contacting co-ops with overage?

wrong. our lawmakers are going to give clarity to how to dispense, providing a rulebook that says exactly how to play the game. right now you've got the affirmative defense, its legal, you just don't have guidelines to follow except for the limited ones currently there.


the aff. defense applies to the administration of medicine which is inclusive to dispensing. Unless you want to make up your own definitions of words.


So like you said, RCW 69.51A does not restrict dispensaries, it merely grants an aff. def to those who are dispensing to patients legally under 69.51A


the only dispensaries that are being busted are the ones that the cops think they can get for not dispensing to legal patients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

wrong. our lawmakers are going to give clarity to how to dispense, providing a rulebook that says exactly how to play the game. right now you've got the affirmative defense, its legal, you just don't have guidelines to follow except for the limited ones currently there.


the aff. defense applies to the administration of medicine which is inclusive to dispensing. Unless you want to make up your own definitions of words.


So like you said, RCW 69.51A does not restrict dispensaries, it merely grants an aff. def to those who are dispensing to patients legally under 69.51A


the only dispensaries that are being busted are the ones that the cops think they can get for not dispensing to legal patients.

---

Dispensaries are businesses..business can't use an aff. def....clarity only applies to statutes already promulgated, such as the above statute outlining what legal dispensing/distributing is available to date.

The dispensaries targeted/busted was because a "competitor" made a complaint and leo used "operatives" inside the club when the informants was buying from the owners,(nec420 search warrant affidavit clearly stated this fact) the others I haven't seen yet so far. But, the only dispensaries operating with immunity are in king co. only, because of the guidelines in rcw 9.94A.411 combined with prop. 75 which says pot is lowest priority...the prosecutors and leo's hands are tied by the people of the city of seattle...hence, why hempfest is allowed.

So void for vagueness is what your saying here above. no guidelines for public or law enforcement.

Opinion | Washington's medical marijuana law needs fine-tuning | Seattle Times Newspaper

EXCERPT:

I will introduce legislation to protect patients from arrest and prosecution and provide well-regulated, safe, consistent and secure sources of cannabis for medical use through licensed dispensaries. I hope citizens across the state will help me pass this legislation to improve the safety of patients, our loved ones and the communities in which we live.

NOT "CLARIFY" !!! BUT, IMPROVE ACCESS.

Hope she gets the legislation enacted before she retires or we are screwed!!

Endorsements by The Stranger Election Control Board - News - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper

Incumbent Democrat Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who is seeking one last term in the state senate:wtf:, is a reliable Dem on budget issues and social justice, and we're excited to see her promised legislation to patch up holes in the state's medical-marijuana law (like protecting patients from being arrested:cool:). This fix is overdue and Kohl-Welles has laid the groundwork to get it done:pimp:. Vote Kohl-Welles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamessr

Dispensaries are businesses..business can't use an aff. def....

---

and don't need to because its a specific person who acts as the designated provider. a "dispensary" is a place where medicine is "dispensed" by designated providers.

If they act within the guidelines set by RCW 69.51A they "shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law" for assisting in the administration of marijuana. which is inclusive of its dispensing*.

I don't go in circles, so my challenge remains. If dispensing is illegal under 69.51A, quote the sentence that makes it so, until then this is my final word on the subject.






*ad·min·is·tra·tion
n.
1. The act or process of administering, especially the management of a government or large institution.
2. The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.
3. often Administration
a. The executive branch of a government.
b. The group of people who manage or direct an institution, especially a school or college.
4. The term of office of an executive officer or body.
5. Law Management and disposal of a trust or estate.
6. The dispensing, applying, or tendering of something, such as an oath, a sacrament, or medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DankDragon

Would you direct me to prop, 75? Please. I can't find it.

---

I don't know why he brought up Seattle's Marijuana De-Prioritization initiative, speaking about king county.


I-75 made marijuana possession the lowest priority crime in Seattle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

and don't need to because its a specific person who acts as the designated provider. a "dispensary" is a place where medicine is "dispensed" by designated providers.

If they act within the guidelines set by RCW 69.51A they "shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law" for assisting in the administration of marijuana. which is inclusive of its dispensing*.

I don't go in circles, so my challenge remains. If dispensing is illegal under 69.51A, quote the sentence that makes it so, until then this is my final word on the subject.






*ad·min·is·tra·tion
n.
1. The act or process of administering, especially the management of a government or large institution.
2. The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.
3. often Administration
a. The executive branch of a government.
b. The group of people who manage or direct an institution, especially a school or college.
4. The term of office of an executive officer or body.
5. Law Management and disposal of a trust or estate.
6. The dispensing, applying, or tendering of something, such as an oath, a sacrament, or medicine.

---

The only scary part to me is how a Judge interpets "(d) Is the designated provider to only one patient at any one time."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DankDragon

Would you direct me to prop, 75? Please. I can't find it.

---

The Sensible Seattle Coalition, Sponsors of I-75

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

I don't know why he brought up Seattle's Marijuana De-Prioritization initiative, speaking about king county.


I-75 made marijuana possession the lowest priority crime in Seattle.

---

Because the only lawful dispensaries are in seattle because of 2 legal factors,
1) I-75
2) rcw 9.94A.411`legislative intent, (change in society morals)

that's a nice opinion, but seattle doesn't fill all of king county.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiamps

The only scary part to me is how a Judge interpets "(d) Is the designated provider to only one patient at any one time."

---

Go ask one or send them a letter..they will surely tell you. And no i don't mean get arrested to find out either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

that's a nice opinion, but seattle doesn't fill all of king county.

---

It is the heart beat of king county, WHERE THE "COUNTY" PROSECUTOR FILES CHARGES ON YOUR ASS!! SUPERIOR COURT, SILLY.

For your statement to make sense, I-75 would have to effect areas outside of seattle, but within king co. simply because, "that's where charges are filed"


why don't you tell a cop in federal way he's got to respect I-75 see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

For your statement to make sense, I-75 would have to effect areas outside of seattle, but within king co. simply because, "that's where charges are filed"


why don't you tell a cop in federal way he's got to respect I-75 see what happens.

---

IT'S NOT THE COPS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO "FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES..again, silly.

Evidentiary sufficiency.


(1) Decision not to prosecute.

STANDARD: A prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose, would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law.

GUIDELINE/COMMENTARY:

Examples

The following are examples of reasons not to prosecute which could satisfy the standard.

(a) Contrary to Legislative Intent - It may be proper to decline to charge where the application of criminal sanctions would be clearly contrary to the intent of the legislature in enacting the particular statute. THIS APPLIES TO THE PROSECUTOR DAN : ^
Intent -- 2007 c 371: "The legislature intends to clarify the law on medical marijuana so that the lawful use of this substance is not impaired and medical practitioners are able to exercise their best professional judgment in the delivery of medical treatment, qualifying patients may fully participate in the medical use of marijuana, and designated providers may assist patients in the manner provided by this act without fear of state criminal prosecution. This act is also intended to provide clarification to law enforcement and to all participants in the judicial system." [2007 c 371 § 1.]

(c) De Minimis Violation - It may be proper to decline to charge where the violation of law is only technical or insubstantial and where no public interest or deterrent purpose would be served by prosecution.
This applies to I-75 ^
Seattle Voters Approve Initiative Making Marijuana Enforcement City's "Lowest Priority" - NORML

(b) GUIDELINES/COMMENTARY:

(i) Police Investigation

A prosecuting attorney is dependent upon law enforcement agencies to conduct the necessary factual investigation which must precede the decision to prosecute. The prosecuting attorney shall ensure that a thorough factual investigation has been conducted before a decision to prosecute is made. In ordinary circumstances the investigation should include the following:

(A) The interviewing of all material witnesses, together with the obtaining of written statements whenever possible;

(B) The completion of necessary laboratory tests; and

(C) The obtaining, in accordance with constitutional requirements, of the suspect's version of the events.

If the initial investigation is incomplete, a prosecuting attorney should insist upon further investigation before a decision to prosecute is made, and specify what the investigation needs to include.

(ii) Exceptions

In certain situations, a prosecuting attorney may authorize filing of a criminal complaint before the investigation is complete if:

(A) Probable cause exists to believe the suspect is guilty; and

(B) The suspect presents a danger to the community or is likely to flee if not apprehended; or

(C) The arrest of the suspect is necessary to complete the investigation of the crime.

In the event that the exception to the standard is applied, the prosecuting attorney shall obtain a commitment from the law enforcement agency involved to complete the investigation in a timely manner. If the subsequent investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to meet the normal charging standard, the complaint should be dismissed.

(iii) Investigation Techniques

The prosecutor should be fully advised of the investigatory techniques that were used in the case investigation including:

(A) Polygraph testing;

(B) Hypnosis;

(C) Electronic surveillance;

(D) Use of informants.

(iv) Pre-Filing Discussions with Defendant

This applies to all leo statewide.^

highlight the part that makes seattle's I-75 apply in federal way.

BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT


So I can be cool too :cool:

King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office Declines Charging Excessive Medical Marijuana Grow | Seattle Criminal Lawyer DUI Attorney Bellevue Sex Crime Seattle

Satterberg said that marijuana possession is a low-ranking offense according to state felony guidelines, three convictions could leave a defendant spending less than six months in jail. Satterberg, whose office has 55 open murder cases, says he has â??more important things doâ?� than charge marijuana-possession cases. Seattleâ??s new City Attorney Pete Holmes has stopped charging people with misdemeanor pot possession, which is less than 40 grams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justpics

highlight the part that makes seattle's I-75 apply in federal way.

BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT



BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT ----- BLOCK OF TEXT


So I can be cool too :cool:

---

Now your not even playing ball, your playing silliness..of course I-75 doesn't apply in federal way, how could it?...but, rcw 9.94A.411 does, and dan satterberg is the prosecutor, which doesn't want to play in your ball park.

I have sat down with both my local chief deputy prosecutor(s) misdemeanor & felony and discussed in detail what's what, so i don't get my ass in trouble...needed to know the boundary lines...I even filed a criminal case against leo in which the prosecutor busted out rcw 9.94A.411 and the judge and I got a schooling lesson.:D:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamessr

of course I-75 doesn't apply in federal way (or any other part of king co. outside of Seattle)

---

finally.