Loop Hole?

[gypski]

Say your get your authorization from a doc in the box who specializes in mmj authorizations with patients with a valid medical history and they put an expiration on your authorization (not in the law, they don't expire). What if you then go to your regular doctor, who wouldn't sign around the time your expiration date is coming on your doc in the box authorization, and the regular doc finds your conditions are still the same, you can carry on without fear from LEO because expiration's aren't part of the law. Your regular doctor would be forced to confirm your qualifying condition. It would put the chicken doctor on the spot to where they have to confirm your condition is real. And you get around the doc in the box's yearly charge. :D

[dennisjill]

No, your doc can say you have a qualifying condition, but he/she doesn't have to recommend MMJ or any other particular med.
Dennis from Montana:hippy:

[killerweed420]

I think the easiest way to get around this is if you get arrested just subpoena the original doctor who signed the MMJ authorization into court. Thats what was done to Dr Orvald in Pt. Orchrad. He didn't want to show up for a court case where one of his patients was being charged so he was subpoena'd. Regular doctors here in Washington just don't seem to want to get involved in this. I know of a couple but they have been persecuted because of it.

[jamessr]

Say your get your authorization from a doc in the box who specializes in mmj authorizations with patients with a valid medical history and they put an expiration on your authorization (not in the law, they don't expire). What if you then go to your regular doctor, who wouldn't sign around the time your expiration date is coming on your doc in the box authorization, and the regular doc finds your conditions are still the same, you can carry on without fear from LEO because expiration's aren't part of the law. Your regular doctor would be forced to confirm your qualifying condition. It would put the chicken doctor on the spot to where they have to confirm your condition is real. And you get around the doc in the box's yearly charge. :D

The easiest way is to file a quo warranto/ ex post facto constitutional claim motion. The one yr issue is not born on a patient, it is born upon the dr.....Since our legislation does state in plain lingo in respects to a regular medications and standard treatments must fail. The legal effect is the same as if it is a prescribed medicine the doctor is recommending.

The cali. case does go to your thoughts here. People v. Windus.....:thumbsup:

[justpics]

The easiest way is to file a quo warranto/ ex post facto constitutional claim motion. The one yr issue is not born on a patient, it is born upon the dr.....Since our legislation does state in plain lingo in respects to a regular medications and standard treatments must fail. The legal effect is the same as if it is a prescribed medicine the doctor is recommending.

The cali. case does go to your thoughts here. People v. Windus.....:thumbsup:



In regards to the bold part, if that is true, then the 1 yr expiration does in fact apply, as prescriptions expire after 1 year. This is the source of the language in these authorizations btw, so that seems to make sense.

Either way, why would a doctor not be able to set a time limit on a recommendation? Someone who receives a single prescription at one point in time for morphine (say that had surgery) can not use morphine the rest of their life (without another prescription), morphine is schedule 2, and one would expect the laws governing the expiration of recommendation for marijuana, a schedule 1 drug, to be at least as severe.

[jamessr]

In regards to the bold part, if that is true, then the 1 yr expiration does in fact apply, as prescriptions expire after 1 year. This is the source of the language in these authorizations btw, so that seems to make sense.

Either way, why would a doctor not be able to set a time limit on a recommendation? Someone who receives a single prescription at one point in time for morphine (say that had surgery) can not use morphine the rest of their life (without another prescription), morphine is schedule 2, and one would expect the laws governing the expiration of recommendation for marijuana, a schedule 1 drug, to be at least as severe.

The problem justpics with this analogy is this: When we get caught with any amount of Mj regardless of our recommendation, the courts state it is still a criminal public offense, but excuses the conduct by way of an aff. defense which is the same as a violent crime of assault. A prescription is not a public offense, nor do the courts treat it the same in legal effect, nor do the courts claim sua sponte some asshat oxymoronic novel arguements or analogy of a violent crime or criminal conduct. Our state wants it both ways in enforcement.

This is why the 1 yr expiration a Dr. may endorse does not fly in Wa. St.... if MMJ was a schedule 2 or lower, I can totally see them resticting it under the general standards of medicine you noted above..... There are a few other hypertechnical reasons why....but our appeal courts have noted no hypertechnical reading of the act is necessary.....

We have a long way to go here in Wa. yet....Until someone clocks them for torturing us patients.;)

[justpics]

i don't see why they would have a more lenient view of expiration of a schedule 1 versus 2, if anything the recommendation would expire equal to or sooner than the prescription. To be honest, we should be happy with 1 year.

[jamessr]

i don't see why they would have a more lenient view of expiration of a schedule 1 versus 2, if anything the recommendation would expire equal to or sooner than the prescription. To be honest, we should be happy with 1 year.

Where exactly do you get your medical marijuana from? A pharmacy? The Dr.'s office? A schedule 1 can not be dispensed or destributed by any Dr. ever, nor can it be done by a pharmacy ever either.....nor does the DEA licensing guidelines allow for either of these to happen.....

I am not and never will be happy with a 1 yr bogus reasoning choke hold on my rights, because our legal system is asshat backwards in unreasonableness.

Sorry justpics.

[justpics]

Yes, schedule 1 drugs have MORE restrictions than schedule 2+ (no pharmacy as you pointed out). In the light of things related to schedule 1 drugs being more restrictive than those in schedule 2+ why would you assume that the implied expiration of a prescription (analogous to recommendation) would not follow the same trait (schedule 1 being more restrictive)?

[jamessr]

My G.I. meds that are only avail. by prescription is protonix. This medication is called in by my G.I. Dr. when my 1 yr time table expires. I do not have to be seen nor do I need to follow up each yr.... I must though each 2 yrs go in for a scope to justify the further need for this substance.

Why do I or would I bow to any more of a stringent regime since I replaced my protonix (which is scheduled way less than a schedule 2)with MMJ for the failed standard medical treatments and medications for my qualifying condition(s)?

It only goes to the profit side of my care. not any professional medical reasoning since it did not with my other prescribed meds for the same condition(s) I suffer from.

[justpics]

because you are moving from a schedule 2, to a schedule 1, and will therefore be dealing with more restrictive rules/laws.


Just like if they moved you down to a schedule 5 or 6, you prolly wouldnt need any sort of prescription or renewal ever.

[jamessr]

The crux of our legislation is replacement of standard meds and treatment. With a RECOMMENDATION, not a prescription....it is just like a heart surgeon telling me to drink a beer or glass of wine at dinner. It is just a RECOMMENDATION, not a prescription....regardless of the scheduling.....it's a cluster fuck if you ask me.....one regime clashing with another.

If in fact it is to be treated just like a script, then stop arresting and persecuting MMJ patients. correct? All across the board....

If in fact our legislation legally in effect is that of a prescription, then by implication it is legal just as an ordinary prescription. correct?

Incorrect, our state courts do not do by implication analogies....read state v. hanson....

Do you see the defects here yet? The branches can not make up their minds what is what.....a tug of war....with us patients being the rope in the middle.

As our legislation logically reads, it is a schedule 2.(using a 1 yr implication automatically go to this arguement) (see RCW 69.51, not 51A)

Our courts keep a brick wall against us claiming this, saying nope not so. The legislature has not used the magic words yet..... Yet the court in state v. tracy stated only a Dr. licensed in Wa. can prescribe MMJ.

[justpics]

its not that it is equivalent to a prescription, no one is saying that. Its that the implied rules around it are at least as restrictive as a prescription. Meaning it expires at least as early as a prescription, at least in the case where a doctor says so, explicitly.

[jamessr]

According to the Wa. St. DOH it is less restrictive, they claim if a recommendation does not have an expiration date. It does not ever expire.

Also only doc in the boxes offer a 1 yr time table expiration date. I have one from my normal dr. that does not have any expiration date on it(I have diagnosed document). I also have one from Dr. Orvald that doesn't have an expiration date on it(I am treating document). 2 different criteria in medical terms....

I also have 2 other recommendations with expiration dates, yet all of them are for different qualifying conditions.

Explain this one would ya?

[jamessr]

Can you also explain how my medical records expire? This one has me really baffled....our MMJ laws say either document or medical records suffice.:wtf:

Does one cancel out the other?

[justpics]

I've known people who have gone to court with old authorizations and the judge said he wanted more recent records. I agree that the language of the law doesn't specify one should need to renew every year explicitly. In fact the language just uses passed tense, "has been diagnosed"..."has been advised"....but even still I would keep current records, and if not receive a new recommendation every year, just ensure you are getting check ups with that doctor every now and then. If you don't you may end up having to go back and get them to resign off on your condition, to satisfy a judge. You need to look at it from the position of the state, and they are going to see marijuana use as more egregious than schedule 2 drugs (like morphine ROFL). That's going to be their perspective.

But when it comes to doctors that explicitly state an expiration date, I don't see any wiggle room. A doctor can withdraw their medical opinion, and you'd be up shit's creek in front of a prosecutor if your doctor wouldn't get your back in court. In fact if he testified that he felt you no qualified I think you'd be done in front of a judge or jury. Unless you had another doctor to back you up.

[jamessr]

NO QUALIFIED? Well then are we now talking theft of honest services or fraud upon a patient for profit? Since when you did visit they took your money to sign, then reniged on the contract when pressured by the state. I would say at this point the Dr. is in a real pickle. Not the patient...since the medical records the so called Dr. looked at is valid when they first signed.:thumbsup:

Now shit is deep off in who is the real criminal here.?;) The patient, the Dr. or the business owner/operator whom sold the service. And who gets to use the loop holes?:D

[jamessr]

If I did view it from the states position, I would have to sign up for the assisted suicide program.....;)

[justpics]

to say that a doctor is defrauding a patient if after 1+ year they change their recommendation for treatment is not realistic.

[jamessr]

If the patient still suffers from the same condition as they did when the 1 yr expires. It would be unrealistic for any Dr. to say in their professional judgment, opinion, the patient no longer has a qualifying condition when the scientific medical evidence shows otherwise. see People v. Windus....the attorney general of cali. tried that one already. and lost.

So yes, defrauding is the only legal logical reality.....unless the patient is faking the condition claimed in the first place.

[jamessr]

Remember, all other treatments and meds have failed in order to fully qualify under the statute. This means, last treatment and meds availble is MMJ. The Dr. gets boxed in so too speak into 1 treatment and 1 med for a professional medical opinion.....

[gypski]

Well, now that all the above has been stated, I was referring to chronic illnesses. i.e. chronic pain, bi-polar (not yet allowed), and other life long ailments.

But frankly, cannabis was originally treated in the same light as aspirin and other over the counter medications. Its the false scheduling of cannabis that makes all the complications more complicated. And until the attitude toward it of being evil changes and the lies concerning it are refuted honestly, not much is going to change. I'd like to see a real, verifiable historical prescription that was written for cannabis prior to the prohibition that the government could use to support is false classification.

Now back to my original intent. I have degenerative arthritis, I just saw my orthopedic doc who wouldn't sign for me, but he confirmed that my condition will not change until I have a total joint replacement. Thirty to fifty thousand dollars. The same as THCF wrote when I got a non-expiring authorization. My current doctor's evaluation supports the one from THCF. And it would be a waste of medical payments spent when seeing the doctor regularly to tell me new joint, new joint (no pun intended) is a waste of health care funds regardless of who is paying them. And the same would apply to anyone with a chronic condition.

Why drive up health care costs when a condition is chronic just to pay $150+ every year? Makes no sense. Hence, cannabis should be treated as non-prescription over the counter medication. Take all the bullshit legal and LEO gymnastics out of it period. Just keep it simple. :jointsmile:

[justpics]

If the patient still suffers from the same condition as they did when the 1 yr expires. It would be unrealistic for any Dr. to say in their professional judgment, opinion, the patient no longer has a qualifying condition when the scientific medical evidence shows otherwise. see People v. Windus....the attorney general of cali. tried that one already. and lost.

So yes, defrauding is the only legal logical reality.....unless the patient is faking the condition claimed in the first place.



Are you a doctor? A doctor could change their medical opinion of the best way for a patient to go about treatment after 1+ year, and no they wouldn't face any sort of repercussions from that.

In the Windus case, the patient's doctor actually testified that the patient not only qualified, but needed roughly 6-8 times the amount presumed under California's SB420.


If your doctor will still back you, you'd be fine. As in the People v Windus case, however, if your doctor doesn't feel you should still be treated with MMJ, you're up shit's creek. Unless you can get another doc.

[jamessr]

Justpics,

I would not agree that if your Dr. changes the treatment regime that, one is up the S creek. I would have to say that the Dr. has put them self in a very interesting position. And they must back the patient, writting a lawful order outside a lawful purpose is a no no. This is why the statute also covers one's medical records. So a wrongful financial interest does not come into play. This thread is loop holes.....

Let's keep in mind that in order for a Dr. to change the professional medical opinion once derived at claiming the medical records history review supported the use of the last substance and treatment left availble for a specific patient whom like gypski points out is chronic and life long, would be a miracle in the making. No Dr. in their right mind would risk such a calamity. UNLESS A FINACIAL STAKE IS THE MOTIVE.

A Dr.'s finacial stake is not a professional medical opinion to change any substance and/or treatment course. Only a failed substance proven record and failed treatment record would give rise to change the professional opinion once derived at to authorize any substance use and treatment.

Gypski,

Nice to find another patient with an open-ended authorization from Dr. Orvald. The head cheif of thcf says these are no good and are expired 1 yr after written. I am being charged criminally for having this document and relying on it to cover me. The court has said my document is no good and expired therefor I am guilty of a crime. I am taking it to trial. Care to be a witness on my behalf? I know there are at least 17 others in Wa. that this is happening to NO EXPIRATION DATES ON OUR DOCUMENTS( I watched the office manager janice brown pile all our medical records together to be sent to the state of Wa., she explicitly stated so)....we as PATIENTS will all loose if this don't get shut down......only we with open-ended (no expiration dates) can stand up for our rights here....no one else is in our shoes....:thumbsup:

Hope you are willing to stand up.:)

[justpics]

all the doctor would have to say is that they didn't find the patient's benefits continue to out weigh the risks.


no calamity involved.

[jamessr]

all the doctor would have to say is that they didn't find the patient's benefits continue to out weigh the risks.


no calamity involved.

Wow justpics,

That is interesting. The doctor would most definitely need to have documentation for the quote you mentioned here and PROOF to back up the notion of such a thing. Since the doctor needed documentation to authorize it in the first place and PROOF i.e. medical records history.....remember we are talking TREATMENT documentation here, not diagnosis documentation.(there is a medical difference)

It is called reverse engineering so to speak. I have a trial coming up in Feb., I do believe that Dr. Orvald may try stating what you quoted here, if he is allowed to testify per the rules of evidence. This is going to be fun if he does.

I do understand the theory you are presenting here. I have battled many Dr.'s in court before and have not lost yet. There are so many rules and regs they must follow, tying a knot is easy.;)

[justpics]

nope, the law says that under no circumstances is a doctor required to recommend mmj to a patient.

[jamessr]

Justpics,

As the court ruled in people v. windus (regardless of the Dr. testimony) there is no way to expire a recommendation once it is signed (his 3 yr old recommendation was and is to this very day, "VALID" as it was on the first day...... The statute doesn't allow for that type of action. Also in Wa. the only way to expire anything is for a Dr. to send a letter to the patient they are no longer "treating" them. "is" a patient vs. "was" a patient.

LOOP HOLES MY FRIEND is the thread.:thumbsup:

I am glad gypski posted this thread.:thumbsup::thumbsup::D

[justpics]

relying on what you think is a loop hole is something you're welcome to do, however it is by no means something to be recommended to patients wanting to avoid all legal troubles they can.

people v windus doesn't apply because the doctor wasn't intending to withdraw their recommendation. and its CA law.

[gypski]

Gypski,

Nice to find another patient with an open-ended authorization from Dr. Orvald. The head cheif of thcf says these are no good and are expired 1 yr after written. I am being charged criminally for having this document and relying on it to cover me. The court has said my document is no good and expired therefor I am guilty of a crime. I am taking it to trial. Care to be a witness on my behalf? I know there are at least 17 others in Wa. that this is happening to NO EXPIRATION DATES ON OUR DOCUMENTS( I watched the office manager janice brown pile all our medical records together to be sent to the state of Wa., she explicitly stated so)....we as PATIENTS will all loose if this don't get shut down......only we with open-ended (no expiration dates) can stand up for our rights here....no one else is in our shoes....:thumbsup:

Hope you are willing to stand up.:)

Back when I got mine, everybody was getting a non-expiring authorization. No where does it say I'm required to renew yearly, I still have the original condition for which it was written. With no provision in the state law, as far as I'm concerned mine is still good, regardless of THCF. And, I believe any court should back it up and honor it since expiration is not mentioned explicitly in the law. If you are being taken to court then its just prosecutorial or LEO gymnastics resulting in needless harassment and financial hardship. Especially with legalization bills up for purview. :thumbsup:

[jamessr]

Back when I got mine, everybody was getting a non-expiring authorization. No where does it say I'm required to renew yearly, I still have the original condition for which it was written. With no provision in the state law, as far as I'm concerned mine is still good, regardless of THCF. And, I believe any court should back it up and honor it since expiration is not mentioned explicitly in the law. If you are being taken to court then its just prosecutorial or LEO gymnastics resulting in needless harassment and financial hardship. Especially with legalization bills up for purview. :thumbsup:

I was Dr. Orvald's 3rd patient the first day he started back in 04'. I also do not agree with the THCF head founder, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Paul Stanford.

He wrote a declaration in 2 cases I positively know of and have seen the declaration(s) myself. I posted mine on cannacare.org in the legal section. I may suggest you read it gypski, and any others here that are in the same situation. Regardless of the states gymnastics, THCF has their own going on which is conducive with the state.

The DOH sent me a letter stating my case,Tracy,Soper, and my sons cases are past the statutes of limitations as far as the executive directors involvement . They will act if some one else files a complaint similar to mine that shows a pattern of what he did and continues to do. They claim a single complaint does not show the pattern they need to act. Without the DOH intervening we with NO EXPIRATION DATES will be found guilty of a cime beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is wrong since we as patients followed the laws, we all were sold a service we expected to rely upon. Help from others in this same situation or who have not been found yet in possession of these documents would be greatful.

If any one out here has the same document I posted, please could you contact me. We all need to stop this before the state persecutes more patients for following the laws. Also if anyone has a contract signed stating they must return before 1 yr to renew, this would be helpful also.

[jamessr]

relying on what you think is a loop hole is something you're welcome to do, however it is by no means something to be recommended to patients wanting to avoid all legal troubles they can.

people v windus doesn't apply because the doctor wasn't intending to withdraw their recommendation. and its CA law.

Justpics,

Here is what I am referring to.

RCW 69.51A.010(3)

(a)Is a patient....

(d) Has been advised by that physician about the risks and benefits...

(e) Has been advised by that physician that they "may" benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

These words lock a physician in ONCE THEY ADVISE and SIGN any sort of document or enter into any medical record of the patient. RCW 69.51A.060(3) does not apply ONCE THE DR. COMMITTS to either of the above, i.e. document signed or entry into the medical record(s). it only applies prior to signing anything or entering the required words as stated in State v. Otis.

RCW 69.51A.010(4)(a) Has no requirement that other treatments or medications have failed. This distictively separates these long term life long debilitating or terminal conditions from sections (b)-(f) which require one's conditions to be unrelieved by standard treatment(s) or medications.

Section (5)(a) also is conducive with this view.

