Do You Know What Your Registered Patients Condition Is?

[Highlander]

The within the law part seems to have been getting harder and more restrictive and is helping less and less. 

 

This is where we will disagree.  Some of us figured from day 1 that "within the law" meant no p2p sales, that the CG's involvement with MMJ must be for the purpose of alleviating his patient's condition.  So we're not surprised by these.  But then some folks thought that "within the law" meant that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.  So it isn't so much that "within the law" has changed as it is that a lot of people are taking (understandably) some time to learn what "within the law" means.  Some of those people are patients, some caregivers, and some judges.

[Highlander]

I never wanted to be "a professional"

 

Well, I think that caregivers should strive to be professional.  So I guess this is where we disagree.

[GregS]

  section 6 specifically says this data cannot be FOIA'able. why would it be allowed in open court?

The courts are a branch of the government. They are not subject to the FOIA as are citizens in the discharge of their legitimate duties. They have the authority to subpoena records, just as law officers have authority to engage in violence, in fact, the monopoly. They are the State.

Edited November 22, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Well, I think that caregivers should strive to be professional.  So I guess this is where we disagree.

The law does not require that. We are gardeners and some of us regard it as a profession. But it is still growing a garden herb. I regard it as a neighborly thing to do.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Norby]

Well, I think that caregivers should strive to be professional.  So I guess this is where we disagree.

Strive, yes, mandated no.   So we don't disagree.  Professional in not in anything more than supplying quality meds that a patient requests.  Why would someone have to know a persons affliction and know a patients doctor to be professional.  What if he knows 3 and 2 don't want the help(records or consult)?  You still haven't answered how I can be a patient and make the right choices for myself without a caregiver.  Is there not a list of strains that may work for certain conditions?  Am I not qualified to make my own decisions?  I don't know the name of my own doctor without my paperwork, am I not qualified to treat myself?

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[Highlander]

The law does not require that. We are gardeners, and some of us regard it as a profession. But it is still growing a garden herb.

 

I can accept that.  But the law also requires that a CG's involvement is for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition.

 

It is our responsibility under the law to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with assisting a patient with alleviating their condition.  How do we prove that that is what we're doing?  The unfortunate reality is that the courts have already stated that we're all breaking the law....so we aren't innocent until proven guilty.  Like it or not, the onus is on us to prove that we're operating within the protections of the law.  How do we do that?

[GregS]

It is the physician's responsibility to establish need. Not the caregiver's. No small wonder you are tickled with this ruling B*B.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Norby]

I can accept that.  But the law also requires that a CG's involvement is for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition.

 

It is our responsibility under the law to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with assisting a patient with alleviating their condition.  How do we prove that that is what we're doing?  The unfortunate reality is that the courts have already stated that we're all breaking the law....so we aren't innocent until proven guilty.  Like it or not, the onus is on us to prove that we're operating within the protections of the law.  How do we do that?

So what is providing them with mj doing if not alleviating their condition?

 

What if I grow bunny muffin pot but I know all my patients afflictions and doctors names, am I more professional or more medical because of these things?  Why not give the courts rights to quality control as a non flushed medicine will wreak havoc on someone with bronchial issues. 

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[Highlander]

Strive, yes, mandated no.   So we don't disagree.  Professional in not in anything more than supplying quality meds that a patient requests.  Why would someone have to know a persons affliction and know a patients doctor to be professional.  What if he knows 3 and 2 don't want the help?  You still haven't answered how I can be a patient and make the right choices for myself without a caregiver.  Is there not a list of strains that may work for certain conditions?  Am I not qualified to make my own decisions?  I don't know the name of my own doctor without my paperwork, am I not qualified to treat myself?

 

It is pretty easy, really.  If you are a patient and you grow your own and you use MMJ to treat back pain and you need two oz per month to do so, then you get your paperwork in order with notes about what strains did and did not work and how much you tried before and how much MMJ you needed to alleviate your condition.  So for example, if you, in reality, need 2 oz per month of an indica train to treat your condition and a sativa would actually be bad for you, then if for some reason LEO shows up and you have a crapload of sativa on-hand, you really don't have a basis to assert that the meds were intended for your use.

