Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[ozzrokk]

My question is busted did they do it as I described above?

[bobandtorey]

everyone has an opinion now but 3 4 years ago nobody knew what to do. the first year or two I didn't think they were going to go shawshank on my donkey. you can't do it by the book before they write the book. this is before I even know you were guilty until proven innocent, before I knew that the patient is OK but a patient send you to prison. then they make up the rules as I go along

We both are sorry you got caught up the way you did 3-4 years or even maybe 5 years i had been trying to telling  everyone i could  about our case and how the

 

Courts where doing not just too  us but everyone that got busted or raided most would say it was because we didn't have our cards was the reason for our raid

 

and then after the C.O.A ruled in our case that you didn't need a card to be legal but must have a  recommendation before your raid ( A card might be better as we know today ) 

 

But  todays we know a card is a pice of plastic and still some Leo's don't even care 

[bustedinclintontwsp]

yes...

My question is busted did they do it as I described above?

[GregS]

Townsend has maintained and continues to maintain positions that are contrary to our interests. He does not know reason when he sees it and using it is completely past his pay grade. His are dangerous takes on our rights, as he argues that we should acquiesce to those decisions and attitudes that are so obviously flawed. This is war people. We should not have to put up with this traitor in our midst. Hartwick and Tuttle are examples of irresponsible and absurd jurisprudence. That he insists we roll over and accept those rulings clearly demonstrates that he is not one of us. He has argued loud and long that sec. 8 does not provide the protection that is plainly evident in the law. Open your wallet and let him dig in if you see things otherwise. Buy into his twisted fantasy if you must. I'll keep on to see that his wrong headed remarks are forcefully corrected when necessary, which is damm near daily.

Edited May 30, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

I discuss record keeping with each caregiver, suggesting they put together a packet with the patient's medical form (including diagnosis), note the specific symptoms the patient is asking them for assistance with, and to try and get a good feel for the amount of cannabis the patient needs and produce accordingly.  We also discuss the transport of cannabis, and the need for visible plant (specifically flower or leaf) material in any preparation.  We also instill the need to do follow up and provide for free in person and on line follow ups, telling them it is the difference between a section 8 defense and a plea.  We also offer a service for those that went to 'marginal' clinics to do an in person follow up with us, then have access to the on line updates, discounting their renewal for the $75 fee we charge to take them on (so if they renew with us the more solid chart is done for free as a service to the community).

 

As you well know the bonafide relationship standard in Tuttle was based more on timing than the law.  The incident occurred after the board of medicine put out that nonsense recommendation and before PA 512 actually defined the relationship.  While we fully and completely follow the law on the bonafide relationship as defined by PA 512, we also incorporate many aspects of the now obsolete recommendations of the board.  Specifically, we do not limit ourselves to cannabis certification, in fact most of our business is pain management and suboxone.  We always required records, we always kept a chart and we always suggested and provided for free follow up.  Many of our cert patients have long standing relationships with us for pain or suboxone as well.

 

Finally, as part of the office packet, patients sign a document confirming that they understand the limits of the act and what it does and doesn't allow, offers suggested guidelines for dosing, suggestions for methods of ingestion, and again stresses the need to take part in follow up.

 

Hope that answered your question.

 

Dr. Bob

How do you determine dosage? It is, after all, an issue in Hartwick.

Edited May 30, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

The only "protection" under section 8 is protection from penalty, and only if you are successful. That is not hard to grasp, but

I do realize they do not want patients and caregivers clogging up the court system. It is the fault of the police, prosecutors, and judges making the decisions, really.

 

And Highlander, the ballot language is the meaning of the statute. It is the erroneous interpretations of the statute ignoring the ballot language that are superceding the actual meaning of the statute.

It is not only erroneous interpretation, but magical thinking and just plain making schit up. The SC has shown us infinitely more judicial integrity than the troglodytes at the COA,

 

"...I am having a tough time grasping why anybody would be compelled to minimize or attempt to thrust constraints onto section 8 that are not there. That is of no benefit, only detriment, to patients and caregivers caught up in the system. The purpose of the defense is to prevent conviction of patients and caregivers in the medical use of marijuana, obviously."

 

That is for Townsend to answer. How about it B*B?

Edited May 30, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Since this is the only valid question you have, it is the only one I will answer.

