WASHINGTON STATE AAG CLAIMS MJ IS AN HERB

[jamessr]

In this pdf there is a section about the rescheduling of cannabis filed by John Worthington, Steve Sarich, and a few others in the political fight here in Washington attempting to stop our government from playing hide the weinny...starting on pg 5.

So upon push comes to shove the AAG comes out and says the board of pharmacy doesn't have "JURISDICTION" to regulate "an HERB"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXCUSE ME?????? WWWWWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFF???????? an "herb"?

Oh, I see now how this state plays hide the weinny...convict me for possession of a fucken "HERB !! :wtf::wtf::mad:

Thanks for the pdf guys..got to love ya..:cool:

[cannasense]

In this pdf there is a section about the rescheduling of cannabis filed by John Worthington, Steve Sarich, and a few others in the political fight here in Washington attempting to stop our government from playing hide the weinny...starting on pg 5.

So upon push comes to shove the AAG comes out and says the board of pharmacy doesn't have "JURISDICTION" to regulate "an HERB"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXCUSE ME?????? WWWWWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFF???????? an "herb"?

Oh, I see now how this state plays hide the weinny...convict me for possession of a fucken "HERB !! :wtf::wtf::mad:

Thanks for the pdf guys..got to love ya..:cool:

James, once again you've not only wrong but your comments show just how little you understand about how the law works. The relevant portion of the document the tells the board's reasoning behind their decision is here:


...The board did not say that there was no medical use. They based
their decision on cannabis lacking accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. The board noted in its conclusion that sufficient questions exist about the safety of medical marijuana given its variability in strength, lack of standardization, and uncertainty about dosing. All of these, (consistency in strength, standardization and dosing certainty) are indicators for a medication of pharmacological quality and controls. Marijuana does not have the pharmacological attributes necessary for accepted safety in use for treatment under medical supervision. Therefore, the board concluded that marijuana lacks accepted safety in treatment under medical supervision particularly with current methods of distribution or acquisition, so it was appropriate to keep marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance.

I'm not saying you have to agree with their decision. But if you disagree why not figure out how to disagree without mischaracterizing the reason for their decision? To characterize the board's denial of the petition as being based on marijuana's status as an herb is untrue. The AAG is however correct, marijuana is an herb (Marijuana is an Herb (http://www.marijuana.com/herb/)).

Also James, I'd like to propose that you weren't convicted because marijuana is an herb, you were convicted because your as inept at being a criminal as you are in interpreting the law.

BTW, do you have a case number yet for your appeal?

[jamessr]

James, once again you've not only wrong but your comments show just how little you understand about how the law works. The relevant portion of the document the tells the board's reasoning behind their decision is here:


...The board did not say that there was no medical use. They based
their decision on cannabis lacking accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. The board noted in its conclusion that sufficient questions exist about the safety of medical marijuana given its variability in strength, lack of standardization, and uncertainty about dosing. All of these, (consistency in strength, standardization and dosing certainty) are indicators for a medication of pharmacological quality and controls. Marijuana does not have the pharmacological attributes necessary for accepted safety in use for treatment under medical supervision. Therefore, the board concluded that marijuana lacks accepted safety in treatment under medical supervision particularly with current methods of distribution or acquisition, so it was appropriate to keep marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance.

I'm not saying you have to agree with their decision. But if you disagree why not figure out how to disagree without mischaracterizing the reason for their decision? To characterize the board's denial of the petition as being based on marijuana's status as an herb is untrue. The AAG is however correct, marijuana is an herb (Marijuana is an Herb (http://www.marijuana.com/herb/)).

Also James, I'd like to propose that you weren't convicted because marijuana is an herb, you were convicted because your as inept at being a criminal as you are in interpreting the law.

BTW, do you have a case number yet for your appeal?

Just in case you have any clue at what your talking about..I posted the "AAG" claimed it was an herb and the bop had no jurisdiction to even say shit about it, one way or the other...what does their attorney have anything to do with it? They are the sole state councel which tells them bears where to poop in the woods...they said thems woods is an "herb"..and you have no say so either way..end of debate...

Here is the actual bottom legal line:
Ms. Roper also noted that this board does not regulate herbal substances. The Board of Pharmacyâ??s
authority relates to legend drugs and substances available at pharmacies
Question has been called to end the debate.

It don't matter what the bop wrote or why..it is "immaterial"..."irrelevant"... just like what you post any place on the web..about anything or anybody.;)

Your a no-body, immaterial in any mmj movement, irrelevant to the cause..:thumbsup:

If I do have a case # for my appeal, it is none of your damn business...and is public record..so happy hunting..go fish elsewhere troll.:mad:

[justpics]

the WA BOP doesn't have to reschedule marijuana so long as federally it is schedule 1.

[jamessr]

As the Assistant Attorney General Roper said, the bop has no authority of any "controlled substances" not available for sale in "pharmacy's" ...

She also added that the bop was in hopes the legislature would set-up a distribution regulation system which would then be a way to resolve the efficacy issue of the ("herb") substance... notice the legislative intent in rcw 69.51A..

"So the lawful use of this "substance"( not CONTROLLED substance) is not impaired":D..wonder who did that???

Hope some of you are paying attention here very closely...;)

[jamessr]

the WA BOP doesn't have to reschedule marijuana so long as federally it is schedule 1.

Actually, the state of wa. "adopted" the federal csa not "enacted" it..meaning they had no hearings nor constituent debate..so as you notice the bop & legislature added "legend" drugs to the state csa by enacting it thru constituent debate...

Same thing with cannabis...only that,our own state prosecuting authority has "clarified" to all citizens and agencies alike statewide..it is an herb "only" in which only the legislature has authority to classify...2007 rcw 69.51A et.seq. intent identified it as a "substance" only...not a controlled substance as defined by the bop/state prosecuting authority as their agent in fact and the "CHIEF" EXECUTIVE law enforcement authority of the state. No state agency has the policing authority to override the chief executive law enforcement of the state.

And if i am wrong, then how is it that the legislature added "natural path" to the list, since they can't authorize any "use" of controlled substances under federal law, (conant v. walters doesn't apply here)...our political arena here in washington hinges on semantics...and the end results.

Seems to me with this is the end result...it is an herb in which no police official may search/seize/forfeiture "any" property from any qualifying patient..nor drag them thru court on ambiguous crap because you can't read or listen to your lawyers..WE THE LEGISLATURE HAVE FULL JURISDICTION HERE: NOTE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS..

And our own supreme court has claimed rcw 69.51A is constitutional.