Immaculate Conception Rule/Law

[TheMan13]

Don't confuse lucky with right.

You angry at me because they are getting away with something in your mind? What does that have to do with me or a caregiver transferring a clone to their registered patient as I discussed.

I'm not going to defend the fact I have access to lawyers, or have guilt that you do not. My suggestions have been to keep things safe, and I think things carefully through before I suggest solutions as I did. I don't worry or feel guilt about telling someone they are being an ass for their uncalled for comments, either on their own account or one of the several they set up to post harassing comments about me before.

Dr. Bob

Why is anyone who disagrees with you "angry"?!? You do realize that by funding the litigious nature of this game, that you are directly contributing to all the less fortunate having their lives destroyed? Does it matter the "value" that you and others put on these victims and their families verses your assumed value?

[video=youtube;okAGEtkP-YI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okAGEtkP-YI[/video]

 

[Dr. Bob]

Side stepping your question?

Here are your questions...

Get real! You really think sick people need to jump through hoops like this, if and only if they are lucky enough to actually know a trust worthy caregiver to sign them up with the state, and for that caregiver to be willing to do so without the rights to grow that patients plants??? Do they need to, yes, because that is what the court is requiring them to do, should they, no, but that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. My comment about caregivers willing to go 'without the rights to grow the patient's plants' the answer is I know MANY, and I am questioning why they want to grow the plants if not to provide for their patients.

Shouldn't sick, suffering, disabled Americans have the right to get easy safe access to the medicine they need? Of course, but that isn't the situation we find ourselves in.

There, I have answered your questions. Now it is my turn to you. Who are caregivers growing for if not their patients? Is the purpose of being a caregiver to grow plants for their registry designated MEDICAL patients or to sell weed to make a buck? Where are YOUR priorities on this question?

Dr. Bob

 

[woodsmantoker]

I appreciate the sentiment gents..

So I suppose we all agree...non of the BS beyond the first transaction matters, none of plants, or illegal bucks", NONE means piss when the root is at the start. The first problem is no one got access without a "crime" being commited. Its all catch 22. And needs to be addressed.

Quite frankly bob and others, my priority in this question are simple. I oppose the drug war. I find the fact that selling a weed/herb is a crime, disturbing especially one with as many diverse applications and benifits to us in regards to health. ( bob, I also find it disturbing that someone like yourself who's profession is "health" would stand for anything other than promotion of cannabis and its health benifits. Hell yes it should be sold, it should also be eaten daily as a food, burned as a fuel, bound as a fiber, and compressed as a building material. Quite frankly, it should RETURN to being the largest industry crop in the world.) Science should tell us how we should or shouldnt use it, not doctors who have no legal right to study it.

My point however is that while the wool is over the publics eyes, and the smoking community fights to hold on to what was, and the rest scramble for any argument that can be made, the problem that we all agree is a problem, unjust, immoral, and out right a crime in its self, is not front page wording and in your face "this is what's wrong with medical marijuana in Michigan". Instead, staw grabbing and hair pulling.

My suggestion is simple. Educate the public (the same one that voted in 200 on the fact that aside from all the logistics, the law makers "clairified" the voters intent to mean "no legal access period. The first transaction is illegal.

However possible, ads, fliers, rallies, law suits, press conferences, all the above.

 

[woodsmantoker]

The public is NOT aware. The voters DO NOT understand the ramifications of the decisions. I suspect most would be angry to learn the fact that reciprocity is null and void after the "case law" of no transfers outside caregiver patient relationship is legal. I suspect when folks understand that you can have it, tranfer it back and forth between care giver and patient, and grow it, but cannot initially obtain it legally, the pissed off croud you have been wondering about will be hard to miss and ignore.

 

[woodsmantoker]

I believe this topic should be at every table talk, dinner plate, coffee break, luncheon, meeting, news brief and congregation across the state. The masses voted for patients to be able to use cannabis, the courts ruled there is no legal FIRST TRANSACTION FOR ACCESS!

SO HERES THE QUESTIONS THAT POINTS IT ALL OUT: WHERE DOES MY CAREGIVER GET IT LEGALLY? I'm from another legal state and am a patient, where do I gain access?

The answer: he/she can't legally gain access.

"Immaculate conception"

Woodsmantoker~

 

[Cory and trevor]

you're so right. caregivers have to commit a crime or the patient does no other way and protection seems start AFTER that crime. Bob....I know who I am and who I help so I just leave you with three dots fill it in how you like... what's it take to start a law suit against the state man?

 

[Dr. Bob]

I appreciate the sentiment gents..

So I suppose we all agree...non of the BS beyond the first transaction matters, none of plants, or illegal bucks", NONE means piss when the root is at the start. The first problem is no one got access without a "crime" being commited. Its all catch 22. And needs to be addressed.

