contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
3 : the act or process of producing something
who makes this stupid shit up? the same guy who made up religion? so basically the courts are going to go after "mother earth" then right? for producing us, and a plant, because its the one accountable for producing EVERYTHING we have.
how are we the only species that has created something of its own kind to kill itself? do sharks get together and say hey lets go eat earl, because he tasted water that had a higher oxygen rating? i dont think so. but we let our own kind kill each other over something that earth put here, something we can not avoid.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G13budsmoker
so does this mean technicaly that your not supposed to charge anymore then what it cost for you grow it?
the law places no restrictions on what you can charge.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
the law places no restrictions on what you can charge.
Huh? What law are you referencing here above? Cause if you didn't notice...affirmative defense to criminal charges so far is all we have..those charges being distribution which no defense is available..yet!! if there is most are ignorant then.
The csa is strict liability crimes with cannabis L. Sativa...the rcw 69.51A et. seq. statute and legislative intent are missing the ingredients for sales/distribution aff. def. outside a "provider"...logical sense says, what it cost the provider to produce the substance...and they follow this strictly...regardless. It is upon the prosecuting state authority if they recognize rcw 9.94A.411 here:
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.
(b) Antiquated Statute - It may be proper to decline to charge where the statute in question is antiquated in that:
(i) It has not been enforced for many years; and
(ii) Most members of society act as if it were no longer in existence; and
(iii) It serves no deterrent or protective purpose in today's society; and
(iv) The statute has not been recently reconsidered by the legislature.
This reason is not to be construed as the basis for declining cases because the law in question is unpopular or because it is difficult to enforce.
(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.
RCW 9.94A.411: Evidentiary sufficiency.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G13budsmoker
who makes this stupid shit up? the same guy who made up religion? so basically the courts are going to go after "mother earth" then right? for producing us, and a plant, because its the one accountable for producing EVERYTHING we have.
how are we the only species that has created something of its own kind to kill itself? do sharks get together and say hey lets go eat earl, because he tasted water that had a higher oxygen rating? i dont think so. but we let our own kind kill each other over something that earth put here, something we can not avoid.
American society made this shit up...before you was a twinkle in your mothers eye...mine also...
Yes they talk about earl..and how tasty he is going to be, and they even flip fins to see who is 1st...ever heard of feeding frenzy?
We kill each other over greed and control...human instinct...fight or flight..
Mother earth = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamessr
Huh? What law are you referencing here above? Cause if you didn't notice...affirmative defense to criminal charges so far is all we have..those charges being distribution which no defense is available..yet!! if there is most are ignorant then.
what are you talking about? Designated PROVIDERS are allowed to PROVIDE medicine to their patient for whom they are a PROVIDER.
Designated Providers have an affirmative defense and shall not be found guilty from "assisting in the medical use of marijuana"..."...a crime under state law for assisting with the medical use of marijuana"
Medical Use of Marijuana is defined under the law as, "the production, possession, or administration of marijuana"
One of the ways that designated providers, "assist in the medical use of marijuana" is through its administration, by delivering (distributing) marijuana that they have grown or otherwise acquired, to the patient. Look up the word administration, you'll find that the administration of medicine includes the dispensing thereof.
That's not illegal. And there is nothing in RCW 69.51A which says you may not charge as a Designated Provider. Which brings us back to what I said originally, which is, the law places no restrictions on what you may or may not specifically charge to be someone's designated provider.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
what are you talking about? Designated PROVIDERS are allowed to PROVIDE medicine to their patient for whom they are a PROVIDER.
Designated Providers have an affirmative defense and shall not be found guilty from "assisting in the medical use of marijuana"..."...a crime under state law for assisting with the medical use of marijuana"
Medical Use of Marijuana is defined under the law as, "the production, possession, or administration of marijuana"
One of the ways that designated providers, "assist in the medical use of marijuana" is through its administration, by delivering (distributing) marijuana that they have grown or otherwise acquired, to the patient. Look up the word administration, you'll find that the administration of medicine includes the dispensing thereof.
That's not illegal. And there is nothing in RCW 69.51A which says you may not charge as a Designated Provider. Which brings us back to what I said originally, which is, the law places no restrictions on what you may or may not specifically charge to be someone's designated provider.
o.k. now your on point...like i said above" provider" is the only way...and is between you and them..price or not...and is the "only" defense which covers cannabis period...
The flip side of that is leo taking a special interest and making a charge of sales for profit, like the tacoma dispensary owners getting charged.
contacting co-ops with overage?
not just provider, but the definition of "medical use of marijuana" covers dispensing when it says, "administration", the administration of medicine includes dispensing (which is why dispensaries were still legal even before the verbage was changed from caregiver to designated provider). This is simply verified with the language of "designated provider", and you wouldn't even have to charge for the "administration" but simply the act of being their, "provider." I don't see anything in the law restricting compensation for either act.
the tacoma dispensary owners were charged for making sales to "non patients" AFAIK.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
not just provider, but the definition of "medical use of marijuana" covers dispensing when it says, "administration", the administration of medicine includes dispensing (which is why dispensaries were still legal even before the verbage was changed from caregiver to designated provider). This is simply verified with the language of "designated provider", and you wouldn't even have to charge for the "administration" but simply the act of being their, "provider." I don't see anything in the law restricting compensation for either act.
the tacoma dispensary owners were charged for making sales to "non patients" AFAIK.
Dispensaries have never been legal in Wa. St., they are ["tolerated"] by some prosecutors...nothing more[king county is a different animal altogether because prop. 75). Especially prior to the verbage change, unless the dispensary was/is responsible for your, housing, care and welfare..uhhhhh, not!!! So i don't see your claim of reason here...
Dispense, administration and the like was not voted on for dispensaries but, a single patient/provider relationship(see the voter pamphlet)...like your dr./patient relationship...private between 2 "individual" people, not a commercial entity...
They was charged for selling to leo informants which produced "fraudulent" documentation doctored by leo...afaik as leo reported in the p.c. affidavit..
leo also claimed they was charging above street prices, black market...
contacting co-ops with overage?
Just quote that part of the law which precludes dispensaries.
Not a block of text; just quote the relavant section of rcw 69.51A that days you can't have dispensaries.
contacting co-ops with overage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
Just quote that part of the law which precludes dispensaries.
Not a block of text; just quote the relavant section of rcw 69.51A that days you can't have dispensaries.
Silly rcw 69.51A does not authorize nor not authorize "dispensaries" cause it is an aff. def. only statute to criminal charges as well as a "property" rights/interests claims statute..nothing more nothing less...for patients and a provider for a patient...
Our constituent(s) have made public comments on this very issue...they stated they will be introducing a bill for dispensaries to be legal in wa...hence, by this very public statement our law makers acknowledge they are in fact "illegal". i.e. the lawmakers in wa. st. legislature
So running around the same bush isn't getting anyplace...rcw 69.50 et. seq. is unambiguous. ARTICLE III -- REGULATION OF MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION,
AND DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
RCW 69.50.301: Rules â?? Fees.
RCW 69.50.302: Registration requirements.
RCW 69.50.303: Registration.
RCW 69.50.304: Revocation and suspension of registration â?? Seizure or placement under seal of controlled substances.
RCW 69.50.305: Procedure for denial, suspension, or revocation of registration.
RCW 69.50.306: Records of registrants.
RCW 69.50.308: Prescriptions.
P.S. I believe in dispensaries and we need them but, they are not covered yet under any criminal defenses...this is the problem..
