WA State Card Renew

[justpics]

You advertising? Not interested. I only pay for a driver's license every 4 years, and don't have to take a test every time. So, what's the difference with a medical authorization?

If the condition still exists according to the most current doctor's records a patient may have, what difference does it make who signed the thing? What if a person's real attending doctor specifically for their condition will not sign but a doc in the box will. Once you have an authorization that under the statue doesn't expire (read as long as the original condition exists) means does not expire. And, any doctor visit related to the condition should still validate the condition still exists regardless of who signed for the medical authorization. Wanna split some more hairs, and continue the ambiguous circle jerk?

The doc in the boxes who want yearly renewals aren't being non-profit, they are requiring a fee for a medical service. If the doc in the box won't go to some area of the state because its not cost effective, its not really being non-profit and compassionate. But, that is just my opinion so let them fight it out in court or what ever when one of their patients gets hauled in and the doc start spending more time in court then signing authorizations.

I'm for cannabis liberation for whatever reason because by all the medical and human science its the right thing to do. :twocents:

1: no im not advertising.

2: medical recommendations for marijuana and driver's licenses are not analogous. The closest thing to an authorization is a prescription, the difference being marijuana is schedule 1 so it can't be prescribed. Prescriptions are only valid for a year, what makes you think the procedures governing schedule 1 drugs would be less strict than those governing 2+?

3: its RCW69.51A that says you must be a patient specifically of the agent that is recommending, not my personal opinion, I am merely pointing out that if you go several years without seeing your recommending agent, the courts may not consider that person your doctor.

4: non-profit does not mean what you think it means.

[gypski]

1: no im not advertising.

2: medical recommendations for marijuana and driver's licenses are not analogous. The closest thing to an authorization is a prescription, the difference being marijuana is schedule 1 so it can't be prescribed. Prescriptions are only valid for a year, what makes you think the procedures governing schedule 1 drugs would be less strict than those governing 2+?

3: its RCW69.51A that says you must be a patient specifically of the agent that is recommending, not my personal opinion, I am merely pointing out that if you go several years without seeing your recommending agent, the courts may not consider that person your doctor.

4: non-profit does not mean what you think it means.

1. If you play by the establishments rules which we all know are unfair and blatantly wrong then you affirm they are your master over your body and mind. In other words they own you. I will do as I have always done and smoke cannabis because its beneficial both medically, and mentally. I'm an independent person and the state does not make my life decisions. I see how they manage what they have been given and its poorly and carelessly done.

2. I don't need a license to drink alcohol. I don't need a license to use cannabis. They are not different, If you don't have your license, you could go to jail, be fined, etc. The same with medical cannabis, if you don't have an authorization, you can go to jail, be fined. I have one, a non-expiration dated one which is good as long as my condition exists. Nothing in the law that says anything different.

3. You and the lawyers can argue the fine points of what a non-profit is. But, if the doc in the boxes are claiming to be health care organizations, then they are outside the parameters of state law unless solely owned by a licensed medical professional. Again, let the doc lawyers fight it out. They are the ones telling us their authorization is good as gold. If not, they are defrauding patients if patients get convicted using their authorizations.

End of story. The MMJ Movement leaders in Washington have totally dropped the ball so they can play along with the political and judicial system. Charlatans all, if they cannot defend and keep medical mj patients out of the court system or can't get the legislature to do the right and humane thing. :twocents:

[killerweed420]

It all boils down to racketeering. People are getting rich off of this. You don't have to renew your authorization if you don't want to. There's nothing legally that requires it. And legally you don't even need an authorization at all. But for legal reasons, its cheap insurance to cover your ass in case leo decides to make an example out of you.
By the way, welcome back james.lol

[cannasense]

1. If you play by the establishments rules which we all know are unfair and blatantly wrong then you affirm they are your master over your body and mind. In other words they own you. I will do as I have always done and smoke cannabis because its beneficial both medically, and mentally. I'm an independent person and the state does not make my life decisions. I see how they manage what they have been given and its poorly and carelessly done.

If you don't play by the laws, whether you believe they're fair or unfair, you can end up in jail. A person asked for clarification about renewals and the law. Nobody asked about your rationalization for why you think it's ok to ignore the law. People who believe like you do are criminals. The person asking the question was trying to avoid being like you.

2. I don't need a license to drink alcohol. I don't need a license to use cannabis. They are not different, If you don't have your license, you could go to jail, be fined, etc. The same with medical cannabis, if you don't have an authorization, you can go to jail, be fined. I have one, a non-expiration dated one which is good as long as my condition exists. Nothing in the law that says anything different.

Above your analogy was regarding driving and medical marijuana. Now your comparing medical marijuana and alcohol. Do you even read what you write? In either case the analogies you use are flawed and people reading this should realize that it is solely your opinion that a non-expiring authorization will protect you.

I have an idea. You post your contact info and I'll turn you into the police. We'll then test your theory on open ended authorizations. We'll soon see if you're sure enough about your opinions to back them up, or if your just a loudmouth.

3. You and the lawyers can argue the fine points of what a non-profit is. But, if the doc in the boxes are claiming to be health care organizations, then they are outside the parameters of state law unless solely owned by a licensed medical professional. Again, let the doc lawyers fight it out. They are the ones telling us their authorization is good as gold. If not, they are defrauding patients if patients get convicted using their authorizations.

Again, you're expressing opinions that have not been tested by law and that are solely your own. You tell everyone how it is then you say let the lawyers fight it out. So we should listen to you and then pay lawyers when your advice gets us arrested? Post your personal info. I think you should be the first one to test your theory.

[G13budsmoker]

has anyone heard of the "religion" excuse to use mj? i laughed when i heard that one

[justpics]

Ya there are a lot of people who think they can get away with "whatever", but the law is clear enough for me to know that I want a current recommendation from a doctor whom I am a patient of, period. That keeps you protected, you might get away with a "religious" exemption or with a 10 year old recommendation, but that ain't a chance I'd be willing to take.

[G13budsmoker]

you said it

[gypski]

I'll turn you into the police. .

Yada, yada, yada. You here now rather then bug people at NEC420? I believe you don't know diddly squat about what your talking about. I think your threat should have you banned. Psychobud where are you? :S2:

[gypski]

It all boils down to racketeering. People are getting rich off of this. You don't have to renew your authorization if you don't want to. There's nothing legally that requires it. And legally you don't even need an authorization at all. But for legal reasons, its cheap insurance to cover your ass in case leo decides to make an example out of you.
By the way, welcome back james.lol

I agree with you completely. And you see how it gets some upset saying you don't need to renew. Of course, there may be legal problems if people have several authorizations with expiration dates or different conditions. But one original for a continuing condition isn't required by law the way the statute ambiguously reads. Only the doc in the box.

[cannasense]

Yada, yada, yada. You here now rather then bug people at NEC420? I believe you don't know diddly squat about what your talking about. I think your threat should have you banned. Psychobud where are you? :S2:

It's exactly what I expected. Attach the messenger instead of the message. I don't blame for being afraid to try my test of your theory, but I can't turn you in unless you give me the info, and we both know that's the last thing your going to do.

So don't whine about my offer. If you truly believed what you're saying you'd be more than willing to show everyone just how right you are. But now look at you, you're so afraid of me and what I write that you want me banned.

So keep ducking the issues and attacking me. That'll definitely make you look right.