Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[Dr. Bob]

Highlander, you make a valid point.  Can a patient simply declare they are a patient?  Does that somehow make it ok for a caregiver to transfer for compensation to them (or without)?  

 

Trying to circumvent the process (registry) as a means to do what you want (sell your cannabis) as a method of using the Act to obtain protection is absurd from several standpoints- why on Earth would anyone register if we could get more access, sales and rights by proudly refusing to fill out the paperwork and send in our money?

 

Given recent history in the courts, I don't think this is even remotely a valid idea.  

 

Unless, of course, you pinky swear and say you are doing it for all the right reasons.  

 

I believe the videos I put up clearly demonstrated the danger of trying to figure out ways to circumvent a pretty clear concept.  But I am sure there are folks that want to try.  37 have been charged over in Muskegon for figuring out a sure fire way to legally do what they wanted to do.  Have you ever noticed  some really loud and cocky individuals are not around much anymore on this board?  As I recall from my interactions they were from Muskegon- regularly and loudly made it a habit of telling me I didn't know anything.  Wonder where they are now?

 

But then again, at least they had the sand to carry through with their opinions, seems the only ones still doing it want others to act on their 'opions' and cut and paste logic.  

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, is it entrapment to encourage someone to sell outside the registry?  Is it different than encouraging them to sell to a patient registered to them?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

Again Highlander, the proffered pt/cg agreement/contract requires that the purchaser swears to being a patient in that duly executed document along with patient provided documentation that a bona fide rec has been made. It further establishes the seller as the caregiver using almost the entire definition you quote.

Yes. But if the buyer really isn't a "patient" then the only real defense the CG can rely on is "he tricked me." I'm getting closer to accepting bustedinclintownship's entrapment argument. So, for the sake of discussion let's assume that your documents will hold up. absent such documents, though, is there really a solid defense for the seller who meets a craigslist buyer who turns out to be a LEO who isn't actually a patient?

 

If you believe you were entrapped, then you file a motion to exclude the evidence obtained through said entrapment. In most cases, it would end right there because there probably won't be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime was committed.

 

In other words, let's set the entrapment issue aside and discuss what would be the likely outcome for a seller to a tricky non-patient. So if you can't establish entrapment, then what? Considering that section 8 is pretty specific that a caregiver must be assisting a patient, and considering that a person selling to a LEO probably won't be able to meet the burden of proof that his buyer was a "patient" and therefore it follows that he can't really define himself as a CG, does section 8 still apply? Because at that point you have neither a patient nor a CG involved - just two people involved in a marijuana transaction.

[Dr. Bob]

Would you agree Zap that what should be, what is right may not be how it is actually looked at currently by the courts?  If we assume that section 8 is as you say (and I don't disagree so to say) would you place that in the 'should be and right' category or in the 'actually looked at by the courts currently' category?  I think it belongs in the right and should be list, but not how it is actually looked at by the courts.  

 

I think the courts expect section 4 but may let you argue section 8 if you don't meet section 4.  I don't think they look at it as a valid alternative to section 4 in most cases

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

"I hope you are not asserting that the voters of Michigan have an interest is stopping the sale to the sixth patient, and the MMMA is attempting to enforce that, because that is seriously illogical. Beyond Carruthers illogical."

 

I find that a little fuzzy zap. Can you clarify please?

 

"The barrier has been made erroneously high by Hartwick and Tuttle, for the time being."

 

That is why we fight. I am loud and cocky.

 

Yes. But if the buyer really isn't a "patient" then the only real defense the CG can rely on is "he tricked me." I'm getting closer to accepting bustedinclintownship's entrapment argument. So, for the sake of discussion let's assume that your documents will hold up. absent such documents, though, is there really a solid defense for the seller who meets a craigslist buyer who turns out to be a LEO who isn't actually a patient?

If you believe you were entrapped, then you file a motion to exclude the evidence obtained through said entrapment. In most cases, it would end right there because there probably won't be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime was committed.

In other words, let's set the entrapment issue aside and discuss what would be the likely outcome for a seller to a tricky non-patient. So if you can't establish entrapment, then what? Considering that section 8 is pretty specific that a caregiver must be assisting a patient, and considering that a person selling to a LEO probably won't be able to meet the burden of proof that his buyer was a "patient" and therefore it follows that he can't really define himself as a CG, does section 8 still apply? Because at that point you have neither a patient nor a CG involved - just two people involved in a marijuana transaction.

He not only tricked you. He defrauded you. There is a distinction, between which it becomes a criminal offense. The craigslist hypothetical is much more difficult to prove without some sort of documentation. Just set up a meeting at your bank to have the "patient" come with the proofs of their bona fides and you can both walk out laughing and smiling, and you will have evidence of that assurance. If those proofs are fraudulent, you are off the hook.

Edited May 27, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

The obvious reason is to avoid arrest and subsequent legal defense. This should be obvious, but I realize that some are not thinking critically about this issue, only responding to try to make their own points.

 

Isn't having a chance not to be arrested a great reason to spend a hundred bucks? I believe that is why most register and follow the guidelines under section 4.

I clearly agree with this statement.  And there is a reason it was set up this way and section 8 did not have the same protections.  If the intent was to give a choice of section 4 or section 8, both would be equally attractive.  The reason there is immunity is because that is the way they want it, and section 8 is a safety net if you don't go that route.  

 

From a public policy standpoint this also makes sense- you don't want your courts tied up determining the validity of every medical cannabis patient, you want them to have an 'I've jumped through all the hoops' card to hopefully keep most of them out of the judicial system.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I clearly agree with this statement.  And there is a reason it was set up this way and section 8 did not have the same protections.  If the intent was to give a choice of section 4 or section 8, both would be equally attractive.  The reason there is immunity is because that is the way they want it, and section 8 is a safety net if you don't go that route.  

 

From a public policy standpoint this also makes sense- you don't want your courts tied up determining the validity of every medical cannabis patient, you want them to have an 'I've jumped through all the hoops' card to hopefully keep most of them out of the judicial system.

 

Dr. Bob

There you go again. The fallacies are apparent. Non sequiturs are a failure in discourse. You presume too much.

[Highlander]

You are getting way too specific here and putting words into the ballot language that are not there ("to that patient"). I wonder what your purpose is in doing that.

I'm not putting in any words. Section 8 is pretty clear. "(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition."

 

"The patient's primarily caregiver " means that the caregiver is a primary caregiver to that patient. Hence the apostrophe. It doesn't say "a patient and a primary caregiver". So, yeah, it means a "caregiver to that patient." No added words, just some interpretation based on ordinary grammar.

 

Ballot language doesn't supersede the actual meaning of the statute. And you can't take terms specifically defined in the initiative and assign some alternative definition in the ballot language. Ballot language is used to help sort out ambiguities. So I ask, what is ambiguous about a patient being a person diagnosed with a debilitating condition? Or a better question might be, what is ambiguous about a person who hasn't been diagnosed with a debilitating condition? If neither the buyer "patient" nor the seller CG provides evidence that the person was diagnosed with a debilitating condition, then there is no way a court can justify that the buyer is a "patient," even if they want to. And if there is no patient, then there isn't a "patient's primary caregiver."

 

We can't forget that a section 8 defense isn't an "innocent until proven guilty " position. The burden of proof is on those charged. So if you are a caregiver trying to prove compliance after selling to a non-patient LEO, how do you get there?"

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Where will this "unregistered caregiver" find evidence that shows that the patient AND the caregiver were "were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition?"

Edited May 27, 2014 by Highlander

[GregS]

I'm not putting in any words. Section 8 is pretty clear. "(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition."

 

"The patient's primarily caregiver " means that the caregiver is a primary caregiver to that patient. Hence the apostrophe. It doesn't say "a patient and a primary caregiver". So, yeah, it means a "caregiver to that patient." No added words, just some interpretation based on ordinary grammar.

 

Ballot language doesn't supersede the actual meaning of the statute. And you can't take terms specifically defined in the initiative and assign some alternative definition in the ballot language. Ballot language is used to help sort out ambiguities. So I ask, what is ambiguous about a patient being a person diagnosed with a debilitating condition? Or a better question might be, what is ambiguous about a person who hasn't been diagnosed with a debilitating condition? If neither the buyer "patient" nor the seller CG provides evidence that the person was diagnosed with a debilitating condition, then there is no way a court can justify that the buyer is a "patient," even if they want to. And if there is no patient, then there isn't a "patient's primary caregiver."

And you have been illegally duped into believing you were a legitimate caregiver. There may even be remedies to be had in civil court.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

http://marijuanapatients.org/oakland-county-dispensaries/

Jessica cooper calls fake cards (section 4 illegal and entrapment) so now the cops use fictitious paperwork (sect8 untested).

 

The freaking Oakland County DA sees it at least half my way. The only reason they switched to fake papers was because they have been doing a good job of reading a bunch of Bull Crap into the law. Like tuttle and heartwick opinions longer than the whole sect 8 aff defense on the books. The two defenses are not connected and the sect 8 rights need to be respected.

 

These LEO on here that think it is ok to deem me a felon and send me to prison because I broke the law while trying to help a man posing as a cancer patient registered with the state and the crux of the argument is this; THE COPS HAD HIS FINGERS CROSSED LOL. His status is imaginary because he made felonious papers... REALLY

[bustedinclintontwsp]

In my case I spent a month holding the cops hand showing them how to apply and waiting the time after the approached me illegally. Then they go to the local DR from budtrader or what not, go tell him about their pains, get a card, wait 21 days then call back claiming to be legal. showing paper work. this is in disco packet

[Dr. Bob]

I'm not putting in any words. Section 8 is pretty clear. "(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition."

 

"The patient's primarily caregiver " means that the caregiver is a primary caregiver to that patient. Hence the apostrophe. It doesn't say "a patient and a primary caregiver". So, yeah, it means a "caregiver to that patient." No added words, just some interpretation based on ordinary grammar.

 

Ballot language doesn't supersede the actual meaning of the statute. And you can't take terms specifically defined in the initiative and assign some alternative definition in the ballot language. Ballot language is used to help sort out ambiguities. So I ask, what is ambiguous about a patient being a person diagnosed with a debilitating condition? Or a better question might be, what is ambiguous about a person who hasn't been diagnosed with a debilitating condition? If neither the buyer "patient" nor the seller CG provides evidence that the person was diagnosed with a debilitating condition, then there is no way a court can justify that the buyer is a "patient," even if they want to. And if there is no patient, then there isn't a "patient's primary caregiver."

I think both of the contributors (Zap and Highlander) have valid points.  As Zap said in court you will use section 8.  You are in court for being outside of section 4. Highlander is correct in that primary caregiver means the patient's registry designated caregiver.  

 

Section 8 is for lawyers after the arrest, not as an alternative to section 4.  You have gone from 'playing by the rules' to 'justifying what you did' when you go from section 4 to section 8.  That said, section 8 is an important safety net, especially for those that had minor deviations from section 4.  It is not to be used as a framework for a free for all.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

As a thought exercise, if a doctor with a deep understanding of the endocannabinoid system certified a patient, then studied an experimental protocol which required amounts of marijuana in excess of what is allowed under section 4, the doctor, patient, and caregiver could consult together about required amounts and projected yields, document that consultation, and use it to defend a reasonable amount in court, even under Hartwick and Tuttle. I don't suppose you are proposing that doctors can't be doctors anymore just because it is marijuana?

 

I would agree this could be played as a section 8 by the right patient, right doctor, right attorney and lots of cash and time for the challenge with a decent chance of success before the right court.  To recommend this as an alternative following section 4 is something you make a choice to do for yourself (I know of one attorney/patient that did just that) but to recommend others do it without warning them of the serious consequences is irresponsible.  Just because it is possible does not mean it should be done, unless you are prepared to pay heavily to make the point.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

In my case I spent a month holding the cops hand showing them how to apply and waiting the time after the approached me illegally. Then they go to the local DR from budtrader or what not, go tell him about their pains, get a card, wait 21 days then call back claiming to be legal. showing paper work. this is in disco packet

Did you request they name you as their caregiver?  Or did you just want them 'legal patients' so you could transfer to them under your understanding of the law?  The point is to prove entrapment you have to prove what you did would have been legal if not for the bogus cards.  If the courts rule it was not legal, then you have no case for entrapment as it was a known illegal transaction with or without a card.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

I wonder how you are served personally by thinking of these people as criminals before they have a chance to defend themselves.

I'm somewhat disappointed that you would think I have some personal benefit to encourage people to adopt a conservative (safe) interpretation of what protections and defenses the law allows. I'd love to be able to max out 72 plants and sell to anyone without fear. I could probably quit my 20-year career and focus on MMJ. But I'm wise enough to know that this isn't a good idea, because the law as currently-written doesn't make that a good decision.

 

Understand that I'm not thinking of these people as criminals before they have a chance to defend themselves. I'm trying to warn them of the very probable decisions of the court that would make them a criminal. I'm not an advocate of the " just go section 8 and let the courts sort it out" mindset. I'm of the, "avoid section 8 at all costs but try to use it as a safety net if needed" mindset. In other words, I hope people understand the difference between a solid section 4 protection and a shaky section 8 defense.

 

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you'd think that trying to help people understand what an uphill struggle section 8 can/will be equates to wishing criminal conviction upon them. It seems that in your view, someone pointing out the pitfalls of relying on section 8 is anti MMJ. We can discuss those pitfalls here where people can consider them before making risky moves, or we can keep quiet about the pitfalls and hope that the next unregistered CG can either afford fees for a solid legal defense or rely on the ambition of a public defender and then realize the risk he took. I'd prefer he understand the risk before he decides to engage in a section 8 activity rather than after.

 

It is clear that the MMMA has limitations. Anyone involved in MMJ should consider the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Highlighting the cons doesn't mean someone has an agenda or is anti-MMJ. In most cases, it means that we want people to be well-informed.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

ZAP... can't the doctors just start recommending "as much as needed"....

 

That's how it played out in CA. Dr. can't prescribe, supply, or test anything. Out there they tried to say you had to pay the state and give them 100$ too... But That SCT ordered that you were not required to register with the state so most NEVER DID. If the section 8 offers broader protections than section 4 why would someone want to limit their defense and subject themselves to government scrutiny. If they are gona make us take section 4 to court anyway what is the benefit? Besides the whole system now is attacking the section 4 of this law... even here, in this forum! It's been years.... No section 8 nothing.

 

When I read sect 8 it reads to me if you are Dr. recommended to use marijuana, and are in an undefined reasonable amount for UNINTERUPTED SUPPLY, and it was medical marijuana your good. Without connecting section 4 or Hartwick Tuttle (obvious section 8 speedbump) what else is their to read into it? Hartwick and Tuttle may infuriate the SCT!!! If the supreme court says the COA is not allowed to make stuff up then section 8 is the future. How many long BS opinions can COA publish? If it comes back that the plain language of sect 8 is all sect 8 IS!!!!!!!!

[Highlander]

Dr. Bob, how have you changed your protocol based on Hartwick and Tuttle to help protect your patients and their caregivers? Hartwick and Tuttle have changed the application of section 4 in court as well.

 

Highlander, you have made assertions above denying the medical defense to patients and their caregivers, when the ballot language clearly states that patients and caregivers, registered and unregistered, can assert the defense. You have made statements pronouncing a person that sells to a cop that is faking it to be "some guy selling weed" when the clear intent of the seller was to sell only to registered patients, by requiring a card.

 

In one case, you judged them unable to defend themselves from a criminal charges though they have no criminal intent, and in the other, you have convicted them because of the actions of the police. What am I supposed to think?

I'm am encouraging you to think a little more about the requirement in section 8 "where the evidence shows". This seems to mean that the burden is on the seller to show evidence that he was assisting a PATIENT. So section 8 seems pretty clear that in order for the seller to be protected, he has to prove he sold to a PATIENT. Section 8 doesn't require the prosecution to show that the buyer wasn't a patient; it requires the seller to prove that the buyer was a patient. I understand the entrapment argument and don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. But if any entrapment argument fails, then what? If this is a case where a CG sells to a legit and sixth patient, then we might have a leg to stand. But if the seller sells to a posing LEO, how will the evidence show that he sold to a " patient?" Where will that evidence come from.

[Highlander]

Please note that I am not speaking of a "shaky" section 8 defense. A "shaky" defense in any criminal proceeding is a nightmare for the defendant. The affirmative defense cannot be faked.

I guess I'm thinking that any section 8 defense is kinda shaky. Not my opinion of what should be but an observation of the odds of success...

[bustedinclintontwsp]

It upsets me that everyone thinks we have to beg for sect 8 hearings. A sect eight hearing doesn't have to be expensive or drawn out, they could be done video arraignment style in a police cruiser. Why should we go to prison to change their work policies? Why can't the system change and reflect the voters intent.

This is not a new game guys... history repeats itself.... and this is checkers not chess... And with CA being 18 yrs in and still the same bs you can realize how much this will change here. With cases like Clinical Releif and Carruthers and Bluewater. Everyone says McQueen but that was 1 ruling on one specific set of circumstances

[Highlander]

I am not commenting on the likelihood of success of the defense, only that the defendant is allowed to defend themselves. Any other conclusion is not in the interests of justice, but in the service of some other political motive, and results in an absurd outcome that is very undesirable to any thinking person.

Yes. I agree that anyone is now entitled to a defense for any MJ charge. My overall point is that if you sell to a person you can't prove to be a patient as defined in the MMMA, then your defense probably won't go far.

 

As far as being entitled to a defense....by all means.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Highlander

[bustedinclintontwsp]

I can tell you where the evedince comes from In my case it says it in the discovery packet

I'm am encouraging you to think a little more about the requirement in section 8 "where the evidence shows". This seems to mean that the burden is on the seller to show evidence that he was assisting a PATIENT. So section 8 seems pretty clear that in order for the seller to be protected, he has to prove he sold to a PATIENT. Section 8 doesn't require the prosecution to show that the buyer wasn't a patient; it requires the seller to prove that the buyer was a patient. I understand the entrapment argument and don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. But if any entrapment argument fails, then what? If this is a case where a CG sells to a legit and sixth patient, then we might have a leg to stand. But if the seller sells to a posing LEO, how will the evidence show that he sold to a " patient?" Where will that evidence come from.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

If the state supreme court

 

accepts tuttle / hartwick

approves fake cards

and nixes all ex post facto defenses

while pretending section 8 doesn't exist

 

NO ONE IS SAFE. I don't encourage anyone to aim for a sect 8 defense ever. Or a sect 4 for that matter. Right now in Michigan no one is safe to use medical marijuana without risking your liberty and freedom. A case could pop up tommarrow and change every open case just like that. If  Dr Bob dies are all of his patients immunities dead too. I see hartwick tuttle as COA's hail mary

[GregS]

What are the odds? How many section 8 evidentiary hearings have you seen? Section 8 trials?

 

I submit you have been misled by incomplete information, and that the odds of success measured by the results of the cases you have heard about are not a reliable measure of whether or not the affirmative defense itself is "shaky." It is not the defense itself, but an individual application of the defense that can cause a problem, often not by the defendant's own actions, but because of the absurd application of the law that holds patients and their caregivers responsible for the practices of their patient's doctor, a professional regulated by the same state department that issues the cards!

 

Think about that for a second, holding a caregiver responsible for the practices of the doctor certifying their patient, after having received a card from the state certifying that everything has checked out, from the certification itself, to the doctor, to the caregiver getting a criminal background check. Then they end up in a courtroom, and are unable to defend themselves because the doctor won't testify to the elements of "bona fide physician-patient relationship?" That is an absurd result, not intended by the voters.

Which is the more reason Townsend insists we abide by Hartwick. It takes the onus, which is his by law, and lays it at the feet of patients and caregivers.

 

'Effin coward.

Edited May 28, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

MY DOCTOR DIED. I have like 10 doctors that have wrote me over the years. 2 ARE DEAD! One got deported for writing reccomendations.... How could anyone get around that... can anyone of the doctors satisfy my sect 8 because my sect 4 dr is pushing up daisies.

Another thing everyone forgets, if my sect 8 vision is true the cops are patients the minute the Dr signs off WEATHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT

What are the odds? How many section 8 evidentiary hearings have you seen? Section 8 trials?

 

I submit you have been misled by incomplete information, and that the odds of success measured by the results of the cases you have heard about are not a reliable measure of whether or not the affirmative defense itself is "shaky." It is not the defense itself, but an individual application of the defense that can cause a problem, often not by the defendant's own actions, but because of the absurd application of the law that holds patients and their caregivers responsible for the practices of their patient's doctor, a professional regulated by the same state department that issues the cards!

 

Think about that for a second, holding a caregiver responsible for the practices of the doctor certifying their patient, after having received a card from the state certifying that everything has checked out, from the certification itself, to the doctor, to the caregiver getting a criminal background check. Then they end up in a courtroom, and are unable to defend themselves because the doctor won't testify to the elements of "bona fide physician-patient relationship?" That is an absurd result, not intended by the voters.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

It won't be long until they accuse doctors of selling testimony for section 8 recs with high plant counts and weight recs.

 

There will soon be "specialists" like this in MI... opps too late... history does repeat itself.

[Highlander]

What are the odds? How many section 8 evidentiary hearings have you seen? Section 8 trials?

 

I submit you have been misled by incomplete information, and that the odds of success measured by the results of the cases you have heard about are not a reliable measure of whether or not the affirmative defense itself is "shaky." It is not the defense itself, but an individual application of the defense that can cause a problem, often not by the defendant's own actions, but because of the absurd application of the law that holds patients and their caregivers responsible for the practices of their patient's doctor, a professional regulated by the same state department that issues the cards!

 

Think about that for a second, holding a caregiver responsible for the practices of the doctor certifying their patient, after having received a card from the state certifying that everything has checked out, from the certification itself, to the doctor, to the caregiver getting a criminal background check. Then they end up in a courtroom, and are unable to defend themselves because the doctor won't testify to the elements of "bona fide physician-patient relationship?" That is an absurd result, not intended by the voters.

Zero section 8 hearings and zero trials. This is out of about six cases that went section 8 that I'm privy to being close family to an attorney. In each case the defendant took a plea with no incarceration but all the crap involved with weekly probation officer visits, home inspections, pee tests, etc. in each case because the defendant didn't have the resources to fight the good fight.

 

I have no patience for the courts looking at the dr/pt relationship. In MHO once a Dr. Issues a rec for MMJ use, that should be the end of the discussion there. If a doc is being frivolous with MMJ recs, that becomes an issue for the licensing board. The MMMA doesn't put sec 4 onus on the patient if the Dr. Issued a bad rec.

 

To answer your question, any attack on the Dr./patient relationship is absurd. A valid Dr. Rec should be able to stand on its own.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Highlander