 

Dosage is based on titration to effect, and our recommendation is that most can treat their conditions with an ounce or less per week, but that is a general guideline subject to personal circumstances.  Some may need more, some less, but it is a baseline of reasonable use.  Using twice this dosage could be pretty easy to justify given the right patient circumstances.

 

The dosage is based on several factors-

 

1.  The federal dosage of marijuana for the 4 remaining patients is 10 0.9gm cigarettes per day or 9 grams a day = 1 ounce every three days.  They issue about 10 ounces a month and I have a federal prescription to prove it.

2.  In states that have addressed the issue, folks are allowed to purchase 2.5 ounces (more or less) every 2 weeks.

 

Given these points, it is pretty easy to justify what the majority of people use without running afoul of federal prescription rules, and not only does it meet the requirements of the ruling, the patients actually sign that they were given the information.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Why have you worked for years to minimize or attempt to thrust constraints onto section 8 that are not there Bob?  Do you continue to maintain your position?

Edited May 30, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

ok Dr me and 5 other patients are medicating with oil, We are operating a greenhouse and only receive one crop annually.

How much dried medicine would you recommend the caregiver possess? 15 oz?

[Dr. Bob]

I wouldn't recommend having more than 15 ounces for the 6 of you.  That is a problem with outdoor grows. You would have a lot of problems with one harvest and 6 pounds, even making the argument that is a full year's worth of meds.

 

One thing to think about is that you are not required to grow in a greenhouse, or only have one crop a year.  Those are choices you made, it is not up to the law to take into account your personal choices of grow methods.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Hey B*B. We are agreed that unregistered caregivers are a thing. Right? Why have you worked for years to minimize or attempt to thrust constraints onto section 8 that are not there Bob?  Do you continue to maintain your position?

 

"I wouldn't recommend having more than 15 ounces for the 6 of you.  That is a problem with outdoor grows. You would have a lot of problems with one harvest and 6 pounds, even making the argument that is a full year's worth of meds.

 

One thing to think about is that you are not required to grow in a greenhouse, or only have one crop a year.  Those are choices you made, it is not up to the law to take into account your personal choices of grow methods."

 

Nope. No medical advice there. And all this time I thought is was a question about dosing. No surprise. Just more quackery laid out as legal advice, which you have shown you are not worth a schit at.

Edited May 31, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

Hate to say it but I gota agree with Greg on this one doc. 

The whole point is that the government does not belong in my dr's office. It would seem that a doctor would put the patients health before politics...

My doctor will scream at the top of his lungs that tuttle and hartwick are garbage and that the COA is violating everyone's rights to medicate.

Why should a legal opinion hold any weight whatsoever while a doctor helps a sick person.

 

The best thing about hartwick and tuttle is that it opens the door to PAY doctors for their TESTIMONY! Further why is a doctor not subject to a court order requiring him to be there? It doesn't matter how much measures you take to "protect" your patient BECAUSE YOU CHARGE TO GO TO COURT!!!!

 

All we need is for ONE doctor to not give a .... and write out about 100,000 free recommendations for unlimited numbers and counts. "as much as neccassary" should be the recommendation in writing from any doctor rite now. Since when does a doctor care what sect 4 or 8 says. I do understand the responsibility to make patients informed, as ambiguous as the law is. with that being said the only high ground a doctor can take is to refuse to feed into all this legal BS... unless they are trying to make a career of it!

 

It is really strange to hear people on this board that take Schuttes's stance on rec's, cards, anything.... they have you all brainwashed!

[ozzrokk]

yes...

 

 

I would think that you would have a very good case.

[Dr. Bob]

Hate to say it but I gota agree with Greg on this one doc. 

The whole point is that the government does not belong in my dr's office. It would seem that a doctor would put the patients health before politics...

My doctor will scream at the top of his lungs that tuttle and hartwick are garbage and that the COA is violating everyone's rights to medicate.

Why should a legal opinion hold any weight whatsoever while a doctor helps a sick person.

 

The best thing about hartwick and tuttle is that it opens the door to PAY doctors for their TESTIMONY! Further why is a doctor not subject to a court order requiring him to be there? It doesn't matter how much measures you take to "protect" your patient BECAUSE YOU CHARGE TO GO TO COURT!!!!

 

All we need is for ONE doctor to not give a .... and write out about 100,000 free recommendations for unlimited numbers and counts. "as much as neccassary" should be the recommendation in writing from any doctor rite now. Since when does a doctor care what sect 4 or 8 says. I do understand the responsibility to make patients informed, as ambiguous as the law is. with that being said the only high ground a doctor can take is to refuse to feed into all this legal BS... unless they are trying to make a career of it!

 

It is really strange to hear people on this board that take Schuttes's stance on rec's, cards, anything.... they have you all brainwashed!

Well it is unfortunate you found a doc that ignores the rulings, he is setting himself up for grief.  I am not going to put myself or my patients at risk by ignoring the dangers and telling them what they want to hear just because they want to hear it.  I am not going to apologize for paying attention to what the law and the courts say.  

 

But in any event you can do what you want.  I handle my patients the way I see best, and I leave it to other physicians to manage theirs.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

My doctors don't handle me. I handle them. They are paid professionals who I can work with. I work hard in managing my own case and they understand and appreciate that. Diagnostics and treatment otherwise happen much more slowly. Those arrogant fuks who had a problem with that are not on my radar any more. You are because your insistence that we are not in any real sense protected by the letter and spirit of the law is a lie to all patients and caregivers.

 

Do we agree that unregistered caregivers are a thing? I'll take your silence as a yes.

Edited June 2, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

 I'll take your silence as a yes.

 

No, you should take silence to mean ignored.

 

Have a nice day....

[cheapshades]

Dang kids!  There they are, fussing on the front lawn again!  Dagnabit!  

[GregS]

Ignore means you don't respond. We know your intellectual limitations. No need to remind us.

Edited June 2, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

I don't. I have a felony conviction for possession that was within my sect 4 amounts too...  It's in the discovery packet and no one will do anything about it.

I would think that you would have a very good case.

Doc, You don't have to agree with tuttle hartwick to fallow them. I never said I wasn't in compliance I just said that My doctor doesn't agree with the opinions

[GregS]

I don't. I have a felony conviction for possession that was within my sect 4 amounts too...  It's in the discovery packet and no one will do anything about it.

Doc, You don't have to agree with tuttle hartwick to fallow them. I never said I wasn't in compliance I just said that My doctor doesn't agree with the opinions

WE don't agree with the opinions.

Edited June 3, 2014 by mibrains

[ozzrokk]

I don't. I have a felony conviction for possession that was within my sect 4 amounts too...  It's in the discovery packet and no one will do anything about it.

Doc, You don't have to agree with tuttle hartwick to fallow them. I never said I wasn't in compliance I just said that My doctor doesn't agree with the opinions

 

 

Busted I guess I am confused then.

 

You must have been another poor railroaded soul. You know the kind that got ran over by those unwilling to except this law but in a position to abuse their power. That being the difference from them having their opinion against MMJ and them being in a position to willfully disregard the voters of Michigan.  Does that sound about right?

[kingrambo]

Corrupt Cops caught on camera:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z0So7ZzDqFo

Edited June 9, 2014 by kingrambo

[GregS]

No change here, I still don't support relying on section 8.  I don't support using it as a justification for commercial sales.  And most importantly in your case, I don't recommend people take the chance without taking it myself first, simply because I want test cases to justify something I want to do.

 

Section 8 is an emergency measure when section 4 is violated.  The Act revolves around section 4.  Section 8 is not a substitute for following section 4, it is what your lawyer will try to use to justify your actions and save you from conviction.  To say section 8 is equally important to section 4 is foolish.  It implies a choice, you can either comply with section 4 or you can do whatever you want and claim compliance with section 8.  That is clearly not the case and will get folks in trouble, which is why I do not promote folks starting with section 8 as a basis for their understanding of the act.

 

Dr. Bob

Just wanted to let y'all know that I have gone cannabando these past two years. There have been police encounters, and they ended with no due process. Let's just say I did try it myself and the experiment worked like a charm. I have now re-upped with the registry.  Both sections are equally authoritative separately in their own premises.

Edited November 11, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Cannabando (kan-a-ban-do)

n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes

1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to use cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.

2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.

3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes: a cannabando raid or a cannabando unit.

adv. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements.   

[Wild Bill]

Cannabando (kan-a-ban-do)

 

n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes

 

1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to use cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.

 

2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.

 

3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes: a cannabando raid or a cannabando unit.

 

adv. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements.