Latest MMJ Law Draft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JellyFish

The rule making process does not guarantee that you'll get what you want. Here it is for those who care: ORA | Washington's Rulemaking Process


J.Fish

---

This is just a guidelines because they change the rules all the time to suit them and not the best interest of those petitioning for redress. Time for new rules concerning cannabis. :wtf:

I might add, that the time is far passed asking them to fix something. Its now time we demand they do something to fix it and free patients and adults from criminal charges, or we will do it ourselves. And that seem to be the only way to really get it done. They demand taxes from us and take them, now its time the tables were turned especially on this issue. :D

Like most I still think the initiative process to legalize is probably our best bet. Just be aware that we will probably have to have a new initiative every 3 or 4 years to keep pot legalized. the Legislature has proven that they don't have the ability to address this issue appropriately so we will be forced to do it for them.

I agree, but I think that as far as full legalization goes, the Init. route is the ONLY way it will happen. I think protection from arrest and possibly a legal route for dispensaries/market growers MAY be able to make it thru the traditional process but I'm not holding my breath.

At this early stage, I'd give 20/1 odds that the Kohl-Wells bill never makes it to the floor.

J.Fish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JellyFish

The rule making process does not guarantee that you'll get what you want. Here it is for those who care: ORA | Washington's Rulemaking Process


J.Fish

---

I guess you missed the point. The Rule making process does not guarantee we will get what the specific department concludes the rules should be, we will get whatever the governer, LEO and the ACLU decide in a back room negotiation, just like what happened in the 60 day supply rule making process.


I was not the one who came up with 100 square foot canopy, it WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THEY WERE OVER RULED.

No, I didn't miss your point and I don't like back-room deal making any more than you do ...
Ours is an imperfect system but it is the system we have to work with and one way or another, I'd really like Protection from Arrest.


J.Fish

Protection from arrest will be an illusion for the foreseeable future. Even if cannabis gets completely legalized by initiative we'll still have certain jurisdictions that will disagree and they'll just call the feds in to help out. If we could get a governor that believes in the 10th Amendment and will use actions to back that up we could go a long ways in ending prohibition nation wide.

As long as the rules/laws get made in back room political negotiations, there will always be little loopholes that let LEO arrest anyone they want.


In the counties where they don't like medical marijuana, having a scale will become evidence of being a provider to more than 1 person in 90 days. Any amount of cash on hand will be evidence of having benefited from being a provider.

With those provisions in there, we have the same protection from arrest now as we will after the draft. It will be at the discretion of the officer, how it always is.


Except those provision shut down the current model for medicine being exchanged in our state. And what do they replace that model with? Rules that are yet to be determined and who knows when they go into effect.

I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy.

"I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy."

Simply put, protection from prosecution AS LONG AS you're following the DOH guidelines.

Did you see that TacomaCross was shut down and charges are pending? Great protection eh?


Sinc.
J.Fish

I just hope we don't end up stabbing ourselves in the back like California just did by refusing to extend the right or freedom to use to anyone. An Affirmative Defense is no defense when different courts can use different tactics to circumvent the law. If we cannot come together as a community as medical patients and responsible adults to work for a common cause all is lost. If we go for total immunity from prosecution for responsible use for one, it must be for all. :twocents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JellyFish

"I see less protection under this draft, than we currently enjoy."

Simply put, protection from prosecution AS LONG AS you're following the DOH guidelines.

Did you see that TacomaCross was shut down and charges are pending? Great protection eh?


Sinc.
J.Fish

---

incorrectly put is more like it.

Protection from arrest if;

the officer decides there is no evidence you've been a provider to more than 1 person within 90 day

*Tacoma hemp wouldve failed that test

protection if the officer decides there is no evidence you benefit from being a provider

*again Tacoma hemp/cross wouldve failed that test

where as under the current law no restrictions or cool off timers are placed on providers regardng compensation and when they can change patients.

So yes I see less protection.