Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:54 AM Feb 2014

Washington House Overwhelmingly Approves Ban On Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Source: Forbes

Last night the Washington House of Representatives approved a bill that would abolish medical marijuana dispensaries, a.k.a. “collective gardens,” and impose new restrictions on patients who use cannabis for symptom relief. H.B. 2149, which passed by a vote of 67 to 29, would thereby eliminate some of the unregulated competition for the state-licensed pot stores that are expected to start opening this summer under I-502, the legalization initiative that Washington voters approved in November 2012. Supporters of the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Eileen Cody (D-West Seattle), hope that banning dispensaries will help maximize tax revenue and mollify the feds.

The bill requires patients to buy their cannabis from the same stores that serve recreational customers, which would be the only legal sellers of medical marijuana as of May 1, 2015, when the provision allowing collective gardens would be repealed. Patients could continue to grow marijuana for their own use, but the maximum number of plants would be reduced from 15 to six (three of them flowering). The ceiling on possession by patients would be cut from 24 ounces to three. The bill instructs the state Department of Health, together with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (which is charged with regulating marijuana growers, processors, and retailers), to produce a report by November 15, 2019, on the question of whether it is appropriate to continue allowing home cultivation.

Cody’s legislation would create a “patient recognition” system that would allow cardholders to buy up to three ounces at a time (as opposed to one ounce for recreational customers), avoid paying sales taxes (a privilege addressed in a separate bill), and claim immunity from arrest for possession or cultivation within the limits set by law. Currently there is no central record of qualified patients. Patients with doctor’s recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana charges, meaning they can still be arrested, although not convicted. H.B. 2149 would eliminate that affirmative defense, effectively requiring qualified patients to register with the state if they want to be recognized as such.

“I think that we can satisfy some of the patients,” Cody said after the vote. “I don’t think that all of the medical marijuana community will be happy.”

That might be an understatement. “Our cowardly legislators voted to effectively end medical cannabis here,” says Steve Sarich, executive director of the Cannabis Action Network, who opposed I-502 partly because of the impact he expected it to have on medical consumers. “Patients are in shock. If the Senate votes to pass this bill, Washington will be the first state to end medical cannabis.” All but three of the 29 votes against Cody’s bill came from Republicans. “The Democrats, who supported I-502, were behind this, along with the governor,” Sarich says. “Who would have thought it would be the Republicans trying to protect the rights of patients?”


Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/02/18/washington-house-overwhelmingly-approves-ban-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/ to source



72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Washington House Overwhelmingly Approves Ban On Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Original Post) Jesus Malverde Feb 2014 OP
WTF? I hope someone more politically astute than myself can explain the rationale behind this. Ed Suspicious Feb 2014 #1
I think they are trying to prevent... SkyDaddy7 Feb 2014 #19
Its about control and money AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #21
+1. Dollar signs all around. nt bemildred Feb 2014 #36
Click here for a link to a better, clearer story. Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #37
Money Bandit Feb 2014 #60
Wow! That bill is sooooo complicated for something that is so simple. tofuandbeer Feb 2014 #2
I don't get it. bravenak Feb 2014 #3
the new drug cartel is eliminating competition. that's what this is about nt msongs Feb 2014 #4
as well as defacto7 Feb 2014 #7
+1 El_Johns Feb 2014 #8
+1 Joe Shlabotnik Feb 2014 #11
it's about the money, always about the money. Phlem Feb 2014 #38
"would thereby eliminate some of the unregulated competition for the state-licensed pot stores" jtuck004 Feb 2014 #5
So why don't they license the medical distributors? Ed Suspicious Feb 2014 #6
Yeah. I can't help thinking this is a bad thing for medical marijuana patients. jtuck004 Feb 2014 #9
It is flat out cruelty AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #22
Because they can't control the market defacto7 Feb 2014 #10
Senate better vote this shit down. Seriously. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #12
Try reading the article. phleshdef Feb 2014 #39
I read the article yesterday. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #40
Why? phleshdef Feb 2014 #41
It's a massive cut in how much you can have/buy. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #42
"24oz was reasonable for medical patients, actually. 3oz is not." == You know nothing about pot. phleshdef Feb 2014 #45
Bullshit I don't. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #46
Um no I get my duration answer from over a decade of experience. phleshdef Feb 2014 #48
I watch people go through an ounce a week, easy. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #50
Even in that scenario, 3 ounces will last you nearly or right at a month. phleshdef Feb 2014 #52
I think 5 ounces would be more reasonable at least. Sure. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #55
It's 8 ounces if your doctor says you need that much. kristopher Feb 2014 #68
Medical users can go through an ounce a week, no problem. bemildred Feb 2014 #47
Thats an insane amount of weed to go through in a week, especially the high grade stuff. phleshdef Feb 2014 #49
I would tend to agree, 3 oz. is plenty, but who really cares? bemildred Feb 2014 #51
The state is attempting to have stronger control over supply. phleshdef Feb 2014 #54
The state wants the tax revenue. bemildred Feb 2014 #56
But the article says they want to exempt medical users from sales tax. phleshdef Feb 2014 #57
I'm talking about supply. bemildred Feb 2014 #58
And the tax to worry about is the excise tax, nobody pays sales tax for medicine anyway. nt bemildred Feb 2014 #59
The following really sucks. Politicians fucking up a good thing. Corruption. Gov picking winners. Ed Suspicious Feb 2014 #13
BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANS W T F Feb 2014 #14
Actually, the vote was overwhelmingly the opposite way AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #15
"...the bill sponsored by Democratic Rep. Eileen Cody" and being pushed by Democrats. n/t jtuck004 Feb 2014 #25
Pot smokers should have known that legalizing it would only screw things up for the consumer. olddad56 Feb 2014 #16
+1... freebrew Feb 2014 #35
All this must be above my pay-grade. It seems entirely stupid on its' face to remove the patients silvershadow Feb 2014 #17
Latter-Day King Canutes Loaded Liberal Dem Feb 2014 #18
It's just an attack on established dispensary operators. bluedigger Feb 2014 #20
WTF is right. kristopher Feb 2014 #23
Not unlimited, only a few stores, prohibited in many areas, prices go up, jtuck004 Feb 2014 #26
Do you buy your laundry detergent 3 washes at a time? AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #43
The limit for med use is 8 ounces with Dr say so. kristopher Feb 2014 #61
Oh boy, an extra special permission slip. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #62
Petulant whining. kristopher Feb 2014 #63
No, general disgust with interference in a system that is working just fine. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #64
But it isn't "working just fine" for everyone. kristopher Feb 2014 #65
Can you specify who it isn't working for? AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #66
I've come to feel the same way about your opinion on this topic... kristopher Feb 2014 #67
That is such bull. A lot of patients supported I502 because they do believe that liberal_at_heart Feb 2014 #72
Legislation in search of a problem. blackspade Feb 2014 #24
Its what they wanted all along. nilesobek Feb 2014 #27
I am really disappointed to hear that the democrats support this. F4lconF16 Feb 2014 #28
Eileen Cody values tax revenues over the well-being of cancer patients. Alkene Feb 2014 #29
I suspect this isn't what the citizens of Washington voted for or wanted. Hopefully it will be ... Scuba Feb 2014 #30
+1 n/t Alkene Feb 2014 #32
it`s always "follow the money" madrchsod Feb 2014 #31
Do people ever actually read the articles before they comment? oNobodyo Feb 2014 #33
in general no Egnever Feb 2014 #44
“Who would have thought it would be the Republicans trying to protect the rights of patients?” L0oniX Feb 2014 #34
In CO, med patients can posses more CrispyQ Feb 2014 #53
I hope they don't freeze out the med growers RainDog Feb 2014 #69
Washington's legalization scheme is too uptight. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2014 #70
between this and our educational policy this makes me want to never vote democratic ever again. liberal_at_heart Feb 2014 #71

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
1. WTF? I hope someone more politically astute than myself can explain the rationale behind this.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:58 AM
Feb 2014

I don't get it.

SkyDaddy7

(6,045 posts)
19. I think they are trying to prevent...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:19 AM
Feb 2014

black market influences on price & tax revenue...But in the process they are hurting medical users.

Other than that I am lost.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
3. I don't get it.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:03 AM
Feb 2014

Patients need medical grade. They're not taking it for recreation. You wouldn't send a person with back problems to the heroin mart. Whenever. I'm crazy anyway, why would I understand?

Joe Shlabotnik

(5,604 posts)
11. +1
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:33 AM
Feb 2014

And it'll likely be crappy generic overpriced weed.

On another note, how does the math work that you can grow 6 plants but only possess 3 ounces of weed. Are they bonsai dope plants?

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
38. it's about the money, always about the money.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:10 PM
Feb 2014

You can only have a few that are flowering. The others are considered non usable until they flower. So basically you have to grow small plants so you don't max out your 3 oz.

It's insane.

The Washington State fix is in because there are a lot of big entrepreneurs waiting to go huge and we can't be taking money from the poor corporations or the state, thank you Democratic Governor Jay Inslee.

It's ALL about the money period end of story.

and yes I use medical marijuana. I've read our laws http://www.democraticunderground.com/10822877 which keep changing for the worse.

The deal now is even though it's legal in our state, counties want to able to ban it out right, so no dispensaries, no gardens, no home growing for medical marijuana users unless you don't mind being on a list that doctors, law enforcement, etc... can access too. The scrutiny on medical marijuana users is over the top ridiculous, but if you PAY, you get to skip all that.

Totally biased and slanted rules.

-p

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
5. "would thereby eliminate some of the unregulated competition for the state-licensed pot stores"
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:11 AM
Feb 2014

i.e., they want your tax money, and this gets them more, don't really care if it is your medicine. Reduce competition, set the price in the market, maximize your income. Just like any greedy capitalist.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
9. Yeah. I can't help thinking this is a bad thing for medical marijuana patients.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:21 AM
Feb 2014

They are given less respect, and this just continues that tradition, makes it just a little harder. Will most certainly shut doors and cost jobs.

We pay politicians for this (more than others? Don't know.), while there aren't enough jobs. Boy we smart.
 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
22. It is flat out cruelty
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:17 AM
Feb 2014

I have a friend here who got rear ended at a stop light 5 years ago. He broke his back in seven places. He was in so much pain that he had to take huge amounts of morphine and he was a drooling wreck for years.


He now takes about 2 grams of cannabis oil a day. He is no longer a drooling wreck and is relatively pain free. People like him will be screwed under this law. I have another friend with severe degenerative arthritis. He goes through about a pound per month to deal with his pain. He will be screwed. So will many, many cancer patients.

This law is absolute cruelty.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
10. Because they can't control the market
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:25 AM
Feb 2014

or the personal information of individuals quite as efficiently. For the state it's less bureaucracy. Ironic.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
12. Senate better vote this shit down. Seriously.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:35 AM
Feb 2014

Crazy assed fucking political role reversal

what the hell, only three of the 'no' votes were D's.

Since when is the FUCKING PURITAN BRIGADE on the right side of this issue? SINCE WHEN
AM I TAKING CRAZY PILLS??!

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
39. Try reading the article.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:17 PM
Feb 2014

I believe you will be way less pissed off if you do. The title is somewhat misleading.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
41. Why?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:38 PM
Feb 2014

It allows medical patients to acquire more than they could before, they are just going to do it through a normal weed store. And it also allows patients to get what they need to keep from getting arrested, given that they are allowed to possess more than the normal person. And they don't have to pay taxes on it, unlike non-medicinal users. I don't understand why this is a big deal.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
42. It's a massive cut in how much you can have/buy.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:53 PM
Feb 2014

Do you buy your laundry detergent 2-3 loads at a time? 24oz was reasonable for medical patients, actually. 3oz is not. 'Possession' includes driving home from the store.

The home-grow rule is so fiddly now, that it's probably better just to not risk it at all, honestly. It seems designed to enable fucking with people.

And, the dispensaries will close. That's a shitload of jobs right there. And some of these products may not even be carried by the recreational stores. Like the infused cream for joints/aches/injuries. There's no recreational use for that at all.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
45. "24oz was reasonable for medical patients, actually. 3oz is not." == You know nothing about pot.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:16 PM
Feb 2014

24 ounces is like a 1 to 2 year supply for even heavy weed smokers, given that you can even use it all and preserve it before most of it dries out and goes bad.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
46. Bullshit I don't.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:18 PM
Feb 2014

Looks like you got your duration calculation off Answer.Com

Also, preserving it cuts the potency by a lot.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
48. Um no I get my duration answer from over a decade of experience.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:24 PM
Feb 2014

I know for me personally, when I smoked everyday, an ounce of regular grade would last me 6-8 weeks. High grade would go a whole lot farther. Even the heaviest smokers I've known could make an ounce last 3-4 weeks. No one needs to be walking around with a pound and a half of weed for medical or recreational purposes... no one. Period.

When I say preserve, I mean keep in an airtight bag in the freezer or something along those lines... which is what I've done when I had more than I could consume in a month.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
50. I watch people go through an ounce a week, easy.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:27 PM
Feb 2014

And these are people who function, just fine. Like, you would probably never know, looking at them.
Shit with labels like 'chernoble' {sic} and 'sour diesel'.

Freezing airtight will help, but still cuts the potency.

And my objection wasn't about 'casually walking around'. I meant it seriously and honestly. It cuts the amount people can buy in one trip, from the dispensary or whatever the new source is, and legally transport it home.

No, I don't seriously think someone is going to buy 24 ounces at once, but more than 3 is not unusual, IMO. Not for people legitimately using it for medical purposes.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
52. Even in that scenario, 3 ounces will last you nearly or right at a month.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:33 PM
Feb 2014

I have prescriptions I have to refill every month. Thats pretty common. Maybe it should be 5 ounces instead of 3 or something. But I don't think its a big deal. The motive here is to try and prevent medical patients from becoming a black market that operates outside of the state regulated system thats being setup. People who can go get that much weed at once could easily end up reselling a lot of it. And I don't have a problem with that because I want to see state regulated marijuana work, I want to see it proven that people can operate within reasonable rules and show the world that weed is not the devil and that we, as a society, can allow this and behave ourselves.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
55. I think 5 ounces would be more reasonable at least. Sure.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:37 PM
Feb 2014

That's a good month for most people.

Personally, I'd like to see it fully legalized. I just don't care to regulate this at all, so I take a dim view of even attempts to constrain people who ARE straw purchasing it, or screwing around, sharing at parties, or whatever you might imagine.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
49. Thats an insane amount of weed to go through in a week, especially the high grade stuff.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:25 PM
Feb 2014

But even so, I mean they are talking about how much you can possess at once. 3 ounces is plenty enough to possess at once.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
51. I would tend to agree, 3 oz. is plenty, but who really cares?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:29 PM
Feb 2014

Let them mainline it if they want. What harm are they going to do? Nothing, that's what.

It's a weed. The natural cost is near zero. And it's about as harmless as an effective drug can be. The savings in medical costs alone from less alcohol consumption make it a big win.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
54. The state is attempting to have stronger control over supply.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:35 PM
Feb 2014

And thats actually a good thing for legalization advocates. If these states can prove that legal marijuana can exist in a system that is successful at regulating it, then that increases the chances that we will see more states follow suit.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
56. The state wants the tax revenue.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:41 PM
Feb 2014

That requires a tightly regulated market (control) and a high price (so you can add a "small" tax on the end of it).

If you just want to help sick people, you just make it legal. Perhaps you set up regulation of quality and price so you have a cheap reliable product.

I rather think this here is aimed at controlling the medical market so as to better exploit the recreational market for tax revenue. If the medical market is "leaky" that could "compete" with the recreational market.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
58. I'm talking about supply.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:02 PM
Feb 2014

If medical pot is availiable cheap and in quantity, people will try to make a buck off it, esp. in the current down economy. It's already an underground industry, they know how to do that just fine. So the gov't still wants to control supply, to keep the price up. I doubt they are actually out to get medical pot users, but it's fine with them if pot is still "expensive".

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
13. The following really sucks. Politicians fucking up a good thing. Corruption. Gov picking winners.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:39 AM
Feb 2014

It's times like these that I find myself sadly sympathetic to the libertarian view of gov. I really hate that. I built and defend my positions political on the axiom that government can be trusted to do good works.

"The bill instructs the state Department of Health, together with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (which is charged with regulating marijuana growers, processors, and retailers), to produce a report by November 15, 2019, on the question of whether it is appropriate to continue allowing home cultivation. "

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
15. Actually, the vote was overwhelmingly the opposite way
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:52 AM
Feb 2014

which is just mind-boggling given the normal prohibitionist stance of the R's.


There's some fuckery afoot here

olddad56

(5,732 posts)
16. Pot smokers should have known that legalizing it would only screw things up for the consumer.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:52 AM
Feb 2014

It is the American way.

freebrew

(1,917 posts)
35. +1...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:57 AM
Feb 2014

Rather keep it illegal. Too much publicity has increased the price everywhere. The states will use legalization as a tool for more revenue, lost as a result of the property forfeiture laws becoming useless. Not too bad a thing, I guess.

Red states are using other state laws to justify searches. If there's a law regulating how many plants can be grown, how do they enforce it? Cops coming into your home? These laws aren't giving anyone the freedom to use, they are for tracking those foolish enough to publicize it.
Too many equate smoking with alcohol, it isn't anything similar. Yet laws against 'stoned' driving are already on the books, not even considering the UK's trials that showed improved driving while using.
Rather than 'legalizing', the laws pertaining to 'marijuana' should simply be repealed.

