slumdog80
Well-Known Member
is bob both people playing both sides of the coin for entertainment? what is going on LoL
I think you are right. The above post screams PHD to me.
Section 8 protection
- Thread starter GregS
- Start date
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Of course I do. And have been upheld.
The problem is that it is not as easy as Greg tries to present it. It is very expensive and you will make your case from a cell. It is not the way the program was set up, it was only to be used as a last ditch effort, not 'another option' for patients. This utter nonsense that you somehow have more grow or caregiver rights if you don't register than if you did makes no sense at all and will result in a conviction. If you want to participate in the program and use cannabis under the protection of the act, you have to follow the rules and limits. That includes registering.
If you go outside the rules, and get caught, section 8 is a defense, but doesn't assure you that you will escape conviction. The ONLY patient I have that is taking the option suggested, relying on section 8, maintains his full medical records, sees me for renewals according to the same schedule as required in the act, fully complies will all limits, has no patients, and keeps things very quiet. Oh yeah, and he is a lawyer and well funded for his defense if it arises. That is the ONLY kind of patient that should even consider this rather risky concept of relying on section 8.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
This is amusing.
ProfessorPotSnob
New Member
[video=youtube;Sbtil4ayIMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbtil4ayIMw[/video]
somepotname
Active Member
Everything Dr. Bob has said in this thread is exactly what my lawyers have told me and what I've witnessed in court.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Ask a lawyer Greg, you know someone that actually knows something about the law. Or answer it yourself since you seem to feel you are so qualified that you can recommend obscure and risky strategies to work outside the Act.
I tend to stick only to my area of expertise, the MMMA as it relates to certifications and my patient's safety, and what I need to know about expert testimony.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
No kidding, but thanks for the kind words. It is the same thing I've seen in court, but there is always some guy with a laptop that wants to share his pet theory.
Part of being a doctor is preventative medicine and keeping patients safe and educated, that is my only motivation for commenting on topics like this and why I pay attention to the strategies used by prosecutors to attack my patients. It is also why I learn about the laws regulating my field. If that makes me an expert in your eyes, fine. If not, feel free to do your own thing. The important point is that lawyers and the courts seem to think I am an expert, and if you find yourself in that arena I hope you paid attention to what I and others that actually know about these things are telling you.
Dr. Bob
fattiemcnuggins
Well-Known Member
I would like to see anywhere where I said if you don't register you are entitled to more rights? more like same rights. I see the general public's irritation with you now. spewing nonsense.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
You have been reading this thread right? The entire concept being promoted is that if you work under section 8 you aren't limited by amounts, can have unlimited caregivers, can have unlimited patients, can transport without any restrictions, etc. That you aren't bound by the limits of Section 4 or any of the limits of registered patients or caregivers?
The comment wasn't direct at you, it was directed at the content of the thread.
Dr. Bob
theexpress
Well-Known Member
you till signing off on recs bro?
fattiemcnuggins
Well-Known Member
mhmmm. I just don't get that tone from the thread. Maybe I'm missing something.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
From page one of the thread....
Note that there are far fewer restrictions than come with registry. There is no requirement that parties be registered. Caregivers are not limited to five patients. Patients are not limited to one caregiver. A five pound batch of cookies is not prohibited. There are many other things the AD protects.
What is important is that courtroom rules of evidence require firm proof that the three prongs of the defense are met. For that reason, it is not for some people to try on their own, due to prosecutorial twists and turns, a judge's attitude, and the notion that the required evidence may not be met. In some instances, defendants can expect to be pushed face down in the gravel. They will be booked, arraigned, and very likely suffer civil asset forfeiture. 3ma does not permit the topic because it is regarded that we will trip over the truth and hurt ourselves.
Has this topic been discussed to the nth degree?
Dr. Bob
GregS
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting, Townsend, that a person must be registered before they can use the AD? Are you saying that a five pound batch of brownies is not defensible?
Throughout I have come back repeatedly to the risks involved, just as I stated in that first post, and will continue to as the conversation requires. This is not intended to be a one sided discussion.
Throughout I have come back repeatedly to the risks involved, just as I stated in that first post, and will continue to as the conversation requires. This is not intended to be a one sided discussion.
GregS
Well-Known Member
These are what we are prohibited from under sec. 8.
Sec.7(b) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:
(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.
(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana:
(A) in a school bus;
(B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or
(C) in any correctional facility.
(3) Smoke marihuana:
(A) on any form of public transportation; or
(B) in any public place.
(4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.
(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.
This is very simple.
Sec.7(b) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:
(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.
(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana:
(A) in a school bus;
(B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or
(C) in any correctional facility.
(3) Smoke marihuana:
(A) on any form of public transportation; or
(B) in any public place.
(4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.
(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.
This is very simple.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
I am suggesting that if you have 5 pounds of brownies you are completely unable to defend yourself and will go to prison. IF you have enough money to hire the right lawyers and experts you MIGHT have a slim chance of trying to get a jury to think it was medical use, but it is highly doubtful.
Know the difference between being lucky and being legal.
Follow section 4, and if you don't, be fully prepared to defend going SLIGHTLY outside the lines. You can't just claim you needed 5 pounds of medibles and expect it to not be challenged, more than likely successfully.
Dr. Bob
Know the difference between being lucky and being legal.
Follow section 4, and if you don't, be fully prepared to defend going SLIGHTLY outside the lines. You can't just claim you needed 5 pounds of medibles and expect it to not be challenged, more than likely successfully.
Dr. Bob
fattiemcnuggins
Well-Known Member
when you argue with an idiot..well...
I give up too
I give up toobloodytrichomes
New Member
gorilla 3 doc 0 no boxes here.[video=youtube_share;NmHJSyLTMz4]http://youtu.be/NmHJSyLTMz4[/video]