Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 15, 2011
Olympia Tell Gov. Gregoire Not to Veto Medical Pot Bill
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM
Responding to a memo from federal prosecutors, Gov. Chris Gregoire is announcing that she will veto a long-sought bill to protect sick and dying people from arrest and regulate dispensaries:
I am glad the Department of Justice has clarified its position on this difficult issue. In light of the Department of Justice’s guidance, it is clear that I cannot sign a bill that authorizes our state employees to license marijuana dispensaries when the department would prosecute those involved. However, I recognize there are problems with how people with serious illnesses obtain medical marijuana and will work with lawmakers to address these challenges in a way that does not conflict with federal enforcement policy.
But Gregoire should sign this bill.
She's making a dishonest excuse.
The Dept. of Justice didn't actually say it "would prosecute" state employees. And the memo hasn't really clarified the fed's position on medical marijuana, taken in 2009, that it retains the right to prosecute but won't target people complying with state law. As for state employees: Prosecution was listed among a laundry list of less severe potential actions. But New Mexico passed a law to regulate dispensaries in 2007; their Department of Health has regulated that pot growing and distribution since 2008 (workers can even go collect samples of the marijuana if someone complains). Feds have never prosecuted state employees in New Mexico running the medical marijuana program.
And that's apparently the intended approach of prosecutors here.
US Attorney Jenny Durkan made it clear that state employees weren't here target, writing yesterday, "In the area of marijuana drug prosecutions, this means our targets include organized criminal groups, those who abuse public or tribal lands, people who commercialize the marijuana trade for profit or use it to finance other criminal activity, and doctors who abuse their positions and fraudulently certify individuals as medical marijuana patients." None of those "targets" are state employees or the growers and dispensaries that would operate as nonprofits under this law. And US Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2009 that he would not pursue people complying with state medical marijuana laws.
"It's obvious that the federal government is not interested in going after state employees regulating medical marijuana, because if they were, they would have said something about back in 2009, the first time around," says ACLU of Washington drug policy director Alison Holcomb.
If Gregoire would just sign it, this bill would finally regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, license growers, and protect sick people from arrest (here's the full text). Good people and medical professionals have been trying to improve Washington's medical marijuana law for over a decade. Gregoire's own staff has worked on this with lawmakers, like bill sponsor Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), for 18 months.
Tell her to sign it: (360) 902-4111.
4
"I have been added to the list" so says the nice lady who took my call. I was pleasant and positive thru my furious clenched teeth. If she let's this opportunity pass I could see voting Dino to spite her. Fuck no I won't be able to stay mad that long and could never actually vote an R. It is the helplessness that is so maddening. This is a health issue. Why are lawmakers involved at all? Oh nevermind, I'll go back muttering and grumbling to myself. Geeez I dont even use MJ. I just hate how stupid prohibition laws are.
7
We do not support SB 5073 as passed by the House Monday. The version the Senate passed was worse. Senator Kohl-Welles introduced a great bill, but it has become something quite different. Rep. Chris Hurst introduced an amendment Monday that removed protection from police terrorism for qualifying patients who choose not to register. See http://cdc.coop/2011_legislation for more detail.
8
This is why everyone needs to get behind I-1149. Our politicians have proven time and again that they do not have the intestinal fortitude to lead on this issue so let's drop them and do it ourselves. We the people will lead our leaders.
9
I may be wrong about this, but I recall a provision in state law where if the Governor does not veto or sign a bill it passes into state law after X number of days. Can anyone confirm?
10
I just called and told them that she obviously lacks the intestinal fortitude to lead the people of washington state and there is NO WAY IN HELL I would support her running, even though I've voted for her twice and donated to her campaign. I don't vote for RepubliCAN'Ts and she may have a D after her name but her actions with this and the budget crisis shows where her priorities lie. If she runs, she should switch parties since she seems to prefer the rethug platform so much.
11
I scene epic line-item vetoes for 5073. We will be left with arrest protection for registered users, new restrictions for doctors and maybe a local zoning framework for "co-ops".
Do other state's have provisions in their medical Cannabis laws specific to research? 5073 does, I wonder how much of an effect this had on the Feds reaction?
Do other state's have provisions in their medical Cannabis laws specific to research? 5073 does, I wonder how much of an effect this had on the Feds reaction?
12
The medical cannabis bill that passed the Washington State House of Representatives passed Monday 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:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdoc…
More...
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 yesterday. 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:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdoc…
13
Oh and whomever said that the person answering the phones is right. She needs to smoke a fatty. She got extremely pissy saying "I haven't seen that Christine (first name basis?) has made a statement whether she's running or not. I said it doesn't matter. If she does run, we will do everything in our power to defeat her. She has shown she has little interest in representing We The People.
14
@12, so you're suggesting I now call again to ask her to go ahead and veto it instead? Please clarify. Flying monkey awaits definitive orders Thanks.
15
@14: We're just helping you make informed decisions, not suggesting any particular action. There are lots of reports that everything is rosy and that we just need to get Gregoire to step out of the way, but that is not the case.
Maybe Dominic will explain why the long list of negative effects this bill as passed by the House or (worse) as passed by the Senate are going unreported.
Maybe Dominic will explain why the long list of negative effects this bill as passed by the House or (worse) as passed by the Senate are going unreported.
16
The Government calls a drug war, lets act on that and call war ourselves, it's time to take back government for the people!
17
Wait a minute! Where does she state that she will veto this bill? She states that she will not SIGN it. There is a big difference. If a Governor does not sign a bill, it automatically becomes law after a certain period of tim (15-30 days, I think). She has to actively veto it for the bill not to become a law.
18
pfft I don't want to have to pay taxes on my favorite drug, and put so many of my friends out of work, you people are crazy, forcing me to pay some of my crop to the gubment, that's all mine, the gubment never done nothing for me, why should I have to pay taxes? regulation kills everything else, don't kill my buzzzzzzzz
19
@9: You're thinking of WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III,
SECTION 12 which I'll paste below. Gov. Gregoire doesn't need to veto this bill to kill it. She has to return it with objections if she doesn't sign the bill but it doesn't have the 2/3 support in both houses of the legislature required to pass it over her objections so the result of not signing will effectively be a full veto. Not signing is better than the damage she could do with line-item vetoes. My advice to people who want real reform is to sign I-1149, gather signatures for I-1149 and support it in any other ways possible. Get it on the ballot and vote it into law. Go to the Sensible Washington website and become a volunteer now. I-1149 is not a bunch of unrealistic, complex, discriminatory regulations, it doesn't conflict with federal law in any way and the governor can't veto an initiative.
WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE III
SECTION 12 VETO POWERS. Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon the journal and proceed to reconsider. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the vote of both houses shall be determined by the yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for or against the bill shall be entered upon the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days, Sundays excepted, after it shall be presented to him, it shall become a law without his signature, unless the general adjournment shall prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless the governor, within twenty days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, shall file such bill with his objections thereto, in the office of secretary of state, who shall lay the same before the legislature at its next session in like manner as if it had been returned by the governor: Provided, That within forty-five days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, the legislature may, upon petition by a two-thirds majority or more of the membership of each house, reconvene in extraordinary session, not to exceed five days duration, solely to reconsider any bills vetoed. If any bill presented to the governor contain several sections or appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contain one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items. In case of objection he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the section or sections, appropriation item or items to which he objects and the reasons therefor; and the section or sections, appropriation item or items so objected to shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's objection, as hereinbefore provided. The provisions of Article II, section 12 insofar as they are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
More...
SECTION 12 which I'll paste below. Gov. Gregoire doesn't need to veto this bill to kill it. She has to return it with objections if she doesn't sign the bill but it doesn't have the 2/3 support in both houses of the legislature required to pass it over her objections so the result of not signing will effectively be a full veto. Not signing is better than the damage she could do with line-item vetoes. My advice to people who want real reform is to sign I-1149, gather signatures for I-1149 and support it in any other ways possible. Get it on the ballot and vote it into law. Go to the Sensible Washington website and become a volunteer now. I-1149 is not a bunch of unrealistic, complex, discriminatory regulations, it doesn't conflict with federal law in any way and the governor can't veto an initiative.
WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE III
SECTION 12 VETO POWERS. Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon the journal and proceed to reconsider. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the vote of both houses shall be determined by the yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for or against the bill shall be entered upon the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days, Sundays excepted, after it shall be presented to him, it shall become a law without his signature, unless the general adjournment shall prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless the governor, within twenty days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, shall file such bill with his objections thereto, in the office of secretary of state, who shall lay the same before the legislature at its next session in like manner as if it had been returned by the governor: Provided, That within forty-five days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, the legislature may, upon petition by a two-thirds majority or more of the membership of each house, reconvene in extraordinary session, not to exceed five days duration, solely to reconsider any bills vetoed. If any bill presented to the governor contain several sections or appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contain one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items. In case of objection he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the section or sections, appropriation item or items to which he objects and the reasons therefor; and the section or sections, appropriation item or items so objected to shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's objection, as hereinbefore provided. The provisions of Article II, section 12 insofar as they are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
20
Not signing it, after it reaches concurrence in both houses, is like signing it.
"Governor's actions: The Governor reviews the bill. The Governor may decide to sign it, veto part of it, or veto all of it. If the Governor vetoes part or all of it, the Legislature may vote to override the veto. (That happens rarely.) If the governor does not act on a bill after the allotted number of days, it is as if it was signed. From the Governor's desk, bills go to the Secretary of State who assigns a session law chapter number. The Chapter to Bill Table (available on the Bill/Law Cross Reference page) lists the bills that have passed the Legislature, the chapter numbers assigned by the Secretary of State, vetoes, short descriptions, and the effective dates. "
"Governor's actions: The Governor reviews the bill. The Governor may decide to sign it, veto part of it, or veto all of it. If the Governor vetoes part or all of it, the Legislature may vote to override the veto. (That happens rarely.) If the governor does not act on a bill after the allotted number of days, it is as if it was signed. From the Governor's desk, bills go to the Secretary of State who assigns a session law chapter number. The Chapter to Bill Table (available on the Bill/Law Cross Reference page) lists the bills that have passed the Legislature, the chapter numbers assigned by the Secretary of State, vetoes, short descriptions, and the effective dates. "
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS