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.

gypski Reviewed by gypski on 12-29-2009. Loop Hole? 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 Rating: 5

[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.

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.