The " ONLY" operative part of the statute which applies to all "qualifying patients" is here:

(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;

(c) Is a resident of the state of Washington at the time of such diagnosis;

(D) Has been advised by that physician about the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana; and

(e) Has been advised by that physician that they may benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

The 1 yr. issue is ad hoc by all whom use it, refer to it or even acknowledge it because it doesn't apply to any patients and is completely horditory...it could be seen as applying to practitioners whom sign as guidelines only when applied to any qualifying patient under the act...the act requires no more.

Washington courts have made it clear any criminal defendant cannot be found guilty for due process violations...the legislature never carved out any criminal liability for anyone of common-sense to glean from rcw 69.51A that a signed 1 yr. end date document is conduct which is criminal if not renewed or the end date has passed by....it "ONLY" requires one to have a washington licensed practitioner sign for a valid authorized condition(s) noted by the MQAC.

So logically speaking here, most clinics in wa. are Independent Medical Exams because one is required to already have a "diagnosis" BY A WA. ST. practitioner which differentiates from the norms of medical practice the act was intended for..i.e. qualifying patients specialized practitioner or general practitioner whom diagnosed the patient, which all mmj clinics in wa. require before seen..

The question then would logically be, does the clinic operate under the correct laws in order to establish the relationship of the signing practitione ?

The logical answer to this question would most likely be no. Because you pay the clinic owner whom is not a medical practitioner and not the practitioner whom is signing the authorization...wa. has a public policy that this shall not occur as it is fee-splitting which degrades the medical profession...

It would be arbitrary, capricious, ad-hoc enforcement otherwise of a 1 yr. mandate...

I do see why most think it is a "good-idea", the problem is, it isn't the law nor do the plain words of the act contain it. :wtf: