Travel Clinic Website

New Website for Travel Clinics

Created on 25 September 2012

 

Dr. Robert Townsend

We've launched a new website devoted to our travel clinics,www.drbobcertifications.com to concentrate on our local certification clinics. Soon each travel clinic will have its own webpage devoted to local information. We'll have it under construction over the next couple of weeks, so check back frequently.

Thanks to all our patients, we appreciate the opportunity to serve you in your local communities.  Be sure to check your expiration dates. We'll also be offering coupons for certification discounts to our registered users soon, so register for the website- you will only be able to see the coupon if you are signed in.

Dr. Bob

Current Feed Content

• Bona fide Dr/Pt Relationship Defended in Antrim Co

  Posted: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:07:48 +0000

  Traverse City Defense Attorney Shawn Worden sucessfully defended the bona fide dr/pt relationship in the case of Robert Ward in Antrim Co Court 9-17-12.  Mr. Ward had been arrested for felony manufacturing of marijuana.  Mr. Ward was arrested after 23 plants were discovered in a secured enclosure on his property.  The court ruled the plants were secured, so the prosecution attacked Mr. Ward's card by quesitoning the 'bona fide' doctor patient relationship.

  The case revolved around Dr. Robert Townsend (Dr. Bob), the certifying physician.  Dr. Townsend was qualifed as an expert in Internal Medicine, Cannabis Medicine, and the Bona Fide Dr/Pt relationship at the onset of his testimony.  He was then questioned by Attorney Worden as to his visits with Mr. Ward, the records he reviewed, his follow up procedures, and the criteria for certification, the elements of a Bona Fide relationship, and the methods used to determine whether the patient was growing a 'sufficient amount' of marijuana to meet his needs to qualify for 'medical use'.

  Key points of Dr. Townsend's testimony in this case included the following:

  1. Dr. Townsend began treating narcotic addiction with suboxone in 2006, long before the MMMA passed.  He began to use marijuana with his patients as a direct extention of this treatment, as the indications for medical marijuana matched the symptoms of narcotic withdrawal in his patients.  In addition to marijuana certification, Dr. Townsend continues to treat narcotic addiction and chronic pain in his medical clinics demonstrating his practice is diversified and not limitied to making recommendations under the MMMA.  Dr. Townsend meets with EVERY patient.  There are no through the mail certifications where the patient and physican do not meet.
  2. Records are required to establish the diagnosis on each of Dr. Townsend's patients.  This is standard medical practice in a 'consulting practice'.  If patients do not have medical records they are required to get them and not certified (there are some exceptions, but they are clearly exceptions in extrordinary circumstances).  A key measure of 'enough' medical records is that an outside physician reviewing the same records reviewed by Dr. Townsend would reach the same conclusions about the patient's medical conditions as Dr. Townsend did (the results are reproducible and stand up to peer review)

• AG Charges Certification Physician with Misconduct

  Posted: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:11:39 +0000

  Why may the AG be going through your certification records?

  "When he first began performing evaluations for the (program,) he charged $250 for persons who did not bring medical records to the first visit and $200 if a person did. Respondent no longer requires prior medical records when evaluating persons." and "negligence, incompetence, a lack of good moral character, failure to respond to a subpoena, failure to maintain medical records and "promotion for personal gain of an unnecessary drug."

  Very strong words coming from the AG and reflective of the problem HB 4851 (the bona fide dr/pt relationship bill) was written to address.  Who the charged doctor is isn't the issue, it is what the AG is zeroing in on to attack the process of certifications and the Act in general.  

  People such as I who are involved in the MMMA from a public policy standpoint don't always argue the right and wrong of the issue.  My job as a certification physician and someone involved in the overall policy of the MMMA is to keep my ear to the ground is to be aware of what is going on, and how I can protect my patients and the Act.  I first addressed this in Sept 2010 after the O'Connell concurring decision in the Redden case.  I've revisited it several times since.

  What effect will these charges have on the patients of this physician?  Who knows?  What is known is that since the latest SC ruling (the plain language ruling), patients are not as easily barred from mounting a defence of their choice of medical cannabis in court.  The next easiest way to defeat the defense is to challenge the dr/pt relationship.  I personally am involved in one such case this week, and anticipate being successful in my defense- wrong patient, wrong records (over 4 inches of records), and wrong doctor to make that challenge.

  Let's see what the lesson of the charge is, what specifically are they going after?

• Recent additions to the Website

  Posted: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:54:17 +0000

  We continue to enhance the website with new features.

  Currently, we have added links to....

  Michigan Case Law from Attorney Newberg's site

  Granny's List (latest update from July- 840 pages!)

  Medical Studies related to Cannabis

  The Videos and Reporting of Eric VanDussen

  Plus relavant original and reproduced articles of interest to the MMJ community in Michigan

  Other cool features of the website include

  Marijuana related news from the last week on MLive

  Dr. Bob's Comments on MLive

  Plus forums, feeds, and social networking galore...

• Dr. Bob and the Social Network

  Posted: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:09:36 +0000

  News from our website is available by RSS feed at Dr. Bob's Article Feed

  You can also sign up in the lower right corner of the main page of the website.

   

  Each time the page is updated (at least once a week) you will get an email link to the new articles.  

  Upcoming articles include an extensive review of the medical literature for each approved condition off Granny's list by Dr. Bob

   

  Please like our facebook group at Dr. Bob's Facebook Page, we put quite a bit of news out there as well and it is a nice forum area for our patients and friends.

   

  You can also follow us on Twitter at Follow Dr. Bob on Twitter

   

  Also, if you like an article, feel free to hit the 'google like' button at the bottom.  You can also email the article to a friend.

   

  We could use some help getting the word out about the website, especially by our student friends on .edu websites.  Please share the links there.

   

  We appreciate your reads and shares, let us know if there is anything you want us to address, areas you need us to serve, or anything else we can do for you...

   

  Dr. Bob

  www.drbobmmj.com

• Cannabis Causes Brain Damage and other Propaganda

  Posted: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:32:27 +0000

  FAIL: Dr. Kevin Sabet’s Anti-Marijuana Legalization Arguments Debunked

   Posted by RadicalRuss at 4:04 PM on August 29, 2012

  This week, the Huffington Post is doing a feature called “Shadow Convention” where they address topics that neither the Democratic nor Republican conventions will address.  Today they took a look at the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs and my one non-pot-smoking friend Dr. Kevin Sabet appeared likePunxsatawney Phil on Groundhog Day to see his shadow and declare six more years of Drug War.  And like the movie Groundhog Day, the repetition of his fallacious anti-legalization arguments is beginning to sound like the opening to I Got You, Babe by Sonny & Cher.  Let’s relive some of the classics:

  A balanced and nuanced approach based on evidence, common sense, public health and public safety has been shown to produce results.

  The Obama Administration’s drug war budget is still tilted two-to-one in favor of interdiction and incarceration over treatment and rehabilitation, just as it was during the George W. Bush Administration.  (Speaking of Groundhog Day, have you noticed how much Bush’s DEA Administrator looks like Obama’s?)

  (a) Community-based prevention that focuses not only on preventing drug use among school kids, but also on changing ill-conceived local laws and ordinances that promote underage drinking, smoking and marijuana use (so-called “environmental policies”);

  You mean like drug testing 11-year-olds for the school orchestra?  Maintaining school policies that punish underage marijuana use worse than underage drinking, thus promoting use of a more harmful substance?  Cancelling student aid for college kids who get caught with a joint?  And since pot smoking among kids is now more prevalent than tobacco smoking, and tobacco’s highly addictive and available to eighteen-year-olds legally, why didn’t we have to lock up adult cigarette smokers in cages to achieve the drop in lifetime tobacco smoking for youth from the high 70-percents to the low 40-percents?

• Marijuana in Schedule 2-5?

  Posted: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:08:21 +0000

  Lo and behold, they want to reschedule cannabis

  Published on May 12, 2011 by Reverend Ryan in Call to Action, Cannabis Education, Medical Marijuana, xCann News, xVideos

  

  After discussing a topic with facebook friends and activists I learned that there is a growing desire to reschedule cannabis in Washington state.   I posted my opposition to this yesterday, because after having this idea myself in 2009 and collecting signatures on a petition to do just that, I have learned a lot of things about this process that has made me change my mind.

  Now the CDC, Cannacare and other medical marijuana groups in WA are proposing rescheduling.
  I thought it was entirely peculiar that so many people were talking about this all at once.
  Well, read it and weap, cannabis is about to be changed forever as we’ve known it:
  http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
  http://xcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf

  Here are my thoughts and at the bottom I will give you some research to consider:

  1. Rescheduling cannabis rather than removing it from the list, will NOT prevent MOST cannabis consumers from going to jail.
  2. Rescheduling cannabis in Washington will not over ride federal supremacy clause via Article VI, etc.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  3. This will open more doors to BIG pharma (not the little guys) for getting into the cannabis business, and leaving the rest of us out.
  4. Once big pharma is involved and once they put their money into cannabis, prohibition will not decrease, they will fight harder to keep it a schedule II, because it benefits them more.
  5. The US government already has dozens of patents on cannabis, and when it is rescheduled those patents will be more effective for them.  Meaning they will further OWN cannabis as opposed to now.   As a schedule I, those patents can’t really be utilized.  Under schedule II they can give their big pharma friends and contributors the rights to utilize those patents

  • I have known about the patent for neuroprotection and anti-oxidants for years now.
    US Patent 6630507
  • There are also many OTHER patents on cannabis:

• Cannabis Prohibition (NORML)

  Posted: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0000

  Cannabis Prohibition Now Seventy-Five Years Old

  by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director August 2, 2012

  Infamously, America’s federally created Cannabis Prohibition marks its seventy-fifth anniversary this August 2, 2012. The so-called ‘great failed social experiment’ of Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s barely lasted a dozen years in effect. Rightly, it took a constitutional amendment to both ban and restore alcohol products to the free market. Is there a similar constitutional amendment for cannabis products in 1937?

  No, of course not.

  And that is where the sophistry, hypocrisy and duplicity begin regarding America’s modern cannabis policy of vilifying, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis consumers, cultivators and marketers.

  Even though virtually every other country’s farmers have the choice whether or not to cultivate industrial hemp, even in countries where cannabis policy is decidedly worse than America’s, can American farmers prosper from cultivating this environmentally-friendly and productive crop?

  No, of course not.

  Do Americans support this failed, expensive and unconstitutional public policy of criminalizing cannabis?

  No, of course not.

• The Bonafide Dr/Pt Relationship

  Posted: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0000

  Recently in court I was asked by an attorney what the 'specific law' was that defined the term 'bona fide' concerning the Dr/Pt relationship.  I mentioned HB 4851 and the medical board standards for the bona fide Dr/Pt relationship and was corrected by the attorney.  These were not actual laws she said, one was a recommendation by the medical board, the other was a bill.

  The question was in response to the characterization of a 'certification clinic event' where no physician was in contact with the patients and my contention that this didn't qualify as a 'Bona Fide' Dr/Pt relationship.  I discussed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and I discussed the Medical Practice Act (which is the legal basis of medicine in Michigan).  While the court sided with me overall, this question was not resolved.

  Obviously, this issue has been at the forefront of list of 'grey areas' within the MMMA over the last couple of years.  After reflecting some more on the question, I think I've come up with an answer....

• Michigan Medical Marijuana needs to Overcome

  Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:24:16 +0000

  We are making huge inroads in the acceptance of medical cannabis in the general public, over 80%, and we are over 50% for full legalization according to the polls (Gallop Poll on Marijuana). We have about 1/3 the states with medical cannabis laws, some for up to 15 years. We need to continue that trend.
  
  To do so, in my opinion, we need to continue the efforts made by many in this field.

  • We need to play by the rules when we have state cannabis laws. Every time we push the envelope and over shoot, we get a black eye in public opinion.
  • We need to promote the attitude that it is 'no big deal' a city council debate on medical marijuana should someday be viewed with the same public interest as a discussion of a drain commission report- routine business about a routine subject- not a controversy.
  • We need to educate physicians about what cannabis can and cannot do, and encourage them to use it in their primary care practices in place of narcotics and other harmful drugs. Physicians exposed to cannabis certification clinics, talking to patients, express shock at the amount of reduction in narcotics the patients and their MAP reports show. This is a key point to speak to doctors about.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/drbobmmj Our RSS Article Feed

Current Feed Content

• Cannabis and Chronic Pain

  Posted: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:03:29 +0000

  In response to requests for literature on the use of cannabis in medicine, I've begun a series of articles outlining studies on the use of cannabis in each of the contitions for which is is approved under the MMMA.  Far and away, the most common condition is that of chronic pain, so I've put together a list of studies published on the use of medical marijuana in the treatment of chronic pain.  I've reviewed each of these articles and will be adding to the list as time goes on and new information becomes available and is reviewed.  

  For future reference, the core list for each condition will be featured as an article, and availble under the 'Medical Studies' section of the Helpful Stuff menu on the left side of the main page.  Check back for updates on each condition.

  From Granny's List...  July 2012

  Role of the Cannabinoid System in Pain Control and Therapeutic Implications for the Management of Acute and Chronic Pain Episodes (full - 2006)

  Cannabinoid System and Pain Control

   

  Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency (full - 2004)

  Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency

   

  Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain. (abst – 2011) Cannabis and Opiate Interaction

   

  Study Claims Cannabis Reduces Chronic Pain (news - 2010)

  Smoked Marijuana and Pain

   

  Are cannabinoids an effective and safe treatment option in the management of pain? A qualitative systematic review (full - 2001)

  Overview of Cannabis Therapeutic Effects

   

  Cannabis reduces opioid dose in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. (full - 2003)

  Reduction of Opiate Use with Cannabis(03)00142-8/fulltext

   

  Cannabis and Pain Management (article - 2003) Cannabis and Pain, Methods of Use

   

  
  

• Cannabis Causes Brain Damage and other Propaganda

  Posted: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:32:27 +0000

  FAIL: Dr. Kevin Sabet’s Anti-Marijuana Legalization Arguments Debunked

   Posted by RadicalRuss at 4:04 PM on August 29, 2012

  This week, the Huffington Post is doing a feature called “Shadow Convention” where they address topics that neither the Democratic nor Republican conventions will address.  Today they took a look at the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs and my one non-pot-smoking friend Dr. Kevin Sabet appeared likePunxsatawney Phil on Groundhog Day to see his shadow and declare six more years of Drug War.  And like the movie Groundhog Day, the repetition of his fallacious anti-legalization arguments is beginning to sound like the opening to I Got You, Babe by Sonny & Cher.  Let’s relive some of the classics:

  A balanced and nuanced approach based on evidence, common sense, public health and public safety has been shown to produce results.

  The Obama Administration’s drug war budget is still tilted two-to-one in favor of interdiction and incarceration over treatment and rehabilitation, just as it was during the George W. Bush Administration.  (Speaking of Groundhog Day, have you noticed how much Bush’s DEA Administrator looks like Obama’s?)

  (a) Community-based prevention that focuses not only on preventing drug use among school kids, but also on changing ill-conceived local laws and ordinances that promote underage drinking, smoking and marijuana use (so-called “environmental policies”);

  You mean like drug testing 11-year-olds for the school orchestra?  Maintaining school policies that punish underage marijuana use worse than underage drinking, thus promoting use of a more harmful substance?  Cancelling student aid for college kids who get caught with a joint?  And since pot smoking among kids is now more prevalent than tobacco smoking, and tobacco’s highly addictive and available to eighteen-year-olds legally, why didn’t we have to lock up adult cigarette smokers in cages to achieve the drop in lifetime tobacco smoking for youth from the high 70-percents to the low 40-percents?

• Marijuana in Schedule 2-5?

  Posted: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:08:21 +0000

  Lo and behold, they want to reschedule cannabis

  Published on May 12, 2011 by Reverend Ryan in Call to Action, Cannabis Education, Medical Marijuana, xCann News, xVideos

  

  After discussing a topic with facebook friends and activists I learned that there is a growing desire to reschedule cannabis in Washington state.   I posted my opposition to this yesterday, because after having this idea myself in 2009 and collecting signatures on a petition to do just that, I have learned a lot of things about this process that has made me change my mind.

  Now the CDC, Cannacare and other medical marijuana groups in WA are proposing rescheduling.
  I thought it was entirely peculiar that so many people were talking about this all at once.
  Well, read it and weap, cannabis is about to be changed forever as we’ve known it:
  http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
  http://xcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf

  Here are my thoughts and at the bottom I will give you some research to consider:

  1. Rescheduling cannabis rather than removing it from the list, will NOT prevent MOST cannabis consumers from going to jail.
  2. Rescheduling cannabis in Washington will not over ride federal supremacy clause via Article VI, etc.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  3. This will open more doors to BIG pharma (not the little guys) for getting into the cannabis business, and leaving the rest of us out.
  4. Once big pharma is involved and once they put their money into cannabis, prohibition will not decrease, they will fight harder to keep it a schedule II, because it benefits them more.
  5. The US government already has dozens of patents on cannabis, and when it is rescheduled those patents will be more effective for them.  Meaning they will further OWN cannabis as opposed to now.   As a schedule I, those patents can’t really be utilized.  Under schedule II they can give their big pharma friends and contributors the rights to utilize those patents

  • I have known about the patent for neuroprotection and anti-oxidants for years now.
    US Patent 6630507
  • There are also many OTHER patents on cannabis:

• Cannabis Prohibition (NORML)

  Posted: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0000

  Cannabis Prohibition Now Seventy-Five Years Old

  by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director August 2, 2012

  Infamously, America’s federally created Cannabis Prohibition marks its seventy-fifth anniversary this August 2, 2012. The so-called ‘great failed social experiment’ of Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s barely lasted a dozen years in effect. Rightly, it took a constitutional amendment to both ban and restore alcohol products to the free market. Is there a similar constitutional amendment for cannabis products in 1937?

  No, of course not.

  And that is where the sophistry, hypocrisy and duplicity begin regarding America’s modern cannabis policy of vilifying, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis consumers, cultivators and marketers.

  Even though virtually every other country’s farmers have the choice whether or not to cultivate industrial hemp, even in countries where cannabis policy is decidedly worse than America’s, can American farmers prosper from cultivating this environmentally-friendly and productive crop?

  No, of course not.

  Do Americans support this failed, expensive and unconstitutional public policy of criminalizing cannabis?

  No, of course not.

• The Bonafide Dr/Pt Relationship

  Posted: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0000

  Recently in court I was asked by an attorney what the 'specific law' was that defined the term 'bona fide' concerning the Dr/Pt relationship.  I mentioned HB 4851 and the medical board standards for the bona fide Dr/Pt relationship and was corrected by the attorney.  These were not actual laws she said, one was a recommendation by the medical board, the other was a bill.

  The question was in response to the characterization of a 'certification clinic event' where no physician was in contact with the patients and my contention that this didn't qualify as a 'Bona Fide' Dr/Pt relationship.  I discussed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and I discussed the Medical Practice Act (which is the legal basis of medicine in Michigan).  While the court sided with me overall, this question was not resolved.

