Medical For Add/adhd

[northerngal]

The OP said "I've been diagnosed with ADD by a certified therapist and was given a perscription for a medication that didn't work well with my body"

 

 

"Debilitating medical condition" means 1 or more of the following:

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

If a patient has a medical condition, and the treatment of the condition results in nausea, for example, then the patient qualifies.  There is no requirement for a specific ailment under the law to be approvable under Item 2 above....just a requirement that the treatment of said ailment results in ___(see above).

 

A patient could be diagnosed with the heebegeebees.  But Heebegeebees isn't a qualifying condition.  But if the patent's Dr. prescribes meds for the Heebegeebees and said meds make the patient nauseated, then said patient qualifies for MMJ use.

 

It couldn't be any simpler.  Maybe if you take a closer look at this you could help even more people get certified.

 

You obviously did not read my previous posts.  I am clearly aware that DOCUMENTED severe nausea contributed to a disease or treatment qualifies.  The poster never claimed to have documented nausea anywhere, did he?  He did not even mention nausea.  I advised him in my previous posts, that if he did have severe nausea it would need to be documented/in his records to qualify.  

 

I am always interested in learning more to help patients but there is no new information here.  This has been in place since the beginning, although more "rules" were added this year making it more clear as to what is expected.

[northerngal]

Oh wow. Sorry about that; clearly I've been deceived by the government once again. So, unless another panel has been created; would it be safe to say that going further than filling out the petition, and getting my paper work together would be futile?

 

Another panel has been formed.

 

  I encourage anyone that is willing to do the research and fill out a complete petition to do so.  Eventually there may be some conditions approved by the panel AND LARA    If everyone stops submitting applications/petitions, new conditions never even have the chance of being reviewed.

 

I am sorry if I came off as discouraging, that was not my intent.  I just wanted you to be able to view the "whole picture" in this situation and not to expect much anytime soon. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by northerngal

[Highlander]

You obviously did not read my previous posts.  I am clearly aware that DOCUMENTED severe nausea contributed to a disease or treatment qualifies.  The poster never claimed to have documented nausea anywhere, did he?  He did not even mention nausea.  I advised him in my previous posts, that if he did have severe nausea it would need to be documented/in his records to qualify.  

 

I am always interested in learning more to help patients but there is no new information here.  This has been in place since the beginning, although more "rules" were added this year making it more clear as to what is expected.

 

So you're saying that if the OP tells the original Doc that (for example), the pills made him nauseated then he's good to go but he can't go to a clinic with his existing records and tell the Doc at the clinic that the pills made him nauseated?

 

You are coming across as if all a clinic Doc can do is look at existing records and not think for him/herself.  This isn't the most helpful approach.  Some day it would be nice if people didn't see such a bright line between a MMJ cert Doc and a regular Doc.

 

A clinic Doc can look at past records and see what is indicated by them.  If the records show a diagnosis of a medical condition and the clinic Doc understands that the prescribed treatment is likely to cause nausea, then the clinic Doc can make his own judgement call that nausea is indicated and determine that MMJ is likely to alleviate the nausea.

 

There may or may not be new information here - but there are are new people asking questions, and I'm looking for the best answer.

[northerngal]

The O.P stated he is not utilizing the treatment that didn't work well with his body.  He never said it gave him nausea, but said it did cause him some pain.   If he is no longer taking the medication/treatment this point is mute anyhow.  How can it still be causing him issues if he is not taking it?

 

IF a person was taking a medication that was causing SEVERE nausea it would/should be documented with the prescribing/primary physician.  How is a certifying doctor able to examine you and decide that you have severe nausea?  Is there a way to prove severe nausea?  Since there isn't a test for this, how does one determine it?  More often than not, when a person has SEVERE nausea from a medication, the medication is discontinued and/or a different medication is prescribed and the severe nausea goes away.  I am not claiming that in all cases this is true, as there are times with severe illnesses where no other alternatives exist.

 

Either way, the O.P. did not state he had severe nausea and said he was not utilizing the treatment that "didn't work well".  How can a medication cause a symptom if a person isn't utilizing it?  In that case, everyone who ever has been on anti nausea medication or had a reaction to a drug in the past would qualify.  Unfortunately it does not work this way. 

 

If a person in his situation were to restart the meds and they were to cause severe nausea, I would advise them to have it regularly documented with the prescribing doctor. What reason would a person have NOT to tell the prescribing doctor that a medication was reacting adversely?  It's actually something very important to report to the prescriber.  With that said, I would not advise anyone to take medication when the risks/side effects outweigh the benefits for any reason.

 

When people ask questions, I suggest advising them based on the law and its requirements not on what they may be able to "skate through with."  What is one of the first things a prosecutor is going to attack in a courtroom?  (The physicians certification/Dr-Pt relationship)  If you do not have a valid certification, your defense is going to be much more complicated .

 

I do not wish to spend much more time going back and forth on this subject.  The law is pretty clear now in this respect.  I am secure in my position and it will not waiver until the law/rules do.

Edited July 9, 2013 by northerngal

[Highlander]

I do not wish to spend much more time going back and forth on this subject. 

 

Me neither.

 

I have a patient who suffers from frequent and debilitating migraines.  This patient was certified by her long-time family physican to use MMJ for the pain.  It didn't work. 

 

She was also unable to keep pills down long enough to take effect.

 

So she tried a combination of treximet and MMJ and found that the MMJ kept the nausea in check long enough for the treximet to work.  So the next year she got certified because treatment of her pain condition caused nausea, which was alleviated by MMJ.

 

In your world, this patient "skated by."  In my world, this patient was certified for a legitimate and helpful use of MMJ to counteract the effects of the treatment of her debilitating condition.

 

If you can't accept this, then I guess this is the sticking point where we disagree.  I'm no Dr. but this patient is a legitimate patient in my eyes.  Seems not so much in yours, but I do admire the good work you do.  Such a patient ought to be able to walk into a MMJ clinic with records in hand and say "When I take the pills the doc prescribed, I vomit.  When I take the pills and smoke a little MMJ, I can make it work."  I think such a patient deserves and has valid protection under the Act.

 

I'll leave this discussion with a quote from Dr. Bob's website and defer any further discussion on this matter to qualified medical professionals, which I am not and I assume you're not either:

 

Finally, take anxiety or PTSD.  These are not directly qualifying conditions, but THEIR TREATMENT produces side effects such as nausea or their is association with a qualifying condition such as severe weight loss

 

I have never seen Dr. Bob discuss any expertise in diagnosing mental conditions.  So at best, he could probably only confirm that the diagnosis happened (with records) and then listen to his patient who says "my PTSD meds make me nauseated."  And then he could give his qualified opinion as to whether the patient is likely to benefit from MMJ.  I'm not sure why you find such a cert. process "skating by."

Edited July 9, 2013 by Highlander

[northerngal]

Me neither.

 

I have a patient who suffers from frequent and debilitating migraines.  This patient was certified by her long-time family physican to use MMJ for the pain.  It didn't work. 

 

She was also unable to keep pills down long enough to take effect.

 

So she tried a combination of treximet and MMJ and found that the MMJ kept the nausea in check long enough for the treximet to work.  So the next year she got certified because treatment of her pain condition caused nausea, which was alleviated by MMJ.

 

In your world, this patient "skated by."  In my world, this patient was certified for a legitimate and helpful use of MMJ to counteract the effects of the treatment of her debilitating condition.

 

If you can't accept this, then I guess this is the sticking point where we disagree.  I'm no Dr. but this patient is a legitimate patient in my eyes.  Seems not so much in yours, but I do admire the good work you do.  Such a patient ought to be able to walk into a MMJ clinic with records in hand and say "When I take the pills the doc prescribed, I vomit.  When I take the pills and smoke a little MMJ, I can make it work."  I think such a patient deserves and has valid protection under the Act.

 

I'll leave this discussion with a quote from Dr. Bob's website and defer any further discussion on this matter to qualified medical professionals, which I am not and I assume you're not either:

 

Finally, take anxiety or PTSD.  These are not directly qualifying conditions, but THEIR TREATMENT produces side effects such as nausea or their is association with a qualifying condition such as severe weight loss

 

I have never seen Dr. Bob discuss any expertise in diagnosing mental conditions.  So at best, he could probably only confirm that the diagnosis happened (with records) and then listen to his patient who says "my PTSD meds make me nauseated."  And then he could give his qualified opinion as to whether the patient is likely to benefit from MMJ.  I'm not sure why you find such a cert. process "skating by."

 

I do not disagree.  I suppose you are still misunderstanding what I am saying.  You were the one disagreeing with exactly what you are now saying above.

 

If a person has nausea recorded in their medical records caused by medication, they should qualify. 

 

If a person claims to have nausea caused by medication and expects a certification based on it, they need RECORDED proof of such.  (medical records)

 

In your scenario above, you say a person should have records in hand documenting nausea- I AGREE! 

