Exactly who has "stakes" in any proposed mmj bills up for vote?

bloodytrichomes said:

yes just ignore it then it will go away just like the mmmp

Click to expand...

This isn't about the MMMP going away. This is about you guys battling over PTP -vs- Dispensaries..

May the best men win. I don't care it's not worth all the stress fighting over. If the MMMP goes away so be it.

Out of all my pot smoking friends and family, I don't know one person in the last 30 years who has went to jail for marijuana. I'll get by another 30. Fuck it.

I didn't vote for this big bag of fucking bag of drama, you guys will single-handedly bring the MMMP down on your own while Schuette and his chronies sit back and laugh at your asses.

gladstoned said:

Is this information correct?

Click to expand...

the 1st one is actually HB 4834, not 4835 as i posted originally.

HB 4834 photograph on medical card; require, this is the one they amended to a 2 yr registry card, as well as have amended to allow General LEO Access to registry info WITHOUT A WARRANT to Search.

HB 4851 definition of "bona fide physician-patient relationship"; clarify. A certain Drs CLUSTERFUCK of an IDEA of helping Pts, by trying to get wording to allow 2 CGs/Per Pt, and 10 Pts per CG. so everyone can grow over the federally noted 100 plant limits. all of whom need to see a Dr for 3 VISITS Prior to being ISSUED An Authorization. Damn, I should of become a POT Dr. I could then force all my patients to pay me 3 times for what they pay me once for today.

HB 4853 sentencing guidelines for crime of selling or providing medical marihuana to unprescribed user; implement. This POS bill is not needed as this is already a crime in 2 different Michgan Laws, they need tomake it 3. It is already a crime under the PHC, and the MMM Act itself has penalties on top of any crimes the feds or state want to push via the PHC.

HB 4856 transporting medical marihuana in motor vehicle; allow under certain circumstances. And this little gem is the one where they want to make you keep it in a locked, electronic Timed, RFID'd and with a 4 number multilayer encripted safe built by NASA that you must have bolted into the trunk of your car, so the driver cant accidently have a joint with his grasp from the drivers wheel. Ya Ive exagerated a LITTLE Bit here...

Click to expand...

If you want to understand my level of understanding of these 4 bills, why the need to try to goat me into a reply in this thread, but sent by private Message Dr Bob? A True Man would of just asked in the open thread here after all.

Besides, after I embarrassed you on both the 3MA and FaceBook over your lack of understanding or concern of these bills, and the clear and superior Grasp of the gravity these four bills and the damage they will do that I wield, you know goddamn well my stance on these 4 bills. But, because you insist on being right all the time, I can just as easily embarrass you here too if you really desire that.
Plain and Simple, these bills are BAD and they will end up fucking Pts over and getting drs 3 yearly visits to each be paid for. The WORST One is the 4834, and the Amendment for Warrantless Access to the Registry, and a very NEAR 2nd is that dumb ass BonaFide bill where the "Participating Dr. (anyone care to guess who this Dr is?), being greedy fuck, wanted to make it so patients have to make 3 visits and PAY for each visit, BEFORE they get a Dr Recommendation.
Im sure more than one or 2 current RIU Members can attest to this scheme already being attempted here in the State.

SO why don't your greasy ass post up what YOUR Take on these 4 bills are? Or are you to cowardly to do that knowing full well your PROFESSIONAL TAKE on these bills wont be good for your Professional Business?


As a last though on these bills, any of the Amendments, like that one for Warrantless Access by LEO to the Registry via the LEIN system, these amendments can be moved from any bill and added to any bill, just moments before it goes to a Floor Vote. Which is WHY it is important ALL of these Bills Fail and fall flat on their face.

I think instead I'll just concentrate on one, 4851. But before I do, would you care to point out the section where 4 office visits are required a year?

Other than that, if folks would like my take on it, all they have to do is ask.

Dr. Bob

bob whats your involvment with this bill ? do you sapport it? whats this bill meen for you bob?

I think that orthodox medical procedure for MMMP certifications today is currently incapable with this system as the costs associated, and out of pocket, would bankrupt this already outrageously expensive medical alternative.

I am sure folks can see my hesitation based on the obscenity laden and overtly hostile post above. It should be noted it was prompted by a PM suggesting he take the bills point by point and lead a discussion of what is bad, what is good, and why we should opposed them. But I think the 4 visit issue is a good place to start, so before I say anything, I would like to see my buddy Tim point out the ACTUAL part of the bill that requires 4 visits as he claims. Is that a requirement or gossip/propaganda. Why don't you start by posting a link to the actual bill so folks can look themselves?

