Legislative Bills

[gypski]

Here are the links to the Senate and House bills. Whether we fully agree or not, its what we may get. :smokin:

SB 5073 - 2011-12 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5073&year=2011)

HB 1100 - 2011-12 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1100&year=2011)

[time4me]

Wow, thanks, Gypski. It's the same bill, house and senate. I think you are right.

[jamessr]

Now that's what I call legislation for us all. I like the section which reaches into the very pockets of violators, that will stop the theft of honest services right fast.

The section for the research program is awesome...

The pre-emption section addresses needed attention.

Interesting registration program...I see many flaws that will be abused...look at what is going on in mich. state registry system and collectives protected like oregon registry system..the feds want records from the state registry system which is protected by state law. Most feds would pay the penalty [ for a state official/officer ] to get the records.:wtf:

Looks like SOW has gotten the picture finally and about time.:thumbsup:

[justpics]

I don't like the standard of "some evidence" that gives police a loophole around protection from arrest. That's the same standard of evidence we give to prison inmates accused of crimes inside of prison.

What is "evidence" that a patient has been a provider to more than 1 patient in 15 days? What is "evidence" that a patient has benefit from a patient provider relationship? Sounds like anything a kidnap err kitsap county officer says it is. ie: no protection from arrest unless the officer wants to give it to you, which is the SAME THING WE CURRENTLY HAVE. How many patients in king county have been arrested under the current law?

Get rid of the loopholes and add some teeth.


The patient registry is a disaster, but its not like we all didn't see it coming. ACLU has been working on that one for a long time.

The DUI section is a disaster too, if per se limits come into play, any time a patient is pulled over they will be at risk for a DUI.

That plus patient registry = nightmare.

[time4me]

Yeah, the part about transplants is just a slap in the face for those of us who need transplants. They might as well left it out. By leaving it in, it just tells me that no one in the system gives a sh*t and here, let's rub it in your face!

[jamessr]

Yeah, the part about transplants is just a slap in the face for those of us who need transplants. They might as well left it out. By leaving it in, it just tells me that no one in the system gives a sh*t and here, let's rub it in your face!

Guess we need to fix this part then don't we.;)

[gypski]

I've been reading the buzz (no pun intended) in other Washington State forums concerning the new law, and what is missing with these two bills, is another bill being introduced. That bill concerns impaired driving and the level that the bill is trying to set is outrageous. The fuckers give in one hand, and try and backdoor us with the other. Does anyone really expect honest services from these schiesters? Do you really feel as though your concerns are being represented? Or do you feel like a pawn in a bullshit game of hide the pea with the illusion of personal freedom and choice where it concerns life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (fucking freedom from pain and trying to live a normal fucking life)? :cursing: :twocents:

Its not surprising people get guns and shoot politicians and other members of the system because they are such lying fucks who prey on their own constituents and those they are sworn to serve and protect. Not search and destroy. And I don't condone what happened in Tucson. :wtf:

[justpics]

that is what I was talking about with the 'per se' limits, gypski.


The plan is to use a bunch of studies which found a correlation between THC blood levels and accident rates, and use that to pretend that they have proven a causation between THC in your blood and impairment.


Nice trick huh?


Can't wait for the study that shows that people who are specific minority groups correlate to higher accident rates so we can set per se limits on being an asian driver...."I am sorry ma'am, studies found a correlation between your ethnic group and accidents so you are therefore impaired"...right?

[time4me]

Most politicians have sold out to the highest bidder, i.e. big corporations. They do not have the interests of the working people in mind, only themselves. Just look at how they are squabbling and pointing fingers at each other, all while trying to get more than their piece of the pie.
We, the people, the REAL people of the United States, need to stand up and take back our country from a corrupt and broken government that is tearing this country apart. Until then, we will be stuck in this rut and sinking deeper........

[jamessr]

May I suggest looking into what a persons body produces when using cannabis. Find this element in the csa as a violation. Good luck cause it isn't there at all. Not even close.:wtf::wtf::wtf: a persons body does not produce the restricted substance delta-9.

This is fear propaganda put out by some really smart folks we all know in the mmj world. any "smart" lawyer with any due diligence can see that. The supreme court of michigan has a specific case addressing these very issues before it.. which it remanded. Ding Ding, round 2.

[WashougalWonder]

I think, in today's climate this is very good and leaves room to modify as time moves along....I did note the "registry" is not mandatory.

I do feel this injures the mom&pop type of growers, only big business will deal with the rules and expenses....prices may go up instead of down.

[hiamps]

Looks like they are expecting medical miracles...Or protecting script Doctors.

(b) Beginning July 1, 2012, "valid documentation" means:
9 (i) An original statement signed and dated by a qualifying
10 patient's health care professional written on tamper-resistant paper
11 and valid for up to one year from the date of the health care
12 professional's signature, which states that, in the health care
13 professional's professional opinion, the patient may benefit from the
14 medical use of cannabis;

[hiamps]

Must be because of the Feds??? Math sure doesn't add up.

14 (a) No more than twenty-five qualifying patients may participate in
15 a single collective garden at any time;
16 (b) A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen plants per
17 patient up to a total of ninety plants for six patients, and no more
18 than a total of ninety-nine plants if seven or more patients are
19 participating in the collective garden;

[hiamps]

This one is cool and would have helped while I was living in California...I think Hawaii is the only other place so far that welcomes patients from other states...

NEW SECTION. Sec. 406. A nonresident who is duly authorized to
5 engage in the medical use of cannabis under the laws of another state
6 or territory of the United States may raise an affirmative defense to
7 charges of violations of Washington state law relating to cannabis,
8 provided that the nonresident:

[hiamps]

I really like the licensed producers, maybe I will apply. Wouldn't this make the State a co-defendant in a Federal Case?

28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 610. Samples of cannabis drawn by department of
29 agriculture inspectors, unless returned by agreement to the producer or
30 applicant for a license to produce, or to the processor or applicant
31 for a license to process cannabis products, shall become the property
32 of the state and subject to disposition by the department of
33 agriculture. The department of agriculture must adopt rules relating
34 to sample retention and disposal.

[hiamps]

Aren't these the same people that now take you off the transplant list if you use???SCARY

30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1002. A new section is added to chapter 28B.20
31 RCW to read as follows:
32 The University of Washington may conduct scientific research on the
33 efficacy and safety of administering cannabis as part of medical
34 treatment. As part of this research, the University of Washington may
35 develop and conduct studies to ascertain the general medical safety and
36 efficacy of cannabis and may develop medical guidelines for the
37 appropriate administration and use of cannabis.

[hiamps]

Got a room? May want to read this part, I like.....

30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1201. (1) The legislature recognizes that there
31 are cannabis producers and cannabis dispensaries in operation as of the
32 effective date of this section that are unregulated by the state and
33 who produce and dispense cannabis for medical use by qualifying
34 patients. The legislature intends that these producers and
SB 5073 p. 34
1 dispensaries become licensed in accordance with the requirements of
2 this chapter and that this licensing provides them with arrest
3 protection so long as they remain in compliance with the requirements
4 of this chapter and the rules adopted under this chapter. The
5 legislature further recognizes that cannabis producers and cannabis
6 dispensaries in current operation are not able to become licensed until
7 the department of agriculture and the department of health adopt rules
8 and, consequently, it is likely they will remain unlicensed until at
9 least July 1, 2012.........

[killerweed420]

Must be because of the Feds??? Math sure doesn't add up.

14 (a) No more than twenty-five qualifying patients may participate in
15 a single collective garden at any time;
16 (b) A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen plants per
17 patient up to a total of ninety plants for six patients, and no more
18 than a total of ninety-nine plants if seven or more patients are
19 participating in the collective garden;

Yeah they're just playing around the feds here.
Still sounds like the initiative process is the best way to go. We'll just have to figure on passing an initiative every 2 years.

[hiamps]

Too bad Obama is so Spineless...He should at least reclassify cannabis, even if he doesn't take feds out. Why not leave it to the States?

[time4me]

Read the whole section. You had to register by January 1, of this year to be included, and this isn't out yet, so what's a producer or dispensary to do? And if the law doesn't go through, what will be done with the information? Do you trust them?


Got a room? May want to read this part, I like.....

30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1201. (1) The legislature recognizes that there
31 are cannabis producers and cannabis dispensaries in operation as of the
32 effective date of this section that are unregulated by the state and
33 who produce and dispense cannabis for medical use by qualifying
34 patients. The legislature intends that these producers and
SB 5073 p. 34
1 dispensaries become licensed in accordance with the requirements of
2 this chapter and that this licensing provides them with arrest
3 protection so long as they remain in compliance with the requirements
4 of this chapter and the rules adopted under this chapter. The
5 legislature further recognizes that cannabis producers and cannabis
6 dispensaries in current operation are not able to become licensed until
7 the department of agriculture and the department of health adopt rules
8 and, consequently, it is likely they will remain unlicensed until at
9 least July 1, 2012.........

[jamessr]

Looks like they are expecting medical miracles...Or protecting script Doctors.

(b) Beginning July 1, 2012, "valid documentation" means:
9 (i) An original statement signed and dated by a qualifying
10 patient's health care professional written on tamper-resistant paper
11 and valid for up to one year from the date of the health care
12 professional's signature, which states that, in the health care
13 professional's professional opinion, the patient may benefit from the
14 medical use of cannabis;

This just means that they are following public policy of healthcare under the CSA section 903 so the feds stay away from the field of medicine... although It may be a restraint on free-speech found in Conanat v. Walters 9th cir. injunction, a D.C. case called pearson shows that a 1 yr. is = to a prescription which is federally illegal.

Now the interesting part is, D.C. now has dispensaries run by the government with 1 yr. expiration dates... Funny world we live in. The model here is from SCOTUS which says if one is under a state registry program they are covered from federal agencies intervening as it is lawful medical treatment. see rcw 69.51 as an example for wa. state.

[jamessr]

Must be because of the Feds??? Math sure doesn't add up.

14 (a) No more than twenty-five qualifying patients may participate in
15 a single collective garden at any time;
16 (b) A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen plants per
17 patient up to a total of ninety plants for six patients, and no more
18 than a total of ninety-nine plants if seven or more patients are
19 participating in the collective garden;

The math is right on spot. Anything over 99 removes it from state jurisdiction under the practice of medicine to federal jurisdiction no matter what... and adds 5 yr's mandatory which one has no medical defense at all... so the state is protecting us from them !!!

Remember the letter from the U.S. ATT. office stating no funds and if you follow state law they leave us alone ?? 99 is the ceiling. At least we can grow as a unit now without being victimized by our locals.:cool:

[jamessr]

This one is cool and would have helped while I was living in California...I think Hawaii is the only other place so far that welcomes patients from other states...

NEW SECTION. Sec. 406. A nonresident who is duly authorized to
5 engage in the medical use of cannabis under the laws of another state
6 or territory of the United States may raise an affirmative defense to
7 charges of violations of Washington state law relating to cannabis,
8 provided that the nonresident:

Montana, New jersey and one more but, not Hawaii.

[jamessr]

I really like the licensed producers, maybe I will apply. Wouldn't this make the State a co-defendant in a Federal Case?

28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 610. Samples of cannabis drawn by department of
29 agriculture inspectors, unless returned by agreement to the producer or
30 applicant for a license to produce, or to the processor or applicant
31 for a license to process cannabis products, shall become the property
32 of the state and subject to disposition by the department of
33 agriculture. The department of agriculture must adopt rules relating
34 to sample retention and disposal.

No. This legislation is to remove the feds from interdiction into state mmj jurisdiction under the practice of medicine.

Hope you have deep pockets to apply.. this is a strict play-to-pay scheme for licensed producers.

[jamessr]

Aren't these the same people that now take you off the transplant list if you use???SCARY

30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1002. A new section is added to chapter 28B.20
31 RCW to read as follows:
32 The University of Washington may conduct scientific research on the
33 efficacy and safety of administering cannabis as part of medical
34 treatment. As part of this research, the University of Washington may
35 develop and conduct studies to ascertain the general medical safety and
36 efficacy of cannabis and may develop medical guidelines for the
37 appropriate administration and use of cannabis.

See Rcw 69.51... should explain what they are doing.. a re-scheduling of mmj project with scientific proof. If the feds won't do it, we will.

[jamessr]

Read the whole section. You had to register by January 1, of this year to be included, and this isn't out yet, so what's a producer or dispensary to do? And if the law doesn't go through, what will be done with the information? Do you trust them?

I have a question? How does one register under a legislative act which has not yet been enacted.

In case you didn't know this yet, they already have a list of "known" advertised dispensaries in which leo/state prosecutors have targeted... anyone not on this list yet may respond and get identified in the process as a target instead of being covered.

Who is them time??

Because it is our legislators whom are debating this and making laws in our best interests.

It is the executive branch demanding and pushing illegal conduct no matter what.

It is the judicial branch having all the fun with it though... thats the branch which needs the harnesses if any do... as without a judges authorization, no leo has any authority in wa. to do anything to any qualifying patient... it's all about the property and it's category as "contraband".

[jamessr]

Too bad Obama is so Spineless...He should at least reclassify cannabis, even if he doesn't take feds out. Why not leave it to the States?

Only congress can reclassify cannabis because of the international treaties in place. No other fed has the authority to do so. Not even the president.

It is being left upto the states, look at Oregon, it is now a schedule 2 and meth is a schedule 1 now... they switched.:D:pimp:

[justpics]

The FDA and DEA could reschedule, and the President appoints the person running those organizations, meaning if Obama wanted, he could have rescheduled marijuana.

[jamessr]

The FDA and DEA could reschedule, and the President appoints the person running those organizations, meaning if Obama wanted, he could have rescheduled marijuana.

Can you please show us how that is done ?? In detail form. lol.

Explain why their has been many bills before congress about rescheduling and every fed agency just passes the buck.... hello?? a plant can not be reproduced with the exact same outcome each and every time... so no one has any authority under our public policy regime to change shit but, their underwear. EXCEPT CONGRESS WHICH IS THE ONE'S WHO PUT IT IN SCHEDULE 1 STATUS VIA INTERNATIONAL TREATIES under the CSA.

Remember now the harrison narcotics act was repealed because it was a TAX.

[time4me]

I have a question? How does one register under a legislative act which has not yet been enacted.
Yeah, I have the same question. Seems like a carrot that was used as bait, and the bust in Lynwood seems to verify it.

In case you didn't know this yet, they already have a list of "known" advertised dispensaries in which leo/state prosecutors have targeted... anyone not on this list yet may respond and get identified in the process as a target instead of being covered.
My thoughts exactly. Bait. And Devlin at least, would probably see it as such until the bill is passed.

Who is them time?? Same as your reference to 'they' in the above paragraph

Because it is our legislators whom are debating this and making laws in our best interests.

It is the executive branch demanding and pushing illegal conduct no matter what. Amnesty is amnesty, and if they want to promise it in a bill, they need to push it with LEO. Anything less is just a broken promise. That's why I am volunteering with SW.

It is the judicial branch having all the fun with it though... thats the branch which needs the harnesses if any do... as without a judges authorization, no leo has any authority in wa. to do anything to any qualifying patient... it's all about the property and it's category as "contraband". Unfortunately, it seems some LEO think they can do whatever they want whenever they want. If you live in CowCo, we have judges who seem to think they make the law, not interpret and enforce it. (It was a CowCo judge who said there is no such thing as a marijuana patient, just stoners, or some such garbage.)

I'm just so tired of the elitism.........

lol, and I wish I was better with computers. Only my responses were supposed to be in italics....oh well, I think I at least responded.

[justpics]

Can you please show us how that is done ?? In detail form. lol.

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/18651S011_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Drug_Evaluation_and_Research)


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

[jamessr]

It's o.k. time. We are all feeling the same.. sick and damn tired of being subjected to personal predilections and controverting our rights into non legislated crimes for profit under the CSA. As you see from the proposed legislation for patient protections listed, our legislators are damn tired of it also... note the intent located at rcw 69.51A.005, Now look up on-line in google, elements of hobbs act violation, elements of mail fraud, elements of wire fraud, elements of theft of honest services...both state and federal...

The political arena is getting hot and spicy. Our state legislators are answering the call just like congress did in U.S. v. McNally[ theft of honest service case]...making it clear as a bell.!! no ambiguity of what a crime is and is not..EVIDENCE and they changed what constitutes this expressed evidence. and as the court in state v. fry noted, presentment requirement is not triggered until charged...not when contacted by leo,

So as you see, the "prior" court rulings do not now match the proposed legislation. As an aff. def. is now different as applied and to whom and for what reasons. No arrest legally translates into it is no longer a public offense which give rise to any discretion by the prior offending government agents. As long as one is within 15/24 floor, ceiling is what your doctor says it is under due diligence of their professional medical opinion in regards to mitigating your symptoms[notice the section missing in each condition category[unreleived by standard treatment and meds] this was removed because patient are being denied medical treatment thru DOC, which is illegal as all hell, smart to fix the issue before getting sued for millions, see dignity of death act and court cases,, and of coarse this is at the juncture which the aff. def/medical necessity def. per mmj wac. comes into play as a backdrop protection to have a jury of your peers decide if you had to much...not many jurors I know of whom practice medicine for a living, see my point?

As for that judge you mentioned, they are in each and every county as a "gatekeeper" for the state policing interest, every person whom enters will for sure lose and get a lashing.

A specific judge in the county I live in said these exact words to me in court on the record: What is it with you people?? He was responding to me asking him WTF was his issue with me having my 35 plants retrieved from my home he decided I didn't have a right to be at anymore.. he was trying to put me in jail for violating a court order because my neighbor wrote an affidavit identifying first and last name...well the problem was, I have 2 boys with my same 1st and last name, it was one of my boys which was here, not me..anyhow, I know the spiel really well and it is these types of judges which need to be stopped from their criminal behavior against society.

[jamessr]

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/18651S011_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Drug_Evaluation_and_Research)


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

Interesting concept except, your confusing a repeatable synthetic above, with a non-repeatable vegetative plant which controls in the equation your using. The sum of 1+3 is not 2 my friend. You can not get a plant to repeat itself 100% on point each and every time which is the underlying "requirement" for any federal rescheduling by "CONGRESS" ONLY when they receive the empirical evidence that it qualifies under the CSA which congress legislated ... And your also confusing whom has what power to do what in regards to the CSA. Read ashcroft v. oregon., Gonzales v. Raich and Barber v. Gonzales. All these cases clearly state that congress has the only power under feds to reschedule but, a state by state can change any drug scheduling it wants through legislation if it is under the "practice of medicine" field which congress has no authority.

Hope this makes sense.

And whom ever the pres. hires to fill them spots, can ONLY write a "RECOMMENDATION" to change u.s. drug policy, they can not collectively or by themselves change anything with out the authorizing authority to do so...which lies with congress. Why do you think Mr. frank introduced the federal mmj act to congress instead of the FDA or DEA or some other "AGENCY" of the executive branch.? Hence, agency !!

[jamessr]

For Hiamp,

Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
Last Update: January 3, 2011
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the compilation of all permanent laws now in force. It is a collection of Session Laws (enacted by the Legislature, and signed by the Governor, or enacted via the initiative process), arranged by topic, with amendments added and repealed laws removed. It does not include temporary laws such as appropriations acts. The official version of the RCW is published by the Statute Law Committee and the Code Reviser.

The online version of the RCW is updated twice a year, once in the early fall following the legislative session, and again at the end of the year if a ballot measure that changes the law passed at the general election. Copies of the RCW as they existed each year since 2002 are available in the RCW Archive.

Title 69 RCW
Food, drugs, cosmetics, and poisons

Chapter 69.51 RCW
Controlled substances therapeutic research act

RCW 69.51.020
Legislative purpose.


The legislature finds that recent research has shown that the use of marijuana may alleviate the nausea and ill effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiology, and, additionally, may alleviate the ill effects of glaucoma. The legislature further finds that there is a need for further research and experimentation regarding the use of marijuana under strictly controlled circumstances. It is for this purpose that the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act is hereby enacted.

RCW 69.51.030
Definitions.


As used in this chapter:

(1) "Board" means the state board of pharmacy;

(2) "Department" means the department of health.

(3) "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant of the genus Cannabis L., whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin; and

(4) "Practitioner" means a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW.

[1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 438; 1979 c 136 § 3.]

Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.

RCW 69.51.040
Controlled substances therapeutic research program.


(1) There is established in the board the controlled substances therapeutic research program. The program shall be administered by the department. The board shall promulgate rules necessary for the proper administration of the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act. In such promulgation, the board shall take into consideration those pertinent rules promulgated by the United States drug enforcement agency, the food and drug administration, and the national institute on drug abuse.

(2) Except as provided in RCW 69.51.050(4), the controlled substances therapeutic research program shall be limited to cancer chemotherapy and radiology patients and glaucoma patients, who are certified to the patient qualification review committee by a practitioner as being involved in a life-threatening or sense-threatening situation. No patient may be admitted to the controlled substances therapeutic research program without full disclosure by the practitioner of the experimental nature of this program and of the possible risks and side effects of the proposed treatment in accordance with the informed consent provisions of chapter 7.70 RCW.

(3) The board shall provide by rule for a program of registration with the department of bona fide controlled substance therapeutic research projects.

[1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 439; 1979 c 136 § 4.]

Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.

RCW 69.51.050
Patient qualification review committee.


(1) The board shall appoint a patient qualification review committee to serve at its pleasure. The patient qualification review committee shall be comprised of:

(a) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of ophthalmology;

(b) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the subspecialty of medical oncology;

(c) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of psychiatry; and

(d) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of radiology.

Members of the committee shall be compensated at the rate of fifty dollars per day for each day spent in the performance of their official duties, and shall receive reimbursement for their travel expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.

(2) The patient qualification review committee shall review all applicants for the controlled substance therapeutic research program and their licensed practitioners and certify their participation in the program.

(3) The patient qualification review committee and the board shall insure that the privacy of individuals who participate in the controlled substance therapeutic research program is protected by withholding from all persons not connected with the conduct of the research the names and other identifying characteristics of such individuals. Persons authorized to engage in research under the controlled substance therapeutic research program may not be compelled in any civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding to identify the individuals who are the subjects of research for which the authorization was granted, except to the extent necessary to permit the board to determine whether the research is being conducted in accordance with the authorization.

(4) The patient qualification review committee may include other disease groups for participation in the controlled substances therapeutic research program after pertinent medical data have been presented by a practitioner to both the committee and the board, and after approval for such participation has been granted pursuant to pertinent rules promulgated by the United States drug enforcement agency, the food and drug administration, and the national institute on drug abuse.

[1979 c 136 § 5.]

RCW 69.51.060
Sources and distribution of marijuana.


(1) The board shall obtain marijuana through whatever means it deems most appropriate and consistent with regulations promulgated by the United States food and drug administration, the drug enforcement agency, and the national institute on drug abuse, and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The board may use marijuana which has been confiscated by local or state law enforcement agencies and has been determined to be free from contamination.

(3) The board shall distribute the analyzed marijuana to approved practitioners and/or institutions in accordance with rules promulgated by the board.

[1979 c 136 § 6.]

RCW 69.51.080
Cannabis and related products considered Schedule II substances.


(1) The enumeration of tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols in RCW 69.50.204 as a Schedule I controlled substance does not apply to the use of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols by certified patients pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(2) Cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols shall be considered Schedule II substances as enumerated in RCW 69.50.206 only for the purposes enumerated in this chapter.

[1979 c 136 § 8.]

So you see, it is a great thing to have a state "research program"... this is what our u.s. supreme court said protects it's citizens from federal intrusions.:cool:

[1979 c 136 § 2.]

[jamessr]

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/18651S011_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Drug_Evaluation_and_Research)


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

After further review of your pdf. document and noting the date of it and in again listening to the electronic vocal record of gonzales v. raich pertaining to these documents gives rise to say, political bullpucky..lol. they rescheduled a synthetic to bone us of our mmj rights to the plant under international treaties...you should listen to it... I would post it but, I haven't figured out my new computer yet and it's transferring of data to post here. I am sure your skills can help with this in downloading it when you find it, please??:D

[jamessr]

The FDA and DEA could reschedule, and the President appoints the person running those organizations, meaning if Obama wanted, he could have rescheduled marijuana.

Hate the game, not the player. Game started in 1971, players have changed but, the same game continues...Obama is the only president not to come out hot and heavy against cannabis use. No u.s. AG has ever even thought about being light on any citizen for cannabis use...we have 2 top notch good players right now in a fucked up game looking out for the individual patient right. keeping the dispensing at a minimum at large vs. leaving individuals alone. individual as singular and states are given there 10th amendment rights...

Can't beat that in our day and age without being confused by political agendas.

[justpics]

Nixon's drug control budget allotted as a percentage twice what Obama's does for drug treatment versus LEO.

The rhetoric has changed but the policies are in many ways worse.

[time4me]

@James, it's my understanding that IF a drug/med/etc. is found to have ANY medicinal value, it is NOT schedule I. So will this mean that all cannabis is schedule II by default? It seems schedule I is an "all or nothing", so if there is any schedule II classification at all, it IS a schedule II. Can you find that? I know someone had it at some point and I was thinking it was you. I would love to do a comparative analysis and see if we can cause even more stink.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. The idiocy of it astounding. That we, sick patients, some of us terminal, have to intervene to make sure our lawmakers are actually doing their jobs, is disgusting.
Can we do a class-action against the state if we can't get them to straighten this crap out? I'd be in, if we can.

[jamessr]

@James, it's my understanding that IF a drug/med/etc. is found to have ANY medicinal value, it is NOT schedule I. So will this mean that all cannabis is schedule II by default? It seems schedule I is an "all or nothing", so if there is any schedule II classification at all, it IS a schedule II. Can you find that? I know someone had it at some point and I was thinking it was you. I would love to do a comparative analysis and see if we can cause even more stink.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. The idiocy of it astounding. That we, sick patients, some of us terminal, have to intervene to make sure our lawmakers are actually doing their jobs, is disgusting.
Can we do a class-action against the state if we can't get them to straighten this crap out? I'd be in, if we can.

I am working on my case appeal so we don't have to sue anyone. It is looking pretty on spot to toss these fools overboard into the abyss.

And yes it is a schedule 2 for all mmj patients in wa.... no case has touched on it yet, so far. except a rumbling from our wa. supreme court in a case quoted: ONLY DR.'S LICENSED IN WA. STATE MAY PRESCRIBE MARIJUANA. see rcw 69.51 and left it at that.

An injunction is ideal under Conant v. Walters[ 9th cir. precedent] since we,[ us patients in totality] are protected in our 1st amendment right to receive valuable "health" info. and enter into the mmj political debate... a 1yr. restrains this free-speech right..and violates conant v. walters injunction...

So when I file my appeal, all hell is going to break loose....cause I am not an officer of the court with a duty to protect my fellow court officer but, just the opposite. And I got some caselaw thats going to spin their legal minds into a black hole.

As far as the idea of mmj having medical attributes recognized by our government by the language you used, will never happen cause the rescheduling federal process does not allow any plants to be removed from a schedule 1, as you can not repeat the same test repeatedly with the same results... so it is the states which have the power to reschedule under state law, which if the majority become medical marijuana states, the requirment will be met by congress and the will be duty bound to change it to a lower schedule because the states control the practice of medicine, not congress.

[jamessr]

Nixon's drug control budget allotted as a percentage twice what Obama's does for drug treatment versus LEO.

The rhetoric has changed but the policies are in many ways worse.:wtf:

Why would you want the pres. to have a policy for mmj treatment when we are trying to get it legalized...makes no sense to me in the big picture. As far as leo budget, they abuse their rights to access these funds and no-one has tried to stop them yet...lots of meaningless claims by lawyers whom want to keep in business so far. It is a money game and we are the pawns.:wtf:

When comparing 1970 something to current life, seems a bit off as far as $$$$$$$$$$$, we live in a day and age where we are using excuses to start a war so we can gain access to the worlds largest untouched natural resources abroad. Apples/ apples not orange/apples.

Not to mention the united states is completely bankrupt and is in bankruptcy court, gee they neglected to tell us that didn't they??

[time4me]

My point is that, in my understanding, a schedule I drug is considered to have NO MEDICAL VALUE, and if there is ANY medical value, it does not meet criteria for Schedule I, which would mean, in turn, that when ONE STATE finds medical value, the drug no longer meets criteria and should, in an intelligent and logical world, be rescheduled at ALL levels, beginning with the Feds.
But we are not dealing with logical intelligence within our government, are we?

[jamessr]

My point is that, in my understanding, a schedule I drug is considered to have NO MEDICAL VALUE, and if there is ANY medical value, it does not meet criteria for Schedule I, which would mean, in turn, that when ONE STATE finds medical value, the drug no longer meets criteria and should, in an intelligent and logical world, be rescheduled at ALL levels, beginning with the Feds.
But we are not dealing with logical intelligence within our government, are we?

I would have to say I myself at one time had the same personal feelings until, I took a closer in-depth analysis which gave me a different view point of the totality of the circumstances. Just one state does not effect the totality as a whole....majority is the rule.

Which logically translates into 51% of the states must be medical in order for the found medicinal value has a fighting chance to be rescheduled federally, the flip side of the same coin is found in congress reps. voting on the federal mmj bill before congress... once you understand how it all works in "context", it becomes less of a mind f**k on one's self..

In otherwords, the stress goes away.

Think in these terms, what ingredients does it take to bake a cake,,step by step, what happens when you miss some ingredients steps?? you end up with crap. and never get it correct until you use the correct steps. Then viola, your masterpiece is ready to consume..

Only 1 state has rescheduled cannabis...OREGON.

[jamessr]

A few states allow Dr.'s to prescribe heroin yet, you can not go to any state with your script and expect to be legal to use it...except the state which has legislated it under the practice of medicine. If, the majority of states legislated it's medicinal use, it would be rescheduled federally...not likely to happen but, is a good analogy analysis to use. As we have 15 states mmj and growing fast.:D

[killerweed420]

Only congress can reclassify cannabis because of the international treaties in place. No other fed has the authority to do so. Not even the president.

It is being left upto the states, look at Oregon, it is now a schedule 2 and meth is a schedule 1 now... they switched.:D:pimp:

Not exactly true. The DEA can and has reclassified drugs but its only a temporary reclassification until it goes before congress. The DEA just banned a list of drugs used in Spice and K2.
The fight will never be over. There are powerful segments of society that just do not believe that you own the rights to your own body.

[time4me]

Which means our only alternative is to change our government so "segments of society" are not allowed to interfere with our individual choices that cause no harm to others. But isn't that what our Constitution is for?

[jamessr]

Not exactly true. The DEA can and has reclassified drugs but its only a temporary reclassification until it goes before congress. The DEA just banned a list of drugs used in Spice and K2.
The fight will never be over. There are powerful segments of society that just do not believe that you own the rights to your own body.

Cannabis is the only drug congress has control over because of the international treaties in place...those drugs you mentioned are "SYNTHETIC" COMPOUNDED, which the U.S. agencies have authority over to reschedule...

Like I said, apples/apples, not orange/apple.

[jamessr]

Which means our only alternative is to change our government so "segments of society" are not allowed to interfere with our individual choices that cause no harm to others. But isn't that what our Constitution is for?

Think of our constitution as a business contract between a corp. and society...and since they wrote it, they have some majority say so in some aspects...when you change your view point to corp./contract law..things come to light real quick like.;)

[justpics]

James, not all drugs are marijuana, not all marijuana users are medical.

Spending twice what Nixon did as a percent of budget on law enforcment versus treatment is a step backwards, especially when the rhetoric is all about treatment.

[jamessr]

James, not all drugs are marijuana, not all marijuana users are medical.

Spending twice what Nixon did as a percent of budget on law enforcment versus treatment is a step backwards, especially when the rhetoric is all about treatment.

True but, I was trying to be specific about how cannabis is different in the way it is treated from other drugs in the big picture. And when you compare the amount of money spend in the war on drugs...you see the disparity your pointing out. Our policies are built on international law, along with our budgets..it is not just domestic. Which some forget in their equations.

RHETORIC remind me of save the children mumbo jumbo to attach our money to flow to politicians and then rape our kids by budget cuts. It's nothing but money shifting policies to fool the public abroad.

[killerweed420]

Would sure be nice of we returned to the constitution. But I don't see it happening. The repubs don't care any more about the constitution than the dems do. Maybe in a couple years we'll look like Tunisia.

[jamessr]

Would sure be nice of we returned to the constitution. But I don't see it happening. The repubs don't care any more about the constitution than the dems do. Maybe in a couple years we'll look like Tunisia.

As you can see, our constitution is being crossed out line by line as time goes forward. The reasoning for this is so we can become insolvent as a nation and become just like the EU...it's a money thing..world bank thing. History of our planet co-equal with human nature shows this as a fact in motion.:(

[jamessr]

I have a question? How does one register under a legislative act which has not yet been enacted.

In case you didn't know this yet, they already have a list of "known" advertised dispensaries in which leo/state prosecutors have targeted... anyone not on this list yet may respond and get identified in the process as a target instead of being covered.

Who is them time??

Because it is our legislators whom are debating this and making laws in our best interests.

It is the executive branch demanding and pushing illegal conduct no matter what.

It is the judicial branch having all the fun with it though... thats the branch which needs the harnesses if any do... as without a judges authorization, no leo has any authority in wa. to do anything to any qualifying patient... it's all about the property and it's category as "contraband".

News flash from CDC about the list...oh my word.

Who comprises the Washington Cannabis Association has been very unclear. The WCA was created by activist attorney and Sensible Washington founder Douglas Hiatt in October. The group hired the volunteer Sensible Washington director Ezra Eickmeyer for $5000 per month starting in October, and hired the volunteer Sensible Washington media director Phillip Dawdy in November. Dawdy announced the group to the Seattle Weekly, claiming it was comprised of "two to three dozen business." Weeks later, Dawdy scaled that number back, telling the Associated Press it consisted of "about two dozen" businesses. According to the public records WCA is required to file, both of these number are inflated, and the WCA was actually comprised of ten members who could afford the $5000 entry fee. See:


* http://cdc.coop/docs/wca_eickmeyer_registration.pdf


According to these records, which can be found on the Public Disclosure Commission's web site (Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/)), the WCA is:


* Evergreen Holistic Center
* People Helping People
* Tacoma and Seattle Cross
* Medical Movement Network, LLC / THC List
* Individual Freedoms Corporation
* COBRA Medical Group
* Compassion in Action / Dunshee House
* Sacred Plant Medicine
* Green Hope Patient Network
* Sensable Patient Network


These are the medical cannabis businesses that are working to ensure they receive preferential treatment when it comes to future licensing of medical cannabis businesses. And for the time being, they have succeeded in adding a "grandfather clause" to the law, which states that currently operating growers and dispensers will be provided an affirmative defense to cannabis-related charges between the time the bill passes and the time licensing is set up in 2012 -- if those growers and dispensers had filed a corporate registration with the Secretary of State before January 1, 2011. And, of course, all WCA members have done this. We believe the WCA threatened to oppose the bill if this clause was not added.


Currently, this "you are protected if you have a pre-2011 corporate registration" clause is our single largest concern about the bill. Our membership has identified equal access to licensing as one of only two requirements for supporting this bill, and we intend to work on behalf of all Washington medical cannabis activists and business people to modify this language to ensure equal access to licensing.:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[jamessr]

Medical Ethics and Cannabis Prohibition, by Richard Bonnie, JD (Complete) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5020750229987249356#)

This is a good video to watch by Dr. Bonnie to understand some issue(s) most don't understand.

[jamessr]

Dr. Bearman explaining the world of cannabis, and american mj policy.

Medical Cannabis Historical Review, with David Bearman, MD (Complete) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2631833561914822337#)

[jamessr]

This is an overview of how other countries internationally are dealing with cannabis legalities.


International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (http://www.cannabis-med.org/index.php?tpl=page&id=236&lng=en)

[killerweed420]

News flash from CDC about the list...oh my word.

Who comprises the Washington Cannabis Association has been very unclear. The WCA was created by activist attorney and Sensible Washington founder Douglas Hiatt in October. The group hired the volunteer Sensible Washington director Ezra Eickmeyer for $5000 per month starting in October, and hired the volunteer Sensible Washington media director Phillip Dawdy in November. Dawdy announced the group to the Seattle Weekly, claiming it was comprised of "two to three dozen business." Weeks later, Dawdy scaled that number back, telling the Associated Press it consisted of "about two dozen" businesses. According to the public records WCA is required to file, both of these number are inflated, and the WCA was actually comprised of ten members who could afford the $5000 entry fee. See:


* http://cdc.coop/docs/wca_eickmeyer_registration.pdf


According to these records, which can be found on the Public Disclosure Commission's web site (Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/)), the WCA is:


* Evergreen Holistic Center
* People Helping People
* Tacoma and Seattle Cross
* Medical Movement Network, LLC / THC List
* Individual Freedoms Corporation
* COBRA Medical Group
* Compassion in Action / Dunshee House
* Sacred Plant Medicine
* Green Hope Patient Network
* Sensable Patient Network


These are the medical cannabis businesses that are working to ensure they receive preferential treatment when it comes to future licensing of medical cannabis businesses. And for the time being, they have succeeded in adding a "grandfather clause" to the law, which states that currently operating growers and dispensers will be provided an affirmative defense to cannabis-related charges between the time the bill passes and the time licensing is set up in 2012 -- if those growers and dispensers had filed a corporate registration with the Secretary of State before January 1, 2011. And, of course, all WCA members have done this. We believe the WCA threatened to oppose the bill if this clause was not added.


Currently, this "you are protected if you have a pre-2011 corporate registration" clause is our single largest concern about the bill. Our membership has identified equal access to licensing as one of only two requirements for supporting this bill, and we intend to work on behalf of all Washington medical cannabis activists and business people to modify this language to ensure equal access to licensing.:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Got to say I'm pretty disappointed Doug Hiatt would have anything to do with this. I guess everyone has a price.
I didn't connect who Ezra was till I read up on him a little. Son of one of Washington's most corrupt legislature"s.

[hiamps]

Seems it is always about the money, and that Doug would do this suprises me not at all. It is all a bunch of crap talk to the people and secretly behinds the scenes trying to figure how to keep the most in THEIR pockets. Yet eveyones says "he's a good guy he is trying to help...." Hemp fest is all smoke and mirrors also.

[jamessr]

Got to say I'm pretty disappointed Doug Hiatt would have anything to do with this. I guess everyone has a price.
I didn't connect who Ezra was till I read up on him a little. Son of one of Washington's most corrupt legislature"s.

I told you about huggy dougy and you told me I was wrong...I know the players very well my friend...experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. And I got some with these folks more than once. My son was told by hiatt himself in my presence to go away before he got himself killed..he lives in alaska now. My appeal will address why he was told this.:D

Can you say theft of honest services??

[time4me]

You will be at the Thursday meeting, right? I have not heard from ion, but she could be on a trip, so I've had another ride offer and didn't want to turn it down.
We live in interesting times

[jamessr]

You will be at the Thursday meeting, right? I have not heard from ion, but she could be on a trip, so I've had another ride offer and didn't want to turn it down.
We live in interesting times

I was only going to assist a patient in need...no need for me to go now. ;)

Seems though from the new found info.,like it is going to be a crazy public meeting...since they already made behind close door deals for 5k each:wtf:..no need for me to get hot under the collar since my voice will not be heard..nor anyone else for that matter. I got a different remedy.:D

I hope you get the answers your looking for though. I got mine from the CDC today, posted above. seattle mmj mafia exclusive deal, no others allowed..textbook case.:mad:

[time4me]

Government's broken, health care system is broken, it's time to stand up and speak out.

[jamessr]

Government's broken, health care system is broken, it's time to stand up and speak out.

Money talks, voices walk. The power of the pen beats them all.;) The political torpedo.:D

This deal has been in the works for many, many years...I had an chance to buy in but, choose not to be a part which harms our state..I choose to fight in the courts.

[boafmabalzich]

What s the estimated cost of a producers license?

[jamessr]

What s the estimated cost of a producers license?

That $$$ figure is not out of the closet yet, that I am aware of, yet. It would appear that a $$ amount would exceed 10k to keep up with other states.

[killerweed420]

Its truelly a shame what this country has become. Everything is about money any more. Civil rights take a second or third seat. And when things only pertain to money, violence ensues. And the problem with that is usually the wrong people die.

[jamessr]

That $$$ figure is not out of the closet yet, that I am aware of, yet. It would appear that a $$ amount would exceed 10k to keep up with other states.

Word going around is $75,000 for the grower permit with $2 mil. bond. Sounds about right.

[gypski]

Establish an account today and beat the rush and the so-called Washington Cannabis Associates $5000 entry fee. Independents should not be disqualified.

MarijuanaPOS.com Launches Risk-Free Merchant Accounts Services for the Medical Marijuana Industry | StoptheDrugWar.org (http://stopthedrugwar.org/news/2011/jan/18/marijuanaposcom_launches_riskfre)

MarijuanaPOS.com Launches Risk-Free Merchant Accounts Services for the Medical Marijuana Industry | Benzinga.com (http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/11/01/p786732/marijuanapos-com-launches-risk-free-merchant-accounts-services-for-the-)

[gypski]

I also have an inactive legal Washington State 501(c), that I'm willing to turn over to the right people. I have the original certificate of incorporation, and the access key to the corporations data and I'm a board member. I took control after hanky panky with funds. So any honest people who want to take it over contact me. There are no tax liabilities or any other encumbrances. :cool:

Its stated mission is to provide non-prescription medicine to a special class of patient. And that is clearly state in the Bylaws of Incorporation. :smokin:

[oddfoto]

gypski, i'd be interested in talking with you about the 501(c). We currently operate under the name of Mystic Medicine Co-op. Our non-profit will be finalized within the week but it looks like that will be too late if these other folks get their way. You can find our info on Northwest's best resource guide for medical marijuana patients - Find your meds! (http://www.thclist.com), not sure if I can post our number or email on this forum.

