WA State Card Renew

[jamessr]

b) Intractable pain, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications
And there it is. Unrelieved by standard medications. It means you have to have tried normal medications and they don't work.

You are correct from section (b) and further noted sections down,this is the legal requirements...but, for those in section (a) this requirement was "specifically" left out, so these qualifying conditions don't need to have "failed" standard treatments...the mmj is used with/in conjunction with the standard treatments and meds used in the standard treatment(s) of the conditions...

Tis all I was pointing out KW420.:thumbsup:

[jamessr]

RCW 69.51A.030 states:

A physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW shall be excepted from the state's criminal laws and shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for:

(1) Advising a qualifying patient about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that the qualifying patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana where such use is within a professional standard of care or in the individual physician's medical judgment; or

(2) Providing a qualifying patient with valid documentation, based upon the physician's assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history and current medical condition, that the medical use of marijuana may benefit a particular qualifying patient.

In order to be in compliance with this section, and benefit from the protections it offers, a health care professional's recommendation must be based not only on the patient's qualifying condition (medical records) but also their current medical condition.

It becomes more and more difficult for the authorizing health care professional to claim that their recommendation is based on the patient's current condition, when there is large gap of time between the date the recommendation was made and when it became necessary for the patient to prove they are legal.

So while the recommendation without an expiration date may be valid, it is up to the recommending health care professional to attest to it's validity.

Especially with the new requirements that require the recommendation be on tamper resistant paper with at least a date of issue, it seems naive to rely on the police or prosecutor to not check with the issuing health care professional as to the validity of an open-ended recommendation.

If you believe your recommending health care professional will put their license and freedom on the line for someone they last saw in the distant past then take the Dept. of Health at face value and rest assured that your open-ended recommendation will keep you safe.

Personally I'll take the sure thing of at least yearly contact with my authorizing health care professional.

[So while the recommendation without an expiration date may be valid, it is up to the recommending health care professional to attest to it's validity.]

So as you so graciously point out above here cannasense,my healthcare practitioner "certified" my non-expiration dated authorization was indeed valid, it was the non-health care practitioner clinic owner which declared my authorization was invalid because the "clinic" (his corp. policy) says it's only is valid for 1 yr....see the legal hump you yourself pointed out which is square on point here...who the hell gave a non-healthcare layperson the legal authority to over rule a licensed professionals medical opinion?

Certainly not the legislature but, the judiciary which is ad-hoc and discriminatory enforcement which is void-for-vagueness under that doctrine and separation of powers doctrine violation, i.e. unconstitutional. Since the 1 yr. is not to be located in plain terms and language in the whole chapter anywhere which would apprise the public and leo of what conduct is prohibited. It come from commercialization of the practice of medicine by those whom can't qualify for a learned profession license, they are skirting the laws and making a mockery of the medical profession.

[gypski]

Because of the law only allowing an affirmative defense it allow a wide amount of discretion by the judge, which is truelly unfair. Again it gives the prosecution all the power in the courtroom and the defendent very little. If we hadn't had the governor and the legislature amnipulating our original intiative this wouldn't happen. The original intiative made MMJ legal for authorized patients, not an affirmative defense. Its one of the great differences between our MMJ law and other states.

And when exactly did this come about? It would seem those who got authorized before that change would still be legal, or grandfathered.

[jamessr]

Because of the law only allowing an affirmative defense it allow a wide amount of discretion by the judge, which is truelly unfair. Again it gives the prosecution all the power in the courtroom and the defendent very little. If we hadn't had the governor and the legislature amnipulating our original intiative this wouldn't happen. The original intiative made MMJ legal for authorized patients, not an affirmative defense. Its one of the great differences between our MMJ law and other states.

Criminal defendants have a due process right to have their defenses heard. State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 301, 165 P.3d 1251 (2007) (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408, 108 S. Ct. 646, 98 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1988)); accord [*20] Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973). And their right to a trial by a jury must remain inviolate. WASH. CONST . art. I, § 21.

The initiative language pertaining to legal vs. just an aff. def. is the same even after GSB 6032 was enacted..the wa. supreme court had never "interpreted" this part of the statute before now...so it has always been an aff. def. even in the 3 appeal districts...it is still lawful use for mmj patients as the operative language proscibes, just not those whom "claim" they are because of the "requirements" as noted by the fry court, the whole chapter is what lawfully negates probable cause...big difference in having a qualifying condition and the dr. medical opinion..some dr. don't use their opinion but, their employers medical opinion for test cases...

Our court has not had the correct qualifying patients case before it yet..they have been "TEST" cases only so far...which have all failed except 1, mr. olson in kitsap co....which cost him everything he owned to have a real trial from thcf.

So don't give up just yet KW420...we will get there in time.

[jamessr]

The court stops here when using it's broad discretion to ascertain the meaning of a statute, i.e. the "DIB" 1 yr renewal clause. If words are not located in the statute, the court has nothing in words to construe to see if the statute is unambiguous...or ambiguous...nor can it add words or remove them. The legislature is the only government body which may add or remove words.

In order to ascertain the meaning of a statute, the court looks first to its language. If the language is not ambiguous, the court gives effect to its plain meaning. If a statute is clear on its face, its meaning is to be derived from the language of the statute alone. If a statute is ambiguous, the court employs tools of statutory construction to ascertain its meaning. A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations, but a statute is not ambiguous merely because different interpretations are conceivable. The court does not subject an unambiguous statute to statutory construction and has declined to add language to an unambiguous statute even if it believes the Legislature intended something else but did not adequately express it. Courts may not read into a statute matters that are not in it and may not create legislation under the guise of interpreting a statute. Thus, when a statute is not ambiguous, only a plain language analysis of a statute is appropriate.

[justpics]

james, seriously, just stop. You're not a lawyer, if you want to be one, go to school.

[killerweed420]

The sad fact about this country is that you have to become atleast a backyard attorney just to cut through the bullshit any more. Its one of the failings of our society that you even need an attorney to represent you in a court. The laws have become so convoluted that not even judges can make sense out of them any more.
My personal opinion is that all laws should be repealed that have been written in the last 200 years and start over with some sort of a resemblance of commonsense.

[jamessr]

james, seriously, just stop. You're not a lawyer, if you want to be one, go to school.

Sorry you see being an advocate which posts our courts rules, the findings, the laws, and of coarse their own plain english words they use in the real world as wanting to be a lawyer...I certainly don't want to be a lawyer or play one.. I certainly don't want to be played by one or any of them either.:wtf:

Sometimes being an advocate means showing the truth about how our courts, police, lawyers, and of coarse our government how they do our business when it comes to truth or consequences. Either way, when we the people and especially we the patients are lied to day in and day out by profiteers in all forms sucking the life off of the sick and dying from laws which we put forth to protect us and they get twisted and used against us...well someone must show how they are doing it...and the media articles don't cover it...our so called pot specialty clinics aren't protecting us, they just do the same as the courts do, self interests!!

So we must all be on the same page as patients vs. "ALL" the special interest groups living off of us sick and dying for their owns selling-interests.

[killerweed420]

And all of this still boils down to MMJ is not legal in Washington. If it were patients wouldn't be arrested and force to prove there innocence. I was always under the impression that you are innocent till proven guilty.
Its like say you're walking across a marked crosswalk legally and an officer writes you a ticket for jaywalking. If its just your word against the officers word, who do you think would win in court?

[jamessr]

And all of this still boils down to MMJ is not legal in Washington. If it were patients wouldn't be arrested and force to prove there innocence. I was always under the impression that you are innocent till proven guilty.
Its like say you're walking across a marked crosswalk legally and an officer writes you a ticket for jaywalking. If its just your word against the officers word, who do you think would win in court?

The backyard lawyer would...wouldn't he???:stoned: I beat the radar gun, the troopers written BS reports/testimony, the radar techs testimony...but, then like got charged with a crime because I beat it. Like you said about the prosecutors...it's their turf not ours, in their minds....I personally believe it's our turf and they rent it from us, we the people. And when the lease is up, TIME TO GO!! If not before then. But, that's just how I see and read the lease. Go figure, so call me a slum lord..lol.