That is the question on the table.

Dr. Bob

Here, let me help...
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ec5rfwzxz1znfd550gct3d25))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4851&query=on

TheMan13 said:

I think that orthodox medical procedure for MMMP certifications today is currently incapable with this system as the costs associated, and out of pocket, would bankrupt this already outrageously expensive medical alternative.

Click to expand...

or the wealthy would be the only ones who could get there meds i better be carefull i may get suh ed or is it sacked for a loss

HB 4851 definition of "bona fide physician-patient relationship"; clarify. A certain Drs CLUSTERFUCK of an IDEA of helping Pts, by trying to get wording to allow 2 CGs/Per Pt, and 10 Pts per CG. so everyone can grow over the federally noted 100 plant limits. all of whom need to see a Dr for 3 VISITS Prior to being ISSUED An Authorization. Damn, I should of become a POT Dr. I could then force all my patients to pay me 3 times for what they pay me once for today.

Ok, name calling aside, you are correct that HB 4851 does talk about the bona fide dr/pt relationship, using the standards for medical marijuana certification published by the medical board as a basis. Even a quick reading of the bill shows there is nothing about 3 office visits. There is nothing about 2 caregivers or 10 patients. There is nothing about 100 plant grows. This is simply gossip. It is simply Tim. I would hope that before someone made a post as violent and hateful as that one, at least they would have actually READ the bill so they didn't look like a fool putting this sort of nonsense out.

What you missed was such things as outdoor grows, changes in who could be a caregiver, clarification of what an 'enclosed secured' facility is so there are no more grey areas, transportation of plants/meds, and a clear and unquestionable guarantee to the Section 8 defense (though the SC has already ruled on that in our favor).

Perhaps someone that actually read the bill might like to lead off the discussion? Nice to see you again Tim. Always a pleasure.

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

HB 4851 definition of "bona fide physician-patient relationship"; clarify. A certain Drs CLUSTERFUCK of an IDEA of helping Pts, by trying to get wording to allow 2 CGs/Per Pt, and 10 Pts per CG. so everyone can grow over the federally noted 100 plant limits. all of whom need to see a Dr for 3 VISITS Prior to being ISSUED An Authorization. Damn, I should of become a POT Dr. I could then force all my patients to pay me 3 times for what they pay me once for today.

Ok, name calling aside, you are correct that HB 4851 does talk about the bona fide dr/pt relationship, using the standards for medical marijuana certification published by the medical board as a basis. Even a quick reading of the bill shows there is nothing about 3 office visits. There is nothing about 2 caregivers or 10 patients. There is nothing about 100 plant grows. This is simply gossip. It is simply Tim. I would hope that before someone made a post as violent and hateful as that one, at least they would have actually READ the bill so they didn't look like a fool putting this sort of nonsense out.

What you missed was such things as outdoor grows, changes in who could be a caregiver, clarification of what an 'enclosed secured' facility is so there are no more grey areas, transportation of plants/meds, and a clear and unquestionable guarantee to the Section 8 defense (though the SC has already ruled on that in our favor).

Perhaps someone that actually read the bill might like to lead off the discussion? Nice to see you again Tim. Always a pleasure.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

no it isn't explicit in saying the need for more than 3 or having 4 visits.. but considering that is THEIR definition of a bona fide relationship when in realty

THEY DON'T FUCKING KNOW LATIN (or english.. as we have seen in their interpretations of the law)

PLEASE.... DEFINE BONA FIDE FOR ME.

my only hopes for the dr patient relationship is this they screw us over so badly with the definition of bona fide so that only your primary care physician can do the certs..

good bye clinics... that would be a good thing for the patient's right Dr. Bob??


can i come to your primary care to get my cert then???

• "clarification of what an 'enclosed secured' facility is so there are no more grey areas"​
  
  
  
  

again... read the act.

Plain language. didn't need rewording or anything. they made it more strict.

big difference.

intermission humor for us all -
[video=youtube;LinXXmy2Hno]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LinXXmy2Hno[/video]

tomcatjones said:

no it isn't explicit in saying the need for more than 3 or having 4 visits.. but considering that is THEIR definition of a bona fide relationship when in realty (Actually what is says is there is a reasonable expectation of follow up... Tim and the like try to spin that into 4 visits, they've been corrected in the past but like to keep trying)

THEY DON'T FUCKING KNOW LATIN (or english.. as we have seen in their interpretations of the law)

PLEASE.... DEFINE BONA FIDE FOR ME.

my only hopes for the dr patient relationship is this they screw us over so badly with the definition of bona fide so that only your primary care physician can do the certs..

good bye clinics... that would be a good thing for the patient's right Dr. Bob??


can i come to your primary care to get my cert then???

Click to expand...

We discussing the bill or my definition. Mine is on my website ( http://www.drbobmmj.com/application-for-medical-marijuana.html ). Here is what the bill says:

3 (A) "BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP" MEANS A
4 TREATMENT OR COUNSELING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PHYSICIAN AND
5 PATIENT IN WHICH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PRESENT:
6 (1) THE PHYSICIAN HAS REVIEWED THE PATIENT'S RELEVANT MEDICAL
7 RECORDS AND COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL
8 HISTORY AND CURRENT MEDICAL CONDITION, INCLUDING A RELEVANT, IN-
9 PERSON, MEDICAL EVALUATION OF THE PATIENT.
10 (2) THE PHYSICIAN HAS CREATED AND MAINTAINED RECORDS OF THE
1 PATIENT'S CONDITION IN ACCORD WITH MEDICALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS.
2 (3) THE PHYSICIAN HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT HE OR SHE
3 WILL PROVIDE FOLLOW-UP CARE TO THE PATIENT TO MONITOR THE EFFICACY
4 OF THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIHUANA AS A TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT'S
5 DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.
6 (4) IF THE PATIENT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION, THE PHYSICIAN HAS
7 NOTIFIED THE PATIENT'S PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN OF THE PATIENT'S
8 DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION AND CERTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF
9 MEDICAL MARIHUANA TO TREAT THAT CONDITION.

I have several problems with this as outlined in my video testimony to the house judiciary, but the point is what is actually in the bill.

Dr. Bob said:

We discussing the bill or my definition. Mine is on my website ( http://www.drbobmmj.com/application-for-medical-marijuana.html ). Here is what the bill says:

3 (A) "BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP" MEANS A
4 TREATMENT OR COUNSELING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PHYSICIAN AND
5 PATIENT IN WHICH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PRESENT:
6 (1) THE PHYSICIAN HAS REVIEWED THE PATIENT'S RELEVANT MEDICAL
7 RECORDS AND COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL
8 HISTORY AND CURRENT MEDICAL CONDITION, INCLUDING A RELEVANT, IN-
9 PERSON, MEDICAL EVALUATION OF THE PATIENT.
10 (2) THE PHYSICIAN HAS CREATED AND MAINTAINED RECORDS OF THE
1 PATIENT'S CONDITION IN ACCORD WITH MEDICALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS.
2 (3) THE PHYSICIAN HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT HE OR SHE
3 WILL PROVIDE FOLLOW-UP CARE TO THE PATIENT TO MONITOR THE EFFICACY
4 OF THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIHUANA AS A TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT'S
5 DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.
6 (4) IF THE PATIENT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION, THE PHYSICIAN HAS
7 NOTIFIED THE PATIENT'S PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN OF THE PATIENT'S
8 DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION AND CERTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF
9 MEDICAL MARIHUANA TO TREAT THAT CONDITION.

I have several problems with this as outlined in my video testimony to the house judiciary, but the point is what is actually in the bill.

Click to expand...

the latin and legal definition for bona fide...

its very simple. i learned it in intro government back in high school when learning about judicial system.. can you please, define it for me. many learned it in that o brother where art thou film by the cohen brothers.. either way.. same meaning lol

3 words. i'll even let you google it. ---this is the information our legislators need to hear..

tomcatjones said:

• "clarification of what an 'enclosed secured' facility is so there are no more grey areas"​
  
  
  
  

again... read the act.

Plain language. didn't need rewording or anything. they made it more strict.

big difference.

Click to expand...

Amazing how many courts, cops, and patients don't understand the difference between enclosed and secured. What is plain to one is not to the other and vis versa. Care to take a stab at it? And while you are at it, why don't you explain why if there is a clear blueprint as to what is legal that won't help patients keep out of trouble, or shall we continue hunt and peck definitions while patients are arrested because of differing interpretations county by county?