 

This was my point all along!!!

 

What you say above is exactly what I have been trying to explain from the get go!!

 

Nausea from medication can be a qualifier but you need records!

 

You don't need to be a healthcare professional to understand this, it's pretty simple. 

 

IBS patients also fall into the same type scenario - IBS itself is not on the list of qualifying conditions, but if it causes you severe nausea and you have records complaining of such, you shouldn't have a problem qualifying. 

 

The only point I have been trying to make clear, is that with severe nausea (or any condition) - you will be asked to provide records.  You telling the certifying doctor that meds you are no longer taking, once caused you nausea is not enough to certify you.  Records indicating that medication you are currently utilizing is causing nausea, different story!! 

 

To "end" this, here is a quote from Dr. Townsends website for what is needed to qualify under severe nausea:

 

11. Severe Nausea:  Confirmation of 3 months of symptoms and treatment for nausea -

 

To document a diagnosis, we need records from your treating physician.  We generally ask for 3-5 notes but as above, we simply need enough records to clearly and defensibly confirm you have a qualifying condition.

"

 

    

Edited July 9, 2013 by northerngal

[Highlander]

I do not disagree.  I suppose you are still misunderstanding what I am saying.  You were the one disagreeing with exactly what you are now saying above.

 

If a person has nausea recorded in their medical records caused by medication, they should qualify. 

 

If a person claims to have nausea caused by medication and expects a certification based on it, they need RECORDED proof of such.  (medical records)

 

In your scenario above, you say a person should have records in hand documenting nausea- I AGREE! 

 

This was my point all along!!!

 

What you say above is exactly what I have been trying to explain from the get go!!

 

Nausea from medication can be a qualifier but you need records!

 

You don't need to be a healthcare professional to understand this, it's pretty simple. 

 

IBS patients also fall into the same type scenario - IBS itself is not on the list of qualifying conditions, but if it causes you severe nausea and you have records complaining of such, you shouldn't have a problem qualifying. 

 

The only point I have been trying to make clear, is that with severe nausea (or any condition) - you will be asked to provide records.  You telling the certifying doctor that meds you are no longer taking, once caused you nausea is not enough to certify you.  Records indicating that medication you are currently utilizing is causing nausea, different story!! 

 

To "end" this, here is a quote from Dr. Townsends website for what is needed to qualify under severe nausea:

 

11. Severe Nausea:  Confirmation of 3 months of symptoms and treatment for nausea -

 

To document a diagnosis, we need records from your treating physician.  We generally ask for 3-5 notes but as above, we simply need enough records to clearly and defensibly confirm you have a qualifying condition.

"

 

    

 

 

We don't agree I guess.  I don't see where a patient would need prior documentation that treatment of his condition causes nausea/pain in order to go to a clinic and get a legit MMJ cert.  I do see where the patient needs documentation that he has been diagnosed with some aliment.  He could then take this diagnosis to a cert Doc and explain that treatment of the condition causes pain, nausea, whatever...

 

For example, a pt who has been diagnosed with PTSD and prescribed meds by a "regular" doc should/can be able to take records of the diagnosis to a cert Doc and explain ("have an honest conversation" is how is stated it before) that the treatment of his condition causes nausea or pain and on that basis, the cert. Doc can/should be able to make the decision from there as to whether or not this patient is likely to benefit from MMJ.  There isn't anything magic about a non-cert Doc's records.  The patient can/should be able to create a relationship with a cert Doc.

 

You give more weight to the first Doc.  I don’t know why this is.  The PTSD Doc isn't any better at determining if the patient really gets nausea from his PTSD meds than Doc Bob would.  That's my point.  Dr. Bob can look at a patient's meds and determine if nausea/pain/severe weight loss is indicated by the treatment and make a determination from there.    Would you feel better if the patient got his PTSD diagnosis from a "regular" Doc and took meds that made him sick and then visited Dr. Bob three times to say he is nauseated from his meds? Is it the number of times the patient visits a Doc and says he's nauseated that has you tripped-up?  I'm just not sure where your issue is here and why you feel that visits to one Doc are more convincing than visits to a cert. Doc.

 

You keep tossing a whole class of patients aside/into some grey area.  I don't believe in this.  If a person has some medical condition and the treatment of this condition causes nausea/pain/wasting, then he/she should have an honest conversation with a cert. Doc.  If the Doc determines that the patient is likely to benefit from MMJ, then that is a decision between the Doc and the patient, and it is not approrpiate for a layperson (or anyone else....PA, judge, person on the internet, etc.) to second-guess the decision.