 

silvershadow

(10,336 posts)
17. All this must be above my pay-grade. It seems entirely stupid on its' face to remove the patients
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:58 AM
Feb 2014

from their protections and assume that just putting a note on their card that their entitled to 3 ounces and no taxes. It will sure blur the lines for law-enforcement, that's for sure. And apparently the political lines, too. It is one thing to say these patients clearly qualify under a set of guidelines designed to alleviate their suffering, and an entirely different thing to have them walk into the same dispensary everyone and their uncle uses. Bad policy in my book. I suppose it's the first assault to try to chip away at gains made. Too bad the patients have to be the the football.

bluedigger

(17,086 posts)
20. It's just an attack on established dispensary operators.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:37 AM
Feb 2014

The new recreational suppliers must have contributed well to the pols to clear out the competition.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
23. WTF is right.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:45 AM
Feb 2014

WTF is all the bitching in this thread about?

They go from a system of limited distribution to one of unlimited distribution, exempt the medical users from taxes and expand purchase limits for them.

If you find something to bitch about in that you probably find something to bitch about with everything in your life.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
26. Not unlimited, only a few stores, prohibited in many areas, prices go up,
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 05:18 AM
Feb 2014

whole dispensaries are thrown out of the good and somewhat risky work they have been doing for years to profit someone else, people fired. It increases the limits patients can buy, not like that was a problem before, but lumps them in with others who may suffer distribution problems they did not see before, and the price difference may prove to be an issue.

It also cuts down on the plants patients can grow at home, making them even more dependent on this system. This alone makes the legislators look more ridiculous than they already are, writing laws they can't enforce - it would cost hundreds of millions they haven't got to catch the people, for instance, that bought the $36,000 worth of soil and lights at the grow shack the other day. And that was just one day, one sale

While they will get a bunch of aging hippies lining up outside for the first little while, I suspect most people will continue to use the outlets they have had for years. And the medical marijuana patients may just say screw the stores and go back to their old distribution that worked pretty well. It's not like all these people just started smoking in December. Some have been doing it a long, long time.

A lot of the medical marijuana folks were against this newfound "freedom", even though it didn't mention them, because, they thought, the self-righteous assholes who think they know better just couldn't resist the urge to fuck with someone, especially someone mostly powerless and hurting, over it. Their suspicion proved correct. Bullies.

But there will be new people to vote for soon...ones who don't think beating up on the most vulnerable is the best use of their time, perhaps. I wonder if they will remember.




AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
43. Do you buy your laundry detergent 3 washes at a time?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:55 PM
Feb 2014

Possession includes driving home from the store, so no this is a MASSIVE CUT in purchase limits, not expanded purchase limits.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
65. But it isn't "working just fine" for everyone.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 06:19 PM
Feb 2014

The old has to make way for the new. No one is being penalized and a lot more people are able to enjoy getting high without the risk of going to prison. Sorry it inconveniences you.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
66. Can you specify who it isn't working for?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 06:42 PM
Feb 2014

Because if it's just the DEA calling it 'untenable', then I just flat don't give a shit.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
67. I've come to feel the same way about your opinion on this topic...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 07:37 PM
Feb 2014

If you don't recognize the wider implication for WA and the nation, I don't know what to tell you except you are coming off strongly like any other person with an "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude.

I doubt you see yourself that way, and frankly I've never seen this from you before, so let's leave it here.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
72. That is such bull. A lot of patients supported I502 because they do believe that
Thu Feb 20, 2014, 02:11 AM
Feb 2014

everyone should be able to smoke marijuana. Now it is the recreational users who are pushing out the patients. It seems to me that it is the recreational users who have the "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
24. Legislation in search of a problem.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:53 AM
Feb 2014

What is the exact reason for this stupid bill?
Elimination of home growing? WTF?

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
27. Its what they wanted all along.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 06:02 AM
Feb 2014

Eastern Washington is full of municipalities and counties that flat out refused to enforce the current medical marijuana laws. They went so far as to create a special force that raided legal medical marijuana grows. The Shock and Awe usually begins with a flashbang grenade at the front door or window, terrifying the occupants within. They are mixing in Fish and Game officers for these raids for unknown reasons, or, lack of manpower.

Its ideological anarchy. The people vote a law in that the authorities refuse to implement because of their fanatical, unscientific delusions. Their belief that they cannot be wrong for religious reasons sometimes only.

