For Real?

[gypski]

Just found this on another site. Is it now law since the senate passed it?

The Senate also expanded the classifications of people who can authorize medical marijuana. Along with physicians, SB 5798 would allow nurse practitioners and naturopaths to authorize marijuana if it would help their patients. It passed 37-11. :thumbsup:

[killerweed420]

Yep just passed great news.
SB 5798 - 2009-10 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=5798)
It allows PAC's to know sign off which is great news. Should be a lot more authorizations signed now.
Here's the voting:
SSB 5798
Medical marijuana
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
2/5/2010

Yeas: 37 Nays: 11 Absent: 0 Excused: 1

Voting Yea: Senators Becker, Berkey, Brandland, Brown, Carrell, Delvin, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gordon, Hatfield, Hewitt, Hobbs, Jacobsen, Kastama, Kauffman, Keiser, Kilmer, King, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Marr, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDermott, Murray, Oemig, Parlette, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Ranker, Regala, Rockefeller, Shin, and Tom
Voting Nay: Senators Benton, Hargrove, Haugen, Honeyford, Morton, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli
Absent:
Excused: Senator Holmquist

And I see my senator voted against it so Iguess I better send nasty email off to him. He's ex police so I guess thats just the way things fly with bigots.

[mugenbao]

Passed the Senate, still has to go through the House and on to be signed into law. It's looking pretty hopeful, but it could still be killed by the House or the Governor, though I doubt that last one will happen.


Senate Bill 5798 passed by a convincing vote of 37-11, and now goes to the Washington House of Representatives for consideration

[surfj9009]

Update from the link above, (March 3rd in the House):

"Third reading, passed; yeas, 58; nays, 40; absent, 0; excused, 0"

Now am I correct in reading that this passed the house and now only needs signature by the Governor?

[mugenbao]

Now am I correct in reading that this passed the house and now only needs signature by the Governor?
I believe that's correct.

The summary of the final bill, as passed by the House on Mar 3, can be found here (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/5798-S%20HBR%20APH%2010.pdf).


Summary of Bill:

The list of professionals who may authorize the use of medical marijuana is expanded to physicians, osteopathic physicians, physician assistants, osteopathic physician assistants, naturopaths, and advanced registered nurse practitioners.

For the purposes of the Act, all instances of the term "physician" are replaced with the term "health care professional." A health care professional is defined as a physician, osteopathic physician, physician assistant, osteopathic physician assistant, naturopath, or advanced registered nurse practitioner.

A health care professional who authorizes the use of marijuana on or after the effective date of this act must do so on tamper resistant paper approved by the Board of Pharmacy. Copies of an authorization or a patient's medical records are no longer valid documentation.

Note the addition of the requirement to use "tamper resistant paper".

[gypski]

Copies of an authorization or a patient's medical records are no longer valid documentation.

Does this mean all new authorizations or only those after the signing of this bill? :confused:

[mugenbao]

Copies of an authorization or a patient's medical records are no longer valid documentation.

Does this mean all new authorizations or only those after the signing of this bill? :confused:
Only those that are given on or after the date when the bill goes into effect.

[mugenbao]

Copies of an authorization or a patient's medical records are no longer valid documentation.
I really have to wonder at the specific meaning and purpose of this ammendment (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Amendments/House/5798-S%20AMH%20ERIC%20KNUT%20159.pdf). Does that mean that the patient's copy of an authorization, which is often posted clearly within the patient's home, is no longer valid?

So... What? We need to post the original? If that's correct, it might have a chilling effect on the use of designated providers, as it seems likely that they also would not be able to simply post a copy of the authorization alongside the designated provider form, which I believe is common practice. And there's no way in hell I'm trusting any third party with the original. Not to mention the fact that there are good and valid reasons for the actual patient to have and display the copy, which reduces the chance of loss or damage to the original.

[killerweed420]

Yeah this isn't making any sense. Tamper proof like a pharmacy prescription? How is that even close to tamper proof? Leave it up to the knuckleheads to just cloud the issue up even worse.

[mugenbao]

I may have been wrong on the procedure... According to an article on Toke of the Town (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/03/measure_to_increase_access_to_medical_marijuana_he .php) -

The House added two amendments on how medical marijuana recommendations should be written, so the bill will first go back to the Senate for approval, then on to Gov. Gregoire for her signature.

[mugenbao]

Yeah this isn't making any sense. Tamper proof like a pharmacy prescription? How is that even close to tamper proof? Leave it up to the knuckleheads to just cloud the issue up even worse.
According to another article I read (can't find the link atm), it would require the same kind of paper as a pharmacy prescription, more 'tamper evident' than 'tamper proof', and presumably not easily available to your average citizen (it's already a felony to 'forge' an authorization in WA).

I don't understand the perceived value of doing this, unless it's just another "quick and easy" way for LEO to determine validity during a spot-check, but it often seems as if they do stuff like this just to increase the burden on the mmj ecosystem.

[killerweed420]

Yeah just a waste. If you want to counterfeit something it doesn't take much in this day and age no matter what it is. The MMJ authorization from THCF already has a notary seal on it.

[jamessr]

I think we may see some law suits come out of this if a dr.'s recommendation comes from a document made due too board of pharmacy rules. The board is not authorized in the MUMA to do shit.

It would appear they may be rescheduling cannabis. This would be the only way the board would have any authority, especially to have "FRAUD" proof documents....which are distributed to health care professionals for use. Hmm? Something is wrong with this picture.......look at the DOH report for our 60-day supply law. you will see it when you find it, like a sore thump.!!

[jackmillions]

I really have to wonder at the specific meaning and purpose of this ammendment (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Amendments/House/5798-S%20AMH%20ERIC%20KNUT%20159.pdf). Does that mean that the patient's copy of an authorization, which is often posted clearly within the patient's home, is no longer valid?

So... What? We need to post the original? If that's correct, it might have a chilling effect on the use of designated providers, as it seems likely that they also would not be able to simply post a copy of the authorization alongside the designated provider form, which I believe is common practice. And there's no way in hell I'm trusting any third party with the original. Not to mention the fact that there are good and valid reasons for the actual patient to have and display the copy, which reduces the chance of loss or damage to the original.

You can have multiple 'originals' of a document. All it would take is for the authorizing health care professional to sign several identical authorization forms.

The wet ink signature of the health care provider would make each one an 'original' and not a copy. You could have one for your wallet, one for your designated provider, one for your lawyer to keep on file, and one for your safe deposit box.

IANAL, but that's my understanding of how it could work.