Jump to content

Is Your Certification Doctor Qualified To Certify?


trichcycler

Recommended Posts

Sorry man, thanks for giving me a second chance.

guessing sarcasm...I gave you plenty of chances. I moved the thread to an uncensored section, I changed the title. You only asked me to come to you with problems after I created a thread specifically calling you out.

 

Sorry grass. Didn't mean to derail ya.

 

Thanks resto

 

Peace everyone. Enjoy the rest of summer. Fall is starting to hit the u.p.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, a cop doesn't know who the doc is, but I also know that many times people are not arrested for long periods of time. During this time info can be gained, like a bogus doctor etc. then comes arrest, and there goes a defense when the bogus doc is exposed.

I was operating a couple years ago within the law for months when lara informed me that my card would be null and void if I didn't get another cert soon. seems my doc was missing some credits that semester or similar. Supposing I would have been caught up with a neighbor's olfactory and 011 dialing skills during this time, in court, and its found my doc was a "bogus doc" after all....there goes my defense right?

 

people are being arrested for improper transport, no locked box in the trunk thing. how did that gain traction in court, on the roadside too ?

What exactly do you mean by the bolded comment? Credits that semester? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grassmatch posts a lot, so you'd expect some of those posts to collide with what mods or admins like.

 

Aha !! that's it! There are so many mods, and they post so often because Grassmatch does. My membership fees should be higher for the added work even! Mods and Admin are necessary. hall monitors are not. I don't see much hall monitoring here really. In an open forum nobody would much care what is posted. good or bad, or ridiculous. but here, this forum is representing legal firm too. The discussions taking place need to be guarded I understand.

 

I am miffed at the ever present thought here that talking about a controversial cannabis issue somehow could change the law, so we have to bury it, or flame the poster, new poster or not. If all we do is talk about what is positive acceptable info sanctioned by a few admins then what do we really have to discuss. ie--"back to sexing plants". We all like recipes, and anecdotal stories of course, ad the court cases, defense help is waaay appreciated. When Admin expresses opinions readership is in a position that could be strangely squelched. An effective way to end/censorship a conversation is for the person capable of flaming you to oblivion to post an opposite thread view with vigor...

There is a lot more going on though in patients' and cgs' minds,than plant sexing perhaps.. some of which is not comfortable maybe for a sanctioned forum unfortunately. This pizzes me off sometimes, but I'm still here right. I despise censorship and wont apologize for it either. Something about burning books rings about. I guess maybe there some books that should be burned. who knows.

 

good job mostly Admins, and Mods.

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my apologies rockinsteady. I'm sure you do great work, and I enjoy most of the mods. Tpain, and imi and been great resources as have many members. Sorry for the negativity. It sucks to be dying.

I apologize for lashing out at you. I can get hurt by others too easily. I guess I'm emotionally fragile.

 

You need to let go, and not butt-in to threads just to get a jab in. Just let zap post (and edit) without comment. If it gets bad enough, you can start a new thread complaining about admins there. Make it a short post in case it gets deleted.

 

I'm sorry you got hurt. after you posted. Folks sometimes don't understand how it is to make a post that you poured your heart into, and left yourself vulnerable. 

 

Maybe you will get over it, and start enjoying the forum again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you mean by the bolded comment? Credits that semester?

for record, I did not boldface those words.  I was perplexed for a moment, a reread clarified your question.

 

When I contacted the doctor the office explained to me that the doc was missing a cert form/credit or something to that effect. The doc was their signing forms soon after so it wasn't a big deal I think.

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and grassmatch can keep whining about my mistreatment of you, I really don't care. I am not about to be pushed around by anonymous internet peoples.

 

wow, chill man. did you read each post? nobodies whining here, but you can throw me under the bus anytime another poster gets nder your skin if it makes you feel better. I'll take the lashings (once again) < now that is a whine !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you don't need to accept the apology, but there was no sarcasm there. I assumed you had accepted and given me the second chance by continuing to post on the site. Perhaps I am misconstruing your continued participation in the site, and from this day forward, each and every post will be about me and how I've wronged you.

 

You and grassmatch can keep whining about my mistreatment of you, I really don't care. I am not about to be pushed around by anonymous internet peoples.

hence the word, "guessing." You could have just said no sarcasm and left the other stuff out....we would have been straight at that point. Wow.

It sincerely appeared to be sarcasm. Sorry my misunderstanding resulted in those comments.

Edited by suneday11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand it. It's not making any sense to me so far. Which might mean it is important or just a misunderstanding. Sorry for my ignorance on this. I want to learn more about these credits per semester...

It was near two years ago I think. We posted in a thread all about it at the time I'm sure, or in a non related one perhaps.

 

after further inquiry the babbling receptionist made me believe that the doc was simply missing a credit to practice medicine at the time of my cert". There was no reason for me to believe this verbatim, but I suspected he was cited for something, and then made good with a payment fine and continued his good work. wasn't a big deal at all to me, they said sorry and I was examined by another doc that time at no charge, and treated as if this was bus as usual, done a dozen times today. type of thing.. the follow up visits were with my original guy a few times I see now...then with another guy twice over the years.

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was near two years ago I think. We posted in a thread all about it at the time I'm sure, or in a non related one perhaps.

 

after further inquiry the babbling receptionist made me believe that the doc was simply missing a credit to practice medicine at the time of my cert". There was no reason for me to believe this verbatim, but I suspected he was cited for something, and then made good with a payment fine and continued his good work. wasn't a big deal at all to me, they said sorry and I was examined by another doc that time at no charge, and treated as if this was bus as usual, done a dozen times today. type of thing.. the follow up visits were with my original guy a few times I see now...then with another guy twice over the years.

Do you still have the letter that LARA sent you about your doctor being 'not qualified'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am speaking specifically about the so-called "medical marijuana doctors" who mostly provide recommendations in their practice by reviewing the records of other treating physicians. You may decide in your mind what you think must be true, but in fact I have seen the actual DEA licenses of many of the medical marijuana doctors involved and provided them to the courts as exhibits for expert qualification or other purpose.

 

Some of what you say is confusing: for instance saying they have lost their DEA licenses but write "no cannabis" on prescriptions. Why would a physician that has lost his DEA license be writing prescriptions, especially with the word cannabis on them? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

I am speaking specifically about the so-called "medical marijuana doctors" who mostly provide recommendations in their practice by reviewing the records of other treating physicians. You may decide in your mind what you think must be true, but in fact I have seen the actual DEA licenses of many of the medical marijuana doctors involved and provided them to the courts as exhibits for expert qualification or other purpose.

 

Some of what you say is confusing: for instance saying they have lost their DEA licenses but write "no cannabis" on prescriptions. Why would a physician that has lost his DEA license be writing prescriptions, especially with the word cannabis on them? That doesn't make sense to me.

You are right, loosing your CS license is not common as being banned for

billing Medicaid. Very few loose their CS license without loosing their license to practice. The second part of my post was referencing my personal search for a real doctor who would write a recommendation.  I have found two but both have quit writing recommendations .  

I got my panties in a bunch when someone implyed that my Father might have broken the law because the doctor did not show up in person but via Skype in his Gaylord office. To imply that " so-called "medical marijuana doctors" who mostly provide recommendations in their practice by reviewing the records of other treating physicians", working out of a dispensary are any more legitimate than a Skype appointment, is crazy. Face it 90% of you payed your $100 and have no plans to use that doctor for the next 2 years. 

​My apologies to the few doctors who tried and were persecuted. I have read your stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it is in the mmma law, right in section 3a1:

(1) The physician has reviewed the patient's relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.

 

dr bob testified for drs and patients when this dumb bill came up in the senate, he said telemedicine (aka skype) was a useful device for all physicians especially in rural areas, especially in horrible michigan winters.

 

cpu and other patient organizations also testified against the dumb changes to the mmma that included the "in-person" bit.

 

our voice was not heard and the gov signed those bills into law in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, loosing your CS license is not common as being banned for

billing Medicaid. Very few loose their CS license without loosing their license to practice. The second part of my post was referencing my personal search for a real doctor who would write a recommendation.  I have found two but both have quit writing recommendations .  

I got my panties in a bunch when someone implyed that my Father might have broken the law because the doctor did not show up in person but via Skype in his Gaylord office. To imply that " so-called "medical marijuana doctors" who mostly provide recommendations in their practice by reviewing the records of other treating physicians", working out of a dispensary are any more legitimate than a Skype appointment, is crazy. Face it 90% of you payed your $100 and have no plans to use that doctor for the next 2 years. 

​My apologies to the few doctors who tried and were persecuted. I have read your stories.

I see my mj doc every 6 months. Other patients I know also do this because it allows you a position of strength if your medical use of marijuana is challenged. Since how many times you see your doctor is a private matter than to assume that 90% are seeing their doc once in two years is throwing stones at the whole program without any real info to back you up. Why such a negative view while pretending to know things you do not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe sometimes. Grass and Greg have been called out in this post. Thanks. That's why I gave you props for the good info. And stop hiding resto. We all know you are the anynomous user. Back to lurking fir me I guess. Ever notice the mods almost outnumber active members.

I expect to be called out when I am making provocative statements. I have 30 years dealing with the controlled substance act and I know that even if you follow the letter of the law, you can still be persecuted. 

 

Keep your powder dry and keep your head down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see my mj doc every 6 months. Other patients I know also do this because it allows you a position of strength if your medical use of marijuana is challenged. Since how many times you see your doctor is a private matter than to assume that 90% are seeing their doc once in two years is throwing stones at the whole program without any real info to back you up. Why such a negative view while pretending to know things you do not?

You are one of the lucky ones, but you did admitt your doctor has run afoul of the law do to his cannabis stance. It is going to get worse. I NEVER PRETEND 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are one of the lucky ones, but you did admitt your doctor has run afoul of the law do to his cannabis stance. It is going to get worse. I NEVER PRETEND 

I did not say that he ran afoul due to his cannabis stance. I have no reason to think that. Could be true. Might be for the reasons stated in the letter he had to send out. That he ran afoul trying to help a small amount of pain patients with prescriptions. Maybe those patients had simply doctor shopped to get multiple prescriptions to support their pain pill habit and the doctor didn't recognize their problem. Since the number of patients he was sanction for was a small number then that would lead you to believe he did it to help them and not to get rich off of them. 

There's no reason to think things will be 'getting worse'. You are pretending to know things again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 questions...

 Does the MMMA patient need to use cannabis for both a qualifying condition AND the associated pain, or can the patient use cannabis solely for the pain associated with any condition, regardless of whether that condition is on LARAs list of qualifying ones or not.

 

 Does the cert. doctor need to be qualified to treat any and all conditions that a MMMA patient is afflicted with, or only the pain associated with those conditions?

 

For example, i get a root canal and my dentist gives me pain medication. After a few days it still hurts, but i have an appointment with my regular doctor on a separate issue and he gives me a lower dose pain med lets say. He didnt perform the root canal nor has he been trained to, but treated the pain associated with the root canal.

 

The pain medication is not in any way related to the root canal, but alleviates the pain associated with it. 

 

 

333.26423 Definitions.

 

 

3. Definitions.

Sec. 3. As used in this act:

...

(b) "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.

 

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the department, as provided for in section 6(k).....

 

 

 

 

And because:

 

333.26422 Findings, declaration.

 

 

2. Findings.

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

 

Isnt it already determined that cannabis can be used to treat the pain that is associated with a medical condition and not the actual condition itself?

 

Hempcheff asks a good question here, and I'll offer my layperson input.

 

If a person has a chronic or debilitating condition that results in pain or nausea or treatment of the condition results in pain or nausea, this person would be considered a "qualifying patient" under the MMMA.  Unfortunately, we have a circular definition with regard to "debilitating," as debilitating is used within the definition of itself.  So there is no clear answer as to what "debilitating" means.  Erring on the side of caution, I think we need to focus on a chronic condition only.  "Debilitating condition" includes a debilitating "disease."  Is a root canal a "disease?"  Disease isn't defined in the act.  One would probably have an uphill battle trying to assert that a root canal is a "disease."

 

On the other hand, if a person has a chronic condition, and treatment of that condition causes pain and/or nausea, it seems that this would qualify the person as a "qualified patient."  For example, a patient with epilepsy.  Epilepsy is clearly a chronic condition.  If treatment of epilepsy results in a person experiencing pain and/or nausea, than this person should clearly be a "qualified patient."  If said patient visited a doctor and explained that his/her epilepsy meds cause nausea, but the patient goes on to explain that using MMJ allows this patient to keep epilepsy meds down without vomiting them up, it would seem that this patient would qualify for MMJ use.

 

What is really sad is that doctors don't get any formal training in MMJ use in med school.  So most doctors don't understand MMJ treatment.  Those doctors who have chosen to focus a practice on MMJ recommendations are the ones who have taken the time to become informed as to the benefits of MMJ, but these same doctors are often looked-on as cert mills.  If a doctor has taken the effort to understand case studies with MMJ and understands that MMJ can alleviate pain and nausea, the doctor shouldn't have to jump through hoops of fire to make a cert. that stands in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it is in the mmma law, right in section 3a1:

(1) The physician has reviewed the patient's relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.

 

dr bob testified for drs and patients when this dumb bill came up in the senate, he said telemedicine (aka skype) was a useful device for all physicians especially in rural areas, especially in horrible michigan winters.

 

cpu and other patient organizations also testified against the dumb changes to the mmma that included the "in-person" bit.

 

our voice was not heard and the gov signed those bills into law in 2012.

Yes I have memorized the entire law. I have read every proposal, opinion and brief. But please tell me what the average 85 year old stroke victim is suppose to do when the secretary comes in the room with a laptop instead of the doctor? Dr Bob has told me that this particular doctor has never done a "in person" interview, ever. How does this continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have memorized the entire law. I have read every proposal, opinion and brief. But please tell me what the average 85 year old stroke victim is suppose to do when the secretary comes in the room with a laptop instead of the doctor? Dr Bob has told me that this particular doctor has never done a "in person" interview, ever. How does this continue?

Now you are repeating things, second hand, from a source that couldn't even know what he was talking about. He was guessing and now you are parroting it. 

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...