Initiative Measure No. 1343~~Protect & Strengthen RCW 69.51A

Initiative To The People Protecting And Strengthening RCW 69.51A


     Initiative Measure No. 1343 will protect and strengthen RCW 69.51A by offering compassion, clarity and consistency through the following changes:

  • Bringing Washington state law into compliance with stated federal policy

  • Maintaining small, private residential gardens and patient cooperatives that do not violate the spirit or intent of law.

  • Allowing business owners to obtain licenses for producing, processing or dispensing cannabis in a commercial manner. By using the language from ESSB 5073, specifying cannabis for medical use licensing, allowing producers and processors to deliver cannabis to any cannabis for medical use licensee, and allowing the botanical herb tax exemption on cannabis for medical use.

  • Restoring reciprocity for non-residents and other protections passed by the Legislature in ESSB 5073.

  • Replacing all references of marijuana with cannabis and removing any instances of partially vetoed language. Reinstating essential definitions including cannabis, cannabis products, plant, and correcting the spelling error of “useage”.

  • Adding Post-Traumatic Stress to the list of qualifying conditions and addresses suitability of organ transplants to ensure that medical use of cannabis can no longer be the sole disqualifier for treatment.

  • Extending the same criminal and civil protections to qualifying patients that prescription drug patients receive.

  • Adding in protection to qualifying patient under 18 years of age, patients, legal guardians, and their designated providers.

  • Creating and empowering the cannabis for medical use regulation board to governor all aspects of the market. Through licensing and regulation fees, revenue is generated for the board to regulate the not-for-profit cannabis for medical use market remaining revenue neutral.

  • Expanding the tetrahydrocannabinoidols control substance exempting specifying health care professionals, qualifying patients, designated providers, collective gardens, cannabis for medical use licensees, licensed medical and testing facilities.

  • Protecting RCW 69.51A from state and local government that may chose to use HIDTA drug grant money to prosecute those that comply with the chapter.

     Signatures are being gathered to qualify for this November ballot.  The deadline for gathering the 246,372 signatures from register voters required to qualify is July 5, 2014.

      The challenge with the medical use of cannabis in Washington is that it was approved by the people, not a compassionate legislature.

     In 1998, Washingtonians approved I-692 (RCW 69.51A) allowing a “60-day supply” for qualifying patients. The 2007 legislature directed the department of health to define it. In 2008, they came back with 100 square foot of grow space and 72 ounces of usable cannabis. WASPC dissatisfied with the amount influenced the change to the current 15 plants and 24 ounces.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208654452/DOH-6032-Limits-Draft

      In April 2011, a letter from WASPC to Governor Gregorie telling which sections to veto removed regulation for the medical use of cannabis, and definitions from RCW 69.51A.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151838457/waspc-2011-letter-to-governor-on-medical-cannabis-veto

       In 2012, Washingtonians were told that I-502 would not harm RCW 69.51.A. Yet in 2013, the legislature added an amendment to a budget bill asking for recommendations from the Liquor Control Board (LCB); not getting the two-thirds vote required to amend I-502.

      In 2014, current legislative bills: SHB 2149, SB 5887 & 6178 continue to go against the will of the voters by turning the medical use of cannabis over to the LCB. These legislative bills also violate monopoly, HIPPA, FDA, and DOJ laws by having a registry and combining the medical use of cannabis with an alcohol control board. SB 6542 creates another appointed board by the governor. The appointed LCB is already having challenges with the recreational use of cannabis, do we need yet another appointed board that doesn't represent the people as well?


     B/W petitions below logos are color, though transfers well

Ċ
Kirk Ludden,
Mar 5, 2014, 8:10 PM
Ċ
Kirk Ludden,
Mar 5, 2014, 8:10 PM
Ċ
Kirk Ludden,
Mar 5, 2014, 8:11 PM
Ċ
Kirk Ludden,
Feb 22, 2014, 12:54 PM
Comments