Could just redline all funds for arrest, investigation, prosecution, and jails for MJ.

Then let the feds pay for it if they want it.

Problem solved.

Dont worry kids, Im sure the mayor will go back to being a clueless idiot by the end of the week.

Ironic that the mayor is now having to kiss Gregoires ass, where as months ago, he was attacking her.

time for a check-in on gregoire's motivations. is she more concerned w/ running her state, or setting herself up for her next job within the obama administration?

@3 the latter. But I thought it was a job as a corporate attorney, according to the rumors I heard.

well this is a little hard to figure out how to leave a comment on this web page, but here goes-

@4

there was talk of solicitor general. not sure if that's still on the table, but some sort of legal position as i understand it is still in play.

question land seems SNARKY to me too many people are signed up with made up names
why was my serious question so ignored?

If she vetoes it, is it possible for the legislature to override her veto? And is there enough support in the legislature to do so?

Dominic, when you said the next step for support of the bill was to have this letter signed, I honestly never thought it would happen. Say what you will about the pros/cons of the bill itself, this show of solidarity is heartening.

Or maybe they took the risk thinking it wouldn't matter since she'll probably veto the bill or sign a watered-down House/Sen reconciled version.

@7 questionland is even more snarky than SLOG.

@8 yes, but they're pretty gutless. She should just line item veto funds for MJ investigation, prosecution, jail - and then let the feds suddenly come up with some "magic money" to fund it if they want it, rather than us Washingtonians.

Gregoire is very much a weasely conservadem. She's very much a get along go along type of politician. Remember she joined a Racist sorority back in college and did nothing to change their policies.

It seems the stars have aligned and that this bill is likely to pass. Will the momentum the bill has gathered carry forward into an effective effort to fix the problems in it that were created during its path from Senator Kohl-Welles to the floor of the House? Many who are pushing for passage now would surely be satisfied with a state-regulated dispensary system and "providing clarity for police" (we note that police have ignored the clearest portions of our state's medical cannabis law for almost 13 years). Our membership chose many months ago to lobby legislators to pass a bill that provides protection from police terrorism for all qualified medical cannabis patients, and we've remained squarely focused on that vision. Very disappointingly, this bill now provides no such protection.

For those who are interested in the details behind the hype:

The medical cannabis bill that passed the Washington State House of Representatives Monday, April 11, is now a ghost of its former self, and is set to dramatically weaken our state's voter-approved medical cannabis law. For some folks, anything one can paint as a victory to donors helps their bottom line, and for some, adding myriad restrictions to our law is a necessary evil in a long-term political and public opinion strategy. But please be informed that the bill as amended in the state house is, on balance, shockingly horrible for medical cannabis patients in our state.

On the arguably positive side, SB 5073 implements a very limited and licensed dispensary and grower network in Washington State. It promises to provide limited protections to patients who register with the government in a future state-run database run by our Department of Health, whose current director has a history of refusing to implement medical cannabis legislation and of surreptitiously supplanting rules created in the public rule-making process with the will of our governor. It provides an affirmative defense to patients visiting from out of state. It also defines "useable cannabis" and "plant" much more favorably.

THE CURRENT BILL IS BAD FOR DOCTORS:

• Requires an authorizing health care professional to be the primary care provider or a "specialist" -- which likely requires specialty certification, which does not exist currently for medical cannabis -- in order to authorize the medical use of cannabis. Section 301.


• Places ten new requirements on health care professionals who recommend medical cannabis. Disallows health care professionals from running "medical cannabis only" clinics, or from making any statement on the medical use of cannabis in any advertisement for their practice. Violations would be findings of unprofessional conduct, and the punishments may include per-violation fines of up to $5,000 and license revocation under RCW 18.130.160. Most doctors in our state that currently authorize medical cannabis risk having their livelihood destroyed in doing so. Section 301.

THE CURRENT BILL IS BAD FOR PATIENTS:

• Protections from search and arrest were gutted on the house floor. Patients will not be safe from police terror unless they register in a future government database, which we believe may never be implemented by our Department of Health. Section 402.


• Invalidates all current "lifetime" authorizations. Section 201(32)(b)(i).


• Places additional requirements and limits on "designated provider" documentation. Section 201(32)(b)(iii).


• Codifies in law that state-funded housing programs may disallow the medical use of cannabis. Section 410.


• Disavows the medical necessity common law defense. Washington appellate courts have a "division split" on the medical necessity common law defense, and the bill specifically removes its underlying support for the defense as we wait to see if our supreme court will take up the appeal. Section 102(3).


• Denies the medical cannabis affirmative defense to members of our military. Section 501(5).


• Expressly allows DOC or any other correctional authority to disallow the medical use of cannabis. Sections 102(4), 201(26)(b), 803(3), 1105.


• Expressly allows Washington State hotels and motels to refuse to accommodate medical cannabis patients. Section 501(4).


• Makes "tougher" the existing restrictions against driving "under the influence" of medical cannabis. Section 501(8).


• Provides immunity to law enforcement and all other state actors who violate the privacy of the future state-run registry. Section 1101.

THE CURRENT BILL IS BAD FOR DISPENSARIES:

• Removes the affirmative defense and legal underpinning for all currently operating dispensaries. Section 201(6)(d).


• Requires currently operating dispensaries to notify local authorities of their intent to apply for a future license if they are to be afforded an affirmative defense in court. This notification -- or admission of criminal behavior -- will likely lead to threats of closure and raids from local authorities. Section 1201.


• Places an "advertising ban" on dispensaries that forbids speech which "promotes or tends to promote the use or abuse of cannabis." Specifically states that any visual or artistic representation of cannabis is illegal. Each violation is punishable by fines of up to $1,000. Section 802.


• Allows local jurisdictions to adopt zoning, "health and safety," licensing, and tax requirements on dispensaries. Section 1102.

READ THE BILL:

5073-S2.E AMH ENGR H2509.E.pdf

So does the Cannabis Defense Coalition support this bad bill or are you now against it? It seems as if your reason for supporting it has been taken out so what's left to support? We could be much stronger fighting the passage of this terrible bill for medical cannabis patients and their providers if we united our efforts. CannaCare has been against this bill ever since the protections for patients and providers was taken out months ago. Yes, we wanted a good bill a year ago when we started this process, but what we have now does nothing to protect patients or their providers. However, it protects state employees and law enforcement more than the poor patients that it was intended to in the first place. Come on CDC, step up and stand against this train wreck called HSSB-5073. KMJ.

Ken Martin Jr. wrote, "does the Cannabis Defense Coalition support this bad bill or are you now against it?"

We do not support passage of the bill as adopted by the House last week. Apologies if the "the bill as amended in the state house is, on balance, shockingly horrible for medical cannabis patients in our state" part was unclear.

Ken also wrote, "what's left to support?"

CDC wrote, "On the arguably positive side, SB 5073 implements a very limited and licensed dispensary and grower network in Washington State. It promises to provide limited protections to patients who register with the government in a future state-run database run by our Department of Health [...]. It provides an affirmative defense to patients visiting from out of state. It also defines `useable cannabis' and `plant' much more favorably."

And you think that if 15% of the bill is acceptable then patients should support it? Or are you advising that the other 85% is bad enough, that patients and providers should stand against it? To say anything less would be guessing wouldn't it? It's going to be interesting when this is all said and done to hear what the CDC has to say then. You seem almost proud when you say "It promises to provide limited protections to patients who register with the government in a future state-run database run by our Department of Health [...]." The way that rolls off my tongue leaves a bad taste. I can't believe that the CDC thinks that "that" is "on the arguably positive side" of this crappy bill. To me it's in the 85% that's unacceptable. KMJ.

HELP NEEDED! TAKE ACTION!

Time is short, and the stakes are high. We need as many people as possible to contact members of the Washington State Senate and urge them to oppose concurrence on SB 5073 and seek a conference committee. Please send a short email to this effect:

"Dear senators: Please vote no on concurring to the house changes for SB 5073, and seek a conference committee with the house. The current language is unacceptable and will dramatically weaken our state's medical cannabis law."

Send your email to: michael.baumgartner@leg.wa.gov, jeff.baxter@leg.wa.gov, randi.becker@leg.wa.gov, don.benton@leg.wa.gov, lisa.brown@leg.wa.gov, michael.carrell@leg.wa.gov, maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov, steve.conway@leg.wa.gov, jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov, tracey.eide@leg.wa.gov, doug.ericksen@leg.wa.gov, joe.fain@leg.wa.gov, karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov, jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov, nick.harper@leg.wa.gov, brian.hatfield@leg.wa.gov, marymargaret.haugen@leg.wa.gov, mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov, andy.hill@leg.wa.gov, steve.hobbs@leg.wa.gov, janea.holmquistnewbry@leg.wa.gov, jim.honeyford@leg.wa.gov, jim.kastama@leg.wa.gov, karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov, derek.kilmer@leg.wa.gov, curtis.king@leg.wa.gov, adam.kline@leg.wa.gov, jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov, steve.litzow@leg.wa.gov, rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov, bob.morton@leg.wa.gov, edward.murray@leg.wa.gov, sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov, linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov, cheryl.pflug@leg.wa.gov, margarita.prentice@leg.wa.gov, craig.pridemore@leg.wa.gov, kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov, debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov, pam.roach@leg.wa.gov, phil.rockefeller@leg.wa.gov, mark.schoesler@leg.wa.gov, timothy.sheldon@leg.wa.gov, paull.shin@leg.wa.gov, val.stevens@leg.wa.gov, dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov, rodney.tom@leg.wa.gov, scott.white@leg.wa.gov, joseph.zarelli@leg.wa.gov

Senate phone numbers: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rosters/Members.a…

WHY WE TAKE THIS POSITION

Our decision is based on the following logic and understandings. We have two options at this point: senate concurrence or non-concurrence. If the senate concurs, the bill goes to the governor, who can take one of four actions: veto, sectional veto, pass, or ignore (in which case it passes). If the governor chooses a sectional veto, she will likely make a small mess of the bill, which will give legislators reason to pass a correcting "trailer bill" in the special session. The same is true if she vetoes it wholly: we may have another shot in the special session. If she passes it, the current language becomes law.

If the senate does not concur, a conference committee may be called. This is not certain, but seems likely to us. At that point, six legislators have authority over the final language of the bill. The language that comes out of conference committee could actually be worse, but we can work to affect that process, to get arrest protection for unregistered patients back in. The language that comes out of the conference committee must be approved by both houses, which is also not guaranteed. After that, it goes to the governor, and we are left in the same position as if the senate had concurred: Gregoire may sectional veto or veto entirely.

The non-concurrence path poses greater risk that the bill will die before it reaches the governor. It also leaves us multiple chances to "roll the dice" and try to reach a more comfortable position before we gamble on the "big game" at the governor's desk. We believe we have a real opportunity to get our preferred language back in conference committee. If the language is even worse, we have opportunities to kill it at the house, senate or governor's desk. If the language is better, we risk the house or senate voting against it, in which case we are done for the year -- and more realistically, we are done until 2013.

The risk of a no vote in the house or senate seems acceptable to us. When presented with final, unmodifiable language, both houses will be forced to make a decision: either one supports medical cannabis, or one does not support medical cannabis. We expect the house vote to be more difficult, perhaps along party lines with a few democrats like Hurst voting no. On a side note, and not informing our decision, we like the idea of forcing legislators like Hurst to show their "true colors" on a recorded vote.

Also on the non-concurrence path, we risk the conference committee "watering down" the legislation, specifically in regard to state licensing of dispensaries, which is one of the most "powerful" parts of the bill. Having a state-licensed, legal and entrenched medical cannabis business system is a very positive development in our ultimate challenge to this federally-inspired war against our people. That said, we believe that our existing medical cannabis law is, for all of its flaws, functional. Patients can access authorizing health care professionals and they can access medical cannabis with minimal issues. There is a technical problem in that no dispensary is legal, but that is not a practical problem. Nearly all of them have an affirmative defense to cannabis charges currently, and while some of the less thoughtful or intelligent have been convicted, many more have been acquitted by juries of their peers. In short, the current affirmative defense -- gone if the senate concurs -- works to effectively allow dispensaries.

The main problem with our law, in our opinion, has always been law enforcement culture in our state. We do not think this legislation will change that. With or without this bill, we will need to battle numerous local police agencies in the future and demand their respect for patients and our voter-approved law. The fear of federal raids is similar: the feds may execute DEA raids if this bill does not pass, but in either case we fully expect and are planning for that contingency. More likely, the feds will continue to execute raids in our state through the "black hand" of the multijurisdictional drug task forces and the local law enforcement they employ. This is the reality now, and we do not see this bill changing that. That change will come, we believe, through our current tactic of engaging in battle with law enforcement agencies who go after medical cannabis patients, convincing patients and providers to refuse plea bargains, providing court support and costing local jurisdictions money and face when they engage in such behavior.

If this bill does not get to the governor's desk, we risk a public perception that the feds threatened us and we became paralyzed, refusing to do anything. This could negatively affect our future legislative prospects, and it could also negatively affect the prospects for a future cannabis initiative -- if we don't stand up to the feds now, voters may be unwilling to stand up to the feds at the ballot box. This is an acceptable risk to us, and we also think the opposite may be true: if the public perceives that our legislature caved to the federal government, voters may be willing to take matters into their own hands. Indeed this is the usual logic behind successful initiative campaigns: the people must act because the legislature failed to act. And public perception seems more malleable to us than the future codified law will be if the senate concurs on SB 5073.

Finally, there is the issue of "reigning in" on the so-called "green rush" that has sprouted in our state in the last two years. Bolder dispensary operators, bolder advertising and the "lowest common denominator" have created some degree of backlash against medical cannabis in our state. Allowing it to continue unchecked risks a much greater, more general backlash, which could dramatically affect our law in the future, as well as prospects for a future cannabis initiative. This is a concern that we share. At the same time, the "green rush" seems to be slowing somewhat -- dispensaries do sprout up, but they also routinely fail. Three years ago it was indeed easy to make a buck in the medical cannabis industry, but the same is not true today. The price of cannabis has dropped dramatically in our state and medical cannabis businesses are more and more like any other business: they must be decently-run, operate on small profit margins, and provide a level of service, products and safety that patients with plenty of options would voluntarily choose. Fools factoring robbery as a cost of doing business, lying charlatans focused on profits, and wolves looking to diversify their nefarious businesses are finding the industry less hospitable these days, and we think that will continue. The advertising concerns remain for us, and we think something will need to be done to convince dispensaries and newspapers like the Little Nickel to tone it down for the greater good.

For these reasons we are seeking a conference committee between the senate and the house, and requesting a no vote on senate concurrence with SB 5073. Our board of directors takes this position with deeply-held, humble intent. We remain in support of the bill with amendments.

Scratch that. The Senate concurred with the House and the bill is now headed for Governor Gregoire's desk.