Quote Originally Posted by Washedout
Or the original ballot measure wasn't considering that the state would want some of the action ie revenue like all the other MMJ states.It's time to point the finger of injustice at the author that composed the measure and not the courts or the government.The government could be getting revenue by a 5 prong approach.
1.Yearly fee for MMJ card issued by the state.
2.Personal growers permit.
3.Dispensary Yearly Permit.
4.Sales Tax when purchasing from Dispensary
5.Dispensary workers income tax.
That's alot of money for Chrissy and Friends.
Got it?
Oh really, not the courts or legislators? The truth is people have been being screwed by both sides. The courts and the legislators on one side, and the defense attorneys on the other. Both sides are making money, one through fines, court costs, public service, rehabilitation fees, etc. The other makes it off of defense fees when it seems because of the ambiguity of the law, and the language of legal opinion and case law prove that the legal system is operating as a one way street of plea bargains of non-use of legal loopholes or defenses that are appearing and awaiting the courts determination. Honest services is one that is being mentioned, and are those services being provided honestly on the one way street or gauntlet.

The affirmative defense means little if judges can act as doctors giving their untrained medical opinions and invalidating a trained, legal physician's authorization licensed in the state to actually practice medicine; the authorizing doctor doesn't show up in court because the corporate CEO didn't get his yearly $200 regardless of the fact that the RCW doesn't not require yearly renewal or authorization fees, dues, or any other remunerations to continue authorizations of chronic illnesses; .

Is attending physician necessarily the primary physician, if the primary physician isn't the authorizing physician, but the patient was attended to by the attending physician who signed the authorization even though the attending only lasted a few minutes after the examination of medical records of the qualifying patient?

And finally, the legislators and executive heads fail to do the right thing and address the shortcomings by getting grant money to sic LEOs on medical patients when its basically legal for qualifying, authorized patients. This is the center line going down the one-way street, but its not painted, its hidden from the public's view. The state government getting money (getting paid to provide dishonest services) to create criminals out of attempting to be law abiding patients and citizens under the RCW.

So, tell me again. Whose fucking who???
gypski Reviewed by gypski on . Why did the Wa. St. Supreme court "use" 3 different defenses in State v. Fry? So I have been dissecting State v. Fry our Wa. Supreme court ruled on...I am finding our court here is smoking controlled substances themselves, way worse than "MARIJUANA/CANNABIS"...they have "used" 3 different defenses claiming they are the same defense...statutory-affirmative- and "COMPASSIONATE USE"... O.K., looking these "definitions" up separately are completely different from one another...talk about corruption TO WATCH THE BANK...geez people, can you use your law degrees in a more Rating: 5