 

Again, this is a Doc's decision - not mine - not yours.  And I'll hope Dr. Bob weighs in on this topic.

 

Meanwhile, I leave you with this question:  If a patient is diagnosed with PTSD and prescribed meds by a "regular" Doc and those meds make him nauseated....and then if he visits a Cert Doc. (1,2 3 times??) and says "Doc my meds are (still) making me sick" is this a legit route to certification?  I think it is.  Do you?  Or do you think the Doc who prescribed the meds needs to be the only one to note that the patient experiences these side effects.  That's the real question here.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Highlander

[Dr. Bob]

I wasn't following this thread but was asked to review by several participants.

 

Rule #1, doctors can call their own shots so long as they can back the decision.  They need to be made carefully, based on data, logic, and experience.

Rule #2, prosecutors love to challenge the doctor's decision making process, documentation, etc.

Rule #3, doctors, defense attorneys, and prosecutors go home from court, patients go to jail if things don't turn out well.

 

One issue Harwell got in trouble for was claiming a patient's 'headaches' were chronic despite the fact the patient didn't claim they were 'chronic'.  All headaches are chronic, if you have them, you have them repeatedly.  It is rare someone has one headache and never has another one.  Can we assure a patient of safety in court if we assume a complaint of headache means 'chronic' headaches?

 

The answer is 'maybe'.  For a non controversial treatment, like a advil or an imitrex, for the most part no one cares so yes.  But if the patient has a heart attack due to coronary spasm from the imitrex, you can bet your boots the malpractice attorney will grill the doc on the decision making process and the actual documentation of the chronicity of the 'headache' whether it was a muscle tension headache, cluster headache, migraine or a hangover, or whatever that resulted in the doc exposing the patient to the deadly cardiac effects of imitrex.

 

Now translate that to marijuana.  As noted on Planet Greentrees last Wed some judges and prosecutors have a 'hard on' for cannabis.  

 

Assuming a patient has nausea because they have to take prozac for their depression is a pretty safe bet for an 'advil' level risk.  Is it good enough for cannabis?  Not with MY patients, though I could make a pretty good case for it.

 

If the patient has depression, and says the prozac they take for it causes nausea, and that they cannot function without the prozac, they are safer assuming I document it (and yes I would, that is important in court).  Here the case is much better but not a sure thing.  Especially since I am making a bit of a stretch by going outside the strictly named conditions (in this case I am certifying for depression, based on a side effect of a medication they must take to treat it) I must clearly document and support the symptoms of the treatment I am relying on for the certification.

 

This last point is key.  If I am certifying for cancer, I must document the cancer.  If I am certifying for nausea due to medication used to treat a condition that would not otherwise qualify (like depression, ptsd, anxiety, etc) I must clearly DOCUMENT the nausea.  

 

As I cannot look at you and confirm nausea (unless you take your meds and immediately barf on me) I must have records that you are having that side effect of a medication.  Just because a med has a side effect on the package, it doesn't mean YOU have that side effect, you need to prove it, not just claim it, to give me a solid case for you in the event I am defending you in court.  

 

That is why I require documentation that you have complained of and been treated for nausea.  From your medical record.  Remember the certification is a request for special permission to use a schedule 1 med.  Documenting why you need it is important.  I am many times said to patients, 'I am sorry you fell off your bike when you were 12, how does that affect you now that you are 46?'.  I DO know people that fell off their bike at 12 and are still in treatment for it at 46, but the key feature is document how it is affecting you the day of the certification.

 

If I don't have that, there are times I will use my judgement and certify you, but I will have a MUCH harder time proving that in court, and that exposes you to risk.  It is also a case by case EXCEPTION to the rule for me.

 

The goal here is solid certification that are fully defensible, not simply getting as many certified as possible.  I don't go by the minimal requirements needed to avoid outright fraud in order to make as much money from certs as possible, just like I don't do cert renewals through the mail.  I make sure my patients go home from court because I did my homework, prepped the chart, and go home at night knowing everyone I saw that day is safe.

 

Dr. Bob

 

How safe do you want to be?  I want my patients safe.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

I wasn't following this thread but was asked to review by several participants.

 

Rule #1, doctors can call their own shots so long as they can back the decision.  They need to be made carefully, based on data, logic, and experience.