 

That's kinda the point.  As a patient, it is on you to be able to prove that the meds you grow/have are intended/suitable for treating YOUR condition. 

[GregS]

It is pretty easy, really.  If you are a patient and you grow your own and you use MMJ to treat back pain and you need two oz per month to do so, then you get your paperwork in order with notes about what strains did and did not work and how much you tried before and how much MMJ you needed to alleviate your condition.  So for example, if you, in reality, need 2 oz per month of an indica train to treat your condition and a sativa would actually be bad for you, then if for some reason LEO shows up and you have a crapload of sativa on-hand, you really don't have a basis to assert that the meds were intended for your use.

 

That's kinda the point.  As a patient, it is on you to be able to prove that the meds you grow/have are intended/suitable for treating YOUR condition. 

Why would we keep and maintain records? After all, we can only have five patients.

[Highlander]

So what is providing them with mj doing if not alleviating their condition?

 

You don't think that a patient could figure out a way to use MJ in a fashion that doesn't treat his condition?  Herein lies the problem.  Lemme give you an extreme example.  If a patient calls me up and says "I just wanna get REALLY high and watch the Yellow Submarine video all day"  If I as a CG delivered MJ for the purpose of this person zoning out to watch Yellow Submarine, then this isn't a medical use and, as a CG, I would have no protection for participating?  Make sense?  Or a more subtle example - a patient with chronic pain and PTSD says "bring me some MMJ to help with my PTSD."  Well, that would be an unfortunate thing to say, because the CG's involvement must be for the purpose of alleviating a qualifying condition...not some other condition and PTSD isn't a qualifying condition.   As a CG, your involvement with MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating your patient's qualifying condition.  That carries some responsibility that, it seems, some folks don't want to accept.

[Norby]

It is pretty easy, really.  If you are a patient and you grow your own and you use MMJ to treat back pain and you need two oz per month to do so, then you get your paperwork in order with notes about what strains did and did not work and how much you tried before and how much MMJ you needed to alleviate your condition.  So for example, if you, in reality, need 2 oz per month of an indica train to treat your condition and a sativa would actually be bad for you, then if for some reason LEO shows up and you have a crapload of sativa on-hand, you really don't have a basis to assert that the meds were intended for your use.

 

That's kinda the point.  As a patient, it is on you to be able to prove that the meds you grow/have are intended/suitable for treating YOUR condition. 

I think you read that wrong.  If a caregiver has to keep track of all that info how can I be a patient w/out a caregiver?  Why can't a patient keep track of that and just go to his/her caregiver for the meds and get some privacy? You seem to think there is only people out there that want a certain type of relationship and if sny other type is allowed it reflects bad on you or all caregivers.

 

So if I have depression and that isn't covered I shouldn't be able to treat that too?  How the hell is anyone going to know by looking at it(judge,etc) if it's sativa or indica?  And a sativa grown long enough could knock out a horse so I'd go to jail if treating my backpain with a sativa?  Are you really serious?

 

What about crosses? Should we have to label percentages?

 

Why can't a patient have the privacy to figure it out themselves, if they WANT to?  And not write it down.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[Highlander]

Why would we keep and maintain records? After all, we can only have five patients.

 

You would keep records because the law states that as a patient your use of MMJ must be for the purpose of alleviating your qualifying condition and as a CG, your involvement with MMJ must be for the purpose of alleviating your patient's qualifying condition.  And since we are told that we are all breaking the law but have a "pass" if we prove compliance, then the burden is on us to prove we are right. 

[GregS]

"It is our responsibility under the law to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with assisting a patient with alleviating their condition.  How do we prove that that is what we're doing?"

 

Umm. By token of having been compliant with 3(h) and sec.4? Neither requires the hoops the COA insists are required.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Highlander]

So if I have depression and that isn't covered I shouldn't be able to treat that too?  How the hell is anyone going to know by looking at it(judge,etc) if it's sativa or indica?  And a sativa grown long enough could knock out a horse so I'd go to jail if treating my backpain with a sativa?  Are you really serious?

 

You don't have any section 4 protection if you use MJ to treat depression.  This discussion isn't about what a judge can or can't figure out by looking at plant material.  It is about intent and following the law.  So maybe you got a cert because you have back pain but you also medicate to alleviate depression.  If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it....????  Remember when Jack Kavorkian went on TV and performed an assisted suicide?  If you stand on the steps of your local state police headquarters and say 'I'm about to smoke this joint, not because it will relieve my back pain that I was certified for but because it makes me happy" then you don't have any section 4 protections.  and if a Dr. didn't advise that MJ might help with your depression, then you don't have a section 8 protection either.  And you just end up making an bad/uninformed decision because you WANT the law to protect an action that you believe should be legal.  This discussion is about what actions are protected, not what actions you might get away with and not what actions you and/or I might think SHOULD be allowed.

[Highlander]

"It is our responsibility under the law to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with assisting a patient with alleviating their condition.  How do we prove that that is what we're doing?"

 

Umm. By token of having been compliant with 3(h) and sec.4? Neither requires the hoops the COA insists are required.

 

I will give you that...that the law states that there is a presumption that the pt or CG is complaint unless it can be proven that the action wasn't for the purpose of alleviating a qualifying condition.  That's why I think this ruling might suck.  It seems to weaken that existence of that presumption.  But if there is evidence that a pt or CG was involved with MMJ for a purpose other than alleviating a qualifying condition, then, unfortunately, the burden of proof falls on the defendant.  And I guess my point is that any astute pt or CG should already be able to prove this medical use so this COA ruling isn't really any kinda of a roadblock.  A pain, yes.  A crappy ruling, yes.  But no real practical impact on the community.

[Norby]

You don't have any section 4 protection if you use MJ to treat depression.  This discussion isn't about what a judge can or can't figure out by looking at plant material.  It is about intent and following the law.  So maybe you got a cert because you have back pain but you also medicate to alleviate depression.  If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it....????  Remember when Jack Kavorkian went on TV and performed an assisted suicide?  If you stand on the steps of your local state police headquarters and say 'I'm about to smoke this joint, not because it will relieve my back pain that I was certified for but because it makes me happy" then you don't have any section 4 protections.  and if a Dr. didn't advise that MJ might help with your depression, then you don't have a section 8 protection either.  And you just end up making an bad/uninformed decision because you WANT the law to protect an action that you believe should be legal.  This discussion is about what actions are protected, not what actions you might get away with and not what actions you and/or I might think SHOULD be allowed.

Well with me it's complicated because depression is a symptom but I got my card for the spasms, pain and nausea associated with IBS.  So it is about the courts thinking a sativa can't treat pain, etc.  If they say sativas can't treat pain then a lot of patients suffer.  Are you trying to make this harder for patients and easier for judges to prosecute or what?

[GregS]

I will give you that...that the law states that there is a presumption that the pt or CG is complaint unless it can be proven that the action wasn't for the purpose of alleviating a qualifying condition.  That's why I think this ruling might suck.  It seems to weaken that existence of that presumption.  But if there is evidence that a pt or CG was involved with MMJ for a purpose other than alleviating a qualifying condition, then, unfortunately, the burden of proof falls on the defendant.  And I guess my point is that any astute pt or CG should already be able to prove this medical use so this COA ruling isn't really any kinda of a roadblock.  A pain, yes.  A crappy ruling, yes.  But no real practical impact on the community.

There is no might or seem about it. And again, the responsibility to establish need is the physician's. NOT the caregiver's.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Highlander]

Well with me it's complicated because depression is a symptom but I got my card for the spasms, pain and nausea associated with IBS.  So it is about the courts thinking a sativa can't treat pain, etc.  If they say sativas can't treat pain then a lot of patients suffer.  Are you trying to make this harder for patients and easier for judges to prosecute or what?

 

No.  I'm suggesting that you get your medical file out and make some notes...that you tried Sativa A on X-date and that it had X effect that alleviated your pain.  And for heavens sake, don't EVER tell a judge that you use MMJ to treat depression.  Get in the mindset that your involvement with MJ is for the purpose of alleviating your qualifying condition.  And document that.

[GregS]

Well with me it's complicated because depression is a symptom but I got my card for the spasms, pain and nausea associated with IBS.  So it is about the courts thinking a sativa can't treat pain, etc.  If they say sativas can't treat pain then a lot of patients suffer.  Are you trying to make this harder for patients and easier for judges to prosecute or what?

Many of us qualify with authorized conditions and use cannabis in off label use to treat other conditions, like depression.

[GregS]

It's not often that someone says I get something across well on the internet, so thank you.  I'm usually more of a rambling hothead.

Trust me. Around here you are a genius.

 

But hey. In the land of monkeys I am a god.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[t-pain]

yeah but if you admit using marijuana for other conditions, wouldnt that admit that you use marijuana for non-medical  things?

 

example:

a doctor has a form that the patient fills out.

on the form is a question "what other conditions do you use marijuana for"

patient writes down "anxiety, stress, depression"

 

did the patient just admit his non "medical use" as defined in the MMMA ?

by admitting you use marijuana for depression , you are in fact giving away all section4 and section8 rights.

Edited November 21, 2013 by t-pain

[Highlander]

There is no might or seem about it. And again, the responsibility to establish need is the physician's. NOT the caregiver's.

 

Well the law say that a CG's involvement with MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating a patient's qualifying condition.  To me that means that as a CG I must have some basis to assert that the purpose of me proving MJ was to treat a patient's condition.  Seems that maybe you don't believe that there is a need for a CG to do this.  In my book, if a patient says "I need X amount of Y MMJ per month to treat my condition," then I'm good to go.   But let's not pretend that there are not shill CGs out there...and to be honest, that's what this situation smacks of....a CG with no clue whatsoever what/how much his patients need.  So if you have  CG who has no idea whatsoever what his patients' needs are, how can he assert that his purpose was to alleviate their conditions?  So let's look at the other extreme.  LEO is invited in to inspect a grow and the CG has no information to support that his growing is for the purpose of helping patients because he paid five friends to get certs so he can grow and sells meds to others.  We know this happens, right?  So let's find some common ground between this sort of CG and the sort that I think people should be.

[Highlander]

yeah but if you admit using marijuana for other conditions, wouldnt that admit that you use marijuana for non-medical  things?

 

example:

a doctor has a form that the patient fills out.

on the form is a question "what other conditions do you use marijuana for"

patient writes down "anxiety, stress, depression"

 

did the patient just admit his non "medical use" as defined in the MMMA ?

 

We all know that we've benefited from MJ for a variety of purposes for many years.  The current law gives us about 12 reasons to use it.  No need to talk about reason #13.  Just like the old days.  Keep quiet, and keep safe.  If you use MJ to treat depression, keep it to yourself.

[GregS]

Well the law say that a CG's involvement with MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating a patient's qualifying condition.  To me that means that as a CG I must have some basis to assert that the purpose of me proving MJ was to treat a patient's condition.  Seems that maybe you don't believe that there is a need for a CG to do this.  In my book, if a patient says "I need X amount of Y MMJ per month to treat my condition," then I'm good to go.   But let's not pretend that there are not shill CGs out there...and to be honest, that's what this situation smacks of....a CG with no clue whatsoever what/how much his patients need.  So if you have  CG who has no idea whatsoever what his patients' needs are, how can he assert that his purpose was to alleviate their conditions?  So let's look at the other extreme.  LEO is invited in to inspect a grow and the CG has no information to support that his growing is for the purpose of helping patients because he paid five friends to get certs so he can grow and sells meds to others.  We know this happens, right?  So let's find some common ground between this sort of CG and the sort that I think people should be.

The basis to assert the purpose for use is the physician's statement. Your other points are taken, with the exception of the red herring arguments. Finding a caregiver aligned with a patient's values is the patient's responsibility. Caveat emptor applies.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS