Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YesMichigan

Father Fighting To Use Medical Marijuana Concentrates Not Protected Under Law

Recommended Posts

so, when  you or me post a news article of a patient ticketed for improper transport , and you/we post their name, you/me are in violation?

 

you may have some mass clean up to comply, in the Sanilac thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you noticed, i dont post patients names in sanilac thread and i try not to post them in any other thread. except for the supreme court cases , which i admit i need to stop doing that and refer to those cases by msc / coa numbers instead.

 

maybe i can get zap to do a sitewide word filter on those names to change them to the msc/coa numbers.

Edited by t-pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know the answers, man, i'm no supreme court judge. what do you think?

 

that may be an absurd result/reading of the plain language of the law. or it might not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its best to avoid names in the news and in the forum. I cringe when a grower's family is burglarized and reports of address and names of the residents are disclosed, like where sick people have a personal garden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know the answers, man, i'm no supreme court judge. what do you think?

 

that may be an absurd result/reading of the plain language of the law. or it might not.

 

By your logic the defendant is subject to prosecution because he revealed he is a card holder. For that matter anyone who reveals their card status and name is in violation (unless speaking to an authorized LARA or LEO representative or their C.G., PCP or referring MD) if we narrowly define it as you have.

 

Disclosure of information that is not confidential

Clearly, information that is not confidential does not fall under the duty of confidentiality. Disclosure of information that is already in the public domain does not breach the duty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_confidentiality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its best to avoid names in the news and in the forum. I cringe when a grower's family is burglarized and reports of address and names of the residents are disclosed, like where sick people have a personal garden

 

 

When our hose was on the News it had it all Address street # and more we didn't feel safe there any longer some nights we stayed in a Hotel room because she/ T was so afraid Leo was coming back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic the defendant is subject to prosecution because he revealed he is a card holder. For that matter anyone who reveals their card status and name is in violation (unless speaking to an authorized LARA or LEO representative or their C.G., PCP or referring MD) if we narrowly define it as you have.

 

Disclosure of information that is not confidential

Clearly, information that is not confidential does not fall under the duty of confidentiality. Disclosure of information that is already in the public domain does not breach the duty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_confidentiality

well telling someone you are a patient, they would keep it confidential.

or talking to someone about a case, those parties would keep the name confidential.

 

its when you blab about a name on a public forum that its not confidential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When our hose was on the News it had it all Address street # and more we didn't feel safe there any longer some nights we stayed in a Hotel room because she/ T was so afraid Leo was coming back

 

THIS^^^

 

The People are the ones who prosecuted you and Max in this case. That is us. We are entitled to know why we are trying to incarcerate someone and exactly who that someone is. It is designed to appear the Prosecutor has the authority but it is actually us using him as the vehicle of prosecution. Obfuscation of this fact has been intentional and more pronounced in the last century.

 

That's why this case is so critical. The entire State, nay the entire Nation needs to let Ottawa County know they are being monitored and their treatment of our Brother will not go unnoticed. I weep for those caught in the net and I give the highest praise to those who are able to endure the arduous process required to keep their Freedom from being further denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well telling someone you are a patient, they would keep it confidential.

or talking to someone about a case, those parties would keep the name confidential.

 

its when you blab about a name on a public forum that its not confidential.

 

You can't tell it though based on your interpretation and I quote:

 

"not subject to disclosure in any form or manner." - Applying the pedantic nature of your argument to its fullest extent even the cardholder can't disclose the information. If you want to advocate that I am violating this defendant's rights under the MMMA then let's continue on with the line of logic that you think supports your assertion. After using an argument to prove a point there is a need to continue further on with it to make sure it doesn't work against the purpose for which you are using it before you set it as a cornerstone.

 

Telling a newspaper your full medical condition and card status I will assert negates notions of privacy and removes any threat of prosecution for me under 6h for a breach of patient confidentiality. I would love a ruling from a forum authority on the matter. No offense but you tried to refute me once by saying spousal privilege is just a "thing they make up for TV" so while I read what you paste your interpretations don't fly by unchallenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are correct, in my interpretation i take disclosure to mean "disclosure to the public", because any disclosure would preclude talking to a doctor or lawyer which would be an absurd result. while preventing disclosure to the public is the spirit of the law and HIPAA law.

 

also the part you quoted is from LARA themselves. admittedly they recinded that rule in the new rules, because of it being redundant with the act. i was using the admin rules to show you what 'in violation of this act' meant.

 

yep i've been wrong before. i'm not a lawyer. this is not legal advice. just like my opinion, dude.

Edited by t-pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are correct, in my interpretation i take disclosure to mean "disclosure to the public", because any disclosure would preclude talking to a doctor or lawyer which would be an absurd result. while preventing disclosure to the public is the spirit of the law and HIPAA law.

 

also the part you quoted is from LARA themselves. admittedly they recinded that rule in the new rules, because of it being redundant with the act. i was using the admin rules to show you what 'in violation of this act' meant.

 

yep i've been wrong before. i'm not a lawyer. this is not legal advice. just like my opinion, dude.

 

All good but when you cut and paste a section of the law and tell me I need to learn it because I am possibly subjecting myself to $1,000 fine you are doing more than merely giving an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are willing to take a chance that the law does not apply to you in this circumstance? without having consulted a lawyer? or asking for other opinions from other members here?

 

maybe someone should start a poll and see what everybody thinks of my opinion on confidentiality in the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of edible products; 9 to the contrary, that use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations, provided that the edible product is a “mixture or preparation” of “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant,” rather than of the more potent THC that is extracted from marijuana resin. MCL 333.26423(k).

 

Again, we find that judgment of the drafters of the MMMA, in so defining “usable marihuana,” to be an appropriate exercise of their duty to define the parameters of the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes.

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20130711_c309987%2837%29_rptr_105o-309987-final.pdfFrom Carruthers

 

What forms can a preparation take from the dried flowers and not be construed as "extracted"? Is that an impossibility given the desire for the narrowest interpretation possible?

 

Grinding up 1.5 ounces of flower in to .5 ounces of chocolate would yield a 2 ounce "mixture" we could reasonably say.

 

What is a sanctioned method to create a "preparation" given their high praise for the logical judgement of the drafter's intent? Obviously they meant to allow ANY of something that is a preparation.

 

Carruthers does not apply because the defendant in this case has never stated his "concentrate" was created from "extracted resin" but is instead a preparation of the dried leaves or flowers.

 

One common-sense question needs to be answered: Would a reasonable person consider Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice to be a mixture or preparation of oranges? Interesting that mixture and preparation are synonyms. Doesn't that just open up zero options for expanding defense of an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks 

 

 

Would a reasonable person consider Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice to be a mixture or preparation of oranges?

 

Of course and thats why a jury won't be able to here that  the prosecutors and judge's all know if Medical Marihuana is allowed to be heard by juries they will loos a lot of cases  Prosectors win 95% of the time 

 

Carruthers does not apply in this case i agree this guy was not a delivery service like Carruthers was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS^^^

 

The People are the ones who prosecuted you and Max in this case. That is us. We are entitled to know why we are trying to incarcerate someone and exactly who that someone is. It is designed to appear the Prosecutor has the authority but it is actually us using him as the vehicle of prosecution. Obfuscation of this fact has been intentional and more pronounced in the last century.

 

That's why this case is so critical. The entire State, nay the entire Nation needs to let Ottawa County know they are being monitored and their treatment of our Brother will not go unnoticed. I weep for those caught in the net and I give the highest praise to those who are able to endure the arduous process required to keep their Freedom from being further denied.

 

Thank you

 

 

I agree someone could / should contact CNN 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The act's definition of marihuana is under the same health code as the marijuana that isn't medical.

Bill 4851 sec 2 (e) “Marihuana” means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

(4) "Marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds of that plant; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. Marihuana does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted from those stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or any sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination. Marihuana does not include industrial hemp grown or cultivated, or both, for research purposes under the industrial hemp research act.

 

The law was written to exclude the stalks from prosecution. If it's made from the stalks it's not supposed to be prosecuted as marijuana, so the stems shouldnt even come into question. This article just seems like a puff piece for pushing the new bills.

 

Really the only thing that should come into question is total weight, of camnabis.

 

Why isn't there a bill to uncap caregiver limits, for patient numbers, and total weight allowed, once licensed by the state. Remember when people actually knew the farmer growing their food? If a caregiver can promote himself, and take on 20 patients alone, and then needs to rent a building or pay a fee to use a farmers market to handle his patient list why not let them.

 

Middlemen create overhead, and that ends up raising the cost of meds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...