New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredoftacoma
Why is it puzzling??? "He is only verifying that the person has a valid authorization" to the source of a federally illegal drug which helps that person to acquire it... in my opinion it seems alot different then verifying to LEO to help keep a patient out of jail.
Maybe your right??? but why risk it???
Sacred
You are providing a legal medicine according to 69.51, so why bother about the feds??? If you are complying with the IRS, they have no reason to bother you. And if your medicine is Washington grown, they have no reason to bother you. I have no knowledge of a DEA raid on any Washington medical grower or co-op or dispensary. At least not to this date. :thumbsup:
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypski
You are providing a legal medicine according to 69.51, so why bother about the feds??? If you are complying with the IRS, they have no reason to bother you. And if your medicine is Washington grown, they have no reason to bother you. I have no knowledge of a DEA raid on any Washington medical grower or co-op or dispensary. At least not to this date. :thumbsup:
They Feds are the only real concern!!! To think Washington medical growers, co-ops, or dispensaries won't see Federal raids is a joke!
Sacred
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredoftacoma
I would also like to point out that there is nothing illegal about coop/dispensaries in Washington... they are just not clearly defined in law. [We have all state and city licenses... which we could not get if it were illegal to operate.]
But your point is 100% correct... patients should educate themselves and be safe in all the decisions they make involing mmj or their freedom!
Sacred
I hate too burst your bubble here but, yes you can get licensed by the state too operate an illegal business. It only comes to their attention when someone makes a complaint about the business itself. The pot docs clinics in washington are operating illegaly and all have the states business lic. to do so. To verify what I am saying go to Tacoma, WA Medical Marijuana - North End Club 420 , go to the cannabis law and activism section>corporate practice of medicine.
This section has most of the case law in Washington which shows the pot-docs are aiding and abetting already, so the excuse of protecting from this is horse poop. Sacred stop the spin people, get real and admit ya all are glorified drug dealers not on street corners but, in buildings claiming to be legal. WHICH IS NOT A GREY AREA IN ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LAW OF ANY STATE. It is a strict liability law...no excuses except as authorized by law, i.e. prescription or valid order of a practitioner. Any claimed charge is only ameliorated by an authorized document or medical records defined in rcw 69.51A et. seq....if a clinic is not doing business as authorized by law, then the authorizations on your list are null and void, only a regular Dr. doing business in the normal practice for a legitimate purpose would meet your policies.
Care to try again???
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamessr
I hate too burst your bubble here but, yes you can get licensed by the state too operate an illegal business. It only comes to their attention when someone makes a complaint about the business itself. The pot docs clinics in washington are operating illegaly and all have the states business lic. to do so. To verify what I am saying go to
Tacoma, WA Medical Marijuana - North End Club 420 , go to the cannabis law and activism section>corporate practice of medicine.
This section has most of the case law in Washington which shows the pot-docs are aiding and abetting already, so the excuse of protecting from this is horse poop. Sacred stop the spin people, get real and admit ya all are glorified drug dealers not on street corners but, in buildings claiming to be legal. WHICH IS NOT A GREY AREA IN ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LAW OF ANY STATE. It is a strict liability law...no excuses except as authorized by law, i.e. prescription or valid order of a practitioner. Any claimed charge is only ameliorated by an authorized document or medical records defined in rcw 69.51A et. seq....if a clinic is not doing business as authorized by law, then the authorizations on your list are null and void, only a regular Dr. doing business in the normal practice for a legitimate purpose would meet your policies.
Care to try again???
You should pay to talk to an attorney???
Sacred
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
:As I have learned today sacred and olympia pmc are one in the same,as I guess we all could have figured this out, I think that what Im hearing is jeremy himself is a little ambivilant as to his own policy,you are doing nobody any due diligance by the way you operate your cash cow,sounds to me like duplicity is your main are of excellence, you just cant seem to make up your mind as to the reasons you do what you do? and are you kidding me by stating that you are the only legit resourse ctr? Im sure the folks have also figured out that one as well"is someone in the pocket of the dea? my advice to you would be to go ahead answer all the questions but stop the bull""" reasons as to why you do it,
what really gets me is to see that you continue your argument as to verifying with the doc?? dude Ive sat and listened to you do it??
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypski
What I find puzzling with your argument about verifying through the doctors office, in no way endangers the doctor. He is only verifying that the person has a valid authorization, and in no way is it helping a person acquire medicine. Its no different then LEO calling to verify. :jointsmile:
So verifying with a cannabis dispensary doesnt knowingly, "help" the patient find medicine?
Let's look at this logically.
"Help
â??verb (used with object)
1.
to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need"
You are providing the patient with verification to a medical cannabis dispensary. Through this action the doctor office has knowingly provided what is necessary to accomplish the task of getting medicine. By definition you have knowingly helped the patient get medicine.
That's pretty clear, and would leave the doctor open to losing their license under Conant v. Walters.
On the other hand you have an independent group verify with a doctor's office that does nothing but verify. The doctor hasn't knowingly helped the patient to do anything except be able to verify through a third party. The doctor is at no risk here.
I don't know why this is not already the standard practice among medical dispensaries. To put doctor's at risk for no reason except you don't want patients to have to deal with 3rd party verification is nonsensical.
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
So verifying with a cannabis dispensary doesnt knowingly, "help" the patient find medicine?
Let's look at this logically.
"Help
â??verb (used with object)
1.
to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need"
You are providing the patient with verification to a medical cannabis dispensary. Through this action the doctor office has knowingly provided what is necessary to accomplish the task of getting medicine. By definition you have knowingly helped the patient get medicine.
That's pretty clear, and would leave the doctor open to losing their license under Conant v. Walters.
On the other hand you have an independent group verify with a doctor's office that does nothing but verify. The doctor hasn't knowingly helped the patient to do anything except be able to verify through a third party. The doctor is at no risk here.
I don't know why this is not already the standard practice among medical dispensaries. To put doctor's at risk for no reason except you don't want patients to have to deal with 3rd party verification is nonsensical.
I feel this will become the new standard here in Washington
Sacred
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredoftacoma
You should pay to talk to an attorney???
Sacred
I suggest you fire yours and get a real lawyer who knows wtf they are talking about. READ THE CASE LAW before ya pay an attorney to lie their ass off for profit of their own business. HELLO, that's their job silly. and I have paid many a lawyers to lie to me only for me to shove it up their cazoo for the wrong advise.
If you can't read case law, then I suggest you find a different profession cause your safety and ours relies on you understanding the laws of the profession, not your lawyers.....
I would hate too have to be the guy that shuts your doors for being an idiot in our industry.......get the picture????
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
sacred medicine is smart for not calling the doctor's office to verify. Read Conant v Walters and what that decision meant. A summary would be that it says doctors can recommend marijuana as part of their free speech in states with MMJ laws, but they can't help the patient find or get medicine in any way. Confirming a patient so they can get medicine is helping.
A third party that doesn't provide patients with medicine can confirm with a doctor and the doctor is not helping anyone get medicine.
Sacred can then verify with that third party, and no doctors put their license in jeopardy.
The fact that green cross not only verifies with doctors, but has the doctor do so through the faxing of a signed official green cross document is placing every doctor that has verified with green cross in the position of losing their license. Wanna shut down the WA MMJ program over night? Get the license of every doc willing to write a recommendation.
Kudos to sacred for being smarter than the rest of 'em :thumbsup:
This is just another version of how a conspiracy works justpics. Conant v. Walters is in my opinion is highly relevant here to sacred, regardless of how they try too fashion it.
New medical marijuana coop in Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by justpics
So verifying with a cannabis dispensary doesnt knowingly, "help" the patient find medicine?
Let's look at this logically.
"Help
â??verb (used with object)
1.
to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need"
You are providing the patient with verification to a medical cannabis dispensary. Through this action the doctor office has knowingly provided what is necessary to accomplish the task of getting medicine. By definition you have knowingly helped the patient get medicine.
That's pretty clear, and would leave the doctor open to losing their license under Conant v. Walters.
On the other hand you have an independent group verify with a doctor's office that does nothing but verify. The doctor hasn't knowingly helped the patient to do anything except be able to verify through a third party. The doctor is at no risk here.
I don't know why this is not already the standard practice among medical dispensaries. To put doctor's at risk for no reason except you don't want patients to have to deal with 3rd party verification is nonsensical.
Verification is not totally necessary. During Hempfest, there was a tent for mmj people to medicate. You had to show an authorization to get in. I looked at authorizations, and let people in by what I saw. If they were not valid, it was on them, not me for presenting a fake document. But, it never came to that, and I was helping them medicate in a safe area during a public event. And, I couldn't call the docs to verify. LEOs using fake authorizations would be considered entrapment in a real court, and use by a civilian would be a crime on the presenter, not the provider. Where in the law does it state you have to verify? When a teen buys cigarettes and presents a fake ID does the seller call DMV to verify the picture? NO. Same with credit card fraud. Its on the buyer, not the seller to prove if they are valid if they are popped. :D
