Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[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

Man I am loaded for bear, and it is your prosecutor.  Got some depth behind me.

 

Dr. Bob

[northerngal]

The wording in the COA decision on concentrates/medibles regarding utilizing a section 8 defense is not encouraging.  It specifically said the bar for a section 8 defense would be set high.  (I understand this pertained to this specific case, but it is less than encouraging regarding the courts view on section 8 defenses)   

 

Personally, I would not want to "bank on" a section 8 defense by choice, nor guide any patient to do so.  To guide a patient/CG to go outside of the "protections" of section 4 is potentially dangerous.

 

  If a patient/CG clearly understands the risks they are taking by going outside of the "protections" of section 4, I suppose they will be the ones to deal with the potential consequences.   

Edited July 23, 2013 by northerngal

[bobandtorey]

Man I am loaded for bear, and it is your prosecutor.  Got some depth behind me.

 

Dr. Bob

Don't worry Doc i will be their for support and now we know more of her tricks to watch out for she has already shown  her HAND

(pun intended) 

Edited July 23, 2013 by bobandtorey

[GregS]

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

I'm sure you would. Given over 3,000 views, there are a lot of interested people.

 

Will you please respond to the Supreme Court declarations I asked you about?

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

LOL you can't still believe your statement  can you

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

 

Even a superficial read of that ruling shows they are talking about patients.  The bit about caregivers was added by Greg.

[bobandtorey]

The wording in the COA decision on concentrates/medibles regarding utilizing a section 8 defense is not encouraging.  It specifically said the bar for a section 8 defense would be set high.   

 

Personally, I would not want to "bank on" a section 8 defense by choice, nor guide any patient to do so.  To guide a patient/CG to go outside of the "protections" of section 4 is potentially dangerous.

 

  If a patient/CG clearly understands the risks they are taking by "going outside" of the protections of section 4, I suppose they will be the ones to deal with the potential consequences.   

going outside" of the protections of section 4 i agree but i just don't know what that may be any longer 

 

just asking

[imiubu]

I feel that section 8 defense is a very important issue of discussion.

 

I would like to see the personal comments left out of this thread so

that we can have a clean discussion on this matter.

 

I am guilty of this behavior and will strive to not engage in such any further.

 

All this infighting detracts from this very important issue

 

AND

 

is fodder our opponents relish in.

[Dr. Bob]

Don't worry Doc i will be their for support and now we know more of her tricks to watch out for she has already shown  her HAND

(pun intended) 

 

Dang, they just cancelled in Oakland, still heading to Paw Paw and then on to UP.

 

I'm going to let Greg go.  Pointed out the errors in his reasoning and I'll leave it at that.  But is it lost on anyone that I asked Nate a question and Greg responded?  Guess those accounts get confusing at times.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

I'm sure you would. Given over 3,000 views, there are a lot of interested people.

 

Will you please respond to the Supreme Court declarations I asked you about?

Sure, they have to do with patients, even unregistered ones, but I've made that clear many times.  Have someone explain it to you.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The wording in the COA decision on concentrates/medibles regarding utilizing a section 8 defense is not encouraging.  It specifically said the bar for a section 8 defense would be set high.  (I understand this pertained to this specific case, but it is less than encouraging regarding the courts view on section 8 defenses)   

I did not take that away from a reading of the opinion, but that the bar IS set high. What is said is:

 

This is not to say that establishing a section 8 defense under such circumstances would be an easy task; to the contrary, we suspect that the bar to establishing such a defense under those circumstances indeed would be a high one, and one that would become increasingly higher as the amount and/or potency of the marijuana possessed increases. That said, however, section 8 affords a qualifying patient and/or primary caregiver an opportunity to demonstrate the satisfaction of the statutory conditions for asserting such a defense, even under those circumstances.

[GregS]

Sure, they have to do with patients, even unregistered ones, but I've made that clear many times.  Have someone explain it to you.

