Latest MMJ Law Draft

[gypski]

Here is the latest revision. All 33 pages of it. Lot of pages over a little plant!! There is going to be a meeting in Seattle later this month for mmj community input. Most of you will have gotten a notice I imagine. :D

[killerweed420]

Looks like there's finally some really good stuff in there.
I particularly like this.
Persons who act as designated providers to such patients shall
also not be ((found guilty of a crime under state law for)) arrested,
prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil
consequences under state law, notwithstanding any other provision of Code Rev/AI:cro 3 S-5573.2/10 2nd draft
law, based solely on their assisting with the medical use of
((marijuana)) cannabis; and
Health care professionals shall also ((be excepted from liability
and prosecution)) not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other
criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law for the
authorization of ((marijuana)) medical use ((to)) of cannabis by
qualifying patients for whom, in the health care professional's
professional judgment, the medical ((marijuana)) use of cannabis may
prove beneficial.

Essentially that finally makes MMJ legal in Washington and not just an affirmative defense. There will still of course be persecution by some law enforcement officials but now there is clear cut legal recourse. Some of the bigots of course will still try to pass the buck off to the federal authorities but if we had a governor or attorney general that follows our state and federal constitution they can order all charges withdrawn in these cases. And we need a governor who will do exactly that. We need a big case(Steve Sarich.lol) that will force the feds to prove how they have any constitutional legal authority over this beneficial plant. They don't of course, its always been a big lie and the lie is slowly being unrolled.

[justpics]

Looks like there's finally some really good stuff in there.
I particularly like this.
Persons who act as designated providers to such patients shall
also not be ((found guilty of a crime under state law for)) arrested,
prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil
consequences under state law, notwithstanding any other provision of Code Rev/AI:cro 3 S-5573.2/10 2nd draft
law, based solely on their assisting with the medical use of
((marijuana)) cannabis; and
Health care professionals shall also ((be excepted from liability
and prosecution)) not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other
criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law for the
authorization of ((marijuana)) medical use ((to)) of cannabis by
qualifying patients for whom, in the health care professional's
professional judgment, the medical ((marijuana)) use of cannabis may
prove beneficial.

Essentially that finally makes MMJ legal in Washington and not just an affirmative defense. There will still of course be persecution by some law enforcement officials but now there is clear cut legal recourse. Some of the bigots of course will still try to pass the buck off to the federal authorities but if we had a governor or attorney general that follows our state and federal constitution they can order all charges withdrawn in these cases. And we need a governor who will do exactly that. We need a big case(Steve Sarich.lol) that will force the feds to prove how they have any constitutional legal authority over this beneficial plant. They don't of course, its always been a big lie and the lie is slowly being unrolled.



It would except later in the Draft you have this;


"(4) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient
for his or her own personal use or benefit; and
(5) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying
patient within a ninety-day period."



Is a confidential informant telling an officer he thinks you acted as a DP to two people in 90 days, "evidence"? Is a cop thinking you violated this clause for some other silly reason "evidence"?

I think in a lot of counties it will be.

[gypski]

I haven't read it all since I uploaded it late last night, but to me, to truly free the people and the plant, the initiative process is going to be the final nail in LEOs coffin. There should be no criminal or civil sanctions for using or growing cannabis period. :D

[justpics]

it also explicitly makes it illegal to "benefit" from being someone's DP.


What does that mean? Does that mean that someone bakes me some cookies for giving them meds I can be arrested?

[DankBudha]

I wouldn't worry about the bill much anyway. There's no way it will pass with this much change on it. Baby steps have to happen in order for these laws to get where they need to be. Congress will take just one little part of one of those big changes (i.e. getting the DoA heavily involved in oversight of production) and bicker about it until the end of session with no real progress happening or being made.

What needs to happen is to simply clarify the current laws we have making them so that there's no room to interpret one way or the other. Adding what could arguably end up costing the state millions (unless you want to pay $10k plus to aquire a license to produce canabis) is going to be right where this bill stops.

Especially now when all state departments are being more frugal here. To them, this is taking a risk, a huge one. And I just don't see it happening.

I would love to see our laws here in WA state end up being exactly what this draft is saying. But I would bet on the fact that it's too drastic of a change for a large group of politicians to concur on.

Either way, it's a good read.

[killerweed420]

I haven't read it all since I uploaded it late last night, but to me, to truly free the people and the plant, the initiative process is going to be the final nail in LEOs coffin. There should be no criminal or civil sanctions for using or growing cannabis period. :D
Yeah except for that little detail that the legislature gets to screw with an initiative after 2 years. But we still need to pass that initiative and then prove to the legislature for 2 years that this works and prohibition doesn't. And of course we still have the 880 pound gorilla setting in the corner waiting to pounce on us and California. But if we could ever get a governor that has ever bothered to read the constitution and bill of rights they could smack that bitch right in the face and tell them to get the fuck out of our state. It would be a glorious day the first governor that does this. I would bet you that governor could run for president and win.

[killerweed420]

One of the ongoing problems will be too when the greedy little capitalists get there hands on it and start pumping out the garbage like all there other poisons. Thats why we need to continue to fight to remove ALL regulations for private growth and consumption. If the greedy little capitalists want to come in and make a boatload of cash, fine, but leave the private citizen alone to do as he sees fit. They need to do the same thing for most every other substance too.

[gypski]

Yeah except for that little detail that the legislature gets to screw with an initiative after 2 years. But we still need to pass that initiative and then prove to the legislature for 2 years that this works and prohibition doesn't. And of course we still have the 880 pound gorilla setting in the corner waiting to pounce on us and California. But if we could ever get a governor that has ever bothered to read the constitution and bill of rights they could smack that bitch right in the face and tell them to get the fuck out of our state. It would be a glorious day the first governor that does this. I would bet you that governor could run for president and win.

Or make it that they can't tamper with the law the people passed. After all, we do supersede them by the phrase We the people. They are still our employees, we do the hiring and firing through elections. :D

[mugenbao]

(5) The investigating general or limited authority Washington peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying patient within a ninety-day period."
So, wait... Is this their attempt to kill dispensaries and such? At the very least, it closes a loophole that many have been using for some time now.

Edit : Nevermind, I need to RTFM before asking questions :)

.

[jamessr]

It would except later in the Draft you have this;


"(4) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient
for his or her own personal use or benefit; and
(5) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying
patient within a ninety-day period."



Is a confidential informant telling an officer he thinks you acted as a DP to two people in 90 days, "evidence"? Is a cop thinking you violated this clause for some other silly reason "evidence"?

I think in a lot of counties it will be.

EVIDENCE??

This is what they mean:

Harris argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Evidence is sufficient when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 (citing State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977)). The intent to deliver a controlled substance must follow logically â??as a matter or probability from the evidence.â?� State v. Campos, 100 Wn. App. 218, 222, 998 P.2d 893 (citing State v. Davis, 79 Wn. App. 591, 594, 904 P.2d 306 (1995)), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1006 (2000). In assessing that intent, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, scales, baggies or packaging material, and pieces [*4] of paper with potential customer information. See Campos, 100 Wn. App. at 219, 224 (2.5 grams of cocaine and 25 grams in rock, $ 1,750, piece of paper that could have been a record of sales, pager, cell phone, and cell phone charger were sufficient to infer intent to deliver); see also State v. Zamora, 63 Wn. App. 220, 223, 817 P.2d 880 (1991) (large quantity of drugs along with cash, scales, gloves, and repackaging materials is sufficient to infer intent to deliver), abrogated by State v. Silva-Baltazar, 125 Wn.2d 472, 886 P.2d 138 (1994).

¶6 The evidence contained in the stipulation of facts and the police report is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Along with the marijuana, the officers seized baggies, a scale, $ 800 in cash â??donations,â?� [*5] and a notebook with weights and prices. Any rational trier of fact could infer, from that evidence, that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it, not to use it all personally. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to find Harris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. We affirm.

Block text.lol.

[justpics]

and that's what evidence it takes for a conviction right? Not to simply skirt by the law and arrest someone. As long as there's something as open as that in there, we don't have protection from arrest.

[killerweed420]

Yep.
Almost anything can be used as evidence of intent to deliver.
This is why the only acceptable way in the short term to defeat these cases is to get reasonably intelligent people on the jury because the system is broken.
The long term solution will to get this all legalized nation wide.

[ionmagic]

If a proposed new law cannot be understood completely on it's first reading by an average adult, it is not a good law.

This is NOT a good law.
its just more of the same broken system, some tit for tat, and some money changing.
free the plant!
love,
ion

[killerweed420]

This si what happens when you have attorneys involved, and your right, there used to be a legal concept that any law written that is not understandable by the average citizen is null and void. That died a long time ago.

[barbear]

OK, So let me get this straight. The Dept of Agriculture is gonna take over the inspection, weights, packaging and distribution and price of the cannabis I grow for my patient?? WTF?

[justpics]

If you want to be a licensed producer under the new proposed draft law you would need to obtain that license, and then follow the rules from the Department of Agriculture.


What rules you ask?


Well those are to be determined by the Department of Agriculture of course, so it MAY be that in order to be a licensed producer you need;


a million dollar facility

a team of security guards 24/7

a bank vault with pressure sensors

HD closed circuit cameras covering every square inch

a magical rock that keeps away tigers



we don't know, could be anything.

the ONLY guidance given to the DOA to come up with rules that will allows MILLIONS of plants (thats what we need in this state) to be grown is, "adopt rules allowing for the execution of the provisions of this chapter" [sic]


so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[killerweed420]

As with ALL legislation, once they get there foot in the door they will eventually just kick it in. They do it every time. Because power not necessarily money is the ultimate end. Because with power the money flows automatically.

[gypski]

In essence, the state is trying to take over and run something its failed to do since the passage of the original law. I don't believe they deserve to take over something they neglected, and frankly, the community can self-police the community. We know how its done and done right. Keep the state's greedy paws off of it, and keep them from setting THC levels, etc. You know what they will do if they take it over. :jointsmile:

[killerweed420]

If they take it over it will end up a mess. The laws will be so burdensome that you might as well just make it illegal again. They will charge enormous fees and taxes which will keep prices high. Then you will have the industrial growers who will grow shit that you won't have a clue what it is or whats in it. It would end up eventually in the hands of big pharma and we'd be right back where we started from, taking poison.

[MimbresValley]

great read.

[gypski]

Having gone over the latest update review of the law draft, I think that the thirty-three pages be reduced to enough paragraphs to cover two pages. All this regulation of containers, control of weights (state stickered scales), yada, yada, yada.

The freaking black market operates on less rules and is less regulated and frankly, is very successful policed only by the community itself, outside of that from LEO. If you sell your stuff short/light, you don't get return customers, if you sell crap, the same. Who the hell needs 33 pages of camouflage to backdoor prohibition? Keep it simple and basic so the average citizen can read it and not have all the questions there are today. That's all this bill does, continue the maze. Or they can insect this! (Y) :twocents:

The rules for the financial bailout of Wall Street, the banksters, and mortgage bandits was written on a single page. :D

[killerweed420]

Welcome to the world of politics, gotta keep the attorneys busy some how.

[barbear]

Is there gonna be a 3rd, 4th or 5th draft or is this the one we are gonna have to live with?

[jamessr]

If a proposed new law cannot be understood completely on it's first reading by an average adult, it is not a good law.

This is NOT a good law.
its just more of the same broken system, some tit for tat, and some money changing.
free the plant!
love,
ion

The plant is free if one grows it themselves or has a compassionate provider whom doesn't charge for reimbursement..the issue here is we have profiteers/lawyers/silent business partners in wa. that have a great deal of influence behind close doors...stop this & the plant ill be free for all in our borders but, not till then.

P.S. nice to see you posting here..;)

[jamessr]

Is there gonna be a 3rd, 4th or 5th draft or is this the one we are gonna have to live with?

No living with this at all, remember our new government is based on change. This will change and may not even be enacted..it may just be chum for your votes.

[JellyFish]

Here is the 8th draft as presented and discussed at the Cannabis Defense Coalition on the 28th. http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_bill_markup.pdf
The majority of attendees were associated with growers/dispensers and there was overwhelming support for this potential legislation. Everyone I spoke to also had concerns of varying degree. You'll notice the highlighting markup from the peeps at the CDC; Green indicates general agreement, Yellow indicates further discussion/clarification may be needed and Red indicates a point of serious contention. The associated explanation is here; http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_bill_analysis.pdf

I'd like to add a couple of notes to the above discussion:
All Dept. of Ag rules and regulations would be subject to the rule making procedures that many if not most of you witnessed during the DOH "60 day supply" rule making process. Public meetings and stakeholder input (that's you) would precede any rule implementation.


As Law is Law it might be worth mentioning that any any other products meant to be ingested are regulated. For what it's worth, I believe the Senator thought that the Dept. Of Ag inclusion was necessary. Moving a Bill through this, the standard avenue for Legislation will require compromise.


Before a Bill can make it to the floor, it must pass through 2 committees. As it is, I would be shocked to see this piece make it to the Floor. Make the language less restrictive and it's DOA. That is my opinion anyway ... If you want something more simply worded and less restrictive, get started on the initiative pronto. Here's the rules on that: http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf

That being said, get behind the *new and next in line "Legalize It" Initiative which will begin gathering signatures early next year... our only hope? Toke of the Town - Washington: New Marijuana Legalization Drive In February (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/10/washington_new_marijuana_legalization_drive_in_feb .php)

Never a dull moment,
J.Fish

[gypski]

Here is the 8th draft as presented and discussed at the Cannabis Defense Coalition on the 28th. http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_bill_markup.pdf
The majority of attendees were associated with growers/dispensers and there was overwhelming support for this potential legislation. Everyone I spoke to also had concerns of varying degree. You'll notice the highlighting markup from the peeps at the CDC; Green indicates general agreement, Yellow indicates further discussion/clarification may be needed and Red indicates a point of serious contention. The associated explanation is here; http://cdc.coop/docs/2011_bill_analysis.pdf

I'd like to add a couple of notes to the above discussion:
All Dept. of Ag rules and regulations would be subject to the rule making procedures that many if not most of you witnessed during the DOH "60 day supply" rule making process. Public meetings and stakeholder input (that's you) would precede any rule implementation.


As Law is Law it might be worth mentioning that any any other products meant to be ingested are regulated. For what it's worth, I believe the Senator thought that the Dept. Of Ag inclusion was necessary. Moving a Bill through this, the standard avenue for Legislation will require compromise.


Before a Bill can make it to the floor, it must pass through 2 committees. As it is, I would be shocked to see this piece make it to the Floor. Make the language less restrictive and it's DOA. That is my opinion anyway ... If you want something more simply worded and less restrictive, get started on the initiative pronto. Here's the rules on that: http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf

That being said, get behind the *new and next in line "Legalize It" Initiative which will begin gathering signatures early next year... our only hope? Toke of the Town - Washington: New Marijuana Legalization Drive In February (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/10/washington_new_marijuana_legalization_drive_in_feb .php)

Never a dull moment,
J.Fish

Its shaping up that this is the consensus opinion that the only way to get it done is with the initiative. I'm all for it and certainly willing to contribute this time to make sure it gets done. :thumbsup:

[justpics]

The 60 day supply rule was not decided through the open rules process.

The department of health came up with "100 square feet grow space" through the rules process, and the governor, law enforcement and the ACLU came up with the "15 plant limit" in a back room deal.

The only reason we know is that the initial draft was leaked before the gov, Leo and the ACLU gutted it.

Same thing would happen here.

[JellyFish]

The rule making process does not guarantee that you'll get what you want. Here it is for those who care: ORA | Washington's Rulemaking Process (http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp)


J.Fish

[gypski]

The rule making process does not guarantee that you'll get what you want. Here it is for those who care: ORA | Washington's Rulemaking Process (http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp)


J.Fish

This is just a guidelines because they change the rules all the time to suit them and not the best interest of those petitioning for redress. Time for new rules concerning cannabis. :wtf:

I might add, that the time is far passed asking them to fix something. Its now time we demand they do something to fix it and free patients and adults from criminal charges, or we will do it ourselves. And that seem to be the only way to really get it done. They demand taxes from us and take them, now its time the tables were turned especially on this issue. :D

[killerweed420]

Like most I still think the initiative process to legalize is probably our best bet. Just be aware that we will probably have to have a new initiative every 3 or 4 years to keep pot legalized. the Legislature has proven that they don't have the ability to address this issue appropriately so we will be forced to do it for them.

[JellyFish]

I agree, but I think that as far as full legalization goes, the Init. route is the ONLY way it will happen. I think protection from arrest and possibly a legal route for dispensaries/market growers MAY be able to make it thru the traditional process but I'm not holding my breath.

At this early stage, I'd give 20/1 odds that the Kohl-Wells bill never makes it to the floor.

J.Fish

[justpics]

The rule making process does not guarantee that you'll get what you want. Here it is for those who care: ORA | Washington's Rulemaking Process (http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp)


J.Fish

I guess you missed the point. The Rule making process does not guarantee we will get what the specific department concludes the rules should be, we will get whatever the governer, LEO and the ACLU decide in a back room negotiation, just like what happened in the 60 day supply rule making process.


I was not the one who came up with 100 square foot canopy, it WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THEY WERE OVER RULED.

[JellyFish]

No, I didn't miss your point and I don't like back-room deal making any more than you do ...
Ours is an imperfect system but it is the system we have to work with and one way or another, I'd really like Protection from Arrest.


J.Fish

[killerweed420]

Protection from arrest will be an illusion for the foreseeable future. Even if cannabis gets completely legalized by initiative we'll still have certain jurisdictions that will disagree and they'll just call the feds in to help out. If we could get a governor that believes in the 10th Amendment and will use actions to back that up we could go a long ways in ending prohibition nation wide.

[justpics]

As long as the rules/laws get made in back room political negotiations, there will always be little loopholes that let LEO arrest anyone they want.


In the counties where they don't like medical marijuana, having a scale will become evidence of being a provider to more than 1 person in 90 days. Any amount of cash on hand will be evidence of having benefited from being a provider.

With those provisions in there, we have the same protection from arrest now as we will after the draft. It will be at the discretion of the officer, how it always is.


Except those provision shut down the current model for medicine being exchanged in our state. And what do they replace that model with? Rules that are yet to be determined and who knows when they go into effect.

I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy.

[JellyFish]

"I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy."

Simply put, protection from prosecution AS LONG AS you're following the DOH guidelines.

Did you see that TacomaCross was shut down and charges are pending? Great protection eh?


Sinc.
J.Fish

[gypski]

I just hope we don't end up stabbing ourselves in the back like California just did by refusing to extend the right or freedom to use to anyone. An Affirmative Defense is no defense when different courts can use different tactics to circumvent the law. If we cannot come together as a community as medical patients and responsible adults to work for a common cause all is lost. If we go for total immunity from prosecution for responsible use for one, it must be for all. :twocents:

[justpics]

"I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy."

Simply put, protection from prosecution AS LONG AS you're following the DOH guidelines.

Did you see that TacomaCross was shut down and charges are pending? Great protection eh?


Sinc.
J.Fish

incorrectly put is more like it.

Protection from arrest if;

the officer decides there is no evidence you've been a provider to more than 1 person within 90 day

*Tacoma hemp wouldve failed that test

protection if the officer decides there is no evidence you benefit from being a provider

*again Tacoma hemp/cross wouldve failed that test

where as under the current law no restrictions or cool off timers are placed on providers regardng compensation and when they can change patients.

So yes I see less protection.

[JellyFish]

Our CURRENT law merely provides protection from prosecution IF you're within DOH guidlines. There is absolutely no protection for dispensaries beyond a general reluctance to prosecute by DA's due to the vague verbiage of our MMJ law. Market growers are just straight hangin' their asses out there with "0" protection. Hell, I grow strictly for myself, follow DOH plant numbers religiously and could still have stormtroopers show up and ruin my day.
Now, can cops twist the law and circumstance to suit their agenda? Of course they can and do, on a daily basis. I suspect this probably began with the first cop and will probably continue until humanity is wiped from the earth.
There is a distinction between Law and implementation of a Law; generally sorted out through court cases that establish precedent.

"why'd ya pull me over officer"? " You uh, crossed the white line... have any drugs or weapons in the car? Lic. and registration please."

Peace,
J.Fish

[justpics]

Except I find it hard to believe that the two loopholes created for law enforcement to bypass our protection won't also be used to deny an affirmative defense. Making this draft worse than the current state of affairs.

Right now they can't point to a specific provision from the law that provider could be violating, with this draft they've got two that are so vague they can always use them.

[killerweed420]

I just hope we don't end up stabbing ourselves in the back like California just did by refusing to extend the right or freedom to use to anyone. An Affirmative Defense is no defense when different courts can use different tactics to circumvent the law. If we cannot come together as a community as medical patients and responsible adults to work for a common cause all is lost. If we go for total immunity from prosecution for responsible use for one, it must be for all. :twocents:
I think Cali's mistake was there's was driven by greed both for taxing purposes and the way there's was written is was a benefit for huge companies to come in and commercialize the whole industry while the individual grower was only going to be allowed to use a 5' X 5' grow area. I think they needed a more moderate cannabis bill that wouldn't have just swung the door wide open for big business. And I think thats what most of us want too. Just keep small grows legal and allow for the distribution of it but keep it on a smaller scale.