Loop Hole?

[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.

justpics Reviewed by justpics on 12-30-2009. 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

[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?

[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.