This is what we are up against. IMO the recreational law was purposely written to be obtuse.

F4lconF16

(3,747 posts)
28. I am really disappointed to hear that the democrats support this.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 06:27 AM
Feb 2014

Who woulda thunk it would be the Republicans I'd support in regards to weed?

Actually though, this is really not good. This will only drive prices up further, harming patients already hit by higher costs. For some, this isn't about a small case of arthritis in their elbow (and my sympathies to those who have that), but a matter of life and death. My girlfriend smokes at least a few times a week, and I am confident this is partially what has kept her alive these past few months. She has epilepsy that recurs, and the last time she stopped smoking she had two grand mal seizures that put her in the hospital. Despite all of her meds and doctors, this is the one thing that keeps her healthy (in addition to epilepsy, she has quite a few other diseases and pain issues). She already can't afford a license in Oregon; I shudder to think of the number of people up here in Washington that will be hurt if this bill passes.

At least I sent her home with a nice sativa strain last time she visited up here

Alkene

(752 posts)
29. Eileen Cody values tax revenues over the well-being of cancer patients.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 07:59 AM
Feb 2014

I won't soon forget.
-Alkene
West Seattle resident

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
30. I suspect this isn't what the citizens of Washington voted for or wanted. Hopefully it will be ...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 08:59 AM
Feb 2014

... used as a primary campaign issue against Cody and other backers.

oNobodyo

(96 posts)
33. Do people ever actually read the articles before they comment?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:14 AM
Feb 2014

Firstly, there was never any lack of availability or quality before the medical marijuana law, before 1-502, this is Washington state and we've been a net exporter for 30 years.

Current usage in Washington state is around 175 metric tons per year and we're still a net exporter.

"Patients could continue to grow marijuana for their own use, but the maximum number of plants would be reduced from 15 to six (three of them flowering)."

One person seems to argue that 6 plants are not enough and another argues that each plant produces much more than 3 ounces...Which is true?...Remember of course that 3 ounces is 84 grams.

"The ceiling on possession by patients would be cut from 24 ounces to three."

A couple things here; possession generally means "on your person" and why would a medical user be carrying a pound and a half around with them?

This is much more troubling...

"The bill instructs the state Department of Health, together with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (which is charged with regulating marijuana growers, processors, and retailers), to produce a report by November 15, 2019, on the question of whether it is appropriate to continue allowing home cultivation."

But then again I have to point out that we were quite capable providers prior to any form of legalization in this state and they know that if the legal market doesn't compete fairly that the underground market will step in happily.

"Cody’s legislation would create a “patient recognition” system that would allow cardholders to buy up to three ounces at a time (as opposed to one ounce for recreational customers), avoid paying sales taxes (a privilege addressed in a separate bill), and claim immunity from arrest for possession or cultivation within the limits set by law. Currently there is no central record of qualified patients. "

Currently it's an iffy proposition trying to prove that you're actually a qualified user. By registering with the state you can avoid having to prove that you're qualified AFTER you're arrested.

The remainder of the article is political maneuvering and nothing more.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
34. “Who would have thought it would be the Republicans trying to protect the rights of patients?”
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:55 AM
Feb 2014

Well ...the parties have merged somewhat so now we have kind of a flip flop action going on here. Donkyphants and Elephonkeys abound!

CrispyQ

(36,464 posts)
53. In CO, med patients can posses more
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:34 PM
Feb 2014

& there are products we have access to that are not available to the retail market due to strength. If you have a red card, you might consider keeping it. My dispensary is setting up a second store in the same retail area, but with separate access & everything.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
69. I hope they don't freeze out the med growers
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:05 PM
Feb 2014

by "they" I mean those who have the money to put up front to be legal.

there are going to be political skivvy compromises - because that's what politics is about, really. but still better legal - the laws may have to adjust as they go along - when the federal level govt. finally comes around, there won't be as a much pressure.

but this is going on everywhere this happens - here's the politics of hemp in KY, for instance -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024497286

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
70. Washington's legalization scheme is too uptight.
Thu Feb 20, 2014, 12:38 AM
Feb 2014

That's why this is happening. They don't really want to have two separate legal marijuana systems.

They also didn't allow home cultivation and threw in that giveaway drugged driving provision. We can learn from what they did right and what they did wrong in Washington.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
71. between this and our educational policy this makes me want to never vote democratic ever again.
Thu Feb 20, 2014, 01:45 AM
Feb 2014

I'm so pissed at the democratic party right now. I'm so done.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Washington House Overwhel...