Slog Comments

 

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Westlake, son! 1
I don't like 69.50.445 at all. "In view of the general public," does that mean I can't stand by a window with my marijuanas?
Posted by Westlake, son! on January 17, 2013 at 4:58 PM
2
I have issues with rcw 69.50.505 concerning property seizure. It does not clearly identify licensed producers complying with state law shall be subject to seizure for any reason.

I also have a problem with rcw. 69.50.203 subjugating state aw to federal law and international treaty. Not excluding weed from this provides the Feds to use the excuse of, oh well we signed a treaty in 1961..
Posted by Over50 on January 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM
evilvolus 3
@1 - Pretty much, yes.
Posted by evilvolus on January 17, 2013 at 8:06 PM
MoonPatrol 4
Penalty seems to be $50, if I'm reading it correctly. Meh ~ I doubt this will be enforced with any kind of zeal.
Posted by MoonPatrol on January 17, 2013 at 10:37 PM
5
Also, it appears that this is the *new* sections, and that the amended sections have yet to be updated by the state.
Posted by ben@hemp.net on January 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM
6
Never mind me, I now see that there are two definitions section -- one for the old, and one for the definitions as amended. I much prefer the latter.
Posted by ben@hemp.net on January 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Add a comment