

"

 

 

 

Guardian.uk.More:  

 

lol. thanks for the levity sola

[GregS]

So now we have a doctor who insults because of a medical condition, and not for the first time. Bipolar disorder is a real thing. Manic and depressive phases can be and are pretty well controlled, and to have a physician try to use that against anyone in a derogatory tone is sick and twisted. So he signs certs and testifies. That does not excuse his bad behavior, and he does not post to help debilitated people with their medical issues, but to foment crass argument.

[imiubu]

So now we have a doctor who insults because of a medical condition, and not for the first time. Bipolar disorder is a real thing. Manic and depressive phases can be and are pretty well controlled, and to have a physician try to use that against anyone in a derogatory tone is sick and twisted. So he signs certs and testifies. That does not excuse his bad behavior, and he does not post to help debilitated people with their medical issues, but to foment crass argument.

 

I agree.

[phaquetoo]

WOW!!! 

 

I actualy consider most people posting in here as aquantances Id like to actualy meet in person and just be friends with!

 

I know I have no biz telling people to take a deep breath and come back in here with better attitudes!  Every one including Me   Needs to calm it down a little bit in this thread.  I dont want to see it locked, lets not get it locked, if some one says something out of line, only take that part out! (or edit it your self)

 

Let this ride itself out, there are still people on 3 diff sides here, it just happens that the side that disagrees has some good writers and a few more people writing in opposition of the o.p (all good) I think there are just as many on the fence or on o.p's side, he is just the only one replying, most are just reading and wishing they wrote this or that!

 

Im not voicing my opin in here, I may have already wrote something in this thread but,,,,Im allowed to read on and maybe change my mind or ride the middle!

 

blah blah blah blah blah

 

Peace

Jim

[Dr. Bob]

Dr bob, stop deflecting and answer the above.

Unregistered patients that have seen a physician.  Clear enough for you?  Has nothing to do with an 'unregistered caregiver'.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Well if you count going to Paw Paw and Oakland Co tomorrow to defend patients 'bad behavior' I am guilty as charged.

 

By the way, Greg, will you produce a post where I said you were bipolar or did anything other than denote your behavior?  And while you are at it, produce a post by me that said patients couldn't use section 8.  Then produce a post of mine where I said.....  oh well you get it.

 

Have fun with your experiment at the farmers market, I will follow your trial and conviction with interest.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 23, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Dr bob, stop deflecting and answer the above.

Here is one for you to deflect Nate.

 

Why don't you show me in the MMMA where it says a caregiver does not need to be registered to transfer, for compensation or otherwise, to a patient that is not registry related to them.  There are several protections for patients AND THEIR caregiver, but show me where it says a caregiver can act as a caregiver independent of an associated patient, and by association the act means registry association.

 

Then, since you are a great thinker, tell me how this 'unregistered caregiver' is different than a street source.  The guy on the street corner offers to supply you with medicine for cash, much like your very loose connection between an unregistered caregiver and a patient, tell me how this is somehow different?  Assume of course the street source is 21 and has no felony convictions.

 

This is where your entire argument, including misdirection with selective quoting (and making the wrong assumption that caregiver means unregistered caregiver) and mesh that with McQueen and Green.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The AD protects patients and their caregivers. It is restated more than once in sec. 8. I have never maintained that patients are not protected, nor did I suggest that you did.

 

Referring to manic behavior in a bipolar patient in an insult is, yes, reprehensible. If anyone's posting is manic, it is yours. Are you afflicted?

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[mibrains]

gentlemen.

 

warning.

 

please.

 

leave your argument over there.

 

stop with the back and forth insults please and get on with a point so we can leave this thread open.

[bobandtorey]

Well if you count going to Paw Paw and Oakland Co tomorrow to defend patients 'bad behavior' I am guilty as charged.

 

By the way, Greg, will you produce a post where I said you were bipolar or did anything other than denote your behavior?  And while you are at it, produce a post by me that said patients couldn't use section 8.  Then produce a post of mine where I said.....  oh well you get it.

 

Have fun with your experiment at the farmers market, I will follow your trial and conviction with interest.

 

Dr. Bob

 Oakland Co tomorrow to defend patients i do know about the one on Oakland County good luck on that i hope it  don't end up like ours did

[GregS]

Then there is this from King/Kolanek:

 

3. Registered patients who do not qualify for immunity under § 4, as well as unregistered persons, are entitled to assert in a criminal prosecution the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 4. Section 8 of the MMMA provides a limited protection for the use of medical marijuana in criminal prosecutions, which requires dismissal of the charges if all the elements of the defense are established. 5. A defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 to have a valid affirmative defense under § 8.

 

Protected persons are defined in sec. 8 as the patient and the patient's caregiver. We have been over that repeatedly, yet you refuse to respond to these court declarations.

[GregS]

gentlemen.

 

warning.

 

please.

 

leave your argument over there.

 

stop with the back and forth insults please and get on with a point so we can leave this thread open.

I have been careful to avoid insults. Howizzit Townsend continues without sanction?

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

 

Then there is this from King/Kolanek:

 

3. Registered patients who do not qualify for immunity under § 4, as well as unregistered persons, are entitled to assert in a criminal prosecution the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 4. Section 8 of the MMMA provides a limited protection for the use of medical marijuana in criminal prosecutions, which requires dismissal of the charges if all the elements of the defense are established. 5. A defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 to have a valid affirmative defense under § 8.

 

Protected persons are defined in sec. 8 as the patient and the patient's caregiver. We have been over that repeatedly, yet you refuse to respond to these court declarations.

LOL you can't still believe your statement  can you

ask bob and torey how it worked out for them and they where luck 

[Dr. Bob]

gentlemen.

 

warning.

 

please.

 

leave your argument over there.

 

stop with the back and forth insults please and get on with a point so we can leave this thread open.

Personally, I don't see anything of merit in this thread, I'd just as soon see it closed.