Does An Expired Card Provide Section 4 Protections?

[Dr. Bob]

I didn't say anything about a right.

 

Then you understand the answer to the question. It isn't torture, it isn't life support, and if you are in a position to submit to the authority of another (like the judge in a probation hearing) and they don't want you to have it for any reason, you don't have it.

 

Really it is that simple.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

The inside of a correctional institution is not a protect area per the MMMA.

 

So not a wrongful withholding. I suppose that you could say that parole is an extension of the prison. I would counter with the MMMA specifies the location itself,not the legal condition.

So it isn't torture because of where it occurs? I'm not following. Either withholding is torture or it is not.

[Dr. Bob]

Letting him dig another hole and paint himself into a corner again is not forwarding any position. He has done it so many times doing it again is pointless. If someone seems to be buying into this 'location vs legal condition' nonsense, folks that know better can step in and educate.

 

Let it die. There is no reason to prove the point again, it has been done too many times.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

So it isn't torture because of where it occurs? I'm not following. Either withholding is torture or it is not.

 

Oh I still think it's torture. Just there is a hole in the MMMA that allows it.

 

When a person is given the choice between being in pain at home or in a jail cell, it has been decided the defendant WILL suffer. And this is not a withdrawal, This is the return of the suffering they had found a way out of. So that suffering is permanent as long as the medicine is withheld.

 

For some people, this works out to be the same as taking a baseball bat to them. Every hour of every day.

Edited January 24, 2013 by peanutbutter

[lawyercaregiver]

I am with the doubters on this one PB. These are the kind of claims you make when you have unlimited money and can pile drive the other side into the ground with one semi-frivolous argument after another. I represented Plaintiff's in personal injury cases and the insurance company sends one motion after another with total bullcrap arguments. Facing the government this is not a good strategy.

 

As has been suggested there are MANY examples of statutes omitting the details on what happens with an expiration- in none of them does the licensee continue with all of his license derivative rights intact.

[peanutbutter]

I am with the doubters on this one PB. These are the kind of claims you make when you have unlimited money and can pile drive the other side into the ground with one semi-frivolous argument after another. I represented Plaintiff's in personal injury cases and the insurance company sends one motion after another with total bullcrap arguments. Facing the government this is not a good strategy.

 

As has been suggested there are MANY examples of statutes omitting the details on what happens with an expiration- in none of them does the licensee continue with all of his license derivative rights intact.

 

OK uncle on the expired card thing.

 

I suppose I should have started a new thread about torture.

 

Hummm .. an action filed in international court? Few teeth to that, but could shift UN stands ..

[lawyercaregiver]

I do think a recently expired card helps the section 8 defense a LOT.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Since we are discussing frivolous arguments, I have a question. What happens to the poor sucker who, after returning from a weekend ski trip to Colorado where he partook of cannabis at the after ski party ( or was just in the vicinity and inhaled), gets drug tested at work and comes up positive?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Chauncy Gardner

[Dr. Bob]

Since we are discussing frivolous arguments, I have a question. What happens to the poor sucker who, after returning from a weekend ski trip to Colorado where he partook of cannabis at the after ski party ( or was just in the vicinity and inhaled), gets drug tested at work and comes up positive?

 

My guess, fired.

 

Dr. Bob

[Chauncy Gardner]

Since we are discussing frivolous arguments, I have a question. What happens to the poor sucker who, after returning from a weekend ski trip to Colorado where he partook of cannabis at the after ski party ( or was just in the vicinity and inhaled), gets drug tested at work and comes up positive?

 

 

Answer: Nothing if you are a lawmaker (congress etc.), law enforcer/criminal justice person, executive at a Fortune 500 company, or a member of the hoity-toity rich set. These people don't get drug tested. Everyone else gets fired.

 

Equality under the law - yeah right.

[CaveatLector]

Answer: Nothing if you are a lawmaker (congress etc.), law enforcer/criminal justice person, executive at a Fortune 500 company, or a member of the hoity-toity rich set. These people don't get drug tested. Everyone else gets fired.

 

Equality under the law - yeah right.

I've seen assistant prosecutors fired for less than that. They are at-will employees and if you think an elected prosecutor is going to risk his politcal career so some bum APA can get a free pass I'd say you are wrong.

[thecannabiskid]

Nope, I'm pretty sure they would arrest you, but i do believe if you would still qualify as a patient Sec. 8 was meant to protect you from prosecution anyway. I think the way the law was wrote, it would imply that registering for a card was a technicality. Some people are too ill to register, and others symptoms might be too acute to wait to be seen by a Doctor.

[Dr. Bob]

Nope, I'm pretty sure they would arrest you, but i do believe if you would still qualify as a patient Sec. 8 was meant to protect you from prosecution anyway. I think the way the law was wrote, it would imply that registering for a card was a technicality. Some people are too ill to register, and others symptoms might be too acute to wait to be seen by a Doctor.

 

I think you certainly have a point with this post, there are those that can't wait for the registration due to their condition. They are rarities, and must rely on the uncertain section 8 defense. Section 4 is meant to protect people that jump through the right hoops, don't follow the rules you don't have the benefits that those that do enjoy. You still have section 8, but as noted that is not only uncertain, it is VERY expensive and emotionally taxing on the patient and their family.

 

I think most of the legal minds in here (ie real lawyers) will agree with that statement. Others will try and encourage folks to take a very real risk based on some bizarre legal concept they cook up in their heads, but are not willing to risk themselves.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

The section 8 might end up a success, at all costs for the patient. Was it worth it? Definitely not. People need to choose their own medicine, but not at all costs, including death due to the stresses involved with a section 8. A section 8 is like a life raft out in the middle of the ocean. You are glad you have it, but you never want to have to use it. It's not like it's an option to weigh. It's an option where you have already lost and you are cutting your losses. It might cost you some coin for a card, and you have to do the right thing about your medical paperwork, but it's the only value related way to have your choice of medicine. The section 8 is a terrible investment with serious problems concerning the value versus cost relationship. It don't pay.

[thecannabiskid]

You still have section 8, but as noted that is not only uncertain, it is VERY expensive and emotionally taxing on the patient and their family

Dr. Bob

 

Yes that is very true, but I don't believe it was meant to be that way when the law was wrote.. the courts are the ones who have made Sec. 8 so uncertain and taxing on the patients and family. I believe people should wait until they have cards, but not everyone will have the means, or knowledge to be able to register in time to treat their symptoms.

Edited January 25, 2013 by thecannabiskid

[thecannabiskid]

I said MEANT to protect; the way things have been going i think the reality is the Sec. 8 offers very little protection, unless you can afford a really good attorney.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

No one has a right to use cannabis.

 

Dr. Bob

 

And I couldn't agree more Doc

[Dr. Bob]

I said MEANT to protect; the way things have been going i think the reality is the Sec. 8 offers very little protection, unless you can afford a really good attorney.

 

You get as much justice as you can afford, and you can't make a purse out a sow's ear. The later point indicates that unless you prepare your Section 8 in advance, think through possible routes of attack the prosecutor will use, it simply makes the job of the attorney much harder, if not impossible.

 

This is the main reason I really hate it when people come in and tell others that, according to their understanding of the act, you 'should' be able to do this. And this generally turns out to be something most thinking people with a good understanding of the Act could eat alive. The other group that really bothers me is the 'take the easiest way out' folks. The ones that stress that as long as you have a signature you are ok. The ones that don't have problems with no medical documentation, no physician contact, certs through the mail, mill type certifications. They assume they will never have a problem, they are COMPLETELY unprepared to prove a 'bona fide' relationship with their signature mill doc and will pay the price of a cheap and easy cert if it is ever questioned. No attorney can help them will an obvious fraud like that.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

I find it as a problem more than fault i guess.

 

But this means we arent helping to educate physicians properly. I try to help on basic crossing I's and dotting T's for several physicians, but we need better education and clarity to acceptable and non acceptable standards.

 

In most cases, i see this becoming better and most physicians are not looking to violate standards. They may just be a little naive to what is needed in these circumstances. :-)

 

So instead of ripping on "mills" in general, i would rather take a little time(sometimes alot) and try to get them to come into a more inarguable compliance with the standards being sought for BF relationships.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Malamute

[Dr. Bob]

You imply a review of the medical records as if that is done or even promoted by many of the 'signature is all that matters' crowd. The point was they specifically want everyone to get a signature even if they cannot support the condition as a means to simply 'get everyone signed up', while those selling those signatures simply make money off the process with no backing for the patient.

 

As for Mal's comment, I think HB 4851 will take care of most of it. The standard is there to see, and the result is that patients will be protected if they follow it. That is powerful education for providers and patients. And a measure of comfort as we know to what standard we are being judged. The rules are there, just follow them and things will be fine.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

An educated patient is a safe patient. It is not their fault if a doctor plays loose and easy, but we ALL have some ownership of our personal and legal safety. I don't have to educate myself about how certifications are attacked in court, nor do I have to design my process to blunt those attacks. I do it to protect myself and my patients. I do suggest that patients educate themselves about the standards, and when they are certified, wherever that may be, the at least look at how it is done, what is required, etc to satisfy themselves that they are safe.

 

We both seem to agree on this point Zap.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

An educated patient is a safe patient. It is not their fault if a doctor plays loose and easy, but we ALL have some ownership of our personal and legal safety. I don't have to educate myself about how certifications are attacked in court, nor do I have to design my process to blunt those attacks. I do it to protect myself and my patients. I do suggest that patients educate themselves about the standards, and when they are certified, wherever that may be, the at least look at how it is done, what is required, etc to satisfy themselves that they are safe.

 

We both seem to agree on this point Zap.

 

Dr. Bob

 

In this context, patients should be warned that actions, or lack of actions, by their doctor could put the patient in jail.

[maxmax]

Might be the case.

 

The law says if the person gets a doctors letter and file for a card .. the card then gets issued if XY and Z have been fulfilled.

 

Then a judge says that's not true for this patient.

 

When does a judge get to over ride a law?

I see your point just because your card expires one 1/1/13 doesn't mean you are well that day

[mibrains]

i would like to offer up something that it is a primary concern of mine.

 

my advice to every patient - first and foremost is not so much the location of the office visit but to ensure you are meeting with the doctor who is signing your certification.

 

ask for identification if necessary.

 

please folks make sure your are in fact sitting in front of the Michigan licensed doctor who is going to sign your certification and actually then watch them sign your certification in front of you.

 

it is one of the best and easiest ways to protect yourself from signature mill fraud.

 

anyplace that refuses to let you watch the Doctor sign your certification is most likely attempting to scam you.

 

the only thing i can say about the question at hand.. is

 

section 4 protects you from arrest.

 

if your card is expired... prepare to be arrested if confronted...

[Dr. Bob]

i would like to offer up something that it is a primary concern of mine.

 

my advice to every patient - first and foremost is not so much the location of the office visit but to ensure you are meeting with the doctor who is signing your certification.

 

ask for identification if necessary.

 

please folks make sure your are in fact sitting in front of the Michigan licensed doctor who is going to sign your certification and actually then watch them sign your certification in front of you.

 

it is one of the best and easiest ways to protect yourself from signature mill fraud.

 

anyplace that refuses to let you watch the Doctor sign your certification is most likely attempting to scam you.

 

the only thing i can say about the question at hand.. is

 

section 4 protects you from arrest.

 

if your card is expired... prepare to be arrested if confronted...

 

This is a pretty good answer for you Zap. I took care of people in tents when I was in the army. Point being it is not where, but how the doctor certifies you.

 

Couple of good things to look for in a clinic....

 

Is there one or more main offices that are doctors offices, not just administrative headquarters.

Does the doctor do other things (not necessary but helpful), other kinds of medicine other than just certifications.

Does the doctor have a clear records on the state medical board license look up

Is the NAME of the doctor listed in the advertisements

Do you actually meet with the doctor, and do they require records of everyone

Is the doctor running the clinic, or are the money people running it

 

Dr. Bob