215 replies to this topic

[peanutbutter]

Today, in Lansing, there was no testimony allowed in the Senate hearing.

None at all.

The rest of the process seems to be a rubber stamp procedure.

These new laws will take effect instantly.

Some things that were legal today will be illegal at that moment.

I'll step back and let others fill folks in on exactly what changes will take place.

It is very likely that areas like Oakland county will use these changes in the most harsh way they can. And will likely be ready to do so at a moments notice.

[zapatosunidos]

There are still a couple of hands left to play. Call your representative now and make an appointment, or find out when they hold their next coffee hours. They are in Lansing today, but will not be again until September 11. Let them know it will be an election issue for them if they say yes to what's coming from the Senate.

[zapatosunidos]

We will go over talking points related to the Senate changes on tomorrow night's Planet Green Trees, as well as recap our previous objections.

[Dr. Bob]

Zap, were there any amendments to the original house bills?

[zapatosunidos]

Yes, there definitely were. Also, one amendment to the substitute proposed in committee that failed.

[Willy]

OF course there was... now we just need to know what.. can we know , or do we have to wait for greentrees?

Edited by Willy, 15 August 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[Dr. Bob]

Yes, there definitely were. Also, one amendment to the substitute proposed in committee that failed.

Care to elaborate a bit? Getting mixed reports and I need to know specifically what is going on.

[zapatosunidos]

Basic list:

No felons
No photo on the card, but card must be presented with photo ID
Must be a Michigan resident to register
Prosecutors added to the list of probable cause registry access - no warrant needed but probable cause is intact
LARA outsourcing made optional
Program revenues no longer go to the general fund, but to a special fund where they can be more easily accessed by LARA
New condition panel must have a majority of doctors
Outdoor grows must not have visible plants
Bonafide doctor/patient relationship requires monitoring treatment
Section 8 jury trial language simplified to defer to Supreme Court ("Except as provided in 7b...")

[peanutbutter]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

[imiubu]

Basic list:

No felons
No photo on the card, but card must be presented with photo ID
Must be a Michigan resident to register
Prosecutors added to the list of probable cause registry access - no warrant needed but probable cause is intact
LARA outsourcing made optional
Program revenues no longer go to the general fund, but to a special fund where they can be more easily accessed by LARA
New condition panel must have a majority of doctors
Outdoor grows must not have visible plants
Bonafide doctor/patient relationship requires monitoring treatment
Section 8 jury trial language simplified to defer to Supreme Court ("Except as provided in 7b...")

Thanks for the recap.

[rockinlespaul]

Can we define the "no felons" a bit more please?

[peanutbutter]

Outdoor grows MUST be covered the day the laws pass.

Pretty much all outdoor grows in the state are marked.

You are already on a list if you have an outdoor grow. That list probably notes which grow is "visible" and which ones are not.

That means plastic sheeting around and possibly over the grow.

"Visible" is the key word here.

[zapatosunidos]

To expand on my earlier "No felons" item: the Senate had already passed SB 505. Now they have also altered HB 4851, which included the definition of caregiver, and they lopped off the "involving illegal drugs" part.

[peanutbutter]

No felons allowed to be caregivers at all.

Even for family members.

I believe this may negate many caregiver cards. Leading to arrests of felons growing more than 12 plants.

Edited by peanutbutter, 15 August 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Willy]

well aint that nice.. NOT

[CaveatLector]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

A patient cannot be convicted for a doctor's mistake unless the patient was aware. Generally, intent is necessary to convict someone of a crime. This is a fallacy that jojo grabbed and ran with in an effort to fear monger.

What if a doc loses his/her license but continues to practice medicine...then prescribes you a medicine? Can you be convicted for filling the script and taking the meds? Not unless you KNEW the doc couldn't write a valid script.

[Dr. Bob]

It is likely that the doctor patient relationship will get questioned in many cases.

This will be used to bypass what the Supreme Court just ruled about the right of trial by jury.

This is a process where a doctor makes a mistake that results in the patient being convicted of a felony. Possibly becoming a standard procedure.

Actually I believe this will follow the line I predicted, that since the patient is no longer barred from mentioning the section 8 defense by motion, the next likely target is the certification. Better know what is needed. These mills are now going to be the undoing of your defense if you decide to take the easy way out. Better make sure you trust the doctor you see enough to be the one sitting at your defense table.

[mibrains]

question...

whose liability is it to conform to the doctor patient relationship?
is it ultimately the doctor who is responsible to conform to the regulation and therefore require these additional procedures, or is it up to the patient to make sure the doctor conforms?

in a court if the judge says to me, John
i am questioning your certification.
did your doctor do the requisite follow up questionnaire?
and i answer... no
is it my fault i didn't call the doctor, or the doctors fault he didn't call me?
ultimately whose responsibility are they placing these restrictions upon? are these requirements going to be put upon me or the certifying physicians?

is it not the doctors responsibility to ensure that before they sign my certification i am qualified and i have provided enough documentation to support my qualification into the program?
when a judge says to me they are attempting to invalidate my current certification wouldn't that have to be done by challenging the procedure and the doctor and bringing charges against the doctor for failing to comply to the regulations?
or is it up to me to make sure the doctor does their job?
ultimately where does the liability fall?

[peanutbutter]

Again .. this may take place instantly.

[Dr. Bob]

CL, I am very interested in your opinion on this, how do you think the Dr/Pt relationship issues would play in court? I tend to agree that unless it is something so outlandish, like a cert through the mail, or an absent doctor (something ANY patient should be uneasy about), they might not hold the patient accountable for that, but do you think they will try to attack the bonafide relationship as a way of sidestepping the section 8 defense?

What duty does a patient have to check out their doctor?