Articles Tagged: section 404

Appeals Court Sides with Spokane Dispensary owner Scott Shupe

December 21st, 2012 | By Pirate

Spokane Medical Marijuana provider Scott Shupe was charged with drug trafficking in relationship with his business “CHANGE”.  CHANGE located itself only blocks from the police department, in a nicely located, commercial/retail building which was very out in the open.  They obtained business licenses, paid retail sales tax, and operated professionally.  They would even take back any medicine that was not satisfactory with no questions asked.

In late 2009 the owners and some associates of CHANGE were arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

In late 2012, in fact just today the charges and ruling was reversed and Scott has been vindicated!

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/dec/11/apeals-court-sides-pot-dispensaries/

I am so happy for Scott Shupe, and this totally turns my attitude around about Washington state.

In this court case they did reference one thing incorrectly.  After SB 5073 (which was after the CHANGE case started in 2009), the serving “one patient at any given time” provision was struck from 69.51 WCA.  Section 404 of SB 5073 destroyed this defense that obviously worked to the benefit of Scott Shupe.

I do not think this has anything to do with I-502.  I think Scott’s case is being judged under the laws of 2009, and the state laws of 2009 were in Scott’s favor.

Those same laws would not apply to anyone in this day, because SB 5073 destroyed those protections.

But this is something to build on for sure.

Promises from Washington ACLU when passing marijuana laws

February 25th, 2012 | By Pirate

I have been documenting all of the proposed changes to Washington state law regarding marijuana over the past 18 months.

We have saw a lot of promises, and a lot of tales of amazing progress to be made.

In the end Washington cannabis consumers always get let down.

With SB 5073 there were several promises and several groups painted pictures of how the legal landscape will be brighter and happier after these things passed.

  1. In SB 5073 we were promised that patients will have “rights” rather than an affirmative defense
  2. In SB 5073 we were promised legal dispensaries
  3. In SB 5073 we were promised a new legitimized cannabis friendly state

In the end

  • We got the provision that most providers used “one patient at any given time”  removed from current law
    (reference Section 404 of SB 5073)  This hurts providers who are helping patients
  • We got absolutely no new provisions for dispensaries, and dispensaries still remain illegal under state law
  • 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 from my point of view (SB 5073)
  • After all of the propaganda and promotion of these bad laws by NORML and the ACLU, patients are in more danger than ever before

These are some videos that I made on SB 5073:

WA NORML Kevin Oliver, Alison Holcomb and Russ Belville from NORML on SB 5073

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOrA-cMMp_Q

What doctors and patients say about SB 5073 in Washington in regards to Medical Cannabis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPLh682DNlw

x Cannabis updates (Washington) 3/31/11 SB5073 and I-1149 updates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGGljgF6T1Q

Washington SB 5073, HB 1550 Senate and legislature comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Smafyf6OdY

  • NAW aka the ACLU is proposing dispensaries again, and new DUID laws.

Stoners Against Legalization OR Voters Against NEW Prohibitions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4RWUGJH5s

Does NAW really have a chance?

Posted on 09 July 2011 by Reverend Ryan

I502 Presentation Seattle Channel – Washington Legalization Initiative – or is it?

My question for New Approach Washington AKA the Washington ACLU.   Why introduce NEW prohibitions when trying to remove other prohibitions?   If you wanted to assure voters that the roads would be protected, you could have reminded voters or explained to them what Reckless Driving laws are all about:

RCW 46.61.500

Reckless driving — Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three hundred sixty-four days and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

(2) The license or permit to drive or any nonresident privilege of any person convicted of reckless driving shall be suspended by the department for not less than thirty days.

(3)(a) Except as provided under (b) of this subsection, a person convicted of reckless driving who has one or more prior offenses as defined in RCW 46.61.5055(14) within seven years shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.502, 46.61.504, or an equivalent local ordinance.

(b) A person convicted of reckless driving shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.520 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or RCW 46.61.522 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.

 

[2011 c 293 § 4; 2011 c 96 § 34; 1990 c 291 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 85; 1967 c 32 § 67; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 59.]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.500

Colorado rejected a said limit as well:
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_driving_limits_innocent_people_jail_test_results.php

Update:

From the Patients Against New Approach Washington Page on FB

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2735778196119&set=o.247931875228921&type=1&theater&notif_t=like

Kevin Oliver (AKA Washington NORML) says:

Washington N.O.R.M.L. ?…but, it’s legal for everyone, everywhere in WA, from anywhere in the USA, to come to this state and walk around with and ounce of the killer stinky ganja?! Where can I get some? Any patients willing to sell for $400 an ounce on the black market? Anyone? Anyone? (Rhetorical question)”

Friar Ryan (me) says:

Friar Ryan Ive heard all that I can handle from establishment law makers. I want to hear from “we the people” not “we the lawyers”.
Im not even as worried about the patient issue as the DUID issue. There are a lot of problems with this law. It’s definitely NOT “legalization”. Maybe “pseudo legalization” but I think I’ll call it “pseudo prohibition”

I think WA NORML actually is buying into the idea that he can walk right in to one of these state regulated dispensaries, puff up, and possibly share with his buddies over 21.
1. There will be NO DISPENSARIES. We already know that, remember SB 5073 anyone?
2. If there is no legal procurement, then all marijuana will still have to be illegally obtained
3. If Kevin shares his ounce with his buddy. Heck even if he passes a joint to his buddy, he’s still breaking the law.

I wonder if Kevin can wrap his mind around any of this? And if he can, maybe he’s totally cool with it all, even the possibility that he some day will get pulled over, and the cops will say “sir we smell weed, you must submit to a blood test”. And maybe he can’t afford to bail out of jail while they are waiting for the blood test results to come back, and he won’t be able to attend the next illegal ganja party where all of his super duper lawyer friends are at illegally passing joints to one another. So he waits and waits in jail until the test results come back.. A couple of months pass, and finally the results come back, and lets say Kevin is freed from jail because he is a light weight, and one hit lasts him for weeks. So he isn’t above like 5ng limit like all of his friends are. Well good for you Kevin”

Kevin says:

Washington N.O.R.M.L.

Friar Ryan: What is funny? The fact that you are an out of state activist who may as well be working with the DEA to keep pot illegal for recreational users in WA? The fact that you grow and sell pot in another state, like you used to do here? The fact that there are real people in the world that have real money who don’t care about you? Or the fact that the same group that put together 69.51a are putting together 502, which, when taken togther could give WA state more privileges and protections than any other state for both personal and medical use – is that funny? If you want to be a grower/preacher/hero, then change federal prohibition, or spread your non-strategic vocal activism spam to every other recreational decrim/medical marijuana defense website and facebook page, as suggested in another thread by Radical Russ, such as: SAFER, ASA, MPP , ect.”
I then found out he censored all of my posts on the Washington NORML FB page, and blocked me.
All that I posted were these two videos:

So I say:

Friar Ryan As for me being an out of state activist as you call it. I spent 13 years more time in Washington than Russ Belville has, I paid taxes there this year, and I raised my kids there. Many of my friends and family still live there, and I return often. Go complain about “out of state activists” who are not stake holders in WA laws.”

This is all after trying to make peace with NORML, and starting a new monthly donation of $4.20.   Which is small I know, I don’t have a lot of money.  But over the last 4 years I have donated over $600 to NORML, and I have tried to support them.  But I do not support this type of  behavior.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150691500256789&set=a.58849796788.84759.790371788&type=1

 

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.