So my point is once a Dr. committs to a professional opinion for any specific patient. That opinion is set in stone. It is only at the begining stages prior to any statement is when a Dr. is not required to authorize.

I believe you looked into what the state can not charge any Dr. for under State law. WHICH is not any part of a patients requirements nor can it be transferred to a patient. It only legally covers a Dr. from prosecution for the duties described in that part of the law which a Dr. performs.;)

There is nothing in this statute which allows any Dr. a 1 yr restriction. There is nothing in the MUMA which authorizes a expiration date. There is nothing in this statute which allows any one to cause an expiation of any authorization. EXCEPT, when a Dr. Dies or a patient Dies, it is obvious neither one qualifies. Also once a patient stops having a condition, it is obvious one no longer qualifies. It is upto a patient and their symptoms which control this and nothing or anybody else.

[justpics]

It is upto a patient and their symptoms which control this and nothing or anybody else.

That's terrible advice to give to any patient. To tell someone that once your doctor signs off on something you are covered for life as long as "the patient says so" is just asking for trouble.

[jamessr]

That's terrible advice to give to any patient. To tell someone that once your doctor signs off on something you are covered for life as long as "the patient says so" is just asking for trouble.

I think you must be reading something into what I posted here, that isn't here. For any doctor to do any type of treatment or diagnosis, a patient must have complaints of some sort, correct? So it is upto a patient to complain, correct? The Dr. must do a history check first, then must go to the patients complaints, correct?

So it is upto a patient to inform the Dr. of ailments, correct? So how is it bad advise to tell someone it is upto them to inform and control their medical care? And our statute and DOH here in Wa. clearly unambiguously state the same.

A qualifying patients covered conditions are for life. So is a diagnosis for life, unless a misdiagnosis is proven by scientific medical evidence. At the point a qualifying condition no longer exists, is the point at which it no longer becomes for life. An authorization or medical record entry is proof that a Dr.'s professional medical opinion of a life long condition does not expire. If one changes Dr.'s your medical record does not ever expire, correct? Your new Dr. goes off the history in the record....This goes to the IS A PATIENT vs. WAS A PATIENT.

This is why allot of people in accidents who fight an insurance co. get an I.M.E., most courts rule in favor of the treating physician's medical opinion instead of the I.M.E. opinion. I myself had many I.M.E.'s when I blew out my shoulder. They all said I was faking it(professional medical opinion). I beat every one of these Dr.'s pro-med-opinion hands down. I won the largest claim in Oregon for my condition at the time.

These doc in the boxes are nothing more than an I.M.E. in legal terms. They all state up front, we must review your medical history records of your regular treating physician(because they read RCW 69.51A.030 which states they are not criminally liable for doing so.). It is actually your regular Dr.'s professional medical opinion which controls the I.M.E. professional opinion.......if this was not true, then the doc in the boxes would not need prior records. They would claim to be able to diagnose, not just treat.

[gypski]

Well, how about if the patient showed the doc in the box the originally treating doctor's diagnosis. They saw the benefits in the cannabis therapy. Then upon a medical update, the original doctor still confirmed the condition exists. With no expiration, I would have to say the patients would have to call them both into court as expert witnesses. One hostile (non-signer) as affirmative defense foundation. Simple. :D

[jamessr]

Yes gypski that is true. But when you have a state prosecutor claiming NO AUTHORIZATION IS FOR LIFE, it becomes a cluster fuck free for all. It becomes a real DOG FIGHT with shit hitting the fan every direction. A patient has a hard time wading through the DOG SHIT and it's smell.

It all boils down too the FINACIAL INTEREST of the doctor and non-physician owner/operator fee splitting scam. Not to mention the states interest in prosecuting patients the doc in the box owners/operators feeding patients to the state on a constant basis, depending on what part of the law the state wishes to challenge. The state gets what is known as a quid-pro-quo, a declaration of guilt from the non-physician owner/operator, not the signing physician under RCW 18.71 or 18.57.

