SB 5073 and HB 1100 my response to Radical Russ
From Russ Bellville in response to my complaints about SB 5073/HB 1100:
“As for your problems, I can point you to about 154 million other Americans who’d love to have such high-class problems. But let me address them.”
My response: High class problems? Im not a dispenser or grower of cannabis for sale. I am wanting merely to see cannabis benefit the ENTIRE community. Taxing and regulating and all the rest. But there can’t be businesses if the law requires a state registry and strict patient/provider limits. That is my problem with spending so much time and effort supporting the change in the MMJ laws through what Paul is writing about here.
When the laws that are being passed in this bill, kill business that is currently thriving.
I think that the business part of this is key to not only giving patients safe access, but to also lowering costs in growing and distributing collectively.
I sense sarcasm as if you doubt my intentions. However I am spending thousands of my own dollars on this, and my time. Not so I can get rich. But for the freedom and liberty of myself and the community around me. I don’t own a dispensary, so don’t even go there.
“1) Providers can care for six patients and grow 96 plants. Well, above 100 plants you’re tripping a federal mandatory minimum threshold and inviting an arrest, seizure, and spendy federal trial where you can’t even say “medical” and “marijauna” in the same paragraph. Oregon allows for four patients per grower and a total of 96 plants, but only 24 can be mature. So you get to serve two extra patients and grow four times the mature plants. How is this a problem?”
My response: The problem is that there are limits. Just like how NORML supported Prop 19. Highly restrictive, highly regulated, bad for the business, bad for the economy.
However I do understand it was SOMETHING. But I would much rather see NORML support full legalization, than something is certainly NOT full legalization, or anything near it.
The real problem for me is that Sensible Washington needs NORML’s advertising and support in other areas. Getting the word out is key. But NORML spends a lot of time on things like Roger Christie (8 posts) and not enough time on full legalization for example, I can only count 4 total posts about I-1068 last year. However, I can count a lot more about Roger Christie. I support the idea that patients can get better access to medicine. But I am not a medical proponent, I am a FULL LEGALIZATION proponent. Medical will have to do for now. But my ultimate goal is to see what Sensible Washington is proposing, pass in WA.
Distractions don’t help the cause IMHO.
“2) Providers have to be non-profits. As is required in every other medical marijuana state, I believe. Why is this a problem unless the intent is to profit from selling marijuana to sick and disabled people? Non-profit doesn’t mean “non-salaried”; you can still make a very nice living working for a non-profit. Non-profit doesn’t mean “non-growth”; your profits have to be returned to the non-profit and that can include expansion and growth.”
My response: The requirement of these distributors being non-profit creates a federal issue. Because non-profits are federally regulated entities, and if the state is requiring federal entities to pay taxes on a federally illegal product, then the law will get shot down by the courts anyway. Because it is a federal/state conflict. You can’t collect money on an illegal product from a federally regulated entity in my opinion. Seems risky.
3) A state registry for cannabis is ridiculous. What’s more ridiculous is getting arrested because there is no registry and then being forced to spend a lot f money on a trial exerting an affirmative defense. All the other states but California have a registry and until marijuana is legalized, something like that for law enforcement to separate the criminals from the patients will have to exist.”
My response: “A state registry for cannabis is ridiculous. ”
I stand by that statement. Regardless of the circular logic you are using. A state registry? Seems like a conflict with the 5th Amendment, again going back to the 501c regulations. A federally regulated entity registering to do business with the state and pay taxes towards a federally illegal sale. No good man.
Again Im not a dispensary, and I dont sell weed. I just see this issue as a pointless issue, because the way it is written it conflicts with federal regulations on state entities, where as Sensible Washington doesn’t define the tax issue, therefor it is not something that the Federal Government can come down on the state for the way I see it.
I mean if a federally regulated business is first giving up their information to a state registry on an illegal product. There is the 5th Amendment issue.
Then collecting money from an entity required by the state to become federally regulated, seems like the state is the cause for the federal conflict, not a solution. When the state gets this involved, and when they FORCE the business to become federally regulated.. That is the end of canna-biz in WA from how I see it. Look up a 501c (non-profit) requirements. Its a federally regulated deal, not state.
The end result of my position and my statements, is that I hope to see NORML doing as much this year for Sensible Washington as they did last year for Proposition 19. Washington is the only state proposing FULL legalization this year, and I whole heartily think that we can do it, if only we get more national support.
This is my interview today with Justin Prince of the Tacoma Hemp Company today on this topic:
During this meeting we got more information from Philip Dawdy. There are a few things that are still a problem for me.
1. The state registry sucks
2. The 15 period between patients sucks
3. The limits are pretty restrictive.
4. Sensible Washington seems like a better cause to resolve any problems with these bills.