Rule #2, prosecutors love to challenge the doctor's decision making process, documentation, etc.

Rule #3, doctors, defense attorneys, and prosecutors go home from court, patients go to jail if things don't turn out well.

 

One issue Harwell got in trouble for was claiming a patient's 'headaches' were chronic despite the fact the patient didn't claim they were 'chronic'.  All headaches are chronic, if you have them, you have them repeatedly.  It is rare someone has one headache and never has another one.  Can we assure a patient of safety in court if we assume a complaint of headache means 'chronic' headaches?

 

The answer is 'maybe'.  For a non controversial treatment, like a advil or an imitrex, for the most part no one cares so yes.  But if the patient has a heart attack due to coronary spasm from the imitrex, you can bet your boots the malpractice attorney will grill the doc on the decision making process and the actual documentation of the chronicity of the 'headache' whether it was a muscle tension headache, cluster headache, migraine or a hangover, or whatever that resulted in the doc exposing the patient to the deadly cardiac effects of imitrex.

 

Now translate that to marijuana.  As noted on Planet Greentrees last Wed some judges and prosecutors have a 'hard on' for cannabis.  

 

Assuming a patient has nausea because they have to take prozac for their depression is a pretty safe bet for an 'advil' level risk.  Is it good enough for cannabis?  Not with MY patients, though I could make a pretty good case for it.

 

If the patient has depression, and says the prozac they take for it causes nausea, and that they cannot function without the prozac, they are safer assuming I document it (and yes I would, that is important in court).  Here the case is much better but not a sure thing.  Especially since I am making a bit of a stretch by going outside the strictly named conditions (in this case I am certifying for depression, based on a side effect of a medication they must take to treat it) I must clearly document and support the symptoms of the treatment I am relying on for the certification.

 

This last point is key.  If I am certifying for cancer, I must document the cancer.  If I am certifying for nausea due to medication used to treat a condition that would not otherwise qualify (like depression, ptsd, anxiety, etc) I must clearly DOCUMENT the nausea.  

 

As I cannot look at you and confirm nausea (unless you take your meds and immediately barf on me) I must have records that you are having that side effect of a medication.  Just because a med has a side effect on the package, it doesn't mean YOU have that side effect, you need to prove it, not just claim it, to give me a solid case for you in the event I am defending you in court.  

 

That is why I require documentation that you have complained of and been treated for nausea.  From your medical record.  Remember the certification is a request for special permission to use a schedule 1 med.  Documenting why you need it is important.  I am many times said to patients, 'I am sorry you fell off your bike when you were 12, how does that affect you now that you are 46?'.  I DO know people that fell off their bike at 12 and are still in treatment for it at 46, but the key feature is document how it is affecting you the day of the certification.

 

If I don't have that, there are times I will use my judgement and certify you, but I will have a MUCH harder time proving that in court, and that exposes you to risk.  It is also a case by case EXCEPTION to the rule for me.

 

The goal here is solid certification that are fully defensible, not simply getting as many certified as possible.  I don't go by the minimal requirements needed to avoid outright fraud in order to make as much money from certs as possible, just like I don't do cert renewals through the mail.  I make sure my patients go home from court because I did my homework, prepped the chart, and go home at night knowing everyone I saw that day is safe.

 

Dr. Bob

 

How safe do you want to be?  I want my patients safe.

 

Dr. Bob:  Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion as, so far, it is really the only one presented that matters/has any weight.  Prior discussions are purely conjecture. 

My whole intent of participating in this thread was to encourage patients who might qualify based on the effects of treating their debilitating condition to have an honest conversation with a Doc. open to MMJ......as an easier path to certification than petitioning LARA to add a new qualifying condition. 

 

The underlined sentence above is my key point.....that a non-MMJ Doc can make a diagnosis and then a Doc willing to sign certs can document the painful/nauseating/wasting effects of the treatment if he sees fit.  The diagnosing Doc. need not document the effects of treatment in order for these effects to qualify the patient to use MMJ if a "cert." Doc   is willing to document these same effects.  Maybe one visit will do…or maybe more are needed before you're comfortable certifying…or maybe said patient does need to barf on your shoes…..but at the end of the day, you, as a Doc. can make the call as to what “proof” you need before you’re willing to sign such a cert.

 

I’d like to think that a patient can get diagnosed with PTSD, get meds, visit your clinic so you can watch him cough up his lunch after he takes the meds..maybe once…maybe 10 times….but it is YOUR call as to whether this patient is likely to benefit from MMJ. 

 

You don't need chart notes from the certifying Doc that this patient gets sick from his meds.  You know if/how/when to come to that conculsion on your own  (  <--------- This is my main point)

 

Or maybe the better way to explain my point is that a doctor doesn't need to make an initial diagnosis in order to come to the conclusion that treatment of this diagnosis results in nausea, pain, or wasting.

 

Thanks so much for your opinion and all you do for our community.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Highlander

[Dr. Bob]

Well thank you Highlander, and for your contributions as well.  Northern follows my philosophy of safety, so she is correct.  You are ALSO correct in saying that I or any other doctor CAN make the call.  But the answer as I see it goes deeper than what can be done, it is what should be done.

 

There is a very hostile environment out there towards cannabis, not in the MMJ community, nor in the general population.  But with the folks that have the guns and the handcuffs and the people that sit in judgement of our patients and us.  We need to address those factors as well, hence my very structured approach to certifications.  That is why years ago I decided to require records, do free follow ups, not do any 'questionable' (and now illegal) activities like certifications through the mail.

 

To specifically address your question of making the diagnosis, yes I can, but should I in all cases (ie a no record certification)?  What is the more solid defense, a diagnosis made by other physicians that I confirm or one made by me for the purposes of certifying you with no other medical history confirming it?  If you were a prosecutor, which do you think would be easier to call in to question?  Most conditions that you can be certified for marijuana for are chronic and easily documented.  Others, like nausea due to Add meds for example, especially need to be documented in the record as you are certifying someone for other than a standard condition, and are especially easy to overcome by a prosecutor if they are not well documented.

 

That said, I do make the call occasionally in a clear cut case.  For example GERD (esophageal reflux) is accompanied with nausea nearly all the time.  That is a pretty safe call.  But those need to be the exceptions to the rule for the safety of the patient in court.  Clinics that don't require records, do things through the mail, or try and skate the bare minimum have a name.  They are signature mills.  Even if their hearts are in the right place, they have to overcome that label and the long history of mills that are in it simply for a quick buck and boot scoot out of town, leaving the patient is left to face the music in court alone.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 13, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

Dr. Bob - thanks for taking the time to reflect on this matter.  Many of us have have been concerned in the past that we spend two hours in a Doctor's office and only talk to the Doc for 30 seconds and he seems to be somewhere else during the conversation.  So thanks for taking the time on this topic and the many others you've weighed in on.  Your time is valuable, and I appreciate that you spend as much of it here, helping patients (and CGs) as you do.

[Bcol3]

he means he wants to see the submitted petitions. what info was submitted, what it looked like, etc.

there was  some posts about it but i dont remember where they are atm.

Well, if you happen to come across them, send me a message and let me know. I want to make sure I'm doing what I need to do to ensure it goes through.

[Bcol3]

Thanks for the compliment.  I assume there isn't sarcasm there.  My grandad enlisted in the regular army in Scotland in 1912ish. And served in WWI under the banner of the Argylle and Sutherland Highlanders.  Years later, his son (my dad) was drafted into the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders in WWII.  Scots were bad-donkey. 

 

Gather up your records and make an appointment with the Greenlite Clinic in Burton (they have clinics on other areas too but I think this is their home base).  Have a real conversation with the Doc.  I think you'll get where you need to be.

Nope, not sarcasm here good sir. Not to make light of your history, but when I seen your name, the show Highlander popped in my head immediately. I was a HUGE fan of the show, even more so the intro song  "Princess of the Universe" by Queen.

 

Thanks for help Highlander, I'll make sure I stop by when I can.

[Bcol3]

Thank you everyone who chimed in with their own knowledge and much needed information. I see that this road to becoming certified while not becoming a victim of technicalities will be a bit more complex than I had planned. I don't plan on giving up, just redirecting my energies toward something I can achieve now, rather than waiting on the system.

[t-pain]

if you get a doctors reccomendation to use mmj, that can be used to assert a section 8 defense as an 'unregistered' patient.

but i dont think anyone recommends that.

[trichcycler]

I've been diagnosed with ADD by a certified therapist and was given a perscription for a medication that didn't work well with my body. I'm interested in using medical marijuana, but I read that ADD/ADHD wasn't among the list of accepted ailments in Michigan. So my questions are: 1) Is it possible to still become a patient? and 2) If so, how can I go about doing it? Or if not, how can I go about putting ADD/ADHD as one of the ailments on the list? Thanks

 

well ? how did your certification work out ?