United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Washington State Law for Potheads
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 28, 2016
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2016-08-28 15:13:06 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 259
Comments: 3
Washington State Law for Potheads Cannatonics v. City of Tacoma, No. 45999-0-II (Ct. App. Wash. Div. II, 15 Sep. 2015) at 14: Contrary to what some addle-brained potheads believe, marijuana is an illegal, Schedule I drug under Washington state law. The Washington pot law of 2011, as passed by the Washington legislature, gave the appearance that the legislators were potheads. The governor vetoed significant provisions, notably a registry to be maintained by state employees. "I will not subject my state employees to federal prosecution -- period," said Gregoire, who worries what would happen if the state started licensing medical marijuana dispensaries and growing operations, which are legal under state law, but not federal law. The legislation in question, Senate Bill 5073, would create a system of state-regulated medical marijuana dispensaries, patient registries and cooperative growing gardens. U.S. attorneys for Washington state, Mike Orsmby and Jenny Durkan, said in a letter to the governor on April 14 that marijuana use is still a federal crime and anyone helping make that use possible, such as a state employee at a patient registry, could be prosecuted. "Growing, distributing and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities," Ormsby and Durkan wrote. "State employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the Controlled Substance Act." http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Vetoes/Senate/5073-S2.VTO.pdf 2011 Veto Message The registry in the state of Washington was vetoed and never came into existence under the 2011 law. Parts of the law that provided protections for people who were registered never did anything because nobody could register. One provision provides an affirmative defense, but an affirmative defense admits the defendant committed a criminal act and pleads an excuse for doing so. It is only available as an excuse for a criminal act. The Washington law for an affirmative defense is conditional upon compliance with the terms of the Act. http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.043 Failure to enter into the medical marijuana authorization database— Affirmative defense. (1) A qualifying patient or designated provider who has a valid authorization from his or her health care professional, but is not entered in the medical marijuana authorization database and does not have a recognition card may raise the affirmative defense set forth in subsection (2) of this section, if: (a) The qualifying patient or designated provider presents his or her authorization to any law enforcement officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of marijuana; (b) The qualifying patient or designated provider possesses no more marijuana than the limits set forth in RCW 69.51A.210(3); (c) The qualifying patient or designated provider is in compliance with all other terms and conditions of this chapter; (d) The investigating law enforcement officer does not have probable cause to believe that the qualifying patient or designated provider has committed a felony, or is committing a misdemeanor in the officer's presence, that does not relate to the medical use of marijuana; and (e) No outstanding warrant for arrest exists for the qualifying patient or designated provider. (2) A qualifying patient or designated provider who is not entered in the medical marijuana authorization database and does not have a recognition card, but who presents his or her authorization to any law enforcement officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of marijuana, may assert an affirmative defense to charges of violations of state law relating to marijuana through proof at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she otherwise meets the requirements of RCW 69.51A.040. A qualifying patient or designated provider meeting the conditions of this subsection but possessing more marijuana than the limits set forth in RCW 69.51A.210(3) may, in the investigating law enforcement officer's discretion, be taken into custody and booked into jail in connection with the investigation of the incident. Washington passed a "cannabis patient protection act" in 2015 which became fully effective in July 2016 — except for the parts that were vetoed by the Governor, such as removing medical marijuana products from Schedule I of the state's Controlled Substances Act. Employers of a health care professional may not prohibit or limit the authority of any health care professional to: (1) Advise a patient about the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana or that the patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana; or (2) Provide a patient or designated provider meeting the criteria established under RCW 69.51A.010 with an authorization, based upon the health care professional's assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition, if the health care professional has complied with this chapter and he or she determines within a professional standard of care or in the individual health care professional's medical judgment the qualifying patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana. *Sec. 36 was vetoed. See message at end of chapter. - - - - - - - - - - (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the commission shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance: (1) has high potential for abuse; (2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the2United States; and (3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. (b) The commission may place a substance in Schedule I without making the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or protocol. (c) No marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused product that the department has identified in rules adopted pursuant to section 10(4) of this act as appropriate for sale to qualifying patients and designated providers in a retail outlet that holds a medical marijuana endorsement shall be deemed to have met the criteria established in subsection (a) of this section and may not be placed in Schedule I. *Sec. 42 was vetoed. See message at end of chapter. - - - - - - - - - - The Governor's veto was accompanied by the following comments. Section 36. This section prohibits employers of health care providers from limiting medical marijuana recommendations to patients. This is an employment law provision that may cause confusion and potential unintended consequences. This section was added without adequate input. The sponsors of this legislation have also requested this provision be vetoed to allow time for further discussion to develop appropriate policy. Sections 42 and 43. These sections remove from Schedule I of our state's Controlled Substances Act any medical marijuana product. This is a laudable idea and I appreciate the intent to reduce the stigma of medical marijuana by rescheduling it from a Schedule I — an illegal — controlled substance to something more appropriate. However, our state's rescheduling system has very limited effect, and rescheduling just medicinal marijuana — not the entire cannabis plant and derivatives — may cause serious problems such as having the unintended effect of limiting the types of marijuana that are considered medicine. To that end, I have instructed the Department of Health to thoroughly consider this idea in consultation with medical professionals and stakeholders, and bring an appropriate resolution to me and the Legislature by next year. Furthermore, I will continue to advocate for the federal government to consider a national rescheduling solution, which may be most beneficial, considering the limited power that state rescheduling has in this respect. Sections 44, 45 and 46. These sections create new felonies in our criminal code. Washington state does not need additional criminal penalties related to medical marijuana. Moreover, these sections wereadded as part of the same amendment that created sections 42 and 43 that would have rescheduled medical marijuana. Because I have vetoed sections 42 and 43, sections 44, 45, and 46 are also unnecessary. Section 52. This section makes Senate Bill 5052 contingent on the enactment of some version of House Bill 2136 by October 1, 2015. This contingent effective date causes confusion and potentially conflicts with other effective dates in Senate Bill 5052. In addition, if the Legislature is unable to pass a version of House Bill 2136, the Code Reviser's Office has advised me that this provision acts as a null and void clause, in which case we risk jeopardizing the integrity of the system created in this bill. I strongly agree with the need for additional policy and administrative changes to ensure a well-regulated and functioning marijuana market. However, this bill should not be made contingent on those changes. For these reasons I have vetoed Sections 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 52 of Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5052. With the exception of Sections 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 52, Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5052 is approved." In conclusion, we reject Cannatonics’ arguments that medical marijuana is legal and thus we reject its argument that the statute is overbroad.
Under threat of the federal government, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed key pieces of a medical marijuana law, saying she doesn't want to put state employees at risk of federal criminal charges.
However, the sections in Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 would direct employees of the state departments of Health and Agriculture to authorize and license commercial businesses that produce, process or dispense cannabis. These sections would open public employees to federal prosecution, and the United States Attorneys have made it clear that state law would not provide these individuals safe harbor from federal prosecution. No state employee should be required to violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill duties under state law. For these reasons, I have vetoed Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
RCW 69.51A.043
*NEW SECTION. Sec. 36. A new section is added to chapter 69.51A RCW to read as follows:
*Sec. 42. RCW 69.50.203 and 2013 c 19 s 88 are each amended to read as follows:
I am vetoing the following sections:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
Stick to copying and pasting - your commentary is exceptionally moronic. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You sound like you are inspired by Hillary Clinton. No substance.
Yup, that's your stupid "potheads" crack in a nut-shell. Were those who voted to end Prohibition "alkies"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. gave the appearance that the legislators were potheads.
#2. To: ConservingFreedom (#1)
Stick to copying and pasting - your commentary is exceptionally moronic.
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
No substance.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]