We are coming up on the 12th anniversary of a very horrible event that occurred on 9-11-2001 and I have made a video to talk about the soldiers who come back from the conflict in the middle east with PTSD. I have encouraged my listeners to participate in the Tough Mudder endurance challenge, and to contribute to the Wounded Warriors Project.
I made some commentary on cannabis and PTSD, and provided some clips from doctors who endorse using cannabis for treating PTSD.
It has long been known that cannabis has positive effects on people with PTSD, but I am not recommending cannabis to anyone. Rather I am just encouraging people to watch the video below and listen to what doctors have to say about it.
I suffer from PTSD myself after getting in a life threatening car accident in May 2013. The person who hit me was a veteran who was also likely suffering from PTSD, and had a history of drunk driving before this incident. He died in the car accident. These are the kind of people that I aim to help by participating in events like the Tough Mudder challenge, and donating to the Wounded Warrior Project.
Video clips used under the FAIR USE ACT, for non-commercial, educational purposes.
“The state medical marijuana law protects medical professionals from criminal or disciplinary charges if they follow a set of rules, including completing an exam and documenting other ways used to treat “the terminal or debilitating medical condition” other than marijuana.”
This is also something important to learn about SB 5073, and how the doctor/patient relationship changed after this passed.
Everyone thinks that the worst thing about SB 5073 is the veto from the governor, but that is not the case. The biggest issue is how the law changed in relationship to the doctor patient relationship.
This from a post I made on the subject in February 2012.
“Patient and doctor relationships became more complicated as there are now restrictions and penalties for doctors for recommending cannabis, where as doctors were completely excluded from legal penalties; ref: The effects of Section 301 (SB 5073)
The ACLU makes way too many hasty compromises. The WA branch of the ACLU has lost my trust, especially with I-502. I mean it took them over 75 years to even attempt to join the fight. They have yet to even support a real legalization initiative in WA despite that many have gained hundreds of thousands of signatures. But they support stuff like SB 5073 and I-502?
What took them so long to get active in this civil rights issue, and why when they get involved they propose regressive changes?
This is a topic that has been a concern since we all protested the raid at CHANGE in Spokane in 2009.
According to the Washington voters that passed I-691 in 1998, a provider could provide medicine to one patient at any one time. But under Section 404 of SB 5073 that has changed, and a 15 day cooling off period is applied between patients.
The Washington code has read under RCW 69.51a.010 for 13 years about providers:
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) “Designated provider” means a person who:
(a) Is eighteen years of age or older;
(b) Has been designated in writing by a patient to serve as a designated provider under this chapter;
(c) Is prohibited from consuming marijuana obtained for the personal, medical use of the patient for whom the individual is acting as designated provider; and
(d) Is the designated provider to only one patient at any one time.
After Change was busted in 2009, this became a concern for providers. We felt it was necessary for patients to be able to access medicine as soon as they got their recommend without having to wait for their garden or their provider’s garden to grow for 3-4 months before harvest was ready. Ill patients sometimes don’t even have 3 months, not yet can they wait even if they do. Their doctors has recommended cannabis to them because they are sick, and they should have immediate access to their medication. So we designed software to offer a time/date stamp so that providers can prove that they are only serving one patient at any one time. We paid a developer for a lot of modifications to an open source program called PHPPointOfSale, and it offers a database record, and a printed receipt with this time/date stamp on it, to help protect providers. You can see that software and even download and use it 100% free at: http://emeraldpos.com
NEW SECTION. Sec. 404. (1) A qualifying patient may revoke his or
21 her designation of a specific provider and designate a different
22 provider at any time. A revocation of designation must be in writing,
23 signed and dated. The protections of this chapter cease to apply to a 24 person who has served as a designated provider to a qualifying patient 25 seventy-two hours after receipt of that patient’s revocation of his or 26 her designation.
27 (2) A person may stop serving as a designated provider to a given
28 qualifying patient at any time. However, that person may not begin 29 serving as a designated provider to a different qualifying patient 30 until fifteen days have elapsed from the date the last qualifying 31 patient designated him or her to serve as a provider.
This is a few of the concerns that I have currently in Washington. I am still a resident and I plan on coming back.
So first of all I wanted to post this about SB 5073 from April 22 2011.
I also wanted to share this, which is our farewell to Washington. I also talk about present day society vs. ancient society. My example is Washington state vs. Ancient Ireland. (I decided not to fix the audio issues. So if you pick up on those, it’s not your computer its the video. There are a few trouble spots)
The Washington state Senate gave final passage Thursday to a bill to regulate medical marijuana cultivation and sales, setting up a likely showdown with Gov. Christine Gregoire, who opposes provisions for state employees regulating a system of medicinal cannabis dispensaries.
Yup, this is what I’ve been saying the whole time.
The problem here is that since January SB 5073 intended to gut Section 301, and heavily regulate and tax dispensaries. This has been the #1 and #2 thing spoken about in EVERY hearing so far.
Section 301 removes the exclusive protections that doctors get currently with 69.51a. The limitation of dispensaries will drive prices (and tax revenue) up because with less competition the free market can’t work in favor of patients. Spokane would go from having over 40 dispensaries to having less than 24 dispensaries.
I encourage everyone to read the CURRENT Washington code, and then compare it to what is being proposed now.
In its initial release at the first of this year it was bad as well. It wasn’t gutted, so much as it only got worse. This bill has never been about protecting patients, its been about limiting dispensaries, and giving control to the industry via an expensive tax structure.
In the “Original Bill” section 301 started off by crossing out provisions for doctors in current like. This lingo was crossed out of current law from the get go:
“((A health care professional shall be excepted from the state’s 25 criminal laws and shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any 26 right or privilege, for))”
Currently doctors are not included in the state law that offers penalties to doctors in regards to helping patient attain a recommend for medical marijuana. But the legislature started off with removing the exception to the law, and they crossed that lingo out (above).
Im not saying this bill is all bad, nor did it start out being ALL bad. But it only takes a few bad parts to make the whole law useless, and if patients do not have access to their medicine, because doctors are scared of losing their license over it, then it destroys current laws and protections for doctors and patients.
Why people like NORML EVER supported it is beyond me. ??
I posted this to Radical Russ from NORML in February about SB 5073
So when Washington lobbyist groups like NORML say that it just recently got gutted. That is NOT true. They (the legislature and supportive groups) have been trying to gut 69.51a since this bill originally came out. The proof is in the bill itself.
The thing that is better about our current law, is that the doctor rights are preserved and SB 5073 won’t be hacking out the protections that doctors have. SB 5073 in Section 301 even AFTER Cody’s amendment, still struck out the lingo in 69.51a that granted doctors exemption from the law period.
At least doctors wont be harassed, and the affirmative defense will remain in tact. This is a big issue, because if doctors are afraid to give recommends, as many doctors personally expressed to me that they would in SB 5073. Then there won’t be many patients, few if any in fact.. So the doctors would have to be incredibly brave to risk their license under 5073. Under the present condition of RCW 69.51a it says:
“Persons who act as designated providers to such patients shall also not be found guilty of a crime under state law for assisting with the medical use of marijuana; and”
“Health care professionals also be excepted from liability and prosecution for the authorization of marijuana use to qualifying patients for whom, in the health care professional’s professional judgment, medical marijuana may prove beneficial.”
So we have just retained a law that has been helping people for 13 years, and with this law both doctors and providers are exemptions from marijuana prohibition laws.
I’d say 69.51a is a good defense in court, but it really shouldn’t even go to court according to the lingo in 69.51a.
Plus rep Cody’s Amendment called from STRICTER restraints on dispensaries limiting Spokane to only 24 dispensaries, when we currently have over 45 in the city now. Essentially her amendment gave some (very little) protections back to doctors in comparison to other amendments previously. But it also left out the exclusive protections that doctors have now, plus it limits the free market which would drive prices up for patients.
Well a lot of the things that I feared about this bill passed.
I had hoped that the dispensary system would remain strong in competition in hopes that we would eventually see the effects of the free market. But before the free market was able to balance itself out, the lawmakers started making laws, the DOJ started getting worried, and the landlords of dispensary owners were notified of some possible recourse by the state if dispensary owners do not evict their tenants.
So once again these shops are abandoned, people are competing for less jobs now, and the black market just absorbed a huge amount of business.
But in the mean time in Olympia there has been a lot of new changes and proposals and discussion about how patients are going to be treated in this state.
Some groups are satisfied with just about anything different than what we currently have. But I haven’t been so convinced that we are getting what is best for us.
I honestly believe Washington Medical Marijuana laws are lacking. There is no doubt that things need to be improved. But we don’t need any kind of change, we need specific protections.
We have objected mostly to the problems with section 301 creating a heap of new worries for doctors and patients in regards to misconduct etc. But some of that was changed by Rep. Cody’s amendment.
There are some good and bad things about Rep. Cody’s amendment. It is good that doctors can now see a patient for the first time to be able to recommend cannabis. But there is still some lingo about the continuation of the relationship with that patient.
But in Rep. Cody’s amendment there is provisions to limit dispensaries, limit competition and destroy all of the benefits we can get from a free market. So there will be a limit of one dispensary for every 20,000 people in city.
The way that this will effect our current market is that Spokane is going to decrease from having 40+ dispensaries to having less than 25 dispensaries.
This is bad in relationship to sharing the cost of the very expensive registry system between dispensaries which they have set the number of around 11 million dollars to start, plus the ongoing salary of 45+ new state employees.
Certainly there are some good things and some bad things about it.
Requiring patients to pay for the salaries of over 45 new state employees, and to pay for a registry that costs 10s of millions o f dollars, totally paid for by patients not the state.
Colorado and Nevada pay one person to do the same job. Why 45+?
Some of the important good and bad are below.
5073-S2.E AMH CODY H2591.2
Specifies that, prior to January 1, 2016, the maximum number of
licensed dispensers in a county shall be based upon a ratio of 1
dispenser for every 20,000 residents. Provides that, on or after
January 1, 2016, the Secretary of Health may adopt rules to adjust the
method of determining the ratio to consider other factors.
EFFECT: Specifies that the documented relationship between a
qualifying patient and health care professional may either be newly
initiated or existing and in the capacity of either a primary care
provider or a specialist.
EFFECT: Removes the protections from searches for qualifying
patients registered with the Department of Health (DOH). Removes
the protections from being taken into custody or booked into jail
for qualifying patients with valid documentation, but who are not
registered with DOH (retains the affirmative defense).
Spokane will go from having over 40 dispensaries to have less than 25.
Less competition, less good for patients
I have heard we still have a chance to kill it as it goes back to the senate. We at least need to change it, and offer search protections for patients, and to offer patients who are not on the registry protection if the have valid documentation. I also think that Washington does not need any more supervision of our medical marijuana laws than Colorado or Nevada do. One person in this position is sufficient. As a programmer and software designer I do not agree to the enormous costs of the registry. I would be happy to bid a much lower amount!