For Real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Yeah this isn't making any sense. Tamper proof like a pharmacy prescription? How is that even close to tamper proof? Leave it up to the knuckleheads to just cloud the issue up even worse.

---

According to another article I read (can't find the link atm), it would require the same kind of paper as a pharmacy prescription, more 'tamper evident' than 'tamper proof', and presumably not easily available to your average citizen (it's already a felony to 'forge' an authorization in WA).

I don't understand the perceived value of doing this, unless it's just another "quick and easy" way for LEO to determine validity during a spot-check, but it often seems as if they do stuff like this just to increase the burden on the mmj ecosystem.

Yeah just a waste. If you want to counterfeit something it doesn't take much in this day and age no matter what it is. The MMJ authorization from THCF already has a notary seal on it.

I think we may see some law suits come out of this if a dr.'s recommendation comes from a document made due too board of pharmacy rules. The board is not authorized in the MUMA to do shit.

It would appear they may be rescheduling cannabis. This would be the only way the board would have any authority, especially to have "FRAUD" proof documents....which are distributed to health care professionals for use. Hmm? Something is wrong with this picture.......look at the DOH report for our 60-day supply law. you will see it when you find it, like a sore thump.!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mugenbao

I really have to wonder at the specific meaning and purpose of this ammendment. Does that mean that the patient's copy of an authorization, which is often posted clearly within the patient's home, is no longer valid?

So... What? We need to post the original? If that's correct, it might have a chilling effect on the use of designated providers, as it seems likely that they also would not be able to simply post a copy of the authorization alongside the designated provider form, which I believe is common practice. And there's no way in hell I'm trusting any third party with the original. Not to mention the fact that there are good and valid reasons for the actual patient to have and display the copy, which reduces the chance of loss or damage to the original.

---

You can have multiple 'originals' of a document. All it would take is for the authorizing health care professional to sign several identical authorization forms.

The wet ink signature of the health care provider would make each one an 'original' and not a copy. You could have one for your wallet, one for your designated provider, one for your lawyer to keep on file, and one for your safe deposit box.

IANAL, but that's my understanding of how it could work.