MMJ Bill Possibilites

[gypski]

Washington State legislators have some bills they want the next session. Will it happen remains to be seen. :smokin:

Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Would Be Legal Under New Proposed Bill - Seattle News - The Daily Weekly (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/medical_marijuana_dispensaries.php)

[NobleGDP]

:thumbsup:

I hope it passes for you guys.

[gypski]

:thumbsup:

I hope it passes for you guys.

Well considering the fact that you are the only one to reply, especially after all the arguments on here about aspects of the law, I find it strange there is so much silence. Like what was a legal authorization, and we had several different opinions that aren't mentioned in the actual law. Like yearly renewals to satisfy the doc-in-the-box cash flow and LEOs interpretations of the actual laws wording.

I guess now everybody is going to trust the legislators to fix the law after all these years. :D

[postableme]

Well considering the fact that you are the only one to reply, especially after all the arguments on here about aspects of the law, I find it strange there is so much silence. Like what was a legal authorization, and we had several different opinions that aren't mentioned in the actual law. Like yearly renewals to satisfy the doc-in-the-box cash flow and LEOs interpretations of the actual laws wording.

I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the proposed bills, actually. Therefore, no real comment to make. :)


I guess now everybody is going to trust the legislators to fix the law after all these years. :D

*shudder* Hardly.

[postableme]

Chet Biggerstaff has been working with a panel of folks on bills... you can see more info about it at:

TRC Medical Cannabis bill (Richland, WA) - Meetup (http://www.meetup.com/TRC-Medical-Cannabis-bill/)

[gypski]

Chet Biggerstaff has been working with a panel of folks on bills... you can see more info about it at:

TRC Medical Cannabis bill (Richland, WA) - Meetup (http://www.meetup.com/TRC-Medical-Cannabis-bill/)

I get the e-mail updates too. I'm also waiting to see and think the initiative process should go forward regardless. The legislators will do it half-assed as usual I believe. :D

[justpics]

Senator Kohl-Wells is helping law enforcement to try and gut the majority of access that patients currently enjoy.


The idea is to create a yet to be announced system where you have to register with the department of agriculture and the department of health.

If you don't do that, as a provider you will only be able to serve one patient every 90 days. And if your provider doesn't do that, then he won't be able to provide anyone except for you meds.

Say bye bye to legal access for most people.


"Medical Use of Cannabis Act: Goals for 2011 Session
Overview
1. Replace slang term â??marijuanaâ?� with the plantâ??s botanical name, â??cannabisâ?� and incorporate the
Definition from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (see RCW 69.50.101(q))

2. Create consistent usage of the phrase â??medical conditionâ?� throughout, replacing references to
â??Illnessâ?� or â??diseaseâ?�

3. Eliminate inconsistencies between intent section (RCW 69.51A.005) and operative sections

4. Require documents executed by qualifying patients to designate providers be signed and dated,
And clarify that â??valid documentation,â?� for designated providers, includes the designating
Document as well as proof of identity and the patientâ??s authorization

5. Define â??plantâ?� and incorporate the Department of Health definition of â??useableâ?� cannabis (see
WAC 246-75-010(2)(d))

6. Clarify the distinction between health care professionals discussing the medical use of cannabis
With patients and authorizing such use

7. Provide qualifying patients and designated providers who possess no more than the
Presumptive amounts established by the Department of Health with protection from arrest
and prosecution

8. Maintain the affirmative defense for qualifying patients and designated providers who possess
more than the presumptive amounts but are otherwise in compliance with all other conditions

9. Change the limitation that designated providers may serve â??only one patient at any one timeâ?�
to a ninety-day restriction on changing patients

10. Allow duly authorized patients visiting from other states that allow medical use of cannabis to
raise an affirmative defense under Washingtonâ??s law

11. Protect qualifying patients from restriction of parental rights without proof of interference
with performance of parenting functions

12. Protect qualifying patients from negative employment consequences resulting from off-site
medical use of cannabis so long as such use does not prevent proper performance of work, the
employment is not safety-sensitive, and the employer is not a federal contractor or grant
recipient

13. Modify â??public displayâ?� prohibition to mirror â??open containerâ?� prohibition (see RCW 66.44.100)

14. Modify impaired driving restriction to explicitly reference the DUI statute, which expressly
excludes legal authorization to use a drug as an excuse for impaired driving (see RCW
46.61.502(2))

15. Create systems for licensing and regulating producers and dispensers of cannabis for medical
use through the departments of agriculture and health

16. Require evaluation of the systems for licensing and regulating producers and dispensers to
assess their impact on qualifying patientsâ?? access to an adequate, safe, consistent, and secure
source of cannabis for medical use (see RCW 69.51A.080(3))

17. Incorporate a state preemption clause"

[gypski]

Senator Kohl-Wells is helping law enforcement to try and gut the majority of access that patients currently enjoy.


The idea is to create a yet to be announced system where you have to register with the department of agriculture and the department of health.

If you don't do that, as a provider you will only be able to serve one patient every 90 days. And if your provider doesn't do that, then he won't be able to provide anyone except for you meds.

Say bye bye to legal access for most people.


"Medical Use of Cannabis Act: Goals for 2011 Session
Overview
1. Replace slang term â??marijuanaâ?� with the plantâ??s botanical name, â??cannabisâ?� and incorporate the
Definition from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (see RCW 69.50.101(q))

2. Create consistent usage of the phrase â??medical conditionâ?� throughout, replacing references to
â??Illnessâ?� or â??diseaseâ?�

3. Eliminate inconsistencies between intent section (RCW 69.51A.005) and operative sections

4. Require documents executed by qualifying patients to designate providers be signed and dated,
And clarify that â??valid documentation,â?� for designated providers, includes the designating
Document as well as proof of identity and the patientâ??s authorization

5. Define â??plantâ?� and incorporate the Department of Health definition of â??useableâ?� cannabis (see
WAC 246-75-010(2)(d))

6. Clarify the distinction between health care professionals discussing the medical use of cannabis
With patients and authorizing such use

7. Provide qualifying patients and designated providers who possess no more than the
Presumptive amounts established by the Department of Health with protection from arrest
and prosecution

8. Maintain the affirmative defense for qualifying patients and designated providers who possess
more than the presumptive amounts but are otherwise in compliance with all other conditions

9. Change the limitation that designated providers may serve â??only one patient at any one timeâ?�
to a ninety-day restriction on changing patients

10. Allow duly authorized patients visiting from other states that allow medical use of cannabis to
raise an affirmative defense under Washingtonâ??s law

11. Protect qualifying patients from restriction of parental rights without proof of interference
with performance of parenting functions

12. Protect qualifying patients from negative employment consequences resulting from off-site
medical use of cannabis so long as such use does not prevent proper performance of work, the
employment is not safety-sensitive, and the employer is not a federal contractor or grant
recipient

13. Modify â??public displayâ?� prohibition to mirror â??open containerâ?� prohibition (see RCW 66.44.100)

14. Modify impaired driving restriction to explicitly reference the DUI statute, which expressly
excludes legal authorization to use a drug as an excuse for impaired driving (see RCW
46.61.502(2))

15. Create systems for licensing and regulating producers and dispensers of cannabis for medical
use through the departments of agriculture and health

16. Require evaluation of the systems for licensing and regulating producers and dispensers to
assess their impact on qualifying patientsâ?? access to an adequate, safe, consistent, and secure
source of cannabis for medical use (see RCW 69.51A.080(3))

17. Incorporate a state preemption clause"

Like I said, they will fuck it all up. Prior to prohibition, there wasn't any restrictions on cannabis. Time to go back to the beginning from before prohibition and all the lies surrounding it and just free the fucking plant. Some humans are some of the biggest assholes the mystery of life ever created. To have a plant cause so much hysteria and prejudice is beyond rational reasoning. :twocents:

[gypski]

I might add, that it should only be people who have real experience with cannabis and its use who should be setting policy. If one has no real, scientific based knowledge of cannabis, and has never even used cannabis, how in the hell can they even begin to determine how to regulate it? The majority of valid, peer reviewed scientific studies, tests, and real life experience proves that cannabis in and of itself, is less harmful then the majority of accepted drugs today. That includes alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals (the most deadly), and some of the bullshit pecker pills and diet scams advertised on TV.

Its time to just free the plant for personal consumption, and if its produced for general public consumption then it should be regulated to the extent that it didn't contain molds, mildews or bugs. Other then that, over 18 for use, sales tax on commercial cannabis, a license fee (reasonably derived so anyone can produce for public consumption to prevent corporate monopolizing). More then that, then the government is overbearing and denying its citizens the right to consume whatever they wish that doesn't harm them or anyone else. Its time that government got out of personal lives, and cleaned up it own act of pissing away taxpayer money and making criminals out of innocent people just so some cop can keep his job. Let them find another line of work, or a new criminal to apprehend. more :twocents:

[justpics]

I'd prefer the current system of anyone who is 18 years old, designated in writing, who doesn't use the medicine for the patient for whom they are a provider, being able to "assist in the administration" for one patient at any one time, to one where only those who have licenses from the government can dispense.


Step backwards, and exactly what LEO wants. I wouldn't be surprised if no licenses ever get issued.

[gypski]

I'd prefer the current system of anyone who is 18 years old, designated in writing, who doesn't use the medicine for the patient for whom they are a provider, being able to "assist in the administration" for one patient at any one time, to one where only those who have licenses from the government can dispense.


Step backwards, and exactly what LEO wants. I wouldn't be surprised if no licenses ever get issued.

Really, who cares what LEO wants. Its a government of the people, for the people, by the people, not LEO or legislators when the people have the power of initiative. And any cannabis initiative that is drawn up needs to contain a clause to keep the legislators from tampering with the will of the people after two years. LEO is looking for job security bleeding the taxpayer, the people and patients are looking for fairness and freedom to decide what is right and just for them. The majority of the people are supposed to win every time. Bring it up for initiative regardless of what the legislators may do. time to show them who really is the boss. Enough is enough. more :twocents:

[justpics]

Unfortunately, Senator Kohl-Wells seems to be placing much stock into what LEO thinks, and is carving up the medical marijuana law to suite their wants and desires.

[gypski]

Unfortunately, Senator Kohl-Wells seems to be placing much stock into what LEO thinks, and is carving up the medical marijuana law to suite their wants and desires.

Then she has no business being a patient advocate. Maybe LEO dug and found something they can use on her? Who knows because I always heard she was for patients. :(

[postableme]

Senator Kohl-Wells is helping law enforcement to try and gut the majority of access that patients currently enjoy.

The idea is to create a yet to be announced system where you have to register with the department of agriculture and the department of health.

If you don't do that, as a provider you will only be able to serve one patient every 90 days. And if your provider doesn't do that, then he won't be able to provide anyone except for you meds.

Say bye bye to legal access for most people.


"Medical Use of Cannabis Act: Goals for 2011 Session
Overview

I see a LOT in there that worries me.

Where did this come from, btw... is it accessible online anywhere?

[justpics]

it was sent to hemptalk, think the original source is the senator's office?

[killerweed420]

Sorry I've been gone so long, was dealing with a death in the family.

Meanwhile, Senator Jerome Delvin (R-Richland) says he is considering a medical marijuana bill. His would create a statewide registry of medical marijuana patients that law enforcement could use to confirm that someone has a valid doctor's recommendation for pot. He says he has not worked out the details--the biggest question being whether the state or some other organization would run the system-- but that it would have to be one that both patients and police officers felt comfortable using, a tall order.

Sarich is himself unveiling what he calls a "voluntary" registry. He's got mock up of identification cards (pictured above) that he intends to sell to patients who want to use the system and can supply a doctor's recommendation for pot. He also has created a prototype of a website that both law enforcement and dispensaries could use to authenticate patients. Given his controversial profile, though, the big question is whether patients, law enforcement and doctors will buy into it.

I'm not much on government list, I think that should always be voluntary. As long as they could leave the public with that option would be fine.
This all ties into that at this point as big of a mess we have woth government regulation, if the state has access to this information that means the feds have access to this information. Its not constitutional but thats the nature of the system we are living with now.
I'm in favor of anything that grants civilians the right to use there constitutional rights and cannabis use certainly is under there constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. Like Doug Hiatt, I'm in favor of anything that gives Americans the freedom to use this substance in any manner that they see fit.

[drumbum420]

Hello, I am Chet Biggerstaff and Ive some info on this monstrocity of a bill Sen Wells has mutilated. 1st off we invited her to be a part of our push on this legislation and as soon as she had recived our information and inital draft she closed all doors to us and claimed it as her own. Then she went about butchering the bill into what it currently is. Our group as well as every other activist in the state has told her that many of the items she has in there are no starters and must be changed in order for the patients to support the bill. I explained to her that lumping everything into a single bill is the fastest way to kill it and that it should be one bill for patient protections and another to address the issue of distribution. After this email she responded saying I am rambling and ranting and that if I would just submit questions of the bills she would answer them. I never rant nor rave in my emails. I have always submited 2 questions to her and she never answers them. The last time we went round on this I only sent the questions with nothing else added. the response you ask? "I would prefer if you wait till draft 9 comes out. thank you". Mrs Wells is a liar and as dishonest as they come. Our group is now contacting every major news outlet in the state to fight her on this. I will not be lied to, mislead, or disrespected by one of our elected officials. This lady deserves to be kicked out on her but at light speed. There is a lot more to this story but I dont have time right now to get it all down. Peace

[gypski]

Hello, I am Chet Biggerstaff and Ive some info on this monstrocity of a bill Sen Wells has mutilated. 1st off we invited her to be a part of our push on this legislation and as soon as she had recived our information and inital draft she closed all doors to us and claimed it as her own. Then she went about butchering the bill into what it currently is. Our group as well as every other activist in the state has told her that many of the items she has in there are no starters and must be changed in order for the patients to support the bill. I explained to her that lumping everything into a single bill is the fastest way to kill it and that it should be one bill for patient protections and another to address the issue of distribution. After this email she responded saying I am rambling and ranting and that if I would just submit questions of the bills she would answer them. I never rant nor rave in my emails. I have always submited 2 questions to her and she never answers them. The last time we went round on this I only sent the questions with nothing else added. the response you ask? "I would prefer if you wait till draft 9 comes out. thank you". Mrs Wells is a liar and as dishonest as they come. Our group is now contacting every major news outlet in the state to fight her on this. I will not be lied to, mislead, or disrespected by one of our elected officials. This lady deserves to be kicked out on her but at light speed. There is a lot more to this story but I dont have time right now to get it all down. Peace

Well Chet, you aren't the only one who doesn't like the bill. They give with one hand and take with another. Getting a fair law is going to take an initiative. :thumbsup:

[hiamps]

So they pass the Bill and the growers and pharmacies get licensed through Dept of Agriculture...What happens when people start filing tax returns? Is this what the Feds want? That is my biggest problem with them keeping tabs.

[hiamps]

Also Clones need to be taken out of any count at all...

[drumbum420]

We are gearing up to kill the bill and present an initative in 2012. This will not pass

[hiamps]

Sorry I've been gone so long, was dealing with a death in the family.

Meanwhile, Senator Jerome Delvin (R-Richland) says he is considering a medical marijuana bill. His would create a statewide registry of medical marijuana patients that law enforcement could use to confirm that someone has a valid doctor's recommendation for pot. He says he has not worked out the details--the biggest question being whether the state or some other organization would run the system-- but that it would have to be one that both patients and police officers felt comfortable using, a tall order.

Sarich is himself unveiling what he calls a "voluntary" registry. He's got mock up of identification cards (pictured above) that he intends to sell to patients who want to use the system and can supply a doctor's recommendation for pot. He also has created a prototype of a website that both law enforcement and dispensaries could use to authenticate patients. Given his controversial profile, though, the big question is whether patients, law enforcement and doctors will buy into it.

I'm not much on government list, I think that should always be voluntary. As long as they could leave the public with that option would be fine.
This all ties into that at this point as big of a mess we have woth government regulation, if the state has access to this information that means the feds have access to this information. Its not constitutional but thats the nature of the system we are living with now.
I'm in favor of anything that grants civilians the right to use there constitutional rights and cannabis use certainly is under there constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. Like Doug Hiatt, I'm in favor of anything that gives Americans the freedom to use this substance in any manner that they see fit.

That Steve is a funny fellow.....He warns against things until he figures out how to make a buck. I can't trust him....

[drumbum420]

Out of everyone ive worked with in the last 15 years he is by far the most trusted. At this time you can not be certain of others intentions as until we have a fair layout setup we cant seperate the riff from the raff but it is comming. We are forming a trade group for the state of wa and will be holding the 1st meeting on the 15th of this month to get it underway as well as plan strat against this bill and sen wells.

[hiamps]

Wish you luck, just seems most people that I know that are full of mis-information work with him in one way or another. I have a friend that takes way too much risk yet is convinced he is safe. Maybe Steve does have insider news the rest of us don't have?

[mugenbao]

That Steve [Sarich] is a funny fellow.....He warns against things until he figures out how to make a buck. I can't trust him....
I agree. There are a lot of entrenched interests in this battle, and his is one of the more bizarre and obvious.

[killerweed420]

Yeah A web site to authenticate patients? No thanks.

[gypski]

Yeah A web site to authenticate patients? No thanks.

I don't wanna be in no data bases any deeper then I already am!!! :S2: If LEO is too fucking stupid to read and understand an authorization, then LEO needs to go back to school and relearn the English language and the law. And we better get at least protection from the legislators if they are going to give us anything at this point. Protection is top of the list before taxes or anything else. :thumbsup:

[drumbum420]

I agree there should be no registry. I also agree that almost every single person/activist seems to have their own agenda that isnt directly focused on the patients and their needs. Unfortunatly we cant wait for someone else to come along that has no alterior motives. We have to work with what we have and trust but verify. A bonus of this is that we get to see who is honest and who isnt.

[drumbum420]

I am totally against taxing ANY medicine. In fact I belive that every mfg of medicine currently in buisness needs to be charged with crimes against humanity for what they do to us for profit. Can we say public guinepig?

[gypski]

I agree there should be no registry. I also agree that almost every single person/activist seems to have their own agenda that isnt directly focused on the patients and their needs. Unfortunatly we cant wait for someone else to come along that has no alterior motives. We have to work with what we have and trust but verify. A bonus of this is that we get to see who is honest and who isnt.

I have one agenda. End prohibition, repair the damage the marijuana war has caused by cleaning up people's criminal records for simple possession, simple growing, simple small time dealing, and some of the major players being held as scape goats. Cartel fucks can stay where they are, same with violent criminals and gang bangers. At least set an age limit of 18 to do it legally. Don't need a bunch of dumb junior high school kids. Our education system is already in the shitter. Ending prohibition and legalizing for adults is the only solution. :twocents:

[killerweed420]

I don't wanna be in no data bases any deeper then I already am!!! :S2: If LEO is too fucking stupid to read and understand an authorization, then LEO needs to go back to school and relearn the English language and the law. And we better get at least protection from the legislators if they are going to give us anything at this point. Protection is top of the list before taxes or anything else. :thumbsup:

As soon as an officer is handed a legal authorization or sees one posted on the property he should leave. That should be enough reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.

[drumbum420]

due to prohabition it isnt. We must get riid of prohabition asap or even if we do get the law we want and need it wont matter as the police will still see EVERYONE as a druggie and dealer as they do now

[hiamps]

I agree with Killerweed and a few others. We don't need registration, pharmacies should accept the new paperwork we have and I am sure there is already a big penalty for forgery...From what I have heard, police are respecting the new paper much more. If every time there is an Election, there is a legalize pot proposition....just seeing it enough times will eventually get the win. It should be there EVERY year. Took them 5 times to get cityhood where I live, idiots finally gave in.

[killerweed420]

I agree with Killerweed and a few others. We don't need registration, pharmacies should accept the new paperwork we have and I am sure there is already a big penalty for forgery...From what I have heard, police are respecting the new paper much more. If every time there is an Election, there is a legalize pot proposition....just seeing it enough times will eventually get the win. It should be there EVERY year. Took them 5 times to get cityhood where I live, idiots finally gave in.

And that is true. The more public we can make the struggle the more people that are apt to become involved. As always education is always key.

[barbear]

Just a thought. - Does Tim Eyman toke? Might be the straightest line between two points,

[tendrums]

Cannabis Defense Coalition (http://cdc.coop/)

SB 5073 amendments stir massive concern

UPDATE February 9, 2011 -- The medical cannabis bill was introduced as SB 5073. On February 9, the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee adopted several amendments to the bill, most of them bad.

The amendments can be found here. Once the PDF loads, scroll down on the left to SB 5073. You'll see the "striker" which replaces the bill entirely, and seven adopted amendments. The striker, proposed by committee chair Senator Karen Keiser (360-786-7664, [email protected]), includes many changes:

â?¢Unlicensed collective grows would be limited to 3 participating patients, down from 25.
â?¢Removes section relating to employment protection.
â?¢Modifies housing protections to allow prohibitions against *smoking* of cannabis.
â?¢Department of Agriculture's role in testing and inspection is limited and private laboratory testing is authorized.
â?¢Requires patients to pay retail sales tax on medical cannabis, in addition to the B&O taxes dispensers and producers would pay.
â?¢Requires license suspension if licensee is in default of a federally- or state-guaranteed student loan.
â?¢Removes civil penalties for law enforcement who illegally access and distribute information from the state-run patient registry.
â?¢Modifies the state preemption to allow local governments to adopt licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis.
â?¢Modifies the "interim protections" section to apply to dispensaries that have incorporated by May 1, 2011.
Senator Mike Carrell (360-786-7654, [email protected]) offered several amendments which were adopted:

â?¢Housing protections don't apply if the housing program contains a component prohibiting the use of drugs or alcohol.
â?¢Tested samples of cannabis that are under .3% THC must be destroyed or sold to hemp product manufacturers.
â?¢Health care professionals may only authorize the use of medical cannabis if they have completed a physical examination of the patient, informed the patient of other options, and first attempted measures to treat the terminal or debilitating condition that do not involve the medical use of cannabis. Health care professionals must monitor patients on a quarterly basis and file quarterly reports with the Department of Health regarding number of patients they have authorized to use medical cannabis. DOH is authorized to determine if the amount of authorizations is "innappropriate." Such a determination would constitute a finding of unprofessional conduct against a health care professional.
Senator Randi Becker (360-786-7602, [email protected]) gutted the arrest protection provision of the bill:

â?¢Arrest protection is provided only for patients who have "voluntarily" registered with the state.
Senator Conway (360-786-7656, [email protected]) removed state preemption from the bill

â?¢Removes state preemption in the field of medical cannabis law. Specifically authorizes local governments to adopt zoning requirements, licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis businesses.
Though the amended version hasn't made it online yet, the bill may be seen here.

[gypski]

Bill killers if there ever was some. They can shove those requirements and restrictions. Political games rather then actually do something valid and constructive. :wtf:


Cannabis Defense Coalition (http://cdc.coop/)

SB 5073 amendments stir massive concern

UPDATE February 9, 2011 -- The medical cannabis bill was introduced as SB 5073. On February 9, the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee adopted several amendments to the bill, most of them bad.

The amendments can be found here. Once the PDF loads, scroll down on the left to SB 5073. You'll see the "striker" which replaces the bill entirely, and seven adopted amendments. The striker, proposed by committee chair Senator Karen Keiser (360-786-7664, [email protected]), includes many changes:

â?¢Unlicensed collective grows would be limited to 3 participating patients, down from 25.
â?¢Removes section relating to employment protection.
â?¢Modifies housing protections to allow prohibitions against *smoking* of cannabis.
â?¢Department of Agriculture's role in testing and inspection is limited and private laboratory testing is authorized.
â?¢Requires patients to pay retail sales tax on medical cannabis, in addition to the B&O taxes dispensers and producers would pay.
â?¢Requires license suspension if licensee is in default of a federally- or state-guaranteed student loan.
â?¢Removes civil penalties for law enforcement who illegally access and distribute information from the state-run patient registry.
â?¢Modifies the state preemption to allow local governments to adopt licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis.
â?¢Modifies the "interim protections" section to apply to dispensaries that have incorporated by May 1, 2011.
Senator Mike Carrell (360-786-7654, [email protected]) offered several amendments which were adopted:

â?¢Housing protections don't apply if the housing program contains a component prohibiting the use of drugs or alcohol.
â?¢Tested samples of cannabis that are under .3% THC must be destroyed or sold to hemp product manufacturers.
â?¢Health care professionals may only authorize the use of medical cannabis if they have completed a physical examination of the patient, informed the patient of other options, and first attempted measures to treat the terminal or debilitating condition that do not involve the medical use of cannabis. Health care professionals must monitor patients on a quarterly basis and file quarterly reports with the Department of Health regarding number of patients they have authorized to use medical cannabis. DOH is authorized to determine if the amount of authorizations is "innappropriate." Such a determination would constitute a finding of unprofessional conduct against a health care professional.
Senator Randi Becker (360-786-7602, [email protected]) gutted the arrest protection provision of the bill:

â?¢Arrest protection is provided only for patients who have "voluntarily" registered with the state.
Senator Conway (360-786-7656, [email protected]) removed state preemption from the bill

â?¢Removes state preemption in the field of medical cannabis law. Specifically authorizes local governments to adopt zoning requirements, licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis businesses.
Though the amended version hasn't made it online yet, the bill may be seen here.

[killerweed420]

Maybe thats the plan all along is to just kill the bill. If thats the plan I agree with it. We don't need more regulation, we need less.