Having wide spread "medical" marijuana outlets does away with the arguments of legalizing it entirely.

@2 no it doesn't.

Ending Prohibition wasn't easy the first time we did it either, but it was the right move.

More information about the bill and our analysis of it is available at http://cdc.coop/2011_legislation.

Our membership's primary concerns about SB 5073 in its current form and suggested remedies are:

1. Provide real arrest protection -- now, not later! This bill provides arrest protection only to patients in a government database -- which is years away from completion. Ridiculous! Fix: Combine sections 401 and 402 so patients who present valid documentation to law enforcement are protected from arrest.

2. Stop attacking doctors! Section 301 of the bill places several chilling restrictions on health care professionals that authorize the medical use of cannabis. Fix: Section 301, strike everything from 2a onward.

3. Don't outlaw collective growing! Under current law, patients can grow together. Don't limit collective grows to three patients. Fix: Section 403, increase the number of patients and plants allowed in a collective grow.

--
Phil, CDC member

This law moves us much closer to responsible medical marijuana laws of which this state has been seriously lacking. I'm sorry to those that have attempted to hijack medical marijuana and use it's loopholes to establish a transitional infrastructure for marijuana related businesses with the expectation of a shift towards legalization, but that never should have happened to begin with.

If you want it legalized then fight for legalization. Stop hiding your true intentions behind the suffering of the sick. It's fucking lame.

Its time that medical marijuana is no longer being used as a stepping stone for legalization. This law seems to do a good job of that.

Is it possible that Senator Carrell's involvment as a board member for the Correctional Industries Committee be influencing his amendments to the bill?

@6 for Insightful Comment of the Day.

#5 - Everyone knows that I have never been a supporter of legalization. I can't support anything without a clear definition of what the word means. My job is to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients and make sure they have safe access to medication. This bill does the exact opposite of that. If this bill passes, no healthcare professional will be willing to write recommendations for qualified patients and there will be no where for them to go for medication. The law punishes doctors and closes down the current dispensaries. How is that good for patients? Do you believe that patients should be registered like drug offenders? What will the state do next, register Jews and homosexuals? This whole idea of only providing protection from arrest and prosecution to those who give up their confidential medical information, and give law enforcement access to it, is truly heinous. We have to kill this bill before it goes any further. The ACLU should stay out of medical marijuana!

Steve Sarich
Cannacare

@8: People who agree with Steve about increased administrative burden and chilling effect on doctors and about protection from arrest for medical cannabis patients who opt not to register with the state likely support our suggested amendments (@4):

1. Provide real arrest protection -- now, not later! This bill provides arrest protection only to patients in a government database -- which is years away from completion. Ridiculous! Fix: Combine sections 401 and 402 so patients who present valid documentation to law enforcement are protected from arrest.

2. Stop attacking doctors! Section 301 of the bill places several chilling restrictions on health care professionals that authorize the medical use of cannabis. Fix: Section 301, strike everything from 2a onward.

3. Don't outlaw collective growing! Under current law, patients can grow together. Don't limit collective grows to three patients. Fix: Section 403, increase the number of patients and plants allowed in a collective grow.

We'll keep working to get those changes made.

--
Phil, CDC member

Are there doctors who "specialize" in medical MJ? Where I can go and discuss my problem (anxiety over the state of the economy) and get a prescription for MJ, away from my skeptical doc at Group Health?

@10, Citizen R wrote, "Are there doctors who "specialize" in medical MJ?"

Yes. Please see our resources page at http://cdc.coop/resources.

"Where I can go and discuss my problem (anxiety over the state of the economy) and get a prescription for MJ, away from my skeptical doc at Group Health?"

Anxiety is not a qualifying condition in Washington State. Please see our Washington State Medical Cannabis Primer and Courtroom Observation Companion at http://cdc.coop/primer.

I have been working against NORML and other groups like the WCA who have came out in open spport of this. I find it very suspect that some of these groups are lobbying for this, and in their discussions they only speak of the good parts of this bill and fail to include that Washington patients would be required to visit their doctor 4 times a year, and the traditional way of obtaining your recommend would go away as they would close clinics that help patients obtain medical marijuana. Please speak out against this! There are no less than 6 very destructive sections of this bill that would end cannabis for patients as we know it!

http://xcannabis.com

@12: Ryan, as we notified you recently elsewhere, your comment is based on outdated information. The bill as introduced by Senator Kohl-Welles did not include the quarterly checkup provision. An amendment was adopted that added such a provision, and another amendment was adopted in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 24 that removed it. The bill as passed by the WA Senate does not require quarterly visits. Please stop spreading misinformation.

--
Phil, CDC member

Thanks for the info and links, CDC. I read over the authorization form to be filled in and signed by the doctor or other authorized medical person, and nowhere does it indicate what the diagnosis is, rather only a vague statement that the provider believes the patient may benefit from medical MJ.

Wow; that sure seems like a loophole, big enough to drive a motorhome through. And your list of MJ "specialists" sure looks sketchy to me, at least when I compare it to the providers who serve me at Group Health.

Maybe it's time to just 'fess up and admit this whole effort in the Legislature is just a backdoor way to decriminalize MJ...pending the day when the Legislature or the people via initiative legalize it outright.

@14: It seems you didn't read the law very well. A patient's qualifying condition is not required to be printed on the recommendation.

RCW 69.51A.010 defines qualifying patient as follows:

(4) "Qualifying patient" means a person who:

(a) Is a patient of a health care professional;

(b) Has been diagnosed by that health care professional as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition;

(c) Is a resident of the state of Washington at the time of such diagnosis;

(d) Has been advised by that health care professional about the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana; and

(e) Has been advised by that health care professional that they may benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

and terminal or debilitating condition as:

(6) "Terminal or debilitating medical condition" means:

(a) Cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, epilepsy or other seizure disorder, or spasticity disorders; or

(b) Intractable pain, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications; or

(c) Glaucoma, either acute or chronic, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean increased intraocular pressure unrelieved by standard treatments and medications; or

(d) Crohn's disease with debilitating symptoms unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or

(e) Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or

(f) Diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when these symptoms are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; or

(g) Any other medical condition duly approved by the Washington state medical quality assurance commission in consultation with the board of osteopathic medicine and surgery as directed in this chapter.

CDFC @16, no, I read the law very well, and it doesn't require that the "medical" diagnosis appear on the form -- but it should include such a requirement.

I read a lot of the material you so kindly linked us to, and taken together, it rings of wink-wink-nudge-nudge; we can't really legalize MJ so we'll pretend we're making it available only for medical purposes.

Just read in the morning paper about a robbery in the U. District on a public streetcorner. A supposedly legit MJ dispenser was meeting a new and unknown "client" on a streetcorner(!!!) to make a sale. And got ripped off. Sigh....

I'll get this out of the way right now - Our current system promotes what law currently considers to be "illegal" smoking of weed. People who wouldn't fall under the traditional definition of a medical marijuana patient are getting cards because there is next to no regulation. Anyone who's paying attention and being honest will tell you the same thing. Whether or not it's immoral to arrest average joes for smoking weed is irrelevant here. The leglislature is correct when they claim that. Medical marijuana is being used to promote the legitimacy of legalization and that's lead to some stupid concequences. This bill is one of them.

This system promotes patient mills. That's not ok in my eyes. Doctors should be about healing and not scribbling out a prescription and kicking you out the door. It doesn't matter what the drug being prescribed is. That's not a doctor. That's a drug dealer with a fancy piece of paper hanging on the wall and it's one of the more grotesque aspects of our society these days.

"If this bill passes, no healthcare professional will be willing to write recommendations for qualified patients"

And the ones who should be aren't now. You guys might not see this as a problem but I do.

Let me share with you my personal anecdote about every one of my "ologists" (I have a few of them) refusing to prescribe for me. Not only were they not willing to prescribe but most weren't even willing to talk to me about it. Maybe they don't believe in medical marijuana. But maybe they don't want to get caught up in the massive gray area our unregulated and unwatched medical marijuana system has produced.

Guess how many patients the UW neurology department prescribes marijuana for?

Here's the list of the conditions they cover (I'm there for migraines): http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/di…

Two.

My doc told me in that they only prescribe for two people who both have extremely severe cases of MS. Two.

I don't think that's because the UW neurology department is a corrupt, ignorant institution that doesn't support medical marijuana. My doc said she'd support my usage but that she just couldn't prescribe for it. Wonderful, huh? What I think is happening here is that the current situation creates an atmosphere where patients aren't able to connect with their actual doctors and they're turning to patient mills. Again, not ok.

Patients should not be turning to patient mills no matter what the medication being prescribed is. Patient mills are about dollars and not about patient care. Medical marijuana care should not be modeling itself on the worst parts of our current hellhole we call "healthcare" in this country. I hate to harp on this but after more than 13 years of spending a lot of my life in doctor's offices seeing the best and worst this healthcare system of ours has to offer I feel a bit strongly about it. Obviously.

The answer here isn't "more patient mills for better access!". The answer is "more regulation to make primary health care providers comfortable with prescribing to their patients because as it stands now it doesn't make sense for them to do it for better access." Yes, we need guaranteed protection for our medicine. If something craaaazy happens in the next few years like a right wing loon getting into the White House I'd like to know my state will have a strongly regulated and responsible medical marijuana policy in case the feds decide to flex their powers and start doing shit like raids and massive round ups. Because regardless of the fact that we call it a medicine the federal government of our country still calls it a crime. I'd also like to know that our system could stand up to a right wing governor attempting to drum up fears about access for patients. I'd like to know our system could stand up before the Supreme Court. As it stands right now? I really don't think it would.

"and there will be no where for them to go for medication."

No where? Literally no where? You think that's what's actually going to happen? Washington State will have a medical marijuana law but not one person will be smoking no matter their condition because there will be no were for them to get it? Doubt it.

"Do you believe that patients should be registered like drug offenders? What will the state do next, register Jews and homosexuals?"

I think they should finally pass the Mutant Registration Act and get those Sentinels on the street hauling that mutant scum off to Genosha where they can rot.

-10 Points for drawing a parallel between this and Nazi Germany. Boo and hiss.

Oh and by the way

"and fail to include that Washington patients would be required to visit their doctor 4 times a year"

So I guess I should be crying MY CONSTITUTION because I have to visit my nephrologist at least twice a year for a refill on my blood pressure medication?

Patients receiving opiate prescriptions require monthly visits. You looking to tweak that one too?

News flash: Patients have to see their doctors to get refills on their medicines. That's the life of someone who's chronically ill.

Thank you, Solar. Well said, and better than my attempts.

@17: Citizen R wrote, "I read the law very well, and it doesn't require that the "medical" diagnosis appear on the form -- but it should include such a requirement."

Why should it include such a requirement? The purpose of the recommendation is documentation of the fact that a qualified health care professional discussed a patient's situation and recommended that he try using cannabis for medicinal purposes. The law requires patients to show this recommendation to law enforcement officers if they're questioned about their medicine. Someone's medical condition is none of that officer's business.

Hey all, I've been asked to clarify something, which I'm happy to do here.

For the record, and for those keeping score: Ezra Eickmeyer is the lobbyist for the Washington Cannabis Association, not for the Cannabis Defense Coalition. (Though Ezra was speaking about the bill at the Cannabis Defense Coalition meeting.) All clear?

Eli is correct. Our lobbyist is Lonnie Johns-Brown, who was not in attendance at Monday's meeting, and due to technical difficulties (on our part, not hers), was unable to participate remotely as planned.

--
Phil, CDC member

To further clarify, WCA are a cannabis industry trade association. We, CDC, are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit activist collective. We're entirely different organizations that happen to have some overlapping interests. Last I heard (several months ago, at a public meeting they held at Ivars on the waterfront), membership in WCA was open to any person or organization that pays $5000 per year (though they were considering offering non-voting, possibly non-speaking, memberships at a reduced rate), and their bylaws had yet to be written. Membership in CDC is open to all natural persons who subscribe to our mission and vision, and currently costs $40 per calendar year. Our bylaws are published on our Web site. Every member of our organization gets one vote.

--
Phil, CDC member

CDC @21, yep; more of the ol' wink-wink-nudge-nudge I see.

I have no doubt whatsoever that one of your sketchy listed providers would write me out one of those permission slips, based on nothing other than my blather and payment of so many dollars.

Like I said before, let's call off the charade here and just move for legalization. Not this quasi-legal joke we've created

@25: No charade. Just as is the case with drug prescriptions, it's up to medical professionals to decide when to recommend cannabis, and fraud is both possible and unlawful.

There will be a lot of "fighting" and "in-fighting", but the common sense will prevail in the end. Cannabis prohibition is doomed to failure, as it is based on a series of total "un-realities", which no amount of repression can make "real". Cannabis is NOT physically addictive as it lacks a documented physical withdrawal syndrome, the so-called "gateway drug theory discredited as invalid, much touted by the DEA drug Marinol is not at all the same as medicinal cannabis, smoking Cannabis does not increase the risk of lung cancer, and cannabis use suppresses violent behavior. These are REALITIES! To further say that Cannabis plant does not have medicinal properties is simply delusional and is a complete "break" with "reality". If anti-Cannabis repression by the DEA and its allies were to be intensified, the rate of alcohol, cocaine, opiates, other hard drugs, alcohol, and dangerous prescription drugs would increase sharply. Neither the DEA, not its minions can make people perceive Cannabis as "unsafe", where is in reality it is quite safe, much safer than alcohol and other alternatives. With the rise of the use of alcohol/hard drugs, the amount of violence and mayhem in this society will also rise, something that every mother and wife should consider. In these hard economic times our so-called "representatives" do not even dare talking about cutting the bloated DEA budget, especially its so-called "marijuana" enforcement, while they are willing to discuss cutting everything else. This is because the DEA and its minions are very good with attaching labels, and no one wants to risk being "labeled" as "soft on drugs"! The employment drug tests have a potential of "screening out" "Picassos", and Lady GaGas, and Willie Nelsons, but letting people like Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson slip through (if the employers are "lucky"). And to say that Cannabis Plant does not have medicinal properties is simply delusional! Cannabis prohibition, as based on glaring scientific and philosophical "un-realities" and can never succeed in the long run!

Phil, yes this bill has gone through many changes. One of the major things that has stuck, is that there will be multiple agencies who license, regulate and charge fees to both patients (for the registry) and to providers (to state and local agencies).

One of the most egregious changes that has stuck from the beginning, and that most seem unwilling to talk about, is that current law protects doctors MUCH MORE than SB 5073 has proposed from the beginning until this very day.

With HB 5073

#1. Doctors will be facing disciplinary consequences including losing their license if they are deemed as recommending cannabis to “too many patients” (not clearly defined as to what is “too many”). (Section 301 Amendment 2)
#2. There can not be cannabis specialists, places like THCF and CBR will NOT be allowed (Ref: 5073 S2 AMS CARD 070, 5073-S2 AMS CARR S1945)
#3. Designated providers have a 15 day cooling off period between patients and must be registered with many state agencies and a state registry. (5073-S2 AMS PARL BUCK 423, 5073-S2 AMS PARL S2041, 5073-S2 AMS SHED BUCK 420)
#4. Designated providers may not have more than 3 patients at any time, and current limits of 15 plants per patient and 24 oz of usable cannabis are strictly enforced (Section 401 Amendment 2, Section 403 Amendment 2, )
#5. Dispensaries are allowed, on a limited basis (which is not defined) and must be registered with many state agencies and the state registry. ( 5073-S2 AMS HONE S2037, 5073-S2 AMS KOHL BUCK 422)
#6. Patients may register with a state registry that affords them arrest protection. (5073-S2 AMS PARL BUCK 423, 5073-S2 AMS PARL S2041, 5073-S2 AMS SHED BUCK 420)
#7. Dispensaries MUST be non-profit (5073-S2 AMS SHED BUCK 421)

More @ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.…