Quite frankly bob and others, my priority in this question are simple. I oppose the drug war. I find the fact that selling a weed/herb is a crime, disturbing especially one with as many diverse applications and benifits to us in regards to health. ( bob, I also find it disturbing that someone like yourself who's profession is "health" would stand for anything other than promotion of cannabis and its health benifits. Hell yes it should be sold, it should also be eaten daily as a food, burned as a fuel, bound as a fiber, and compressed as a building material. Quite frankly, it should RETURN to being the largest industry crop in the world.) Science should tell us how we should or shouldnt use it, not doctors who have no legal right to study it.

My point however is that while the wool is over the publics eyes, and the smoking community fights to hold on to what was, and the rest scramble for any argument that can be made, the problem that we all agree is a problem, unjust, immoral, and out right a crime in its self, is not front page wording and in your face "this is what's wrong with medical marijuana in Michigan". Instead, staw grabbing and hair pulling.

My suggestion is simple. Educate the public (the same one that voted in 200 on the fact that aside from all the logistics, the law makers "clairified" the voters intent to mean "no legal access period. The first transaction is illegal.

However possible, ads, fliers, rallies, law suits, press conferences, all the above.

All good ideas. The Greater Clare Area Compassion Club is working on something called 'operation education' which is designed to overcome some of the bias and myths surrounding cannabis. We need in general to put the best face on medical marijuana we can. Solid medical patients, based on certifications according to good medical practice, staying within limits and showing we are just like everyone else. And that it is a normal medical treatment just like, and in many cases, better than any other 'traditional' treatment.

Dr. Bob

 

[Dr. Bob]

you're so right. caregivers have to commit a crime or the patient does no other way and protection seems start AFTER that crime. Bob....I know who I am and who I help so I just leave you with three dots fill it in how you like... what's it take to start a law suit against the state man?

Quite a bit of money and good attorneys to find the right thing to sue them over. I started the process about 18 months ago over the cards, but with the new printer and the threat of having their job taken over by the private sector (review the new revisions of the law) they got on the ball. They are slipping again, but not to the point that they are 8 months behind again, it has to be a very clear case of them not getting the cards out and the police not accepting paperwork as the law requires.

Dr. Bob

 

[TheMan13]

All good ideas. The Greater Clare Area Compassion Club is working on something called 'operation education' which is designed to overcome some of the bias and myths surrounding cannabis. We need in general to put the best face on medical marijuana we can. Solid medical patients, based on certifications according to good medical practice, staying within limits and showing we are just like everyone else. And that it is a normal medical treatment just like, and in many cases, better than any other 'traditional' treatment.

Dr. Bob

Why not just let real doctors provide prescriptions like they do for every other drug? "Certification" is redundant and costly and not only impedes a patient's access to medication, but creates and/or maintains the prejudices of a second class citizen in need of extra over site.

 

[Dr. Bob]

You know, you blame me for the attorneys, insist 'real' doctors should handle this, and in general act like a little child throwing a temper tantrum and you ask me why I think you are 'angry'?

Clearly you are angry about the situation, feel powerless to do anything about it, and find it convenient to blame me. Sure, go right ahead, it is all my fault.

Now do you feel better?

Dr. Bob

PS folks disagree with me all the time, we discuss it without name calling. It is called a conversation or even a debate. Many agree with me as well, and I don't think that makes them 'happy'.

 

[TheMan13]

Why not just answer the damn question and stop making this about you and I ...

 

[Dr. Bob]

Why not just answer the damn question and stop making this about you and I ...

I'm not, you are. And I already did answer the question, would you care to look back? While you are at it, I asked you a very specific question about your comment concerning caregivers without 'rights to grow' all the patient's plants. Care to follow through and answer that one?

Dr. Bob

Here, since you aren't paying attention, I'll repost what I put up on Page 7 of this rapidly deteriorating thread....

Side stepping your question?

Here are your questions...

Get real! You really think sick people need to jump through hoops like this, if and only if they are lucky enough to actually know a trust worthy caregiver to sign them up with the state, and for that caregiver to be willing to do so without the rights to grow that patients plants??? Do they need to, yes, because that is what the court is requiring them to do, should they, no, but that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. My comment about caregivers willing to go 'without the rights to grow the patient's plants' the answer is I know MANY, and I am questioning why they want to grow the plants if not to provide for their patients.

Shouldn't sick, suffering, disabled Americans have the right to get easy safe access to the medicine they need? Of course, but that isn't the situation we find ourselves in.

There, I have answered your questions. Now it is my turn to you. Who are caregivers growing for if not their patients? Is the purpose of being a caregiver to grow plants for their registry designated MEDICAL patients or to sell weed to make a buck? Where are YOUR priorities on this question?

Dr. Bob

 

[Huel Perkins]

Side stepping your question?

Here are your questions...

