Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
perhaps the Gov is concerned that,
Feds with the 'Growers and Dispensary' rolls,
could get search warrants en masse & arrest all with names and addresses provided by the state.
OR...perhaps she just does not want to sign a law that might later bite her political ass.
Take your pick.
The bill in its current form should NOT be passed. It doesn't do anything to improve arrest protections for patients, and instead puts convenience for law-enforcement above a person's constitutional rights.
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:
THE CURRENT BILL IS BAD FOR PATIENTS:
THE CURRENT BILL IS BAD FOR DISPENSARIES:
READ THE BILL:
5073-S2.E AMH ENGR H2509.E.pdf
My understanding is that both bills would create lists of people who are in compliance with state laws but not federal. So this boils down to questions of policy not law. Policy can change with no warning.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Feds trying to jail a governor would push this issue once and for all into the proper court.
Feds trying to jail a governor would push this issue once and for all into the proper court.
1-206-753-6780 1-800-562-6000 worst you can do is nothing
I think it's very clear.
She doesn't like weed, and so of course she doesn't think anybody else should like weed either. She said as much during the last episode of Ask The Governor on KCTS.
And of course, she's got her little heart set on a position in the Obama Administration, so she certainly ain't going to be picking fights now.
Bottom line, the governor is a bitchy little weasel. And most of you pot smokers voted for her. (This pot smoker voted for Dino!)
voted her in to office. Her fear of pissing off
the feds for personal advancement, Is and will hurt all the people that need more protection from narrow minded and uneducated law enforcement.