Legislative Bills

[justpics]

Can you please show us how that is done ?? In detail form. lol.

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsa...11_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

[jamessr]

It's o.k. time. We are all feeling the same.. sick and damn tired of being subjected to personal predilections and controverting our rights into non legislated crimes for profit under the CSA. As you see from the proposed legislation for patient protections listed, our legislators are damn tired of it also... note the intent located at rcw 69.51A.005, Now look up on-line in google, elements of hobbs act violation, elements of mail fraud, elements of wire fraud, elements of theft of honest services...both state and federal...

The political arena is getting hot and spicy. Our state legislators are answering the call just like congress did in U.S. v. McNally[ theft of honest service case]...making it clear as a bell.!! no ambiguity of what a crime is and is not..EVIDENCE and they changed what constitutes this expressed evidence. and as the court in state v. fry noted, presentment requirement is not triggered until charged...not when contacted by leo,

So as you see, the "prior" court rulings do not now match the proposed legislation. As an aff. def. is now different as applied and to whom and for what reasons. No arrest legally translates into it is no longer a public offense which give rise to any discretion by the prior offending government agents. As long as one is within 15/24 floor, ceiling is what your doctor says it is under due diligence of their professional medical opinion in regards to mitigating your symptoms[notice the section missing in each condition category[unreleived by standard treatment and meds] this was removed because patient are being denied medical treatment thru DOC, which is illegal as all hell, smart to fix the issue before getting sued for millions, see dignity of death act and court cases,, and of coarse this is at the juncture which the aff. def/medical necessity def. per mmj wac. comes into play as a backdrop protection to have a jury of your peers decide if you had to much...not many jurors I know of whom practice medicine for a living, see my point?

As for that judge you mentioned, they are in each and every county as a "gatekeeper" for the state policing interest, every person whom enters will for sure lose and get a lashing.

A specific judge in the county I live in said these exact words to me in court on the record: What is it with you people?? He was responding to me asking him WTF was his issue with me having my 35 plants retrieved from my home he decided I didn't have a right to be at anymore.. he was trying to put me in jail for violating a court order because my neighbor wrote an affidavit identifying first and last name...well the problem was, I have 2 boys with my same 1st and last name, it was one of my boys which was here, not me..anyhow, I know the spiel really well and it is these types of judges which need to be stopped from their criminal behavior against society.

[jamessr]

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsa...11_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

Interesting concept except, your confusing a repeatable synthetic above, with a non-repeatable vegetative plant which controls in the equation your using. The sum of 1+3 is not 2 my friend. You can not get a plant to repeat itself 100% on point each and every time which is the underlying "requirement" for any federal rescheduling by "CONGRESS" ONLY when they receive the empirical evidence that it qualifies under the CSA which congress legislated ... And your also confusing whom has what power to do what in regards to the CSA. Read ashcroft v. oregon., Gonzales v. Raich and Barber v. Gonzales. All these cases clearly state that congress has the only power under feds to reschedule but, a state by state can change any drug scheduling it wants through legislation if it is under the "practice of medicine" field which congress has no authority.

Hope this makes sense.

And whom ever the pres. hires to fill them spots, can ONLY write a "RECOMMENDATION" to change u.s. drug policy, they can not collectively or by themselves change anything with out the authorizing authority to do so...which lies with congress. Why do you think Mr. frank introduced the federal mmj act to congress instead of the FDA or DEA or some other "AGENCY" of the executive branch.? Hence, agency !!

[jamessr]

For Hiamp,

Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
Last Update: January 3, 2011
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the compilation of all permanent laws now in force. It is a collection of Session Laws (enacted by the Legislature, and signed by the Governor, or enacted via the initiative process), arranged by topic, with amendments added and repealed laws removed. It does not include temporary laws such as appropriations acts. The official version of the RCW is published by the Statute Law Committee and the Code Reviser.

The online version of the RCW is updated twice a year, once in the early fall following the legislative session, and again at the end of the year if a ballot measure that changes the law passed at the general election. Copies of the RCW as they existed each year since 2002 are available in the RCW Archive.

Title 69 RCW
Food, drugs, cosmetics, and poisons

Chapter 69.51 RCW
Controlled substances therapeutic research act

RCW 69.51.020
Legislative purpose.


The legislature finds that recent research has shown that the use of marijuana may alleviate the nausea and ill effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiology, and, additionally, may alleviate the ill effects of glaucoma. The legislature further finds that there is a need for further research and experimentation regarding the use of marijuana under strictly controlled circumstances. It is for this purpose that the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act is hereby enacted.

RCW 69.51.030
Definitions.


As used in this chapter:

(1) "Board" means the state board of pharmacy;

(2) "Department" means the department of health.

(3) "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant of the genus Cannabis L., whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin; and

(4) "Practitioner" means a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW.

[1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 438; 1979 c 136 § 3.]

Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.

RCW 69.51.040
Controlled substances therapeutic research program.


(1) There is established in the board the controlled substances therapeutic research program. The program shall be administered by the department. The board shall promulgate rules necessary for the proper administration of the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act. In such promulgation, the board shall take into consideration those pertinent rules promulgated by the United States drug enforcement agency, the food and drug administration, and the national institute on drug abuse.

(2) Except as provided in RCW 69.51.050(4), the controlled substances therapeutic research program shall be limited to cancer chemotherapy and radiology patients and glaucoma patients, who are certified to the patient qualification review committee by a practitioner as being involved in a life-threatening or sense-threatening situation. No patient may be admitted to the controlled substances therapeutic research program without full disclosure by the practitioner of the experimental nature of this program and of the possible risks and side effects of the proposed treatment in accordance with the informed consent provisions of chapter 7.70 RCW.

(3) The board shall provide by rule for a program of registration with the department of bona fide controlled substance therapeutic research projects.

[1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 439; 1979 c 136 § 4.]

Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.

RCW 69.51.050
Patient qualification review committee.


(1) The board shall appoint a patient qualification review committee to serve at its pleasure. The patient qualification review committee shall be comprised of:

(a) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of ophthalmology;

(b) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the subspecialty of medical oncology;

(c) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of psychiatry; and

(d) A physician licensed to practice medicine in Washington state and specializing in the practice of radiology.

Members of the committee shall be compensated at the rate of fifty dollars per day for each day spent in the performance of their official duties, and shall receive reimbursement for their travel expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.

(2) The patient qualification review committee shall review all applicants for the controlled substance therapeutic research program and their licensed practitioners and certify their participation in the program.

(3) The patient qualification review committee and the board shall insure that the privacy of individuals who participate in the controlled substance therapeutic research program is protected by withholding from all persons not connected with the conduct of the research the names and other identifying characteristics of such individuals. Persons authorized to engage in research under the controlled substance therapeutic research program may not be compelled in any civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding to identify the individuals who are the subjects of research for which the authorization was granted, except to the extent necessary to permit the board to determine whether the research is being conducted in accordance with the authorization.

(4) The patient qualification review committee may include other disease groups for participation in the controlled substances therapeutic research program after pertinent medical data have been presented by a practitioner to both the committee and the board, and after approval for such participation has been granted pursuant to pertinent rules promulgated by the United States drug enforcement agency, the food and drug administration, and the national institute on drug abuse.

[1979 c 136 § 5.]

RCW 69.51.060
Sources and distribution of marijuana.


(1) The board shall obtain marijuana through whatever means it deems most appropriate and consistent with regulations promulgated by the United States food and drug administration, the drug enforcement agency, and the national institute on drug abuse, and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The board may use marijuana which has been confiscated by local or state law enforcement agencies and has been determined to be free from contamination.

(3) The board shall distribute the analyzed marijuana to approved practitioners and/or institutions in accordance with rules promulgated by the board.

[1979 c 136 § 6.]

RCW 69.51.080
Cannabis and related products considered Schedule II substances.


(1) The enumeration of tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols in RCW 69.50.204 as a Schedule I controlled substance does not apply to the use of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols by certified patients pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(2) Cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols shall be considered Schedule II substances as enumerated in RCW 69.50.206 only for the purposes enumerated in this chapter.

[1979 c 136 § 8.]

So you see, it is a great thing to have a state "research program"... this is what our u.s. supreme court said protects it's citizens from federal intrusions.

[1979 c 136 § 2.]

[jamessr]

The same way they made THC schedule 3.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsa...11_Marinol.pdf


Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The CDER is a part of the FDA inside the Department of Health and Human Services, the President could absolutely fill that department with people who would correctly schedule marijuana.

After further review of your pdf. document and noting the date of it and in again listening to the electronic vocal record of gonzales v. raich pertaining to these documents gives rise to say, political bullpucky..lol. they rescheduled a synthetic to bone us of our mmj rights to the plant under international treaties...you should listen to it... I would post it but, I haven't figured out my new computer yet and it's transferring of data to post here. I am sure your skills can help with this in downloading it when you find it, please??

[jamessr]

The FDA and DEA could reschedule, and the President appoints the person running those organizations, meaning if Obama wanted, he could have rescheduled marijuana.

Hate the game, not the player. Game started in 1971, players have changed but, the same game continues...Obama is the only president not to come out hot and heavy against cannabis use. No u.s. AG has ever even thought about being light on any citizen for cannabis use...we have 2 top notch good players right now in a fucked up game looking out for the individual patient right. keeping the dispensing at a minimum at large vs. leaving individuals alone. individual as singular and states are given there 10th amendment rights...

Can't beat that in our day and age without being confused by political agendas.

[justpics]

Nixon's drug control budget allotted as a percentage twice what Obama's does for drug treatment versus LEO.

The rhetoric has changed but the policies are in many ways worse.

[time4me]

@James, it's my understanding that IF a drug/med/etc. is found to have ANY medicinal value, it is NOT schedule I. So will this mean that all cannabis is schedule II by default? It seems schedule I is an "all or nothing", so if there is any schedule II classification at all, it IS a schedule II. Can you find that? I know someone had it at some point and I was thinking it was you. I would love to do a comparative analysis and see if we can cause even more stink.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. The idiocy of it astounding. That we, sick patients, some of us terminal, have to intervene to make sure our lawmakers are actually doing their jobs, is disgusting.
Can we do a class-action against the state if we can't get them to straighten this crap out? I'd be in, if we can.

[jamessr]

@James, it's my understanding that IF a drug/med/etc. is found to have ANY medicinal value, it is NOT schedule I. So will this mean that all cannabis is schedule II by default? It seems schedule I is an "all or nothing", so if there is any schedule II classification at all, it IS a schedule II. Can you find that? I know someone had it at some point and I was thinking it was you. I would love to do a comparative analysis and see if we can cause even more stink.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. The idiocy of it astounding. That we, sick patients, some of us terminal, have to intervene to make sure our lawmakers are actually doing their jobs, is disgusting.
Can we do a class-action against the state if we can't get them to straighten this crap out? I'd be in, if we can.

I am working on my case appeal so we don't have to sue anyone. It is looking pretty on spot to toss these fools overboard into the abyss.

And yes it is a schedule 2 for all mmj patients in wa.... no case has touched on it yet, so far. except a rumbling from our wa. supreme court in a case quoted: ONLY DR.'S LICENSED IN WA. STATE MAY PRESCRIBE MARIJUANA. see rcw 69.51 and left it at that.

An injunction is ideal under Conant v. Walters[ 9th cir. precedent] since we,[ us patients in totality] are protected in our 1st amendment right to receive valuable "health" info. and enter into the mmj political debate... a 1yr. restrains this free-speech right..and violates conant v. walters injunction...

So when I file my appeal, all hell is going to break loose....cause I am not an officer of the court with a duty to protect my fellow court officer but, just the opposite. And I got some caselaw thats going to spin their legal minds into a black hole.

As far as the idea of mmj having medical attributes recognized by our government by the language you used, will never happen cause the rescheduling federal process does not allow any plants to be removed from a schedule 1, as you can not repeat the same test repeatedly with the same results... so it is the states which have the power to reschedule under state law, which if the majority become medical marijuana states, the requirment will be met by congress and the will be duty bound to change it to a lower schedule because the states control the practice of medicine, not congress.

[jamessr]

Nixon's drug control budget allotted as a percentage twice what Obama's does for drug treatment versus LEO.

The rhetoric has changed but the policies are in many ways worse.

:wtf:

Why would you want the pres. to have a policy for mmj treatment when we are trying to get it legalized...makes no sense to me in the big picture. As far as leo budget, they abuse their rights to access these funds and no-one has tried to stop them yet...lots of meaningless claims by lawyers whom want to keep in business so far. It is a money game and we are the pawns.:wtf:

When comparing 1970 something to current life, seems a bit off as far as $$$$$$$$$$$, we live in a day and age where we are using excuses to start a war so we can gain access to the worlds largest untouched natural resources abroad. Apples/ apples not orange/apples.

Not to mention the united states is completely bankrupt and is in bankruptcy court, gee they neglected to tell us that didn't they??