A court will take the quid-pro-quo because unless the corp. officer, director or CEO committs some sort of illegal act which can be proven, the patient is at a huge disadvantage with claiming an aff. def......the DR. gets hidden behind the CEO's professional business opinion. This is a huge issue for all us patients as a whole. A true unethical violation we are subjected too by this, from all the professionals involved combined.

[jamessr]

I would have to say the patients would have to call them both into court as expert witnesses. One hostile (non-signer) as affirmative defense foundation. Simple.

Gypski,

I have some medical case law which states that it is the "SPECIALIST" expert witness which supersedes the non-specialist expert witness. Most non doc in the box Dr.'s do not have the scientific info or specialty of MMJ and it's risks and benefits. This could/may be a problem depending on the judge wieghing the evidence and applying the rules of such. Of coarse the court of appeals may clarify this since the act is specific. Our appeal courts have just recently started to interpret the act as it was meant to be. If it ain't in the act, it don't exist:wtf::wtf::wtf:....ambiguous vs. unambiguous.:thumbsup:.....telling the executive branch BULLSHIT !!!:cool:

[gypski]

I don't know how I forgot to mention that when I saw my orthopedic surgeon recently, the one who won't sign for mmj, he had a wall chart showing different aspects of the knee. And guess who the wall chart was produced by??? The makers of Oxycontin. They had a large write up on the lower right hand portion. And, he didn't ask me if I needed anything for pain even though I'm bone on bone, and I didn't ask him for anything either. Doesn't mean I don't have daily pain, but I'm not taking that shit period or any other addictive pharmaceutical like Celebrex which made my stomach bleed after just two days of use a few years back. Cannabis does none of those harmful things. :D

He did say I need a new knee replacement on a 40 year battered knee, but good luck getting one without health insurance and a preexisting condition thanks to Uncle Sam who refuses to fix it because I smoked marijuana when I was a Marine. Forget about being willing to die for these hypocrites once in my life. :jointsmile:

[jamessr]

I don't know how I forgot to mention that when I saw my orthopedic surgeon recently, the one who won't sign for mmj, he had a wall chart showing different aspects of the knee. And guess who the wall chart was produced by??? The makers of Oxycontin. They had a large write up on the lower right hand portion. And, he didn't ask me if I needed anything for pain even though I'm bone on bone, and I didn't ask him for anything either. Doesn't mean I don't have daily pain, but I'm not taking that shit period or any other addictive pharmaceutical like Celebrex which made my stomach bleed after just two days of use a few years back. Cannabis does none of those harmful things. :D

He did say I need a new knee replacement on a 40 year battered knee, but good luck getting one without health insurance and a preexisting condition thanks to Uncle Sam who refuses to fix it because I smoked marijuana when I was a Marine. Forget about being willing to die for these hypocrites once in my life. :jointsmile:

If ur doc' knows you engage in MMJ they will not ask if you need regular standard meds or treatment. There are only the conditions located in section (a) which allows other meds to be used in combination with MMJ. My pcp told me about this very issue last yr. when we talked about other meds she wanted me to take. The words in our statute seems to have adverse effects because the way the state is interpreting them. NEGATIVELY !

[LLLou2]

Say your get your authorization from a doc in the box who specializes in mmj authorizations with patients with a valid medical history and they put an expiration on your authorization (not in the law, they don't expire). What if you then go to your regular doctor, who wouldn't sign around the time your expiration date is coming on your doc in the box authorization, and the regular doc finds your conditions are still the same, you can carry on without fear from LEO because expiration's aren't part of the law. Your regular doctor would be forced to confirm your qualifying condition. It would put the chicken doctor on the spot to where they have to confirm your condition is real. And you get around the doc in the box's yearly charge. :D

Actually the way I read 69.51 RCW it says that IF there is a expiration date on the doctors recommendation ,then the recommendation will expire on that date, and you will need a new rec. This is up to the doctor whether or not he/she puts a expiration date. If a person has a life long condition which qualifies them for a MMJ recommendation , I don't think the Doc should put an expiration in , but it is a way for the doc. to make some dough.