Loop Hole?

[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:

[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: