and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
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.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
The simple fact of the matter is that current medical pot laws are untenable in the eyes of the Feds because they fail to meet the priorities of the Cole memo. And as much as you and I may bridle at the fact that the Leg. is appearing to accommodate the "capricious animals" in the US AG office, HB 2149 is a necessary and pragmatic measure that will ensure that Washingtonians can continue to sell and consume pot for recreational and therapeutic purposes WITHOUT fear of federal prosecution.
Sure, this law has its problems, but it is the right law for the moment, and in the future when Marijuana is no longer a Schedule 1 substance, these laws may be relaxed.
"The simple fact of the matter is that current medical pot laws are untenable in the eyes of the Feds because they fail to meet the priorities of the Cole memo." It is not a fact, it is an opinion. Any adult in the state of Colorado is currently allowed by law to grow 6 plants and the feds are not getting all concerned that the "Cole memo" is being violated. Why should our state spend more for prohibition when our citizens voted for less?
That design is described in Alexei Czeskis' and Jacob Appelbaum's paper, "High Stakes: Designing a Privacy Preserving Registry," available at infosecon.net/usec12/papers/czeskis-appe….
"The simple fact of the matter is that current medical pot laws are untenable in the eyes of the Feds because they fail to meet the priorities of the Cole memo." It is not a fact, it is an opinion. The reason I disagree is that the same Cole memo that was written for WA was written for CO. Any adult in CO can grow 6 plants, not just patients . The legal recreational and medical stores are open and operating. The feds have not had a problem with any of this, so why do you think that this is a valid reason for our state to be so draconian?
Thanks
Aunt Betty
caretaker of a small private collective.
@4, beyond their public statements (see Cole Memo), no one but the federal attorneys general know what the federal attorneys general are thinking or planning. What the feds HAVE said is that they will NOT intervene if state marijuana regulations meet the priorities they have enunciated. Because we are not clairvoyant, WA is taking a more cautious approach toward legalization than CO: one that strives to meet the Cole memo's priorities. If the feds intervene, it will happen in CO before it happens in WA. Federal intervention is becoming more and more unlikely as attitudes slowly shift, but lawmakers are exercising an abundance of caution in this area because federal intervention could damage political careers and set back greater cause of marijuana legalization and decriminalization.
@10, clearly.
@14 Patients will buy from I-502 shops. The issue here is whether we restrict their right to anonymously home grow 15 plants so they can obtain it for a fraction of the price.
One point everyone is missing is that recreational shops and product manufacturers are prohibited from making curative or therapeutic claims toward Cannabis products. Legitimate patients won't have access to knowledgeable staff and the guidance needed to help patients find the right product for their individual needs. Innovation in the medical cannabis field is important and needs to be nurtured in this state. I say this as someone that will be participating in a 502 recreational company, there is a legitimate need for both.
-Cale Morgan
- Together we grow! -
We need to fix the recreational regulations to allow for growing for personal and co-op consumption (akin to the changes that formally allowed home-brewing). All of the deficiencies in current pot law can be addressed by reworking the recreational regulations--we don't need medical marijuana anymore.
And those of you who say why can we all just go to the same place for our weed? Well, for some its not about getting high, it's about being well as medicating with something natural, healthy and non-harmful.
"Medical" marijuana is grudgingly available in those areas, but at this point it looks like "legal" might never be reasonably accessible.
So if the state shuts down the collectives, we will lose access, and re-criminalize marijuana for thousands of people, millions maybe.
And this is progress??
Second - not everyone has the ability to husband plants or the personal living circumstances that allow cultivation. This is why dispensaries and designated providers are present in the current medical statutes.
Third - Three ounces on had and three flowering plants won't get you very far as a medical patient. It might be fine for a recreational user who just wants to unwind once in a while, but many patients require considerably more, especially if using high CBD, low THC varieties. That's why they currently not only have a 24 ounce limit with 15 plants, but are allowed more if they can make a personal case for needing more. It's much like telling a person facing intractable pain that they can have pain medicine on first day of the month, but they will have to do without for the remainder of the month. Actually, that's exactly what it is like.
Finally - the math makes no sense if the State has any real compassion for medical users beyond looking at them as just another tax resource. A "recreational user" will fair a lot better than a medical patient under the evolving law here in Washington. A recreational customer can only possess an ounce at a time, but can consume it immediately and buy another one. Say he buys an ounce a day and uses it before getting another. 30 ounces a month all nice and legal. A medical user under your non-existent "recreational" framework is restricted to 3 ounces on hand and 3 flowering plants.
It takes 8-12 weeks for many cannabis varieties to ripen. Let's use 9 weeks. No plant can deliver more than 3 oz when harvested without exceeding the 3 oz on-hand limit. Since one can only have 3 flowering plants at any given time, the best a patient could do is harvest one every 3 weeks. That works out to 1 oz a week, or 4 oz per month. The medical patient who has an actual need is restricted to about 4 oz a month while the recreational pot head can legally get 30 oz a month (or even more, if he chooses to use it faster). Way to go with dispensing justice.
Leave the current medical regulations as they are. They work. The State is not falling apart because they exist. But for goodness sake, give the recreational user an option for personal cultivation as well. Just like beer and wine, let him brew a bit of his own without the State climbing down his throat with taxes and regulations.
And, really, I doubt any of this matters very much anyways, because I don't think doctors will continue to risk their freedom and ability to write prescriptions for by writing prescriptions for medical marijuana once it is available legal-ish without one. Then they can just suggest it or tell patients that it might help (like they would with tylenol, or, in very rare instances, alcohol).
There is a Ways & Means Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday (3/3) at 1 pm, after the Healthcare committee found a loophole to avoid a public hearing. My colleague actually received an email from a Senate staffer telling her that the bill was dead on Wednesday night. Funny, the difference that a day makes..
Patients with pain issues (a subjective symptom) will be required to be evaluated objectively (scientifically impossible) and required to suffer debilitating pain on a daily basis (no more migraine patients or patients with intermittent pain disorders). In order to avoid the doubled cost of buying cannabis from state-run stores, patients will be forced to register with the state. Every registry thus far has either been hacked or has been turned over the the DEA after court proceedings (Mendocino County, CA and OR cases). All this (and much more) goes against the years-long study that preceded the initial medical cannabis bill. Heck, they're even trying to change the scientific term "cannabis" (which took a while to include) BACK to "marijuana" for no legitimate reason that I can understand (fearmongering? prejudice?)
As a doctor who writes authorizations, I'm strongly encouraging patients to stand up for themselves because my colleagues and I can't make changes happen for our patients without their own investment.
If you'd like talking points for discussing this with your Senator (or flooding the inboxes of the committee members on Ways & Means), I have posted my letter on my blog at www(dot)stoneturtlehealth(dot)com. It is an open letter in collaboration with my colleague, Dr. Selena Eon, so please feel free to use it as you wish.
Thanks,
Dr. Katie Baker
There is a Ways & Means Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday (3/3) at 1 pm, after the Healthcare committee found a loophole to avoid a public hearing. My colleague actually received an email from a Senate staffer telling her that the bill was dead on Wednesday night. Funny, the difference that a day makes..
Patients with pain issues (a subjective symptom) will be required to be evaluated objectively (scientifically impossible) and required to suffer debilitating pain on a daily basis (no more migraine patients or patients with intermittent pain disorders). In order to avoid the doubled cost of buying cannabis from state-run stores, patients will be forced to register with the state. Every registry thus far has either been hacked or has been turned over the the DEA after court proceedings (Mendocino County, CA and OR cases). All this (and much more) goes against the years-long study that preceded the initial medical cannabis bill. Heck, they're even trying to change the scientific term "cannabis" (which took a while to include) BACK to "marijuana" for no legitimate reason that I can understand (fearmongering? prejudice?)
As a doctor who writes authorizations, I'm strongly encouraging patients to stand up for themselves because my colleagues and I can't make changes happen for our patients without their own investment.
If you'd like talking points for discussing this with your Senator (or flooding the inboxes of the committee members on Ways & Means), I have posted my letter on my blog at www(dot)stoneturtlehealth(dot)com. It is an open letter in collaboration with my colleague, Dr. Selena Eon, so please feel free to use it as you wish.
Thanks,
Dr. Katie Baker
its always been a class war
These legitimate fears resulted in my vote against legalizing recreational use. It looks like my suspicions were correct in spite of all the reassurances by the bill sponsors.
Medical marijuana was a great stop gap, and it greatly benefited some people who needed it, but it shouldn't be the part of any ideal end-game. Once marijuana is truly legal for recreational use (i.e., no longer a controlled substance, let alone Schedule 1), the goal should be liberalization of the regulations, so that co-ops and growing for personal consumption is legal (as with beer).