[gypski]

gypski, i'd be interested in talking with you about the 501(c). We currently operate under the name of Mystic Medicine Co-op. Our non-profit will be finalized within the week but it looks like that will be too late if these other folks get their way. You can find our info on Northwest's best resource guide for medical marijuana patients - Find your meds! (http://www.thclist.com), not sure if I can post our number or email on this forum.

I've already been approached, and they are people I owe first crack to. And, I'm weighing whether I will stay on the board or just turn it all over. I appreciate your interest, but in all fairness...................:thumbsup:

And, if you have already applied, you are good to go. The time starts with the initial filing. It took me a couple weeks to the certificate and I had to add a portion to the bylaws. they won't pass any law on Thursday either. Its only a hearing on the bill, not a vote. :cool:

[gypski]

Here is a draft that I have that I used to fill in the Articles of Incorporation. I left the name out. Each number pertains to an article. :cool: And this passed the states muster. :D

(2) Shall exist until dissolution by board of Directors
(3) To provide non-prescription medicine to a special distinct class of patient as a network or cooperative of contiguous designated providers.
(4) (a)All non-board members must hold a valid Washington State Doctors Authorization for specific medical conditions and necessities. All non-board members have equal relative rights.
(b)All members shall pay a yearly dues/membership fee to be determined yearly.
The initial dues/membership fee will be Twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per year.
(5) No capital stock shall be issued. All members shall assign their privileges of non-prescription medicine in escrow with the corporation. The distribution of shares to members shall not exceed their designated allotments without written permission of the majority of the board members.
(6) The corporation shall distribute surpluses as per vote and determination of the majority of the board of directors in the denominations or other values as determined by the majority of the board of directors.
(7) Distribution of assets upon dissolution shall be determined by a majority of the board of directors.
(8) Any dissenting member shall be limited to a return of held shares equal to the value at the time of the memberâ??s separation from the cooperative.
(9) To be determined
(10) â??
(11) â??
(12) â??


I have a hard copy too of what I submitted to the state.

[jamessr]

From the CDC:

In a previous email alert, we wrote that we believed the Washington Cannabis Association was responsible for the insertion of Section 1201 into the medical cannabis bill, SB 5073. This section provides an affirmative defense to businesses that have been providing medical cannabis to authorized patients, so long as they registered a corporation with the Secretary of State before January 1, 2011. Our belief was 100% wrong. The section was inserted by Senator Kohl-Welles after hearing from many currently-operating dispensers that wanted interim protections while waiting for proposed rules in 2012.


We would like to take responsibility for this misstatement, correct the record, and apologize to the Washington Cannabis Association for the grief we have caused them by our error. We would also like to apologize to Senator Kohl-Welles for any stress we have caused her.


Senator Kohl-Welles indicates that it will be very challenging to keep section 1201 in the bill. The CDC believes this section fails our "equal access to licensing" requirement, though the Senator indicates such a provision would not give anybody preferential treatment for licensing after July 1, 2012. We remain concerned about allowing some dispeners to operate with an affirmative defense because they had been doing so under a corporate registration in the past, while not providing that same affirmative defense to unregistered, late-registered or non-corporate dispensers.

[oddfoto]

I've already been approached, and they are people I owe first crack to. And, I'm weighing whether I will stay on the board or just turn it all over. I appreciate your interest, but in all fairness...................:thumbsup:

And, if you have already applied, you are good to go. The time starts with the initial filing. It took me a couple weeks to the certificate and I had to add a portion to the bylaws. they won't pass any law on Thursday either. Its only a hearing on the bill, not a vote. :cool:

No problem Brother. As soon as I posted I received the email from the CDC clarifying their mistake. Hopefully the b.s. won't make it through with the rest of the legislation. :wtf:

[killerweed420]

From the CDC:

In a previous email alert, we wrote that we believed the Washington Cannabis Association was responsible for the insertion of Section 1201 into the medical cannabis bill, SB 5073. This section provides an affirmative defense to businesses that have been providing medical cannabis to authorized patients, so long as they registered a corporation with the Secretary of State before January 1, 2011. Our belief was 100% wrong. The section was inserted by Senator Kohl-Welles after hearing from many currently-operating dispensers that wanted interim protections while waiting for proposed rules in 2012.


We would like to take responsibility for this misstatement, correct the record, and apologize to the Washington Cannabis Association for the grief we have caused them by our error. We would also like to apologize to Senator Kohl-Welles for any stress we have caused her.


Senator Kohl-Welles indicates that it will be very challenging to keep section 1201 in the bill. The CDC believes this section fails our "equal access to licensing" requirement, though the Senator indicates such a provision would not give anybody preferential treatment for licensing after July 1, 2012. We remain concerned about allowing some dispeners to operate with an affirmative defense because they had been doing so under a corporate registration in the past, while not providing that same affirmative defense to unregistered, late-registered or non-corporate dispensers.
Thats good news of a sort any ways.

[jamessr]

Sample Memorandum -- Intent to Defraud Or Mislead
21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2) INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT
LIMITED TO, INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD
THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF MISBRANDED DRUGS

INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD DIRECTED TOWARD THE FDA
SATISFIES THIS ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE

INTRODUCTION

Any person who commits one of the prohibited acts set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 331 has violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). However, any person who commits such an act "with the intent to defraud or mislead" is guilty of a felony and is subject, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 333(b)(2), to punishment of up to three year's imprisonment.[FN1] Counts Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine (formerly Ten) of the Indictment in this case charge the Defendants with manufacturing and thereafter introducing into interstate commerce specified misbranded and adulterated drugs - "with the intent to defraud and mislead" - in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) or (k)[FN2] and 333(a)(2). Count Four and Count Ten (formerly Count Eleven) charge that the defendants - "with the intent to defraud or mislead" - failed to maintain accurate batch production records (Count Four) and product complaint records (Count Ten).

FN1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571, the maximum potential fines for violations of the FD&C Act are $250,000. per count for individuals and $500,000. per count for organizations.

FN2. 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) prohibits, inter alia, introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce any drug which is adulterated or misbranded. Under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a) a drug is adulterated if it consists in any part of any filthy substance, or has been held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or if the methods used in its manufacture do not conform to or are not operated or administered in conformity with good manufacturing practices. Under 21 U.S.C. 352(a) a drug is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. This definition of false or misleading includes, but is not limited to, the failure on the labeling to reveal material facts relating to the safety or efficacy of the drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(n).

A FRAUD DIRECTED AGAINST THE FDA SATISFIES THE MENS REA REQUIREMENTS OF 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2)

The mens rea element of Section 333(a)(2) - the intent to defraud or mislead - can be established by evidence of intent to defraud the customers of violative products. In addition, however, a seller of violative products acts "with the intent to defraud" as defined by section 333(a)(2) if he or she takes affirmative steps to evade detection by, and thus mislead, regulatory authorities. See, e.g., United States v. Andersen, 45 F.3d 217, 220 (7th Cir. 1995)("The FDA represents the public, and a deliberate attempt to mislead the FDA should be considered as clearly a fraud as are attempts to mislead customers or other individuals."); United States v. Arlen, 947 F.2d 139, 143 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1480 (1992); United States v. Cambra, 933 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Bradshaw, 840 F.2d 871, 874 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 924 (1988); see also United States v. Mitcheltree, 940 F.2d 1329, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1991) (adopts the Bradshaw analysis concerning "intent to defraud or mislead" but adds a refinement pertinent to misbranding offenses). Appellate courts have uniformly held that FD&C Act cases involving fraud on regulatory authorities are properly sentenced as felonies under U.S.S.G. ڈF1.1. E.g., Andersen, 45 F.3d at 220; Arlen, 947 F.2d at 143-44, 146-47; Cambra, 933 F.2d at 756.

The plain language of 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2) provides for felony treatment for any person who violates a provision of 21 U.S.C. § 331 "with the intent to defraud or mislead." The focus is upon the violator's intent; there is no limitation with respect to whom the violator's intent is directed. Thus, when a person manufactures or distributes misbranded or adulterated drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) or 331(k) with intent to defraud or mislead either a purchaser of the drugs or any other person or entity (including the FDA), that person is subject to the punishment specified in § 333(a)(2).

Courts have held that schemes to circumvent the requirements of the FD&C Act constitute schemes to defraud the FDA. United States v. Bradshaw, 840 F.2d 871, 874 (11th Cir.) (expressly finding that an illicit steroid distribution scheme amounted to fraud against the FDA and state regulatory authorities), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 305 (1988); see also, e.g., Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966) (holding that an agreement to impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful function of the FDA constitutes a conspiracy to defraud an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371). Fraud against the FDA alleged in this indictment includes that the defendants interfered with the agency's governmental function and undermined the agency's important statutory responsibilities by preventing legitimate inspection and by preparing and maintaining false records that were required to be maintained under the FD&C Act.

