You may lose your ATP

leaffan

Well-Known Member
If the proposed changes to the MMPR go through you could end up losing your ATP under the stayed MMAR program.
If you kept your pink ATP and went to the doctor to get a new medical document and all that information will be analyzed then it's very feasible to see them canceling your ATP seeing you have opted to paticipate in the new MMPR program.
Wouldn't that be a bitch eh?
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
R U ever optimistic?
You woke up today! Its a great day!

Why worry about.... "the others"

cheer up dude man. The glass is half full. Not half empty. Way to many "if ands and butts in what you talk about"

:)

Won't be losing anything until after the trial and I doubt we're gonna lose.
 

oddish

Well-Known Member
It's all about awareness gb. Some people don't have the time to read all this shit and leaf does a good job of making sense of it. There may be quite a few "if"s and "but"s, but I would rather know what might happen then get blindsided because I was ignorant to the changing facts.
 

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
I practice "informed consent". I even got a nice little card from the compassion club saying so. All HC's rules and regulations aren't worth shit to real suffering patients. Fuck this broken system. Also how can HC just ignore the judge's injunction? Aren't all ATPs to remain valid until the trial is over?
 

OKLP

Well-Known Member
I have noticed that there's nothing in the Allard injunction that mentions removing injunction coverage if patients approach or use the MMPR.

So HC can say what they wish, for people covered by the Allard injunction, wouldn't the Allard injunction remain in place?

Any thoughts?
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
Ya...I'd say he worry over nothing...as usual. Stop trying to scare people Leafan.
Everyday this site gives new unfounded reason to freak people out.
As GB said wait until the court case makes real standing decisions.
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
I didn't mean nasty to you. Just sometimes you get theses theories that aren't fact yet. Many of your posts are great...just not that one...cool.
See how nice I am. I'm like you lovable old grandfather.
Most of what is said on here by many...has no basis in fact ...or even will ever happen. If I believed everything written here....I'b be cowering in my basement
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
That's a real problem with forums. No one can say where the person is coming from. Saying things in person, makes all the difference in how you are perceived..

Leaffan.


:)
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
I have noticed that there's nothing in the Allard injunction that mentions removing injunction coverage if patients approach or use the MMPR.

So HC can say what they wish, for people covered by the Allard injunction, wouldn't the Allard injunction remain in place?

Any thoughts?
The concern is that the patients who have handed in their ATPs to LPs instead of a new medical document had their ATPs cancelled by HC. This is fact.

The proposed changes give HC another way to "cull" some more ATPs.

I think that HC would like to see as many ATPs be voided out prior to Allard decision.

A lawyers perceptive would be nice for sure...
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
I agree with GB ...if you have an ATP then it's good to go unless the judge decides otherwise. HC can't over rule the judge and take it away. If you have one it's good until the injunction comes to trial. They can't cancel it. they may think they can....but nope. It's a court order. Only what the judge says counts...not their new ideas as we go along. They are on a leash from the injuction...stop worrying. Make copies of your pink...simple
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
The judge basically said the MMAR as is "stays in place" until we hear the Allard case. Agreed?

Ok...so part of the changes that went into place with the MMAR before the case was that if you go and sign up with an LP using your ATP instead of a new document then you lose your ATP.
Agreed?

Is it that big of a jump to see that HC can simply say...you lose your ATP if you signed up with an LP even if you didn't send in your ATP? HC can make any regulation changes they want. It takes time for the courts to challenge any implemented changes. Did HC go to court to repeal the MMAR program? NO.

This probably isn't an issue for most of you. It is only relevant if you held your pink and went and got a new document and signed up with an LP.

So if you don't fall into that category of patients, no worries...just ignore my post.
This scenario could impact my son, that's why I raised the concern.
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
I don't agree. imo if you had it ( ATP ) even if signing up with an LP, no judge will give it to ya for trying to obtain your meds..anywhere you can.
Your ATP allowed you to buy meds from wherever or whoever.
So I don't buy that argument....if you were good...you are good...regardless of HC thinking...they aren't in charge any longer. They only administer the MMPR...not change judges orders. don't forget we still have the right to access from the previous cases from 10 years ago.
The LP's are gonna make it even easier for the judge to see access is fucked up right now and is worse for some than it was months ago. We didn't go forward, we went backward and Conroy will point that out. i bet their are some pretty sad stories out there right now from very sick people being denied their meds by greedying pricing from LP's
 

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
The judge basically said the MMAR as is "stays in place" until we hear the Allard case. Agreed?

Ok...so part of the changes that went into place with the MMAR before the case was that if you go and sign up with an LP using your ATP instead of a new document then you lose your ATP.
Agreed?

Is it that big of a jump to see that HC can simply say...you lose your ATP if you signed up with an LP even if you didn't send in your ATP? HC can make any regulation changes they want. It takes time for the courts to challenge any implemented changes. Did HC go to court to repeal the MMAR program? NO.

This probably isn't an issue for most of you. It is only relevant if you held your pink and went and got a new document and signed up with an LP.

So if you don't fall into that category of patients, no worries...just ignore my post.
This scenario could impact my son, that's why I raised the concern.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
yes 150g for both possession and per LP shipment. So based on a 30 day month, and a 150g/d medical document ( doubt we will ever see this ) with the LP shipping the max every day...you can max out at 4,500 g/month
 

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
HC thinks people use 1-3 grams a day so they figure a 5 gram a day script is generous and all anybody would ever need. These amendments are basically ensuring there's no "over prescribing" (5 grams a day is plenty according to HC's "data").
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
cancer patients consume many time the amount HC thinks.
It would only take a couple of them to get cancer. See how it works,
and then to be told that they're breaking the law because eating a condensed form of the drug is not allowed.
Eat as much dry herb as you like but what ever you do...Never make something that can save your life with the shit. That's a definite NO NO and Pharma will make sure that's so!
I'm going to bet scripts get UPPED come the court decision if they needed to be. Location changes and all in limbo will be saved...plus plus plus....
 
Top