Get real! You really think sick people need to jump through hoops like this, if and only if they are lucky enough to actually know a trust worthy caregiver to sign them up with the state, and for that caregiver to be willing to do so without the rights to grow that patients plants??? Do they need to, yes, because that is what the court is requiring them to do, should they, no, but that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. My comment about caregivers willing to go 'without the rights to grow the patient's plants' the answer is I know MANY, and I am questioning why they want to grow the plants if not to provide for their patients.

Shouldn't sick, suffering, disabled Americans have the right to get easy safe access to the medicine they need? Of course, but that isn't the situation we find ourselves in.

There, I have answered your questions. Now it is my turn to you. Who are caregivers growing for if not their patients? Is the purpose of being a caregiver to grow plants for their registry designated MEDICAL patients or to sell weed to make a buck? Where are YOUR priorities on this question?

Dr. Bob

I still think you're missing the point here...

My priorities / interests are not in caregivers being able to illegally sell overages, just ask the many people on here who have met me that I've given free meds to. My point is, it should be much easier for patients to obtain the meds they need and it shouldn't have to involve acts of god, being lucky and jumping through hoops to do so.

The current laws making patient to patient transfers illegal isn't stopping crime, its just hurting patients...

 

[TheMan13]

Why not just let real doctors provide prescriptions like they do for every other drug? "Certification" is redundant and costly and not only impedes a patient's access to medication, but creates and/or maintains the prejudices of a second class citizen in need of extra over site.

• Why not just answer the damn question and stop making this about you and I ...​
  
  
  
  

 

[Cory and trevor]

Oh Bob. "I'm not, you are". I had that fight today with my 5 year old, that is the exact defense he used. May I ask how many free certifications you have done? Please don't, answer I don't care. Its off topic and the start of a fight....one you like to start when threads deteriorate rapidly....the same point at which you post usually. Theman is a big time giver of time space knowledge and helps alot of people. He is a man to be respected in this community, I for one don't appreciate the way you treat him and others on here when you get on your horse and dictate the way it is and should be. I cant ever figure out what you want or how you help this cause. you say things about what you do and where you go and how you help but nobody on here seems to jump to your defense for very damn long. You see theman helps people like me and a few others that I have met personally and spoke with. I can't find anyone (and I tried) with a kind word about you. you're abrasive and repellent in your posts. This is how you act and speak to your peers (yeah, we are, live with it) how do you speak to your adversaries? I can't see you getting anywhere with the opposition when you piss off your constituents so quickly and so often.

 

[TheMan13]

I'm not, you are. And I already did answer the question, would you care to look back? While you are at it, I asked you a very specific question about your comment concerning caregivers without 'rights to grow' all the patient's plants. Care to follow through and answer that one?

Dr. Bob

Here, since you aren't paying attention, I'll repost what I put up on Page 7 of this rapidly deteriorating thread....

Side stepping your question?

Here are your questions...

Get real! You really think sick people need to jump through hoops like this, if and only if they are lucky enough to actually know a trust worthy caregiver to sign them up with the state, and for that caregiver to be willing to do so without the rights to grow that patients plants??? Do they need to, yes, because that is what the court is requiring them to do, should they, no, but that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. My comment about caregivers willing to go 'without the rights to grow the patient's plants' the answer is I know MANY, and I am questioning why they want to grow the plants if not to provide for their patients.

Shouldn't sick, suffering, disabled Americans have the right to get easy safe access to the medicine they need? Of course, but that isn't the situation we find ourselves in.

There, I have answered your questions. Now it is my turn to you. Who are caregivers growing for if not their patients? Is the purpose of being a caregiver to grow plants for their registry designated MEDICAL patients or to sell weed to make a buck? Where are YOUR priorities on this question?

Dr. Bob

You are (as you often are) more confident than correct. None of the questions "you answered" are mine fool ...

[video=youtube;H2jCbXiEQI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2jCbXiEQI4[/video]

 

[woodsmantoker]

Might we be so kind as to return to the thread topic fair men?

There is a consensus. There is an understanding when the points are made and the root of the problem targeted. Rights were reversed, and or never truely given. It is an unwise jelousey to deprive a man of his liberties based on the supposition that he may abuse them. Though this seems to be the case in limitation of transfer however, the fact that needs to be addressed is no transfers were ever legal before the first which is not.

Can we please focus some time and energy to discussion or civil debate regarding ways of addressing this most important issue. Thank you
Woodsmantoker

 

[TheMan13]

I believe your "plant before the seed" question was never answered when enacting this law simply due to the fact that there were no such lobbies in the room as this current bureaucracy was established and written.

 

[woodsmantoker]

In all honesty I have idea of what that means theman. Break it down in woodsman terms...

 

[woodsmantoker]

Retorical question really, but I am posting this thread in order to raise questions and spark debate and forward thinking on addressing the foremost issue. I have pointed out other infringements such as those that inhibit reciprocity, and they suggest the notion that the act was not written to inhibit or limit these things, but rather allow for them and establish protections and that the courts have effectively ruled down a voter initiative. Considering our understanding of what has occured, lets talk.