Hello michigan

Dr. Paul Meyer of Saginaw has been an activist for our cause in government chambers. His certifications meet the requirements of the law in every respect. If you're lucky he will walk into the exam room strummin' his guitar and croonin' a tune.

Please peruse these documents and respond Adam. I ask that you speak to their authority as legitimate to nailing down all of the legal requirements of the law. Don't overlook the supporting documents. I think it best to edit them to spell out return appointments per the law and to throw these idiot judges that bone, and a dosing designation of prn (take as needed). I am no lawyer. They are reluctant to put any information out to the general public for a number of reasons. Do not take this as legal advice, and consider running them past an attorney.


Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana




I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008.

__Dr._____________________________, a physician authorized under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556, physician license I.D. number____________________ , has stated that in the physician's professional opinion, on or about (date)___________________________, and after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate a debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition (copy attached) .

Or:

__A registry card duly issued by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) , number______________________(copy attached), has been issued to me which attests to a physician's recommendation that in the physician's professional opinion, and after having completed a full assessment of my medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate a debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

I hereby designate_______________________________ as my caregiver under that law, and agree to conform to the Act in the medical use of marijuana.

I, ______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana in accordance with that law. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

Confidentiality: Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in any manner or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information, save and except that both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their legal advisers and counselors for the specific purposes contemplated by this agreement. Presentment or disclosure of this information is not prohibited as required by law or in any prosecution pertaining to the medical use of marijuana.

For the purpose of this Agreement, Legal advisers and counselors shall mean, with respect to any party, any person licensed to practice at law, or any paralegal, legal assistant, or other person directly supervised by an attorney at law who is ultimately responsible for any and all work product.

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

Patient sign here: _________________________________

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

Caregiver sign here: ________________________________

/s/_________________________________

Print Notary Name: ________________________________

Notary public, State of Michigan, County of _____________________

My commission expires ___________________

Acting in the County of ___________________



Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here
https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

Not to offend Adam, but your position on telemed relies on sophistry.

What was wrong with the original wording of the mmm laws. Why do drs and lawyers have their hands in our cookie jar? @Dr.Bob Who delegated you to change the laws. did you ask any real patients before you decided what was best for them. I have an idea Keep your fucking hands out of the cookie jar. you guys aren't making this easier for any sick person by adding more restrictions. Next time try asking someone what they think before you play law maker.

freebloody said:

ok so bob was a pervert in 2007.what is he doing now???????????bob has had his azz handed to him here already if you don't have anything new your just wasting everyones time

Click to expand...

And had a judge laugh his ass out of court when he sued a patient for slander.

Another thing, the division between fellow mj patients makes me sick. you guys cant ever agree on anything. Doesn't matter what the topic is about. If you cant agree on anything or ever get organized to accomplish a goal then nothing will ever get done. Its all a divide and conquer tactic. Divided we fall.

GregS said:

And had a judge laugh his ass out of court when he sued a patient for slander.

Click to expand...

Dr.Pecker said:

What was wrong with the original wording of the mmm laws. Why do drs and lawyers have their hands in our cookie jar? @Dr.Bob Who delegated you to change the laws. did you ask any real patients before you decided what was best for them. I have an idea Keep your fucking hands out of the cookie jar. you guys aren't making this easier for any sick person by adding more restrictions. Next time try asking someone what they think before you play law maker.

Click to expand...

B*B's latest brainstorm is his attitude that the courts should give guidance regarding possession limits in sec 8 cases. The stuff is absolutely non toxic, It is impossible to consume enough to kill you. Per DEA Administrative Law judge Francis Young, he ruled:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.

Note: In Judge Young's report cannabis is referred to as marijuana

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

_______________________________________
)
In The Matter Of )
) Docket No. 86-22
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION )
_______________________________________)

OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
Administrative LAW JUDGE.


FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge


DATED: SEP 6 1988
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

........................

Part VIII.

ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION
With respect to whether or not there is "a lack of accepted safety
for use of [marijuana] under medical supervision", the record shows the
following facts to be uncontroverted.


Findings of Fact
Point 3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around

1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.

11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.

12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.

13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.



14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.

15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death.

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."

Dr.Pecker said:

What was wrong with the original wording of the mmm laws. Why do drs and lawyers have their hands in our cookie jar? @Dr.Bob Who delegated you to change the laws. did you ask any real patients before you decided what was best for them. I have an idea Keep your fucking hands out of the cookie jar. you guys aren't making this easier for any sick person by adding more restrictions. Next time try asking someone what they think before you play law maker.

Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind the next time they try and restrict certifications to ONLY your primary care doctor with whom you have had a relationship for 2 years. Or open the registry to every law enforcement officer.

As for Greg, I've never sued a patient for slander, you have anyone in mind? I did go for a restraining order once and you haven't heard much from that one, but they were threatening my family and publishing my home address, so I don't think many would fault me for that. Also got a couple of dogs to protect my family when I wasn't home as a result of those threats.

But then again, the thread was about something else, I'll leave personal attacks with wither on their own.

Dr. Bob

GregS said:

B*B's latest brainstorm is his attitude that the courts should give guidance regarding possession limits in sec 8 cases. The stuff is absolutely non toxic, It is impossible to consume enough to kill you. Per DEA Administrative Law judge Francis Young, he ruled:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.

Note: In Judge Young's report cannabis is referred to as marijuana

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

_______________________________________
)
In The Matter Of )
) Docket No. 86-22
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION )
_______________________________________)

OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
Administrative LAW JUDGE.

FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

DATED: SEP 6 1988
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

........................

Click to expand...

Interesting you noted this 20 plus year old ruling, folks might appreciate a new federal court opinion (related to the current federal charges in Muskegon) that addresses this issue as well. This is from the attorney that filed the brief himself. It is an interesting read and addresses the 'misscheduling' argument. Just given for 'current status'.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rq5vsauw810l7e7/order denying mx to dx EP.pdf?dl=0

Dr. Bob said:

I'll keep that in mind the next time they try and restrict certifications to ONLY your primary care doctor with whom you have had a relationship for 2 years. Or open the registry to every law enforcement officer.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

Do you have any proof that they were trying to restrict certifications to drs with whom you have a relationship for two years. this is the first I have heard of that. I couldnt see that holding up in court if your involved or not.

But this thread on telemedicine has pretty much played out and is in the process of being hijacked. Don't really see any more to add to the original topic.

Dr. Bob

The federal patent on medicine derived from cannabis back in 2003 Gives it a medicinal value therefore a new drug classification why you guys dont bring it up in court is beyond me. perhaps you just like it this way.
[US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database]
[Home] [Boolean Search] [Manual Search] [Number Search] [Help]
[Bottom]
[View Shopping Cart] [Add to Shopping Cart]
[Image]
( 1 of 1 )
United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
**Please see images for: ( Certificate of Correction ) **
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

Inventors: Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Family ID: 26767641
Appl. No.: 09/674,028
Filed: February 2, 2001

Dr.Pecker said:

Do you have any proof that they were trying to restrict certifications to drs with whom you have a relationship for two years. this is the first I have heard of that. I couldnt see that holding up in court if your involved or not.

Click to expand...

Look up the history of the bills and the guidance from the medical board. Those of us that closely watch what they were doing and get involved to prevent them from doing so were watching and acted. But that is history.

Statement of the medical board wanting a re-existing and on-going relationship (primary care type) from the doctor making the medical marijuana certification...
http://michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_Medical_Marihuana_Final_Written_Certification_Statement_8-15-11_376283_7.pdf

Here is another effort by Rick Jones to require a pre-existing relationship (in this case 6 months) for 'parents' to be able to get cards.
http://www.denalihealthcaremi.com/anti-parents-sb-736/

There are those of us that watch these things, even if other are not aware of them.

Dr. Bob

Gotcha. Now we put this in the mix:

Press Release | 02/12/2014
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Introduces Bill Allowing Drug Czar to Speak the Truth about Marijuana

Share:
Under Current Law Drug Czar Must Oppose Legalization of Marijuana, Even for Medical Use, No Matter What the Science Shows or What the American People Support

Cohen Bill Would Allow Drug Czar to Take Same Positions on Marijuana Policy as President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder

WASHINGTON, DC—Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) has introduced The Unmuzzle the Drug Czar Act of 2014 (H.R. 4046). The bill would repeal a little know provision of federal law that requires the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), informally known as the U.S. Drug Czar, to “take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of marijuana or any Schedule I drug for medical or non-medical use. The provision even prohibits ONDCP from studying legalization.

Because of the ban, the Drug Czar and his staff are unfairly prevented from stating their true positions on marijuana policy and are not even allowed to study the legalization of medical marijuana in 20 states and the District of Columbia or the legalization of marijuana like alcohol in Colorado and Washington. Many believe the ban makes government officials too afraid during congressional hearings to even say scientifically accurate statements like the fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, heroin and other drugs when asked by members of Congress.

“It’s extraordinary if you really think about it: a federal law prohibiting a federal agency from even studying an issue, and then directing that agency to oppose any reform no matter what scientific or other evidence emerges,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “That such a law remains on the books is disgraceful. I pity the intellectually honest staff at the drug czar’s office who are muzzled and censored, and effectively compelled to lie when they testify before Congress and speak to the public.”

A majority of Americans want to treat marijuana like alcohol. President Obama has said that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and that legalization in Colorado and Washington should move forward. In January, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration will announce guidelines that will make it easier for banks to deal with state-legalized marijuana businesses.

The ban only applies to the Drug Czar, which means that the nation’s top drug policy advisor is forced to take positions at odds with the President who appointed him and the Attorney General that wages the drug war.

Contact: Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Bill Piper 202-669-6430

Dr. Bob said:

I'll keep that in mind the next time they try and restrict certifications to ONLY your primary care doctor with whom you have had a relationship for 2 years. Or open the registry to every law enforcement officer.

As for Greg, I've never sued a patient for slander, you have anyone in mind? I did go for a restraining order once and you haven't heard much from that one, but they were threatening my family and publishing my home address, so I don't think many would fault me for that. Also got a couple of dogs to protect my family when I wasn't home as a result of those threats.

But then again, the thread was about something else, I'll leave personal attacks with wither on their own.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

So it was the hearing regarding the restraining order that the judge and bailiff laughed you out the door.Now that we have that settled, we can move along with the pertinent discussion.

To the doctor on this thread: I did not mention you personally or professionally in any post. I will never and have never. If you feel the need to document your professional behavior for the world to see, I can't stop you from doing so. You insist of referring to our medical center by name, and this needs to stop. I never mentioned in this thread that you were doing anything that was not up to snuff. I am not sure where you are coming from or why you insist on mentioning me by name or our medical center. You need to cease and desist. Your obvious agenda is clear, and I am happy for you that you have so many followers on this forum. It must be great for your ego. Stop spreading libel about our medical center. Period. You are entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day it is just that.

GregS, we have developed our own version of this form that documents the unique nature of the doctor patient relationship in regards to medical marijuana certifications. This should be a standard document at all doctors offices where certifications are signed. It is a unique relationship and does unfortunately require special documentation of the doctor patient relationship in order for patients and by affiliation their caregivers to have the type of protections that they need under this much misunderstood law. There are still cert centers using email for certifications (typically renewals) and some that literally advertise that no records are necessary (and that particular center claims to have certified over 11% of all patients in Michigan), but I do not hear anybody questioning these people. Probably this is due to the fact that forums like this are ripe for furthering political, social or economic agendas as well as the movement being corrupted by the money that these people now throw around. I don't know, I am a new member and not likely to be here much longer after this ridiculously stressful defense of my professional practices. Slander, libel, the term does not matter. It is the same thing: People publicly talking trash about other people or their businesses. It leaves me with a sick feeling while I am shaking my head and wondering what the hell happened to the movement I became involved in 13 years ago. So sad.

It is unfortunate that anyone would have to defend their business or their professional practices publicly when people call them out by name.

Methinks thou dost protest too much

I am not the one advocating telemedicine, I didn't start the thread. I said if you were doing in person exams I don't have a problem with it. You have been shown and told by many that telemedicine is not allowed, and if you are doing it, shame on you. If you have a problem with that, you are welcome to contact my attorney with your complaint. But I will tell you if it turns out you are doing telemedicine, I'd have no problem dealing with your complaint. Sorry I called you on your veiled comments about 'delegation of authority' and exposed your agenda....

Adam from TC said:

To the doctor on this thread: I did not mention you personally or professionally in any post. I will never and have never. If you feel the need to document your professional behavior for the world to see, I can't stop you from doing so. You insist of referring to our medical center by name, and this needs to stop. I never mentioned in this thread that you were doing anything that was not up to snuff. I am not sure where you are coming from or why you insist on mentioning me by name or our medical center. You need to cease and desist. Your obvious agenda is clear, and I am happy for you that you have so many followers on this forum. It must be great for your ego. Stop spreading libel about our medical center. Period. You are entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day it is just that.

Click to expand...

Dr Bob doesn't have many fans on this site, but when someone is right personal feelings about them need to be set aside.

How is this libel? The law is very clear, and your business isn't following it. Tossing around threatening legal terms does nothing to polish this turd. Instead of hinting at legal action over people stating FACTS, don't you feel that you'd be better served to re-evaluate the way your center is going about certifications?

Adam from TC said:

GregS, we have developed our own version of this form that documents the unique nature of the doctor patient relationship in regards to medical marijuana certifications. This should be a standard document at all doctors offices where certifications are signed. It is a unique relationship and does unfortunately require special documentation of the doctor patient relationship in order for patients and by affiliation their caregivers to have the type of protections that they need under this much misunderstood law. There are still cert centers using email for certifications (typically renewals) and some that literally advertise that no records are necessary (and that particular center claims to have certified over 11% of all patients in Michigan), but I do not hear anybody questioning these people. Probably this is due to the fact that forums like this are ripe for furthering political, social or economic agendas as well as the movement being corrupted by the money that these people now throw around. I don't know, I am a new member and not likely to be here much longer after this ridiculously stressful defense of my professional practices. Slander, libel, the term does not matter. It is the same thing: People publicly talking trash about other people or their businesses. It leaves me with a sick feeling while I am shaking my head and wondering what the hell happened to the movement I became involved in 13 years ago. So sad.

It is unfortunate that anyone would have to defend their business or their professional practices publicly when people call them out by name.

Click to expand...

I am glad we agree that this type of documentation is smart. It clearly establishes a bona fide relationship. I have been advocating the documents and will continue in that.

Whatever slights you may be feeling, it is best to let them roll off. If they need to be spoken to it can be phrased without playing the victim and casting insults and speculation. That elucidation is typically respected.