Printable View
The start date on the new tamper proof paper is the date in which the diagnosis was given by the practitioner of the qualifying condition..i.e. as noted in the operative section above of the act :thumbsup:
This is not rocket science to figure out...nor speculations...is taken directly from court rulings on the subject matter.:D
I took Celebrex for my degenerative arthritis for two days, killed the pain, but also made my stomach bleed. The doctor told me to stop immediately. So, my last resort was cannabis. No more pharmaceutical poisons for me. :thumbsup: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Sorry,Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
but, you don't have to have tried prescription drugs and have failed on them...in the sections which do not have the requisite language your speaking of KW420. This section here doesn't have the requisite:
(a) Cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, epilepsy or other seizure disorder, or spasticity disorders; or
These here do:
b) Intractable pain, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications; or
(c) Glaucoma, either acute or chronic, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean increased intraocular pressure unrelieved by standard treatments and medications; or
(d) Crohn's disease with debilitating symptoms unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or
(e) Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or
(f) Diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when these symptoms are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or
So although I understand your point, section (a) is not in that arena and is specific for the use of prescription drugs in conjunction with mmj to assist in the effective immune response for auto-immune disorders which are "LIFE-LONG" and never, ever goes away...these diseases can only be suppressed in some way and some repressed so much they go into remission...i.e. show no "active" signs or symptoms but, remain none the less
I personally have 3 of them myself....
Don't you think that the fact that you have three qualifying conditions yet you still got convicted by a jury of your peers for possession speaks negatively towards both your interpretation of the law and your "logical conclusions"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jamessr
Not one bit, because none of them was "positively" diagnosed till 2008:D...which are not part of my appeal...nor was I allowed any defenses by the judge, not the jury...which is contrary to the mmj public policy and due process of law violation, the judge robbed the jury of it province...not to mention the jury wasn't allowed to hear any evidence of any medical necessity, aff. def. or any prior mmj cases( entrapment by estoppel) in which the same open-ended authorization was found to be valid and I recovered all my meds without a return for seized property hearing, thereby recognizing my property rights in the act(chapter), my dr. never invalidated my authorization and to this day still hasn't..state v. tracy made it clear that a practitioner must be licensed in wa. for the testimony to be relevant...a non-medical licensed person under rcw 18.71 cannot validate an authorization in wa. state, the same would apply to any business owner/operator claiming the same status to invalidate an authorization which was authorized by a practitioner licensed under rcw 18.71...Quote:
Originally Posted by cannasense
Get it yet? The district court don't have jurisdiction to go after the clinic owner, yet, the superior courts do...my crystal ball says the courts will overturn my conviction and make the stance doc-in-the-box's are illegal in wa....and since i was at all times seen for services in oregon by a wa. licensed practitioner, my authorization was valid because I met all the "requirements" of the act...and there is no 1 yr. "requirement" to be met in the act at all...see state v. fry...lol.
silly man cannasense.:cool:
Cannasense,
The court didn't even give me probation for being convicted of possession...don't you find that strange? The state said since I am a valid qualifying patient with obvious valid documentation they are not requesting any probation...:wtf: didn't the state just deny me any medical claims for use in trial? on a legal theory not covered in the whole chapter of a 1 yr. expiration date by a business owner of a dib...hell the judge even wrote it down and agreed with me that there is no language in any type of reference to inform either leo or the public that a 1 yr. expiration date claim is constitutional under the void-for-vagueness doctrine.:pimp:
So go figure....it all boils down to the declaration signed by the ceo of thcf is an admission of guilt signed under the penalty of perjury that he is indeed practicing medicine without a license to do so thru the practitioners licensed in wa. state which he contracts with and splits the fees...this by itself authorizes the superior court to sua sponte an order to shut down the clinic and possibly seize the clinics assets...
I know I am covered on appeal...all the way up.
You're all talk with nothing to back it up. Your criminal conviction speaks much more elegantly towards the value of your ideas than you're semi-literate, grammatically tortured ravings. You make no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamessr
How about this, actually go do something, then come back and report on it. The simple facts are your appeal, like your future victories, exist only in your mind.
That's fine for you, but people here looking for guidance on how to stay legal shouldn't be acting on the fantasies of a convicted criminal whose theories on authorizations got him convicted.
You know, some are starting to sound like fucking Nazi who keep repeating a lie hoping it will be come truth. There is no expiration date on authorizations in the statute regardless of who ever says its there. The only one's who keep pushing this lie are the doc in the box owners so they can have a steady cash flow. Its all about money, not patients getting authorized. If they actually gave a fuck about patient liberation, they would be pushing the legalization issue to the max, not harping about not necessary renewals. So quit fucking lying to patients. No even a judge can add words that don't exist in the statute. :twocents:
b) Intractable pain, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications
And there it is. Unrelieved by standard medications. It means you have to have tried normal medications and they don't work.
Because of the law only allowing an affirmative defense it allow a wide amount of discretion by the judge, which is truelly unfair. Again it gives the prosecution all the power in the courtroom and the defendent very little. If we hadn't had the governor and the legislature amnipulating our original intiative this wouldn't happen. The original intiative made MMJ legal for authorized patients, not an affirmative defense. Its one of the great differences between our MMJ law and other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by gypski