Why there can't be a 1yr. expiration date in Wa. St.

[jamessr]

Many inquiring minds need to know? I-1068 would undo all these legal gymnastics.

The legal answer to this is "YES" for state "ONLY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT REMOVES ALL CANNABIS RELATED ISSUES AS A "PUBLIC OFFENSE"..I.E. NONE CRIMINAL AND AS TOMATOES ARE...FREE TO PROPAGATE WITHOUT STATE INTERFERENCE(NOT FEDERAL, READ MONSON V. U.S. IN THE LEGAL SECTION, CANNABIS L. SATIVA IS ALSO HEMP)...BUT, WILL STILL DRAW IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, READ ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDERS INTERNAL MEMO/POLICY..VERY CLEAR IT "ONLY" APPLIES TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA UNDER STATE STATUTE, NOT COMPLETE LEGALIZATION...WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL PUBLIC POLICY...

THIS IS FOR ADULTS ONLY AND DOESN'T PROTECT YOU AGAINST DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY "DRUGS"...our laws clearly state "drugs" and not specific to any "drugs" in a persons body..this in of itself will be gymnastics with the recent ruling about delta 9 and our body producing delta 11..just saying.

[jamessr]

actually those are no longer valid, unless they predate June 10th 2010, as they would not be on tamper resistant paper recognized by the BOP.

Even one that was from before June 10th would barely be worth the paper it was printed on, because police will haul your ass in more often than not and let the courts figure it out.

The bop isn't involved in any policy making or enforcement here...read how the bop refused to be a part of this decision making process....why? BECAUSE THE MQAC IS THE "ONLY" LEGISLATED AGENCY OVERSIGHT FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA..AND NO-ONE WHO HAS A DEA LICENSE CAN PRESCRIBE CANNABIS THERAPY..THEY CAN "ONLY" RECOMMEND IT..see conant v. walters.

furthermore, any authorizations prior to this enactment, are "GRANDFATHERED IN"...STEVE SARICH IS COMPLETELY WRONG HERE ABOUT VALIDITY( he is correct about some asshat not knowing the laws and arbitrarily arresting you)...."ONLY" PERTINENT MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE IN ANY COURT CASES...WHICH WAS NOT GRANDFATHERED IN, BECAUSE IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY IN ONE'S MEDICAL RECORDS AND PHYSICIAN/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.. A CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW..geez!!

[jamessr]

I would just make sure you see that docotr at least once per year to ensure you have a doctor patient relationship the courts will recognize.

This is completely "LEGALLY" incorrect SINCE THE DOC-IN-THE-BOXES ARE IME CLINICS... THEY REQUIRE YOU BRING IN MEDICAL RECORDS FROM ANOTHER HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONER WHICH STATES YOU HAVE A QUALIFYING CONDITION IN THEIR DIAGNOSIS...READ PEOPLE V. WINDUS FROM CALI IN THE LEGAL SECTION...TIS THE SAME LEGAL THEORY HERE IN WA....ONCE YOU HAVE THE SAME CONDITION AND IT IS ONGOING(I.E. DEBILITATING OR TERMINAL) NO-ONE YR APPLIES WHICH IS NOT IN THE ACT...

PLEASE QUOTE THE SECTION IN THE MUMA/CUA ACT WHICH SAYS A 1 YR IS MANDATED UNDER LAW....OR EVEN CLOSE TO SAYING SUCH A THING...

1000 BUCKS SAYS YOU CAN'T...I HAVE A JUDGES LEGAL OPINION IN MY CASE WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THERE IS NO 1 YR "REQUIREMENT" IN THE "CHAPTER" TO BE FOUND....

" THEY ARE MERELY SILENT. THERE IS NO LANGUAGE REGARDING THESE ISSUES TO BE FOUND, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IN THE ENTIRE CHAPTER. PUT ANOTHER WAY, THERE IS NO "WORDING" TO CONSTRUE; INSTEAD THERE IS A LACK OF IT"

IME IS A VERY LIMITED WAY TO SHOW ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY HEALTHCARE PRACTIONER..DOC-IN-THE-BOXES DON'T QUALIFY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER ANY WA. ST. LEARNED PROFESSIONS PUBLIC POLICY..

[justpics]

the doctor who writes your authorization is making the diagnoses based on your previous medical records.

[jamessr]

the doctor who writes your authorization is making the diagnoses based on your previous medical records.

Can you explain this in step-by-step fashion in "DETAIL" please...you are confusing me john..lol. Start with the law which allows this to occur first, please john. THEN GO FROM THERE.

[justpics]

I really don't get why you keep calling me john...


anyway;

" (a) Is a patient of a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW;

(b) Has been diagnosed by THAT physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition;"


that's the basis in law for what I am saying, its RCW69.51A.010 (a), (b)

[jamessr]

I really don't get why you keep calling me john...


anyway;

" (a) Is a patient of a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW;

(b) Has been diagnosed by THAT physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition;"


that's the basis in law for what I am saying, its RCW69.51A.010 (a), (b)

Sorry about the john...is just my way of saying shitty..my bad.

You are focusing on just one small area of law, which don't even apply to a doc-in-the-box when fettered out...

YOU ARE A PATIENT OF THE CLINIC, NOT THE health care practitioner, regardless of who signed....this is obviously were your analysis goes out the window. The physician who made the diagnosis is not the doc-in-the-box doctor but, the diagnosing physician in your prior medical records they look at...i.e. PERTINENT MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH SHOWS THAT OTHER TREATMENTS AND MEDS HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY USELESS.

I have 3 letters from the WA. DOH which clearly states that if I had been seen in wa. st. and made the same complaint about THCF and their doctors, they would take action and shut them down immediately....so if ya feel lucky, write a complaint to the DOH and see what they respond with..lol.

[justpics]

I don't have anything to complain about, I am happy with my doctor.

[jamessr]

I don't have anything to complain about, I am happy with my doctor.

YOU MISSED MY POINT HERE.LOL.:wtf:

[justpics]

you make globs, not points :rastasmoke: