1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

Cards Being Revoked by State of Michigan

Discussion in 'Michigan Patients' started by Dr. Bob, Nov 20, 2017.

  1.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    It's sad that you choose to see/frame the skype issue in only economic terms, as well as telling. Here in the real world many of us afflicted with these qualifying medical conditions are non-ambulatory and/or shut-ins. Anything in those "professional standards" to "protect patients" address those real world medical concerns/needs? "Legal concerns" on the other hand do not occur naturally, they take two adversarial self interested sides (aka a game) and there is no real winners (except the lawyers) in the end ...

    We will never free this plant with more laws :weed:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  2.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    It is a shame you don’t know I was a strong advocate for telemedicine for the very reasons you cite. Would you like to see the testimony before the house judiciary?

    Yes there are ways to do it properly with shut ins. It is called a house call and I’ve done many.

    This isn’t an economic issue. We don’t even charge for follow up appointments- we want folks to do them and don’t want money to stand in their way. A MMJ certification is just like any doctor visit.
     
  3.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    Maybe you are missing my point.

    Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

    Your "bonfide doctor patient relationship" win then is a loss for the patient with a revoked card today. Be it a non ambulatory cancer patient in his/her final days on this earth like I envision or all those kids/$$$ you envision running around the High Times Cup looking to save a few bucks on their card ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
    leighgal likes this.
  4.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    Medicine is medicine. There is a right way to do it, and a wrong way, which is completely unrelated to regulations. The fact that there are licensure fees to participate in the program may offend libertarian feelings, but that is the cost of living in a society. I don't blame the patients, I blame the Skype/telephone clinics for putting their patients at risk. This has been the law since 2013.

    Dr. Bob
     
  5.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    bob redden's doctor was threatened by the prosecutor on the witness stand in his case in 2009. after the bonafide law was put in, no more drs were threatened.
    that said, yes the law is dumb, but its better than nothing.
    legalization is better than this dumb setup where patients are at risk now.
    neither one is better than abrogate.

    legalization is maybe on the ballot, vote yes on it
    abrogate , if it ever makes the ballot, vote yes on it.

    legalization small step better than GOP and COA taking pot shots at MMMA each year.
     
    Norby Grown likes this.
  6.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    No legislation or litigation is necessary to remove marijuana from the schedule I narcotic list of the Controlled Substance Act (aka decriminalization for real) where it has illegitimately resided since 1970, only integrity of the US Attorney General and our judicial system in general. We do not need any new laws, just the drug war conflicted lawyer in charge to follow the damn one we've suffered and been abused under for a half century now.



    Yet we've spent the past 20 years now being sold a billion dollars in legislation, litigation and lobbying to repeatedly enact piles of state laws nationwide to what ends? All this state law bullshit won't mean shit the day the Federal government decides to act given their legal supremacy and the current state of the CSA. No lawyers or lobbyists are required for a million man/woman (aka the People) march on DC to demand the USAG do the right thing (aka their job) and simply ask for the required Health and Human Services scientific study that they've been clearly obstructing for decades now. Is that not how other civil right legal quandaries like women suffrage and Jim Crow laws were finally defeated :confused:

    The answer is clearly not more lawyers, lobbyists and laws, but less IMHO. The true answer lies in education, not this status quo politics intended to cloud our judgement ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
    leighgal and pergamum362 like this.
  7.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    voting yes on legalization is bad?
    marching on D.C. is your plan?
    are you being serious right now?

    dont you think its easier to follow alcohol prohibition by legalizing in each state, state by state until the feds cave ? feds didnt bother legal alcohol states during prohibition.

    cant we do both, march and vote on legalization?

    to be against either is bad.

    when the feds repealed alcohol prohibition they still regulate alcohol.
    why do you think the feds wont regulate marijuana if cannabis prohibition is repealed ?
    you do know that the feds removed alcohol prohibition but states still had it illegal, right ?

    The Twenty-first Amendment does not prevent states from restricting or banning alcohol; instead,

    18 states continued prohibition at the state level. The last state, Mississippi, finally ended it in 1966. Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local prohibition. Therefore, despite the repeal of prohibition at the national level, 38% of the nation's population lived in areas with state or local prohibition.

    you are illogical, uninformed or just plain wrong.
    no offense, but please learn history.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  8.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    seriously, march to get jeff sessions, the USAG, to study and reschedule marijuana?

    are you even on planet earth?

    leighgal and pergamum362 you agree with this plan ??
     
  9.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    @passmethelid Lawfare is the purview of lawyers, not the People. These lawyers are literally the 1% inequality problem our nation faces today, no matter how you or they try to frame it. They are now unionized/protected by the only private held professional licensing organization in this country (American Bar Association). They control and/or have captured 100% of our judicial, a majority of both houses of legislature and have held the White House a majority of the past quarter century.

    The Clintons and Obamas of today are a far cry from Jefferson and Lincoln of our past. Substance prohibition simply isn't and never should have been the the purview of federal criminal law period. Although the use of a Constitutional Convention to enact criminal alcohol prohibition (18th Constitutional Amendment) and repeal it 13 years later (21st Constitutional Amendment) is also a far cry from the enacting of criminal marijuana prohibition through the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 that we've been fighting with and against lawyers to no avail for the past half century. Has this past century of federal legal history taught you/us nothing?

    We the People can either speak in educated unity like we had to defeat the lawfare of women suffrage and Jim Crow this past century or go the Civil War route we were forced into the previous century to defeat the lawfare of slavery IMHO

    The privileges of a few do not make common law. History proves it is the People, not the lawyers or courts who have return integrity to our rule of law when need be ...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
    leighgal likes this.
  10.  
    leighgal

    leighgal Well-Known Member


    I am on planet Earth. IMHO, that is an unnecessary comment and not conducive to civil discourse.

    "Legalization" only creates more (different) laws in which to criminalize cannabis users. Cannabis is not even similar to alcohol and our gov't knows this. Why would I support such lunacy? I understand how so many think 'legalization' is just hunky dory... it's called Stockholm syndrome. Cannabis is first and foremost a seed bearing herb. It has medicinal properties just as other herbs/ plants do. It should be considered as FOOD not as something so very dangerous we need special armed transportation (MOB) etc... smfh. Who in their right minds would want cannabis controlled and regulated like alcohol? NOT I.

    Do YOU think that once the gov't puts their greedy little hands in the cannabis 'cookie jar' (our pockets.. TAXES [legalization]) we the people will ever be able to extricate it? Why should anyone who chooses cannabis have to pay SIN taxes? AND... not 1 but 2 transportation fees and 2 lab fees... then pay some store front exorbitant prices so they can pay their pretty little budtenders for sub par herb... jeesh.
    I personally don't need all those vampires between the farmer and consumer.
    Let's not forget that the States that have "legalized" cannabis also have removed or diminished peoples 'right's' to grow their own.

    Do I think marching on DC is a good idea? Yes, I do as only we the people can affect change FOR the people. Do I think a bunch of apathetic people with Stockholm syndrome will actually do it? No, I don't.
     
    pergamum362 and TheMan13 like this.
  11.  
    ProdigalSun

    ProdigalSun Well-Known Member

    Too bad most weed smokers are Democrats. You're going to need the Republicans and their guns to get to a revolution in order to regain your freedom.
     
    chemphlegm and pergamum362 like this.
  12.  
    pergamum362

    pergamum362 Well-Known Member

    Eh..i think the majority think of themselves as democrats but in reality are closer to republicans or libertarians.
     
    chemphlegm and ProdigalSun like this.
  13.  
    chemphlegm

    chemphlegm Well-Known Member

    so they say, here, grow your weed and sell some to five patients, but give a doctor 50 bucks a year for the check up and cert? wtf, sure thing Doc, my pleasure. goshdammit already. If it wasnt for them working near free now I would have paid more.
    I really would have paid much more for a real education on cannabis. with some real behind the scenes discoveries and more.
    (your dna results may tell you why/how/when cannabis is working for you, with months of reading about you, mine did)
     
    pergamum362 likes this.
  14.  
    Bigtacofarmer

    Bigtacofarmer Well-Known Member

    Too bad republicans are usually in favor of destroying my planet. And anyone who does not want to protect the enviroment needs to hurry up and get the fuck out of it. Better suited as worm food than a lawmaker.
     
  15.  
    Bigtacofarmer

    Bigtacofarmer Well-Known Member

    Not saying most democrats are much better.
     
  16.  
    ProdigalSun

    ProdigalSun Well-Known Member

    I tend to agree. Just make sure you know what you are talking about with the environment. An electric car might sound like a good idea, but the manufacture, maintenence , and disposal causes more damage than burning and harvesting the fuel to run a gas powered car. Lets say cars had to be all electric. Then. the power grid couldnt handle charging them all, and you would have to build more power plants. More pollution. Same with most alternative energy sources. What about all the junk made in China, etc...? The stuff is made in areas with little to no environmental protections. They are made to the lowest acceptable standards of quality, unlike American made products, (before Democrats taxed them out of business ), as a result, the cheap product fails, ends up in a landfill, and is then re manufactured again over seas, and has to be shipped from there to here again and again.
     
    pergamum362 and chemphlegm like this.
  17.  
    pergamum362

    pergamum362 Well-Known Member

    Wind,solar, hydro..they are all viable SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources. Nuclear is the future and i am not talking about the 30 and 40 year old plants we have in use now. The technology is advancing leaps and bounds, and a new type of nuclear power will produce little waste and what waste is produced is usable in a different type of reactor..or something along them lines, with the chances of a fukashima or chernobyle becoming less and less as it progresses. Prolly too late anyway..i believe they are lying about the current fukashima situation, fisherman have been reporting really strange shit the last few years. Absolutely MASSIVE marine life die outs. Thousands of fish just floating on the water all over the world..some real biblical prophecy type stuff.
     
    chemphlegm likes this.
  18.  
    ProdigalSun

    ProdigalSun Well-Known Member

    Yep they are becoming safer while the world is becoming more unstable. Nuclear power plant will be great target.

    We forgot hemp. It's an awesome resource for so many things. No need for deforestation, it makes rope, fibers, and so on. I'm preaching to the choir here.
     
    MrMayhem1134 likes this.
  19.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    yes, they are lying about fukushima. it has poisoned the world, just like chernobyl did.

    also, while nuclear might be getting safer, remember that idiots control where the safe nuclear power goes. theres still like 30 nuclear plants in japan that are on the coast and are in danger of getting damaged by another tsunami / earthquake.

    hell, even the fukushima plant that melted down is still running. did you know that? the other reactors are still going. they cant even look at what happened because the robots they send in melt.

    solar, wind and hydro are plenty enough to supply all of the worlds power. when you see oil spills in the gulf coast killing the fish, and oil spills in the arctic and alaska. plus coal burning making the air poisonous and toxic and nuclear waste and radiation poisoning... how anyone can fight solar wind hydro and geothermal i have no idea.
     
  20.  
    ProdigalSun

    ProdigalSun Well-Known Member

    All it takes is someone like Kim Jong Un to cause a major world wide nuclear disaster. He already shot some rocket over Japan

    As far as coal, it's pretty clean these days. In the US. Alternative energy should be developed, not rushed. It will be an important part of our energy system, but we have a long way to go. I don't really buy into the whole sky is falling bit about man killing the planet, but we should be as responsible with it as we can be. Mankind hasn't done that much damage apart from nuclear waste. There are concentrated areas of pollution as a result of industry and accidents, but the world is a big big place and people and pollutants are very small. I have done enough traveling and flying to see how small people are. There is more to the politics than to the pollution. Global warming... pffft. It's a planet, they warm up , they cool off, it's like the weather that way. We really haven't even had the technology to monitor this stuff long enough to make very intelligent observations yet.
     
    apollo4201982 and nmibud like this.

Share This Page