Latest MMJ Law Draft

[jamessr]

It would except later in the Draft you have this;


"(4) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient
for his or her own personal use or benefit; and
(5) The investigating general or limited authority Washington
peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider
has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying
patient within a ninety-day period."



Is a confidential informant telling an officer he thinks you acted as a DP to two people in 90 days, "evidence"? Is a cop thinking you violated this clause for some other silly reason "evidence"?

I think in a lot of counties it will be.

EVIDENCE??

This is what they mean:

Harris argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Evidence is sufficient when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 (citing State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977)). The intent to deliver a controlled substance must follow logically â??as a matter or probability from the evidence.â?� State v. Campos, 100 Wn. App. 218, 222, 998 P.2d 893 (citing State v. Davis, 79 Wn. App. 591, 594, 904 P.2d 306 (1995)), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1006 (2000). In assessing that intent, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, scales, baggies or packaging material, and pieces [*4] of paper with potential customer information. See Campos, 100 Wn. App. at 219, 224 (2.5 grams of cocaine and 25 grams in rock, $ 1,750, piece of paper that could have been a record of sales, pager, cell phone, and cell phone charger were sufficient to infer intent to deliver); see also State v. Zamora, 63 Wn. App. 220, 223, 817 P.2d 880 (1991) (large quantity of drugs along with cash, scales, gloves, and repackaging materials is sufficient to infer intent to deliver), abrogated by State v. Silva-Baltazar, 125 Wn.2d 472, 886 P.2d 138 (1994).

¶6 The evidence contained in the stipulation of facts and the police report is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it. Along with the marijuana, the officers seized baggies, a scale, $ 800 in cash â??donations,â?� [*5] and a notebook with weights and prices. Any rational trier of fact could infer, from that evidence, that Harris possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver it, not to use it all personally. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to find Harris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. We affirm.

Block text.lol.

[justpics]

and that's what evidence it takes for a conviction right? Not to simply skirt by the law and arrest someone. As long as there's something as open as that in there, we don't have protection from arrest.

[killerweed420]

Yep.
Almost anything can be used as evidence of intent to deliver.
This is why the only acceptable way in the short term to defeat these cases is to get reasonably intelligent people on the jury because the system is broken.
The long term solution will to get this all legalized nation wide.

[ionmagic]

If a proposed new law cannot be understood completely on it's first reading by an average adult, it is not a good law.

This is NOT a good law.
its just more of the same broken system, some tit for tat, and some money changing.
free the plant!
love,
ion

[killerweed420]

This si what happens when you have attorneys involved, and your right, there used to be a legal concept that any law written that is not understandable by the average citizen is null and void. That died a long time ago.

[barbear]

OK, So let me get this straight. The Dept of Agriculture is gonna take over the inspection, weights, packaging and distribution and price of the cannabis I grow for my patient?? WTF?

[justpics]

If you want to be a licensed producer under the new proposed draft law you would need to obtain that license, and then follow the rules from the Department of Agriculture.


What rules you ask?


Well those are to be determined by the Department of Agriculture of course, so it MAY be that in order to be a licensed producer you need;


a million dollar facility

a team of security guards 24/7

a bank vault with pressure sensors

HD closed circuit cameras covering every square inch

a magical rock that keeps away tigers



we don't know, could be anything.

the ONLY guidance given to the DOA to come up with rules that will allows MILLIONS of plants (thats what we need in this state) to be grown is, "adopt rules allowing for the execution of the provisions of this chapter" [sic]


so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[killerweed420]

As with ALL legislation, once they get there foot in the door they will eventually just kick it in. They do it every time. Because power not necessarily money is the ultimate end. Because with power the money flows automatically.

[gypski]

In essence, the state is trying to take over and run something its failed to do since the passage of the original law. I don't believe they deserve to take over something they neglected, and frankly, the community can self-police the community. We know how its done and done right. Keep the state's greedy paws off of it, and keep them from setting THC levels, etc. You know what they will do if they take it over. :jointsmile:

[killerweed420]

If they take it over it will end up a mess. The laws will be so burdensome that you might as well just make it illegal again. They will charge enormous fees and taxes which will keep prices high. Then you will have the industrial growers who will grow shit that you won't have a clue what it is or whats in it. It would end up eventually in the hands of big pharma and we'd be right back where we started from, taking poison.