The starting point of statutory construction is the plain language of the statute itself. Greyhound Corp. v. M[t]. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U.S. 322, 330 (1978). If the language of the statute is clear, there is no need to look elsewhere. Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 492 (1947)." Because the words of § 333(a)(2) are unambiguous, there is no basis for or need to look beyond those words for enlightenment as to the statute's meaning. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917) ("Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.").Nonetheless, a review of judicial decisions construing the FD&C Act and a consideration of the purposes to be served by the Act further support the conclusion that "intent to defraud or mislead" governmental regulatory bodies, and not just the ultimate consumer of misbranded drugs, is punishable as a felony under § 333(a)(2).

Although, to the government's knowledge, prior to the Bradshaw case in 1988, 840 F.2d 871, no written opinion construed the "intent to defraud or mislead" provision of § 333(b) [now codified as 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2)], the leading cases interpreting the related provisions of the FDC Act, 21 U.S.C. § 333(a), all concluded that the Act's enforcement provisions are to be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

In United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943), the Court was faced with the question of whether a corporate officer, and not just the corporation itself, could be subject to prosecution and conviction under § 333(a) for introducing misbranded and adulterated drugs into interstate commerce in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). The Court of Appeals had reversed the conviction of the officer, Dotterweich, relying on an exception to the criminal liability provisions of the Act contained in 21 U.S.C. § 333(c), the so-called "guaranty clause," which insulates from criminal liability a person who introduces a violative product into interstate commerce in reliance upon a guaranty, given by the original supplier of the product, that the product is not adulterated or misbranded. 320 U.S. at 279-80. The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals construction of the guaranty clause as "read[ing] an exception to an important provision safeguarding the public welfare with a liberality which more appropriately belongs to enforcement of the central purpose of the Act." Id. at 284 (emphasis added). The Court said:

The guaranty clause cannot be read in isolation. The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was an exertion by Congress of its power to keep impure and adulterated food and drugs out of the channels of commerce. By the Act of 1938,[FN3] Congress extended the range of its control over illicit and noxious articles and stiffened the penalties for disobedience. The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these purposes should infuse construction of the legislation if it is to be treated as a working instrument of government and not merely as a collection of English words.

FN3. The Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301--392, as amended, is the present FDC Act.

Id. at 280. Based on this analysis of the Act's purposes, the Court reinstated Dotterweich's conviction.

In United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 692 (1948), the Supreme Court once again rejected an appellate court's "narrow construction" of the FDC Act and upheld a conviction under the Act's misbranding provisions. The particular FD&C Act provision at issue in Sullivan was 21 U.S.C. § 331(k), which prohibited the doing of any act with respect to a drug, "while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce," that rendered the drug misbranded. The Supreme Court rejected the appellate court's construction that § 331(k) applied only to acts done by the first person to hold the drug after interstate shipment and not by subsequent intrastate purchasers of the drug who also held it for sale:

[T]he language used by Congress broadly and unqualifiedly prohibits misbranding articles held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, without regard to how long after the shipment the misbranding occurred, how many intrastate sales had intervened, or who had received the articles at the end of the interstate shipment. Accordingly we find that the conduct of the respondent falls within the literal language of § 331(k).

Id. at 696.

The Sullivan Court found ample support for its decision in the purposes underlying the FDC Act:

Given the meaning that we have found the literal language of § 331(k) to have, it is thoroughly consistent with the general aims and purposes of the Act. For the Act as a whole was designed primarily to protect consumers from dangerous products. This Court so recognized in United States v. Dotterweich .... Its purpose was to safeguard the consumer by applying the Act to articles from the moment of their introduction into interstate commerce all the way to the moment of their delivery to the ultimate consumer.

Id.

More recently, in United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 672-73 (1975), the Court reaffirmed the strict liability of corporate officers and agents, as enunciated in Dotterweich, for misdemeanor violations of the FDC Act:

Congress has seen fit to enforce the accountability of responsible corporate agents dealing with products which may affect the health of consumers by penal sanctions cast in rigorous terms, and the obligation of the courts is to give them effect so long as they do not violate the Constitution.

These cited cases are part of a large, uniform body of law which has consistently held that the FDC Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its public health purposes.

The FDC Act protects consumers from adulterated and misbranded drugs by, inter alia, authorizing agents of FDA to enter and inspect the contents of any premises or vehicle in which drugs are held for or after introduction into interstate commerce to ensure proper storing, handling, and dispensing of drugs. 21 U.S.C. § 374. "Nothing is clearer than that the later legislation [the 1938 Act adopting the criminal provisions of § 333] was designed to enlarge and stiffen the penal net and not to narrow and loosen it." United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. at 282.

Moreover, limiting the Act's felony provision only to cases involving "intentional misconduct intended to deceive the ultimate consumer" would render § 333(a)(2) a nullity with respect to several of the violations prohibited by 21 U.S.C. § 331. Section 331 prohibits not only violative activities that directly impact upon consumers but also activities that would inhibit FDA from fulfilling its regulatory mission. For example, § 331 prohibits refusal to permit access to and copying of records of interstate drug shipments, the failure to maintain records required under the Act such as drug manufacturing and production records and records of adverse drug reactions, refusal to permit entry or inspection of drug facilities by FDA, and the failure to register with FDA as a drug manufacturer. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(e), (f), & (p).

Section 333(a)(2) applies by its terms to any person who violates any provision of § 331 with intent to defraud or mislead. While since such violations as those just listed do not directly affect the ultimate consumers of drugs (but rather affect FDA's ability effectively to regulate the drug industry and, thereby, to protect consumers), they nevertheless constitute felonies under the FD&C Act. Any alternative interpretation of § 333(a)(2) would read the statute out of existence with respect to whole classes of violations. This would, in part, "render the statute useless, a result inconsistent with the well-established principle of statutory construction requiring that all parts of an act be given effect, if at all possible." In re Hall, 752 F.2d 582, 586 (11th Cir. 1985); Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott and Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 633 (1973) ("well-settled rule of statutory construction that all parts of a statute, if at all possible, are to be given effect" applied to FDC Act's "new drug" definition).

Any contrary reading of the statute § 333(a)(2) would thus be, in reality, a loose reading of the statute that would impose limitations, for the benefit of violators, not present in the plain words or the manifest purposes of the FD&C Act. In analogous settings, courts have declined to read such limitations into otherwise unambiguous statutory language. See Riggs v. United States, 280 F.2d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 1960) (upholding conviction for passing counterfeit currency with intent to defraud even though recipient of currency knew it was counterfeit; "'intent to defraud' required by 18 U.S.C. § 472,[FN4] when, as here, such intent is not restricted by the terms of the indictment or by a bill of particulars to any specified person, may be an 'intent to defraud unknown third persons or the United States itself"); Bachrack v. United States, 75 F.2d 824, 824-25 (5th Cir. 1935) (statute prohibiting possession of counterfeit internal revenue stamps "uses the comprehensive term 'with intent to defraud' for the very purpose of making it immaterial whether the offender intended to defraud the government or some particular individual"); United States v. Cattle King Packing Co., 793 F.2d 232, 237-38 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 573 (1986) (upholding convictions for violations of Federal Meat Inspection Act, with intent to defraud,[FN3] where defendants attempted to avoid inspection of spoiled meat by federal inspectors).

FN3. The Federal Meat Inspection Act makes any violation a misdemeanor and, modeled on the FDC Act, provides for enhanced felony punishment "if such violation involves intent to defraud." 21 U.S.C. § 676(a).

FN4. 18 U.S.C. § 472 provides, in relevant part, that "[w]hoever, with intent to defraud, passes ... any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."

There is simply no authority for any contrary interpretation of § 333(a)(2).

FRAUD ON THE CONSUMER

FIRM's [NOTE: name changed from original] manufacture of adulterated and misbranded drugs for distribution to unknown consumers also defrauded those ultimate consumers of those drugs. See Bradshaw, 840 F.2d at 873-74 n. 4. In addition to being deprived of the FD&C Act's safeguards that are designed to prevent consumers from having drugs in their possession that may be unsafe or ineffective, these individuals also received less than they bargained for. Consumers did not know that drug products they purchased had passed the established expiration date, were made from raw material that was delivered to FIRM in punctured barrels, contained metal fragments, desiccant and other extraneous matter, had been manufactured using unapproved and undocumented manufacturing procedures and that the quality control personal who tested these drugs had been instructed not to record failing test results. Had the ultimate consumers been informed of these facts, those products would, of course, have been unmarketable.

CONCLUSION

Intent to defraud or mislead, as defined at 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2), can be established by demonstrating a fraud upon either the ultimate consumer of the product, or upon the FDA, or both. In this case the evidence demonstrates that the defendants attempted to defraud and mislead both the ultimate consumer and the FDA.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES B. BURNS
United States Attorney

SUSAN E. COX
Assistance United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-1223

LAWRENCE G. MCDADE
DEBORAH S. SMOLOVER
Office of Consumer Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 386
Washington, D.C. 10044
(202) 307-0138
(202) 307-0090

[cited in USAM 4-8.205]
:(

[killerweed420]

Any person who commits one of the prohibited acts set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 331 has violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). However, any person who commits such an act "with the intent to defraud or mislead" is guilty of a felony and is subject, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 333(b)(2), to punishment of up to three year's imprisonment.
Too bad these laws weren't worth the paper they're written on. American law is no different than most other third world countries. You get the legal decision you can afford to pay for.

[jamessr]

Any person who commits one of the prohibited acts set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 331 has violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). However, any person who commits such an act "with the intent to defraud or mislead" is guilty of a felony and is subject, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 333(b)(2), to punishment of up to three year's imprisonment.
Too bad these laws weren't worth the paper they're written on. American law is no different than most other third world countries. You get the legal decision you can afford to pay for.

This law would apply to any business which intends to put into the "marketplace" cannabis with a label for public consumption before going through the FDA for approval first...

So when our legislature decides to put this legislation into law it will be stopped from being implemented by the feds... i.e. look what happened to rcw 69.51 cannabis therapeutics research act.

These legislators know this and figure we the people are to stupid to figure it out until the ball drops and it is to late.

We will be in court again for the next 20 yrs.

[killerweed420]

This law would apply to any business which intends to put into the "marketplace" cannabis with a label for public consumption before going through the FDA for approval first...

So when our legislature decides to put this legislation into law it will be stopped from being implemented by the feds... i.e. look what happened to rcw 69.51 cannabis therapeutics research act.

These legislators know this and figure we the people are to stupid to figure it out until the ball drops and it is to late.

We will be in court again for the next 20 yrs.

I agree. No end in sight yet. More innocent people will die and be persecuted as our congress sits on its hands.

[iceshark]

Hello, Im Iceshark, A MOD and reviewer from Thclist.com in WA

We all need to get on the horn to our senators and bill writing senetor Kohls to voice our displeasure in this cluster FCK!

Do you realize that Mike Cernell the Lakewood Senator put an amendment in that passed today for final bill. Its public on WA webpage.

You will need to every 3 months get an updated approval for your med paperwork from your doctor. No matter what is wrong with you! Plus if your doctor is deemed to write too many MMJ papers they will be subject to investigation!!

Do not let this slip by into law as its destined to now! First New Mexico went backwards. Then Montana, now Wa!

So this really sucks!

[gypski]

The initiative is the only way to even get honest dialog and law. The laws were meant to be written by the people without approval of another body. Even the courts cannot overrule the peoples will in the true legislative process. And now we have to prove it. And all the jailhouse lawyers can keep their comments to themselves. They aren't worth the wasted words. Frankly, the laws against cannabis alone, have been bogus from the beginning and have all been directed to enhance the corporate take over of and mastery of people's lives. Like DuPont's old slogan, "Better living through chemistry". And we all the know the poisonous side effects chemistry medications bring as baggage. :twocents:


Hello, Im Iceshark, A MOD and reviewer from Thclist.com in WA

We all need to get on the horn to our senators and bill writing senetor Kohls to voice our displeasure in this cluster FCK!

Do you realize that Mike Cernell the Lakewood Senator put an amendment in that passed today for final bill. Its public on WA webpage.

You will need to every 3 months get an updated approval for your med paperwork from your doctor. No matter what is wrong with you! Plus if your doctor is deemed to write too many MMJ papers they will be subject to investigation!!

Do not let this slip by into law as its destined to now! First New Mexico went backwards. Then Montana, now Wa!

So this really sucks!

[jamessr]

Hello, Im Iceshark, A MOD and reviewer from Thclist.com in WA

We all need to get on the horn to our senators and bill writing senetor Kohls to voice our displeasure in this cluster FCK!

Do you realize that Mike Cernell the Lakewood Senator put an amendment in that passed today for final bill. Its public on WA webpage.

You will need to every 3 months get an updated approval for your med paperwork from your doctor. No matter what is wrong with you! Plus if your doctor is deemed to write too many MMJ papers they will be subject to investigation!!

Do not let this slip by into law as its destined to now! First New Mexico went backwards. Then Montana, now Wa!

So this really sucks!

Not much anyone can do but, sue the shit out of them.. they are contracted to do what they are doing throughout all mmj states.

Here is a sneak peek at what is going on.. Federal governments Scheme and Artifice to defraud The mmj community (Page 1) - Legal Empowerment Zone - ASA Forum (http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=6302)

Been on this for some time now...waiting and watching...:wtf::wtf::wtf:

[jamessr]

Hello, Im Iceshark, A MOD and reviewer from Thclist.com in WA

We all need to get on the horn to our senators and bill writing senetor Kohls to voice our displeasure in this cluster FCK!

Do you realize that Mike Cernell the Lakewood Senator put an amendment in that passed today for final bill. Its public on WA webpage.

You will need to every 3 months get an updated approval for your med paperwork from your doctor. No matter what is wrong with you! Plus if your doctor is deemed to write too many MMJ papers they will be subject to investigation!!

Do not let this slip by into law as its destined to now! First New Mexico went backwards. Then Montana, now Wa!

So this really sucks!

P.S., they had better make it a schedule II if they think they are going to make anyone see a healthcare practitioner every 3 months... what a joke.:wtf:

This person needs to be removed from office for defrauding the people of honest government... that is not a joke.:D

[hiamps]

Hello, Im Iceshark, A MOD and reviewer from Thclist.com in WA

We all need to get on the horn to our senators and bill writing senetor Kohls to voice our displeasure in this cluster FCK!

Do you realize that Mike Cernell the Lakewood Senator put an amendment in that passed today for final bill. Its public on WA webpage.

You will need to every 3 months get an updated approval for your med paperwork from your doctor. No matter what is wrong with you! Plus if your doctor is deemed to write too many MMJ papers they will be subject to investigation!!

Do not let this slip by into law as its destined to now! First New Mexico went backwards. Then Montana, now Wa!

So this really sucks!

I wish you would provide a link to Mike Carrels amendment, couldn't find it. He is a real piece of work, when Lakewood made it illegal to walk dogs off leash in Steilacoom Park, he just went earlier to let his German Shepards run off leash. Guess Laws are meant for him.

[killerweed420]

Yep the intiative process is still out best bet. Get it passed here first and then we need to find an organization to lead a federal intiative process. It can't be NORML, they're not interested in legalization. Would be great to get a couple of people like Willie Nelson, Jack Nicholson and the like to be on the board of directors to get more publicity.

[iceshark]

Here is link on another site. It contains the links to state amemdments. This really sucks. We need to get on the horn!

2/7/2011 Vote on SB 5073 (http://www.thclist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1953&page=3)

[killerweed420]

Just more and more proof that we need to quit relying on our legislatures to do the right thing. All they do is muddy the waters. Our original intiative for MMJ was fine. It was a little vague but if the courts followed the intent of the law everything would have been fine. The legislature has just made it progressively worse every year.
Stick with the intiative process and plan on refiling the intiative every 3 or 4 years.

[jamessr]

Just more and more proof that we need to quit relying on our legislatures to do the right thing. All they do is muddy the waters. Our original intiative for MMJ was fine. It was a little vague but if the courts followed the intent of the law everything would have been fine. The legislature has just made it progressively worse every year.
Stick with the intiative process and plan on refiling the intiative every 3 or 4 years.

Words directly from the chief of police of sitka Alaska..cannabis is like our state flower.. who cares if you smoke weed, hell I smoke weed.:cool:

So why isn't Alska having these same cannabis issues like the rest of us.?? They have a registry program also.

It is the supreme ct. dba the state of Alsaka. Not the legislature. The purse seems to be the high court for the people, not their own greed of office to control. The ravin ruling speaks volumes.:thumbsup:

[killerweed420]

Its just a matter of some of these LEO's facing the facts. Cannabis causes no problems and the majority of the people want it legalized. They need to focus there energies on catching criminals that are hurting people. Cannabis is hurting no one.