Qualifying conditions question

I've just read the MI bill in it's entirety and an interesting question popped into my head after reading the section that discusses qualifying conditions:

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

The part underlined is what made me begin deep thought. So for instance: John Doe gets prolonged treatment by his primary doc for depression, and a side effect of the treatment (i.e. medication) causes any of those listed symptoms...you would qualify, right? So assuming that interpretation of the bill is true, would your medical records need to reflect those symptoms or the treatment of the debilitating disease....or both? Any thoughts? Personally this doesn't affect me as my wife will easily be approved for chronic pain and I will be listed as her caregiver so no need for both of us to blow $300 but I thought the conversation on this topic would be good food for thought

Basically what I'm conjuring up in my head here is that if you have been treated for what the medical community recognizes as a debilitating disease (depression, chronic anxiety, etc..) and you have adequate records of said treatment for that debilitating disease, when you see a pot-doc for review and certification, would your records have to show both the treatment of the debilitating disease and the symptoms or do your records simply have to show "A" debilitating disease... and you explain to the pot-doc that as a result of treating that DD, you suffer from 1 or more of the qualifying conditions...that would = a qualifying patient...yes?

Hope that makes sense to y'all...

"John Doe gets prolonged treatment by his primary doc for depression, and a side effect of the treatment (i.e. medication) causes any of those listed symptoms...you would qualify, right?" - Yes.
"So assuming that interpretation of the bill is true, would your medical records need to reflect those symptoms or the treatment of the debilitating disease....or both?" - Yes and no. My doctor I didn't need any records . Other doctors might require records, all you have to do is bring in a record showing you got prescribed some medicine and tell him of the side effects it has on you.

I'm starting to like this bold text lol. Honestly in Michigan getting your card is easy, I believe getting your card anywhere is easy tbh lol. My friend went to this doctor in a line of 50 people, they all payed 60 bucks.
He walked in the room to meet the doctor, this is how it played out in a matter of 2 minutes
Nick: "Hello"
Doctor: "Whats wrong with you"
Nick: "My knee is messed up and hurts"
Doctor: Writes shit down for a minute, "k here, bye"

Simple as that

You're thinking about this to much lol, its not as hard as it seems, once you get your doct rec. you'll walk out of the room saying "wow, thats it?". Mail yur money to the state, because thats all they want! They only deny applicates if they screw up the app

You would be fine as long as it causes a issue. I dont recommend going to one of these " pot-doc" that only want your money. The doctor patient relatioship was called into question by the higher courts recently so going to doc like the one abouve only hurts our cause. Most clinic are not ran like that and shouldn't be as the courts will end up tossin all the doc recs under a bus and leave us all screwed. Send in ALL your health files and find a doc that will follow up with you and form a relationship with you as those will stand up in court.

When the judge asks you about your rec and doc and all you can say is you saw him for 2 minutes in some hotel and payed him 50 bucks and never plan on seeing him again. Well,,, you see what I mean. That relationship is hard for you to defend. If ya cant defend that then your card is tossed along with your defence that your a patient.

See what I mean ?????????????????????

Proof then switches to YOU......................

Kruzty said:

You would be fine as long as it causes a issue. I dont recommend going to one of these " pot-doc" that only want your money. The doctor patient relatioship was called into question by the higher courts recently so going to doc like the one abouve only hurts our cause. Most clinic are not ran like that and shouldn't be as the courts will end up tossin all the doc recs under a bus and leave us all screwed. Send in ALL your health files and find a doc that will follow up with you and form a relationship with you as those will stand up in court.

When the judge asks you about your rec and doc and all you can say is you saw him for 2 minutes in some hotel and payed him 50 bucks and never plan on seeing him again. Well,,, you see what I mean. That relationship is hard for you to defend. If ya cant defend that then your card is tossed along with your defence that your a patient.

See what I mean ?????????????????????

Proof then switches to YOU......................

Click to expand...

Sorry friend, but the law as it is written doesn't support your argument. I suggest you read the law in it's entirety as nothing you stated is accurate per the text of the initiative. There is nothing in the law that says how long a visit must be or any of that nonsense you mentioned. The affirmative defense section of the law is very clear as to the elements that must be satisfied in order to secure an affirmative defense:

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;


I sure don't see anything in that language indicating how long a patient has to be in a doctors presence for his/her recommendation to be valid; do you?


I love debate but misinformation is not the way to help


Medical Marijuana is still stigmatized amongst many physicians, therefore many will not even touch the subject or your inquiry simply gets belittled and you get the standard "I don't wanna touch this with a 10-foot pole" response, "well we have many other (addictive/dangerous) medications that can treat that condition"...that line of crap isn't so much about helping the patient as it is about staying within the doctor's comfort zone which as I said, thanks to the stigma attached to it, more often than not, a doctors treatment options won't even include the possibility of mmj. I don't think it hurts the cause at all...things seem like they're going pretty damn good in California, but maybe they're hurting the cause and I'm just too ignorant to see it