Parts of site failed to load... If you are using an ad blocker addon, you should to disable it (it blocks more than ads and causes parts of the site to not work).
There are a lot of things in the law that are not clear, that's for certain. But considering the 10s of thousands of patients with "doc in the box" authorizations. All of which the local DA's recognize as legit insofar as the authorizing agent being able to authorize is concerned, tells me that the concern james raises isn't one worth spending too much time worrying about until there is something clear from the courts saying those authorizations are in fact not legit.
Considering WA's history, I'd say the burden is over there.
There are a lot of things in the law that are not clear, that's for certain. But considering the 10s of thousands of patients with "doc in the box" authorizations. All of which the local DA's recognize as legit insofar as the authorizing agent being able to authorize is concerned, tells me that the concern james raises isn't one worth spending too much time worrying about until there is something clear from the courts saying those authorizations are in fact not legit.
Considering WA's history, I'd say the burden is over there.
Think outside the box for a second here..how did a assault case get into our medical marijuana analysis from the court of appeals and the supreme court in State v. Fry?????????
james has found some case law that says that contracts made by health clinics which are not owned and operated by health care professionals, but have as employees, health care professionals, are not enforceable under the law.
He interprets that to mean that a business who hires an independent contractor who is a health care professional will be writing recommendations that are not legal and would not offer protection under 69.51A.
But the only person who seems to think this is him, and AFAIK not a single district attorney in WA (the guys who actually decide what gets charged) accepts this interpretation.
Gypski;
hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.
ok. thank you for the explanation. I figure if i have my card stay low key and follow the laws that i undertsand/pertain to me:thumbsup:, i should be fine.
And thats the big answer for now till the law can be changed. Keep under the 15 plant limit, under the 24 ounce limit and keep your mouth shut. If you do all that your chances of conflict go way down. And don't bother argueing law with an officer because they don't care.
justpics
Register To Reply
Originally Posted by justpics
Staff Online