New here, what the deal

Howdy, new to the area.

Anyway, I have medical issues, and want to know whats the deal with medical mj in Seattle/King County and Pierce County. I live in Seattle right now, but will probably move down to Pierce this summer.

I know I can get a card if I need/want to, easily. But I wanna know what kind of shit to expect, from just getting caught possessing, to growing. What are the odds you think of Washington being decriminalized, how soon you thinl, what effect it would have on someone growing for personal use? Do you think if it happens soon, is it worth waiting for?

Thanks all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan

Howdy, new to the area.

Anyway, I have medical issues, and want to know whats the deal with medical mj in Seattle/King County and Pierce County. I live in Seattle right now, but will probably move down to Pierce this summer.

I know I can get a card if I need/want to, easily. But I wanna know what kind of shit to expect, from just getting caught possessing, to growing. What are the odds you think of Washington being decriminalized, how soon you thinl, what effect it would have on someone growing for personal use? Do you think if it happens soon, is it worth waiting for?

Thanks all

---

Even getting caught with one plant is a felony in Washington. Have seen quite a few people busted though where the cop just pulls the plants up and leaves if its a couple. Its definitely worth your while to stay legal. Get the authorization and you can grow up to 15 plants and have 24 ounces of finished product on hand.
Don't see Washington passing any legalization laws for a while. There hasn't been much of a pushe here yet. But if Cali passes theres I can see us heading that direction.

WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY



PETITION FOR ADOPTION,

AMENDMEMNT, REPEAL

MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING

GROUNDS FOR RESCHEDULING MEDICAL MJ.

Thirteen states accept the safety of marijuana for medical use: Alaska
Statutes § 17.37.070(8) (2008); California Health & Safety Code §
11362.5 (2008); Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, Section 14(b)
(2007); Hawaii Revised Statutes § 329-121(3) (paragraph 3) (2008); 22
Maine Revised Statutes § 2383-B (5) (2008); MICHIGAN Medical
Marijuana Act (2008) MONTANA Code Annotated, § 50-46-102(5)
(2007); Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated § 453A.120 (2007); New
Mexico Statutes Annotated § 26-2B-2 (2008); Oregon Revised
Statutes § 475.302(8) (2007); Rhode Island General Laws § 21-28.6-3(4)
(2008); 18 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 4472(10) (2007); Annotated
Revised Code Washington (ARCW) § 69.51A.010 (2) (2008).
All of these states allow medical marijuana use, possession, and cultivation.
Federal drug law, 21 U.S.C. § 903, gives the states the authority to determine accepted medical use. See, Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 269-270 (2006): The statute and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally. The silence is understandable given the structure and limitations of federalism, which allow the States "'great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.'" Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1996) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 756, 105 S. Ct. 2380, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985)). "The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to affect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role

in maintaining it." Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. at 275. The Washington State Board of Pharmacy had an affirmative obligation to recommend changes in the schedule in RCW 69.50.204.The 8 factors to be considered by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy in RCW 69.50.201 were considered In The Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Docket No. 86-22, September 6, 1988 (attached as Exhibit C), which resulted in a finding that, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." Id. at pages 58-59. Because no state accepted marijuana's medical use in 1988, the DEA Administrator was able to reject the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge in DEA Docket No. 86-22 that marijuana must be transferred from schedule 1 to schedule 2 of the federal controlled substances act. Because marijuana now has currently accepted medical use in 13 states, because federal law defines accepted medical use to be
whatever the states say it is, and because the DEA's own Administrative Law
Judge has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical
supervision.Marijuana no longer meets the criteria required for inclusion in

Schedule I. The fact that the principle psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been rescheduled by the DEA twice (as well as once internationally), show that even the pure psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is safer than anything in schedules I or II.[/SIZE]
In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the DEA could not put marijuana in Schedule I if marijuana had any accepted medical use:â??Schedule I is the most restrictive schedule (footnote omitted). The Attorney General can include a drug in schedule I only if the drug "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," "has a high potential for abuse," and has "a lack of accepted safety for use

under medical supervision."§§ 812(b) (1) (A)-(C). Under the statute, the Attorney General could not put marijuana into schedule I, if marijuana had any accepted medical use.� In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1(14-15) (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court noted that marijuana could be rescheduled: The CSA provides for the periodic updating of schedules and delegates authority to the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to add, remove, or transfer substances to, from, or between schedules. § 811. The U.S. Supreme Court noted the rescheduling process had not found any accepted medical use of marijuana in the United States prior to 1996. See Raich, 545 U.S. at page 15 n.23.) Schedule I is only the "initial" schedule for marijuana, and Congress never intended the initial schedules to be permanent. Indeed, 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) requires the DEA to "add to", "transfer between", or "remove" Substances from the

schedules as necessary. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) (". . . Initial Schedules of controlled substances Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs Or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, Chemical name or brand name designated: Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations,Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.�).

GROUNDS FOR RESCEDULING INDUSTRIAL MJ.



The cultivation of industrial hemp under licenses issued pursuant to state law



would not violate the Controlled Substances Act (â??CSAâ?�). State law ensures



industrial hemp plants have no potential drug use and limits the parts of the



plant that may enter the stream of commerce to those expressly exempted



from regulation by the CSA, namely, hemp stalk, fiber, seed and oil.





CONCLUSION: MEDICAL MARIJUANA

The Washington State definition for a schedule I controlled substance, RCW



Schedule 1 Tests 69.50.203;



(2) Has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and



(3) Lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision,



No longer applies to marijuana and state law must be amended to reflect these



Changes. The Washington State Board of Pharmacy can reschedule marijuana



Under the rules in RCW 69.50.201, but refuses to accept the fact that is has



medical use. The Board refuses to accept the will of the Washington State



people, The professional opinion of the Washington State Medical Quality



Assurance Commission, to add qualifying conditions to RCW 69.51A,



and Reschedule marijuana in the Washington State controlled Substances Act.



CONCLUSION: INDUSTRIAL MARIJUANA

Congressâ??s own findings and the legislative history of the CSA make clear



Congress did not intend to preclude a state-regulated regime in which only the non-



regulated parts of the hemp plant would enter commerce, and there is absolutely no



risk of diversion of drug marijuana by reason of the cultivation of the hemp plants



themselves, which are useless as drug marijuana. The DEA would be extending its



authority under the CSA into areas of interstate commerce Congress has expressly



chosen not to regulate under the CSA. In-state industrial hemp plants themselves



are in no way fungible with drug marijuana â?¦as no part of the industrial hemp



plant has utility as a drug. The regulated parts of industrial hemp plants could not



possibly be diverted into and â??swellâ?� or increase the supply of drug marijuana

damn now that is a fatass word dump. This is gonna take break or two.

LOL
I will be filing this with the BOP in the spring.Welcome to the line of scrimmage.The movement heads should have done this years ago,BUT the pharoh's of the movement are only concerned with selling pot.