Dr. Bob

tomcatjones said:

the latin and legal definition for bona fide...

its very simple. i learned it in intro government back in high school when learning about judicial system.. can you please, define it for me. many learned it in that o brother where art thou film by the cohen brothers.. either way.. same meaning lol

3 words. i'll even let you google it. ---this is the information our legislators need to hear..

Click to expand...

legitimate professional relationship. The latin means good faith. Is it your contention that all certifications are based on good faith relationships? How about dropping off an application from with no medical information, no physician patient relationship or meeting, and getting a signed one in exchange for cash. Is that bona fide in your view?

Here is a good test question.

Suppose I set up a website, soyouwantacard.com. I ask a question. Do you say you qualify for a card. Here is a paypal. Your card will arrive in 2 weeks. Then I just collect the money, the computer mails you a presigned cert.

You think you can defend yourself with a cert like that if you are on trial?

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

Amazing how many courts, cops, and patients don't understand the difference between enclosed and secured. What is plain to one is not to the other and vis versa. Care to take a stab at it? And while you are at it, why don't you explain why if there is a clear blueprint as to what is legal that won't help patients keep out of trouble, or shall we continue hunt and peck definitions while patients are arrested because of differing interpretations county by county?

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

"""""It seemed pretty reasonable to me when the COA ruled that because the definition of "enclosed, locked facility" includes:

(c) "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

that the prevailing idea behind the grow area is that it is like a closet or a room,""""""""



this is YOUR's and most people's view of the law....

but sadly you are wrong.. when i was child...

i learned a language called English and in it we learned ..."OR" IS FUCKING DISJUNCTIVE....


1 choice: closet
2 choice: room...
OR
3 choice: enclosure with locks,
OR
4 choice: enclosure with similar security devices


see... you have have a grow space with no lock.

as long as you have a security deivce of some sort...

electric fence 7 ft high, no roof.

LEGAL.


and also enclosure DOE NOT MEAN WITH ROOF...

again.. shall we consult a dictionary on that one?? LOL


this is the sad part bob... this is english and they don't read it correctly. PLAIN with COMMON meaning

Dr. Bob said:

legitimate professional relationship. The latin means good faith. Is it your contention that all certifications are based on good faith relationships? How about dropping off an application from with no medical information, no physician patient relationship or meeting, and getting a signed one in exchange for cash. Is that bona fide in your view?

Here is a good test question.

Suppose I set up a website, soyouwantacard.com. I ask a question. Do you say you qualify for a card. Here is a paypal. Your card will arrive in 2 weeks. Then I just collect the money, the computer mails you a presigned cert.

You think you can defend yourself with a cert like that if you are on trial?

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

and yes "In good faith" you receive a gold star!
it is my contention that the laws states the relation between me and my doctor must be in good faith. and that relationship is between me and my doctor.

Dr. Bob said:

Amazing how many courts, cops, and patients don't understand the difference between enclosed and secured. What is plain to one is not to the other and vis versa. Care to take a stab at it? And while you are at it, why don't you explain why if there is a clear blueprint as to what is legal that won't help patients keep out of trouble, or shall we continue hunt and peck definitions while patients are arrested because of differing interpretations county by county?

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

first part of the law.. intent


no one should be getting in trouble. there shouldn't have been a single court case past 2008 regarding marijuana... but i can't help that fascism and corruption runs rampant in Michigan.

Where's VV to explain how they screwed up "has stated" too... (present perfect tense)

as a person who wanted to be a Michigan school teacher... it saddens me at their inabilities to even read and comprehend at a high school level.

Edit: sorry for quad post... formatting was screwing up in first post and now i'm just in a hurry and have to go get some Cannatonic 4 ..kind of excited tee hee

Quick dose of reality. It doesn't matter what our definitions or interpretation of the law or meaning of the words are. All that matters, ultimately, is what the courts think they mean. Harsh, but most here will agree it is pretty accurate.

Sometimes defining something expands our ability to use it. Knowing the standard to which we are judged allows us to do things in accordance to those standards and feel safe.

A prison yard is secured, a cell is enclosed. A cube has 6 sides, all of which must be covered for the contents of the cube to be enclosed. Simple concept. Define it as such, and we all know how to enclose and secure our grows. Leave it undefined, and there is all sorts of wiggle room for folks to claim their grow is enclosed and secured, and the cops to say it isn't. Without a standard, it is up to a judge to decide. With a standard, the arrest might not even take place.

Just out of curiosity, what is an outdoor room or closet? If we use that definition, can we grow outdoors?

Dr. Bob