Experts Weigh In On Medical Marijuana ‘Hotel Certifications’

[Dr. Bob]

It is being presented as in addition to the registry card, which has seemingly, inexplicably, proved itself insufficient to prove any of the elements of the section 8 defense, so far.

The reason the card doesn't make the section 8 defense happen is that the patient went outside the limits of section 4 and once they do that it is up to them the prove their need, their use, and their possession.  You get a courtesy for staying in the limits, go outside the limits don't expect the same courtesy.

 

Zap, can you name a single person that stayed in the limits, had the card in their possession, with no 'in my opions the act says I can do this'- ie 12 plants enclosed and secured, 2.5 or less ounces of leaf/flower ONLY, in private, no sharing and a CARD PHYSICALLY IN THEIR POSSESSION where the card and section 4 had to be proven?

 

Point is if you didn't stray, you wouldn't be in section 8 in the first place, and because you did, you have to prove your case.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited November 11, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Precedent will be made with or without me.

 

The documents will continue to be tested. They are appearing in the courts. The genie is out of the bottle.

[GregS]

 Do you guys like apples?

[Dr. Bob]

I assume there can be rogue charges against someone CLEARLY within the letter of section 4 with no embellishment or extension- innocent people are occasionally charged with crimes.  But if you can prove compliance with section 4 that is the end of it.  The only time section 4 will NOT work is if you didn't prove compliance (even though you feel you made a good case for it) and were forced to use section 8 or BY CHOICE went to section 8.

 

Again, even if I am proven wrong, it does nothing to prove any other point of view right.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

My mistake zap. Humor DOES translate on line.

 

Tee  hee

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

The reason the card doesn't make the section 8 defense happen is that the patient went outside the limits of section 4 and once they do that it is up to them the prove their need, their use, and their possession.  You get a courtesy for staying in the limits, go outside the limits don't expect the same courtesy.

 

Zap, can you name a single person that stayed in the limits, had the card in their possession, with no 'in my opions the act says I can do this'- ie 12 plants enclosed and secured, 2.5 or less ounces of leaf/flower ONLY, in private, no sharing and a CARD PHYSICALLY IN THEIR POSSESSION where the card and section 4 had to be proven?

 

Point is if you didn't stray, you wouldn't be in section 8 in the first place, and because you did, you have to prove your case.

 

Dr. Bob

Sorry Doc having a hard card won't help if you end up in a Court room

[Celliach]

Precedent will be made with or without me.

 

The documents will continue to be tested. They are appearing in the courts. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

Really?  To use your own tactic, show us a link.   Can you link to a court case where this has been or is being used as a defense, successfully or not?    Or are you just wishing that someone takes your advice and attempts it?

[+Malamute]

Sorry Doc having a hard card won't help if you end up in a Court room

 

 

 Having a card has helped a lot of people in the court room. :-)

[GregS]

I assume there can be rogue charges against someone CLEARLY within the letter of section 4 with no embellishment or extension- innocent people are occasionally charged with crimes.  But if you can prove compliance with section 4 that is the end of it.  The only time section 4 will NOT work is if you didn't prove compliance (even though you feel you made a good case for it) and were forced to use section 8 or BY CHOICE went to section 8.

 

Again, even if I am proven wrong, it does nothing to prove any other point of view right.

 

Dr. Bob

That is a naive and immature perspective. The facts are that defendants who have been compliant are finding themselves in courtroom situations where sec. 8 is all they have to rely on to keep them out of jail. The documents are intended to mitigate that

 

Really?  To use your own tactic, show us a link.   Can you link to a court case where this has been or is being used as a defense?    

I have been asked to keep that in confidence by a respected individual.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

You've been asked to keep a public case in confidence?  Really?

[GregS]

Yep.

[Celliach]

Yep.

 

You realize how laughable that is right?  If it's in the courts it's public, anyone has access.

[GregS]

You realize how laughable that is right?  

No. How laughable is it Celli? I think it is very serious.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[imiubu]

What I find laughable is the way some carry on as if they are the end all of information and RIGHT beyond

any reasonable doubt.

 

Please explain how those of you who are constantly using 'most', 'many', '99%', 'a lot', etc... you get the idea,

actually know these claims as facts, with proof?  I find it absurd Mal that you even claim to know 'most' of or that

'99% of' is really with in your realm of real live knowledge. 

Geesh, and when did bob pass his bar ?

[GregS]

What I find laughable is the way some carry on as if they are the end all of information and RIGHT beyond

any reasonable doubt.

 

Please explain how those of you who are constantly using 'most', 'many', '99%', 'a lot', etc... you get the idea,

actually know these claims as facts, with proof?  I find it absurd Mal that you even claim to know 'most' of or that

'99% of' is really with in your realm of real live knowledge. 

Geesh, and when did bob pass his bar ?

Those are logical fallacies imi. These people have no clue regarding rational speech.

[Dr. Bob]

I know, it is satisfying to know that GregS is still wrong, even though you are not right. I get that.

No Zap, that is a rather cheap shot.

 

Of course Greg is wrong.  But it isn't up to me to prove my case as right to prove him wrong, and if I am wrong about something it doesn't infer someone else is right, they still have to prove their case.  To date he hasn't and isn't willing to take the risk himself to show his contract has any value or even is admissible in court.

 

Your point that folks that are clearly in compliance with section 4 are occasionally charged or are force (or go by choice) to section 8 is taken due to the way the system works and the goals of the players involved.  Most that I've seen, and my practice is not a legal practice as yours is, are dismissed with proof of compliance with section 4 and a card.  I've seen many others dropped by the prosecutor or dismissed by the court even though things were off, but the patients came into compliance or they were facing the prospect of a protracted and well organized defense.

 

Sometimes the court just does the right thing and dismisses the case.  I think it is important to note that you and Bob (who keeps saying his 'card' didn't protect him- was that actually what the case was about?) are coming out of a VERY HOSTILE area of the state which is NOT reflective of the state as a whole.

 

Example- I am personally aware of a 16 year old, without a second doc to sign his well qualified certification, that went ahead and used cannabis.  He was caught and charged- facing an excellent defense lawyer, a doctor willing to fight, and the prospect of getting a rather serious question fought up the chain (can a minor with one doctor only qualify for a section 8) they opted to dismiss.  

 

You see that happening in Oakland?

 

Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

Please explain how those of you who are constantly using 'most', 'many', '99%', 'a lot', etc... you get the idea,

actually know these claims as facts, with proof?  I find it absurd Mal that you even claim to know 'most' of or that

'99% of' is really with in your realm of real live knowledge. 

Geesh, and when did bob pass his bar ?

 

By using the number of people with police court encounters divided by the number of people in the program.

[+Malamute]

And it is absurd I would use something like facts....

 

[Dr. Bob]

What I find laughable is the way some carry on as if they are the end all of information and RIGHT beyond

any reasonable doubt.

 

Please explain how those of you who are constantly using 'most', 'many', '99%', 'a lot', etc... you get the idea,

actually know these claims as facts, with proof?  I find it absurd Mal that you even claim to know 'most' of or that

'99% of' is really with in your realm of real live knowledge. 

Geesh, and when did bob pass his bar ?

I don't pretend to have passed the bar, though law school would not be much of a hurdle for me.

 

My understanding is of the laws related specifically to my profession, my experience in that profession which included repeated experiences with the courts in defense of my patients, and close following of the related court cases gives me a great deal of understanding of these issues, especially compared to those that do NOT have anywhere near that level of expertise or experience.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Get over it Bob. Your arguments are toast. Please get treatment for your character or personality disorder. If you insist, we can make it our own secret.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

There are several areas that seem to get the point, Dr. Bob. Oakland is not one of them, you are right. If facing a battle in Oakland, or any of the areas that routinely take advantage of patients and caregivers, it is best to be ready to offer as much proof as the Defendant can muster.

That I clearly agree with.  The FOUNDATION is the registry, and anything you can add after that foundation is made is helpful.  But there is nothing, not a contract, not a section 8, nothing that replaces a solid registry connection and compliance with section 4.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

It is intended to be used as a helpful supplement to sec. 4. It is an agreement to conform to the law.

 

This is happening, and we are dragging you and your buddies along kicking and screaming Bob. We will continue to if we must, but will not be deterred as we watch things play out. A legal defense is often a game of inches. Small details can yield significant results. Every tool must be at the defendant's disposal.

Edited November 11, 2013 by zapatosunidos

[GregS]

In fact, Townsend, I recommend that you offer them to your patients, and that all patients and caregivers engage in them between themselves. If maximum protection is intended you should not have a problem with that. You know, like a gal wearing both a pad and a tampon, because you never know...If you would argue that it is redundant, it was redundancy that got us to and from the moon, and it is required where reliability is an very important consideration, because system failures are real things. The registry is a failure at protecting some patients and caregivers.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

My patients are educated on the proper limits of section 4 and discouraged from going outside of them.

[Dr. Bob]

It is intended to be used as a helpful supplement to sec. 4. It is an agreement to conform to the law.

 

This is happening, and we are dragging you and your buddies along kicking and screaming B*B. We will continue to if we must, but will not be deterred as we watch things play out. A legal defense is often a game of inches. Small details can yield significant results. Every tool must be at the defendant's disposal.

Section 4 does not need a contract.  The 'contract' is the caregiver's name on the back of your card and the legal amounts you possess.  Card, amount, security etc.  It is protection for staying in the rules.

 

Section 8 is what you are talking about.  You really need to make sure you understand which section you are even discussing before you post.  It is a chance to tell your story to the court when you break the rules.

 

Dr. Bob