 

Dr. Bob

They have to do with a "patient and the patient's primary caregiver." You cannot explain it othewise, and no one else has stepped up to do that with reasoned argument. 

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Section 8 is a very important last stand of defense for patients.  It is best used for minor variations of the section 4 limits with a very good story for the court.  Caregivers registered to the patients can get some immunity from prosecution if the patient is successful in their section 8 defense.  Section 8 does not give any new rights, nor does it allow any behavior outside of section 4, it simply provides the opportunity to make a defense of that behavior.  Anyone that plans a strategy based on section 8 is rather foolish, but we are allowed to be fools.

 

Section 8 is primarily directed at patients, even unregistered ones that have seen a physician and been certified.  Caregivers enjoy some protection under section 8 by virtue of their patient's successful use of it.  If the patient fails, or the caregiver doesn't have a solid association with the patient via the registry, they may well NOT enjoy that protection.  To claim someone is an 'unregistered caregiver' especially if they fail to meet the requirements of a caregiver or attempt to service more patients than a registered caregiver may is asking for trouble.  

 

Nuff said on that.  

 

Now if folks want to discuss actually strategies for PATIENTS to use section 8 as a fall back on section 4, I'm all for it.  But section 8 exists for patients, not 'freelance caregivers' or farmers markets.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

 

I did not take that away from a reading of the opinion, but that the bar IS set high. What is said is:

 

This is not to say that establishing a section 8 defense under such circumstances would be an easy task; to the contrary, we suspect that the bar to establishing such a defense under those circumstances indeed would be a high one, and one that would become increasingly higher as the amount and/or potency of the marijuana possessed increases. That said, however, section 8 affords a qualifying patient and/or primary caregiver an opportunity to demonstrate the satisfaction of the statutory conditions for asserting such a defense, even under those circumstances.

Translation, have at it and best of luck to you.  

[abe supercro]

Bob I saw the disparaging bipolar reference. It was a handicap jab, plain as day. life goes on but it happened.

[northerngal]

 

I did not take that away from a reading of the opinion, but that the bar IS set high. What is said is:

 

This is not to say that establishing a section 8 defense under such circumstances would be an easy task; to the contrary, we suspect that the bar to establishing such a defense under those circumstances indeed would be a high one, and one that would become increasingly higher as the amount and/or potency of the marijuana possessed increases. That said, however, section 8 affords a qualifying patient and/or primary caregiver an opportunity to demonstrate the satisfaction of the statutory conditions for asserting such a defense, even under those circumstances.

 

I read the wording in this decision many times, I can almost find my way around it as well as the bible now.  Those words were not meant to be encouraging regarding a section 8 defense in those circumstances.  It certainly says a section 8 is attainable but that the bar would be set high.  I would make sure my "story" is a good one and pray others see it the same way!!

Edited July 23, 2013 by northerngal

[Dr. Bob]

The wording in the COA decision on concentrates/medibles regarding utilizing a section 8 defense is not encouraging.  It specifically said the bar for a section 8 defense would be set high.  (I understand this pertained to this specific case, but it is less than encouraging regarding the courts view on section 8 defenses)   

 

Personally, I would not want to "bank on" a section 8 defense by choice, nor guide any patient to do so.  To guide a patient/CG to go outside of the "protections" of section 4 is potentially dangerous.

 

  If a patient/CG clearly understands the risks they are taking by going outside of the "protections" of section 4, I suppose they will be the ones to deal with the potential consequences.   

Well said.  Section 4 is the way to go.  

[Dr. Bob]

I read the wording in this decision many times, I can almost find my way around it as well as the bible now.  Those words were not meant to be encouraging regarding a section 8 defense in those circumstances.  It certainly says a section 8 is attainable but that the bar would be set high.  I would make sure my "story" is a good one and pray others see it the same way!!

 

The difference is the mindset.  If you approach it from a position of 'what do I need to do to stay safe and out of court' it is clear as to what it means.  If you approach it from the standpoint of 'what do I think I can get away with' you can read anything into it you want at your own peril.

 

Dr. Bob

[Natesilver]

Bob I saw the disparaging bipolar reference. It was a handicap jab, plain as day. life goes on but it happened.

I did too. Unbelievable behavior from a dr

[GregS]

Bob I saw the disparaging bipolar reference. It was a handicap jab, plain as day. life goes on but it happened.

This is obviously a very twisted individual, and an embarrassment to the community and his profession.

[Natesilver]

I'm relatively new here- is this the norm for dr bob? Have his ethics ever been brought into question before?

[GregS]

I'm relatively new here- is this the norm for dr bob? Have his ethics ever been brought into question before?

Bob has been this way forever, here and other places online. His credentials were questioned, to which he refused to respond. You can expect him to carp and whine that I mentioned it here. I question his ethics daily, and did so pointedly in a thread that was censored.

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[+Malamute]

So you have almost daily questioned Dr Bobs legitimacy and ethics on a daily basis for how many months or years Greg? And filled them with large amounts of personal attacks and disdain.

 

 And now you are going to whine that he said something unbecoming back to you(although truthful and factual) and now you shall play the poor poor victim card?

 

 Wtvr.

 

 

 Sec. 8 is not something to hang your hat on as an unregistered caregiver.  What patient, who is enjoying Sec. 4 immunity will actually want to suddenly put themselves at the risk of prosecution by attempting a Sec. 8 defense in court when they do not need to?

 

 Of course some will,  but do you think all of the 100 patients you service will come testify for you?  At what cost? At what cost for testimony? 

 

 Your suggestions Greg are fine on a philosophical level, but reality bites it in the arse for unregistered caregivers and to recommend it to those caregivers as a commercial operation cornerstone is rather "uncool" actually.  Now to tell them there exists a possible last safety valve to avoid jail if you can jump through a bunch of hoops and beg patients to submit to a fallible Sec. 8 defense for you when they themselves are not in trouble would be more appropriate.

[GregS]

So you have almost daily questioned Dr Bobs legitimacy and ethics on a daily basis for how many months or years Greg? And filled them with large amounts of personal attacks and disdain.

 

 And now you are going to whine that he said something unbecoming back to you(although truthful and factual) and now you shall play the poor poor victim card?

 

 Wtvr.

 

 

 Sec. 8 is not something to hang your hat on as an unregistered caregiver.  What patient, who is enjoying Sec. 4 immunity will actually want to suddenly put themselves at the risk of prosecution by attempting a Sec. 8 defense in court when they do not need to?

 

 Of course some will,  but do you think all of the 100 patients you service will come testify for you?  At what cost? At what cost for testimony? 

 

 Your suggestions Greg are fine on a philosophical level, but reality bites it in the arse for unregistered caregivers and to recommend it to those caregivers as a commercial operation cornerstone is rather "uncool" actually.  Now to tell them there exists a possible last safety valve to avoid jail if you can jump through a bunch of hoops and beg patients to submit to a fallible Sec. 8 defense for you when they themselves are not in trouble would be more appropriate.

wtvr

 

Bob made his own bed. His insults are legend, many, and unceasing. It is part and parcel of his method of argument. It is agreed that he instigates incessantly, and not just here. I have agreed to stay away from insults and dishonest dialogue. He obviously wants nothing do with giving them up.

Edited July 23, 2013 by GregS

[Spartyon]

wtvr

 

Bob made his own bed. His insults are legend, many, and unceasing. It is part and parcel of his method of argument. It is agreed that he instigates incessantly, and not just here. I have agreed to stay away from insults and dishonest dialogue. He obviously wants nothing do with giving them up.

 

This is obviously a very twisted individual, and an embarrassment to the community and his profession.

im not a fan of either Dr bob or you Greg but dont say you took the high road.

[Spartyon]

Just trying to stay informed not easy on this site.