  Obviously, this issue has been at the forefront of list of 'grey areas' within the MMMA over the last couple of years.  After reflecting some more on the question, I think I've come up with an answer....

• Michigan Medical Marijuana needs to Overcome

  Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:24:16 +0000

  We are making huge inroads in the acceptance of medical cannabis in the general public, over 80%, and we are over 50% for full legalization according to the polls (Gallop Poll on Marijuana). We have about 1/3 the states with medical cannabis laws, some for up to 15 years. We need to continue that trend.
  
  To do so, in my opinion, we need to continue the efforts made by many in this field.

  • We need to play by the rules when we have state cannabis laws. Every time we push the envelope and over shoot, we get a black eye in public opinion.
  • We need to promote the attitude that it is 'no big deal' a city council debate on medical marijuana should someday be viewed with the same public interest as a discussion of a drain commission report- routine business about a routine subject- not a controversy.
  • We need to educate physicians about what cannabis can and cannot do, and encourage them to use it in their primary care practices in place of narcotics and other harmful drugs. Physicians exposed to cannabis certification clinics, talking to patients, express shock at the amount of reduction in narcotics the patients and their MAP reports show. This is a key point to speak to doctors about.

• Schedule 1? Infographic from Toke of the Town

  Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:21:42 +0000

  This is an excellent infographic from Toke of the Town concerning the status of cannabis as a schedule 1.

  
  

• Huge Victory for Medical Marijuana Patients!

  Posted: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:10:30 +0000

  From the ACLU

  The City Of Wyoming’s Ordinance Banning Medical Marijuana Violates Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act

  The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan applauded a state appeals court decision today (August 1, 2012) declaring the City of Wyoming’s ordinance that bans medical marijuana “void and unenforceable” because it directly violates the state’s Medical Marihuana Act.

  The lawsuit was originally filed in November 2010 on behalf of John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient who suffers from diabetes and a neurological disorder that causes neuropathy and severe pain.

  “In 2008, people across the state overwhelmingly voted to protect patients who use marijuana to treat their medical conditions from punishment and penalty,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Today’s decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals rejects the misguided efforts of a few local officials to undo the results of that historic election. Now that the law is clear, all cities should take notice and stop threatening to treat patients who have done nothing wrong like criminals.”

  The ordinance was adopted by the Wyoming City Council in 2010 despite a public outcry. Ter Beek, who feared criminal and civil penalties if he grew or used medical marijuana in accordance with state law, filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance. The ACLU later joined the lawsuit.

  
  

• Marinol vs Marijuana (from the web)

  Posted: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:54:32 +0000

  Marinol Vs. Medical Marijuana

  (Just a little article from the web)

  
  Agaric, Yahoo! Contributor Network
  Jan 31, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
  
  Marinol is a synthetically-produced medication to mimic the effects of marijuana in cancer and glaucoma patients. The drug has been marketed as a safe alternative to medical marijuana, and is completely legal to purchase. However, the question remains whether or not Marinol is up to par with medical marijuanain terms of health benefits.

  
  Why would a drug be synthetically produced in order to create the same effects of something that occurs naturally in nature and can be taken just as easily? Well, in this particular case since it is illegal to sell, possess, or use marijuana in the United States, a country that has seen marijuana used medically, then it seems obvious that to avoid decriminalizing marijuana a viable alternative should be created. In order for a synthetically-produced substance to be superior to a naturally-occurring substance, it has to pass certain tests. The first test is that it has to pose less side-and adverse effects when compared to the naturally-occurring substance. The second is that it has to produce comparable beneficial effects compared to the naturally-occurring substance. And finally, it has to be cost-effective for the consumer. In this particular case the final test is quite important because both Marinol and medical marijuana are used by patients with a terminal illness whose medical bills are already very high.