Articles Tagged: rcw

Brett Hamil Puff Puff Pass the blame for shitty laws #bretthamil #hempfest

August 6th, 2013 | By Pirate

This is my response to Brett Hamil about I-502 and Hempfest.  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dCryr5XIfM
Brett Hamil obviously doesn’t know shit about the law, or legalization, or the vested interests behind I-502.

1. Brett says I-502 legalized cannabis.  That is not true.  Cannabis is still a Schedule One Drug on a State and Federal level.

In Section 10(a) of I-502, the law concedes to comply with all federal laws.   So if cannabis is a schedule one drug on a state and a federal level, then there are no tenth Amendment protections, because in order to receive 10th Amendment protections, state law must be complied with.  If someone is breaking both state and federal law, they receive no 10th Amendment protections.

Ref:   http://xcannabis.com/2013/06/if-cannabis-is-legal-in-washington-why-is-it-still-schedule-one/

section 10(a)>

“(a) Federal laws relating to marijuana that are applicable within
Washington state;”

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf

Ref to Schedule one:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.204

I-502 specifically acknowledges the Federal jurisdiction, and submits to it.
Therefore a store opening with the permission of the LCB is unplausible.
The state can’t put state employees in jeopardy of violating federal law, especially with the specific acknowledgement of federal cooperation all throughout I-502.
If the Federal Government was to remove cannabis from the Federal CSA, or if the federal government lost jurisdiction via the commerce clause of the constitution by nullification of the commerce clause, then I-502 would possibly have more legal standing, though Washington state would also have to remove cannabis from the Washington State Uniform Controlled Substances Act as well. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause )

 

 

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

2.  Brett mocks the opposition to I-502 in the cannabis community for opposing legalization, while praising the ACLU for supporting I-502.   The gap that he leaves out is that the ACLU has not once supported a legalization initiative in Washington for over 75 years, and the two times previous to I-502 (faux legalization), they openly and publicly opposed it.  Similar to Peter Holmes.

Reference to the ACLU opposing truly ending prohibition:

http://xcannabis.com/2012/08/why-in-75-years-has-the-aclu-never-supported-a-cannabis-legalization-initiative/

 

Reference to Peter Holmes opposing truly ending prohibition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg93SBrwh1A

Without a Clue  ACLU

Without a Clue ACLU

3.  Brett gives motivations as to why people in the cannabis community would oppose legalization, citing selfish industry ambitions.  However I give the same reasons why attorney’s would oppose I-1149 and I-1068 but would support a pseudo-prohibition instead like I-502.   Lawyers make money off defending people from cannabis charges.  They would not want something like I-1149 to pass, because all I-1149 did was remove penalties.  It did not add any new penalties, and it did not consent to federal laws, nor did it violate any federal laws like I-502 does.  Since I-502 leave cannabis as a schedule one on a state level, and since I-502 (section 10a) concedes to federal authority (giving up 10th amendment protections) I-502 would be much more beneficial to the careers of lawyer who are members of the ACLU, much more than something like I-1068 or I-1149 would.  I-502 added new penalties, while not even truly removing old penalties.  I-1149 just removed old penalties.   But the ACLU opposed I-1149 and I-1068.   Why doesn’t Brett address that topic?

4.  Brett cites the irrational fear of people, citing that I-502 has not caused drugged driving arrests to go up.
As I cited in the video, the negative consequences of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act took years to show up.
The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was presented as a way to legitimize and tax cannabis crops.  In the end, it created the first cannabis prohibition on a federal level.   So just like I-502, the 1937 version was presented as a positive bureaucracy, but it ended up being prohibition in disguise, just like I-502.

5.  Brett claims that people opposed I-502 because of the potential that it would increase prices based on the 90%+ tax rates it would impose on cannabis.   He said that we do not know if that will happen, because the tax doesn’t start until November 2013.   However, based on the scheduling of cannabis on a state and federal level, I contest that there will be no “legal stores” based on current law under I-502.   But these tax structures have cause medical cannabis to be jeopardized with increased taxes and regulation, as it has been proposed that the Liquor Control Board now takes control over medical cannabis.

Ref:

New WA Legislation Would Put Medical Marijuana Industry In the Hands of the Liquor Control Board

http://thejointblog.com/new-wa-legislation-would-put-medical-marijuana-industry-in-the-hands-of-liquor-control-board/

Ref to Comparing I-502 to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937:

http://xcannabis.com/2012/10/comparing-initiative-502-to-the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

In the end, I think it’s disgusting how ill educated many of these pro-I502 pundits are.  People like Russ Belville and Dominick Holden seem to be educated but blindly supporting bad law.  I don’t know exactly why, other than Russ Belville for example was getting a salary from NORML (pot-lawyers) of over $30,000 per year at the time.  I don’t know if that is why, or if Russ is just a suckup to people with power.   Maybe a little bit of both.   But clearly I-502 is bad law.  NORML did very little to support previous legalization efforts in Washington, and the ACLU flat out opposed other legalization efforts.   For Brett Hamil to not criticize these groups for opposing legalization in the past, but to lay heavy responsibility and guilt on hempfest, is irresponsible and hypocritical.

 

If you are interested in REAL LEGALIZATION in Washington State, see this link:

http://reallegalization.org/

 

If cannabis is legal in Washington why is it still schedule one?

June 29th, 2013 | By Pirate

People keep asking me questions about why I think cannabis is still illegal in WA. First and foremost, cannabis is STILL a schedule one drug on the WASHINGTON Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as well as the Federal CSA.
There are no tenth amendment protections or local law enforcement protections for cannabis if it is still listed on the CSA as an illegal (Schedule 1) substance. Look for yourself.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.204

So my suggestion is, Russ Belville and those who promoted this crap the most, should be brave enough to be the first people to open up a cannabis shop in WA.  After all Russ Belville and Ganja Jon have been promising to move to Washington as dumb laws like this get passed.  During a show in 2010 they were talking about how if SB 5073 passed they would be moving to Washington.  So what is it?   Why are they waiting?

Video response to Russ Belville’s lies.   As judge Judy says  “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me that it’s raining”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFsQ-EO3H0

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

Serving one patient at any one time, removed (Section 404 of SB 5073)

May 1st, 2011 | By Pirate

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

But NOW under SB 5073 that lingo changes.  See the below info and link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5073-S2.PL.pdf

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.

Fare thee well, Rev Ryan from Washington

April 22nd, 2011 | By Pirate

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)

Also this is an update about SB 5073 from the governors office:
RE: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/04/governor_set_to_veto_dispensary_part_of_medical_ma.php

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.

Feb: http://xcannabis.com/2011/04/like-ive-been-saying-leave-the-state-employees-out-of-it/

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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A

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).

You can see the original by going to this link.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5073.pdf

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

(part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY35cNJ3-nw
(pat2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438P3M5qyrM

This was made in April 2011 in response to NORML Kevin Oliver and ACUL’s Alison Holcomb (4/18/11):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOrA-cMMp_Q

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.

About the downfall of SB 5073

April 18th, 2011 | By Pirate

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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.005

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))”

In representative Cody’s amendment the above exemption was crossed out also.

Here is the original:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5073.pdf

And here is Cody’s Amendment. Same protections CROSSED OUT.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Amendments/House/5073-S2.E%20AMH%20CODY%20H2591.2.pdf

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.

Legalization xCannabis update March 12th 2011

March 13th, 2011 | By Pirate

The new initiatives have been assigned the numbers 1148 and 1149.

* In the first, marijuana is dropped from the list of controlled substances for adults only.
* In the second, a new Section 6 has been added, specifically retaining marijuana penalties for persons under 18, under RCW 69.50.

Read more from Sensible Washington as the legal team decides which to go with.  I personally favor the first one, but I think the second one would be more likely to get support from many people, especially on the east side.

https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/uncategorized/why-sensible-washington-refiled/