One committee cleared

Printable View

02-11-2011, 01:20 AM
gypski

One committee cleared

I the bill passed with what is stated in bold italic, I'm all for it. Now that my real name has been outted, I'd even sign up for the registry. All I've ever done while I've had my authorization is to stay within the parameters of the law with dried and life plants. But, if it clears then next committee, and become law with language reflecting what the bold italic says, please make it active immediately for those out of the grist mill and let those cases in the mill proceed to final outcome in the courts. :thumbsup:

Quote:

State Sen. Jerome Delvin released the following statement:

OLYMPIAâ?¦ Today the state Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee approved a bill aimed at clarifying Washingtonâ??s law on the medical use of cannabis. The bipartisan measure was introduced by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, and co-sponsored by Sen. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland.

â??I came to this issue after members of the law enforcement community told me how frustrated they are by what is going on under the current system,â? said Delvin, who served as a Drug Abuse Resistance Education Officer in the Richland Police Department. â??The voters have said they want medical marijuana to be available to those suffering from painful medical conditions, but law enforcement has not been given clear direction about how to enforce the law while respecting the rights of medical-marijuana users.â?

â??What we have is an underground system, unclear rules, and general frustration on the part of all involved; we need to bring it out in the light.â?

Senate Bill 5073 would allow patients to purchase medical-marijuana products from licensed dispensaries by taking part in a regulated patient collective, or by continuing to receive it from a designated provider. The Department of Agriculture would create a licensing system for the growing of medical marijuana and the Department of Health would do the same for dispensaries.

The legislation would also protect legally compliant patients and growers from arrest, search, and prosecution for the use of medical cannabis. Law-enforcement officers would have a voluntary registry of patients to consult before conducting warrantless searches or arrests.

â??Law enforcement needs clarity,â? said Delvin. â??This patient registry created by this bill would provide assurance to the law-enforcement community that a person is authorized to use medical marijuana and not just a recreational drug abuser.â?

The Senate health committee adopted a series of key amendments to the bill before giving it a â??do passâ? recommendation.

Delvin called the committeeâ??s amendments a big improvement in the bill.

â??I am pretty happy with the changes to the bill,â? said Delvin. â??While I donâ??t agree with everything in it, I believe the changes made it a much tighter and cleaner bill, and many of the early concerns have been addressed.â?

The bill now moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Medical-marijuana dispensaries bill clears Senate committee | The State Column
02-11-2011, 01:56 AM
jamessr

One committee cleared

WE ARE NOT SEX OFFENDERS!!! NOR SHOULD WE BE VIOLATED LIKE ONE.:mad:

COMMON SENSE.

IF LEO CAN'T EXCEPT OUR LAWS AS WRITTEN...RETIRE.
02-11-2011, 01:57 AM
iceshark

One committee cleared

This bill was fine. Now it flat out sucks. Did you take time to read the terrible doctor med paperwork every 3 month requirement. Its a total farce against the law and the med patient.

Amendment from Mike Crennell will make it mandatory to get updated visit for med card every 90 days at your doctor. So no matter if you have a terminal or continuing non doctor visit needed illness, you MUST go and get it rechecked to see if cannabis is still needed every 90 days. Then also if they state thinks your doctor is giving to many passes and or too many permits they will be subject to investigation!

You might want to read this before you jump on the bandwagon. This is terrible!
02-11-2011, 02:07 AM
gypski

One committee cleared

I heard about the amendments, and I posted this because it was Devlin and his language. As I said, I agree with what I highlighted. As you point out, I say no fucking way big time. Go fuck yourself who ever came up with that idea of every 90 days. When I was a heavy drinker, no one tried to keep me for the booze like they to the far less harmful cannabis.

And they sure did take my money when I did something stupid under the influence of alcohol. So I'm with you on the amendments, they are really there to kill the bill. But, maybe they can be stripped before the final vote. That sometimes happens from reconciliation of a House an Senate bill for final passage. I don't want more legalese bullshit mumbo-jumbo maze crap, just common sense legislation that restores individual rights an freedoms to medical treatment and medications. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceshark

This bill was fine. Now it flat out sucks. Did you take time to read the terrible doctor med paperwork every 3 month requirement. Its a total farce against the law and the med patient.

Amendment from Mike Crennell will make it mandatory to get updated visit for med card every 90 days at your doctor. So no matter if you have a terminal or continuing non doctor visit needed illness, you MUST go and get it rechecked to see if cannabis is still needed every 90 days. Then also if they state thinks your doctor is giving to many passes and or too many permits they will be subject to investigation!

You might want to read this before you jump on the bandwagon. This is terrible!
02-11-2011, 03:28 AM
iceshark

One committee cleared

Quote:

Originally Posted by gypski

I heard about the amendments, and I posted this because it was Devlin and his language. As I said, I agree with what I highlighted. As you point out, I say no fucking way big time. Go fuck yourself who ever came up with that idea of every 90 days. When I was a heavy drinker, no one tried to keep me for the booze like they to the far less harmful cannabis.

And they sure did take my money when I did something stupid under the influence of alcohol. So I'm with you on the amendments, they are really there to kill the bill. But, maybe they can be stripped before the final vote. That sometimes happens from reconciliation of a House an Senate bill for final passage. I don't want more legalese bullshit mumbo-jumbo maze crap, just common sense legislation that restores individual rights an freedoms to medical treatment and medications. :thumbsup:

Thanks man, I thought you were on the good side!
Either strike them or dump the bill. We will never win with antique old repulicans in office like Mike Crennel. Ugg:(
02-11-2011, 01:27 PM
hiamps

One committee cleared

Would someone please post a link, and who is Mike Crennel? I live in Lakewood but have never heard of him.
02-11-2011, 06:44 PM
killerweed420

One committee cleared

We would already all be covered if they just changed the wording from the original bill. Remove the language "Affirmative Defense" and most all the problems disappear. SHow your medical authorization to a police officer and that should all thats required. No difference than showing the label on a prescription bottle that has your name on it. If the office wants to go any further he will need a judge signed search warrant that states exactly what he's looking for.
But this is what happens when the people drafting these laws have ulterior motives.
02-12-2011, 03:41 AM
jamessr

One committee cleared

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerweed420

We would already all be covered if they just changed the wording from the original bill. Remove the language "Affirmative Defense" and most all the problems disappear. SHow your medical authorization to a police officer and that should all thats required. No difference than showing the label on a prescription bottle that has your name on it. If the office wants to go any further he will need a judge signed search warrant that states exactly what he's looking for.
But this is what happens when the people drafting these laws have ulterior motives.

Here is what happened KW, the courts used the aff. def. from an assualt case.. in walla-walla.

When you break down the elements of that defense..you find at no point is anyone "authorized" by law to commit this crime...has nothing to do with an officers discretion as pointed out by the courts..but, when you apply the criminal trespass aff. def...it plugs right in...you either have authorization to be where your at or not...i.e. either you have an authorization from your healthcare practitioner to use or not...

It then complies with rcw 69.50.308(e) when read in context..not to mention the intent of rcw69.51A et. seq.

Simple shit isn't it... now go use the free law library I posted and look this up..;) Your smart enough to see it.:thumbsup: