CBR medical??

[tango244ns]

Has any one used CBR medcial for their MMJ card? I have and am just wandering if other people like this company also?:jointsmile:

tango244ns Reviewed by tango244ns on 06-24-2010. CBR medical?? Has any one used CBR medcial for their MMJ card? I have and am just wandering if other people like this company also?:jointsmile: Rating: 5

[gypski]

Cbr is fine. James is the only person in wa who that those clinics are not writing legal recommendations, including the DAs.

You fail to mention that he has a case on appeal before the courts that just may determine whose right on that issue. As its well known, all the cases or the majority of the cases that have gone before the courts have ended in convictions on authorizations from THCF. Either because they didn't renew (not in the law), the doctor or Paul were no shows, or one of their conditions was invalidated by the court because of dodgy THCF record keeping. In Jame's case Paul Stanford told the court his authorization by Dr. Orvald was invalid because he didn't pay the yearly pound of flesh to THCF. :smokin:

[tango244ns]

Cbr is fine. James is the only person in wa who that those clinics are not writing legal recommendations, including the DAs.

i am confused . Could you explain more?:wtf:

[justpics]

Cbr is fine. James is the only person in wa who that those clinics are not writing legal recommendations, including the DAs.

[jamessr]

Has any one used CBR medcial for their MMJ card? I have and am just wandering if other people like this company also?:jointsmile:

Lot's of others use CBR, the question then is are you legally protected using a doc-in-the-box? The "lawful" answer to that is NO.

[killerweed420]

And thats the big answer for now till the law can be changed. Keep under the 15 plant limit, under the 24 ounce limit and keep your mouth shut. If you do all that your chances of conflict go way down. And don't bother argueing law with an officer because they don't care.

[jamessr]

There are a lot of things in the law that are not clear, that's for certain. But considering the 10s of thousands of patients with "doc in the box" authorizations. All of which the local DA's recognize as legit insofar as the authorizing agent being able to authorize is concerned, tells me that the concern james raises isn't one worth spending too much time worrying about until there is something clear from the courts saying those authorizations are in fact not legit.


Considering WA's history, I'd say the burden is over there.

Think outside the box for a second here..how did a assault case get into our medical marijuana analysis from the court of appeals and the supreme court in State v. Fry?????????

Look at the legal briefs in State v. Hanson in which it originated from...LegalJoint: Washington Lawyers: Stiley and Cikutovich, Criminal Defense, Medical Marijuana Law

Oh, the same court in which my son suggested they use.lol...talk about a set up for our cases in the future..which are here and now...2010!!

Watch and learn grasshopper.

p.s. did you remind them of the "recent" wa. supreme court ruling about learned professions and corp. practice of medicine...prolly not huh.

[justpics]

k...

[justpics]

There are a lot of things in the law that are not clear, that's for certain. But considering the 10s of thousands of patients with "doc in the box" authorizations. All of which the local DA's recognize as legit insofar as the authorizing agent being able to authorize is concerned, tells me that the concern james raises isn't one worth spending too much time worrying about until there is something clear from the courts saying those authorizations are in fact not legit.


Considering WA's history, I'd say the burden is over there.

[gypski]

Gypski;

hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.

If any law is full of hypotheticals its RCW 69.51a and all it arbitrary conflicting language and numerous different opinions in the lower courts on up to the Supreme Court. It a minefield or gauntlet for a patient to run through even though they believe they are legal under that statute.:wtf: