Capn Drift's Blog

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Wells introduced SB 5073 this year. Basically, it’s a revamp of Washington’s current 69.51a; the state’s medicinal cannabis law(s). Everyone and their sibling has seen this as an opportunity to make amendments to suit their own purposes. Some of those efforts appear to be nefarious in nature.

When I learned of one such amendment I dropped a note to the members of the Ways and Means Committee.  It was sent 2/21 and follows:

I understand you folks have been barraged by special interest groups and the like in response to this bill. May I preface this correspondence by stating my only special interest is me.

I don’t care what defines a “provider.” I don’t care about collectives or cannabis store fronts. I don’t care about employment U.A.s. I don’t care about…

All I want is to peacefully grow my small plants and use the harvest to supplement the small amount of opiate pain relievers I rely on. And to do so within the confines of the law.

It is my belief that the following amendment to SB 5073 will force me to become a criminal in order to relieve the pain from my malady:

“…Health care professionals must monitor patients on a quarterly basis and file quarterly reports with the Department of Health regarding number of patients they have authorized to use medical cannabis. DOH is authorized to determine if the amount of authorizations is “inappropriate.” Such a determination would constitute a finding of unprofessional conduct against a health care professional.”

These are not real expectations. My ailment is chronic. My spine will not suddenly heal itself and I will not suddenly become tolerant of the various pharmaceuticals I have attempted to utilize for palliative relief. Further, my income will not support quarterly doctor visits.

Also, there is no sane physician (in my opinion, obviously) that will begin to discuss cannabis, let alone write a recommendation, given the veiled threat contained in the amendment.

Please, I beseech you, strike this amendment.

If you can’t see your way to that then I would ask you pool together for my bail. A little lawyer money would be nice too.

The bill passed out of Ways and Means the evening of 2/24 with amendment 411 (Written on lavender paper. I watched the hearing on CCTV). 411 amends the above mentioned requirements that I was concerned with.

2SSB 5073 (newly named) now moves on to the Senate Rules Committee.

Man, this thing scares the bejeezus out of me. 

(a later in the day update… oops)

From further investigation it appears the portion that would threaten a medical professional with sanction, if they make more recommendations than the DOH feels appropriate, was not struck from the bill. Now I’ve got a drawers full of “bejeezus!”

The article I’m referring to in this particular letter to the editor can be found here:  Paraphernalia.

More laws are not the answer

Regarding the Feb. 10 Columbian story, “Popping pipe dreams: County eyes banning drug paraphernalia in convenience stores,” allow me to preface by saying I don’t necessarily approve of the display of these pipes and such in the mentioned stores. However, I strongly disapprove of enacting yet another law “in the name of the children.” Drug laws only perpetuate juvenile drug abuse. The answer is truthful education, not scare tactics. Lying is counterproductive. It discredits the pontificator.

More than 800,000 people were arrested on cannabis charges in this country last year. Approximately 80 percent of those arrests were for possession only. We incarcerate more people (per capita) than any other. We have a higher incidence of juvenile drug abuse than any other industrialized nation. How are those Draconian drug laws working out for us?

Another law? Part of the answer to the American drug problem is educating our children and honesty. That, and treating abuse for what it is — a social and health issue. We don’t need any more laws related to drugs. Actually, the evidence before us would indicate we should repeal those currently on the books. Now that would truly be “for the children.”

A Dec. 30 Columbian story “Safe streets” declared “For this story we’ve looked at just three serious crimes, the kind folks might worry about. We added assaults, burglaries and drug crimes for each area.”

Excuse me? There weren’t enough rapes and murders so The Columbian decided to fall back on the old standby “drugs”? What exactly is a drug crime? Is DUI a drug crime? Is standing too close to the doorway of a business while smoking tobacco a drug crime?

The words “drug” and “crime” would not be found in the same sentence if this ludicrous prohibition would end. Turf wars, crack babies and a large percentage of juveniles using illegal drugs would be a thing of the past. These issues aren’t of drugs but the illicit trade prohibition propagates and the threat of criminal prosecution that limits an abuser’s resources for help. The near 30,000 people killed in Mexico haven’t been about drugs, but money.

Drug abuse is a social-health issue … a crime? The only major drug crimes that come to my mind are the Harrison Act, Marijuana Tax Act and the Controlled Substance Act — crimes of a nation against its citizens.

The article my letter refers to can be found here-

Cheers and Jeers

It’s the third “cheers” down.

“The Columbian’s bias has become painfully clear to me over the years. However, I believe the editorialized in the June 12 “Cheers and Jeers” relating to Initiative 1068 are over the top with ‘we wonder whether people would see it as a justification to abuse intoxicants.’ I can’t decide if that sentence is a red herring or just plain nonsensical.”

“You mention a poll that suggests voters would approve of cannabis legalization. Yet you still publish negative prose. Obviously, the will of Washingtonians is meaningless to the Columbian; bias indeed.”

“You use the same old worn-out argument that cannabis is a schedule I drug and state legalization would create a problem for local law enforcement. That’s nonsense. It would free law enforcement to go after the real bad guys. It would make room in the court system to take the same to trial.”

 ”Also, it is the responsibility of the states to protest in the face of unjust federal law. Cannabis’ illegality is unjust, plain and simple. There’s no justification for it- none.”

“I respect the Columbian’s right to voice its puritanical views. I would suggest, though, that if you care to maintain any credibility with your readers you dial back your nonsensical rhetoric.”

Last April a letter to the editor was published in the Columbian news paper. I can’t help but attempt to respond when I read these types of ignorant statements. I waited the mandatory 30 day period between this and my last letter. I believe I hit the 200 word limit on the button. At this point in time it’s obvious to me the publisher hasn’t seen fit to print my rebuttal. Here’s the letter that raised my ire; 

A prescription still drug use

Here’s my letter (that didn’t make print) in response;

In Kenneth Juergen von Husan’s missive dated April 17 and titled _A prescription still drug use_, his last sentence reads, “There is no such thing as ‘medical marijuana,’ pot is pot.” This statement leads me to believe Mr. Husan is woefully ignorant on the medicinal efficacy of cannabis. In the interest of education allow me to briefly point out;

It’s documented that cannabis has been used as an herbal medicine for over 2,300 years.

GW Pharmaceuticals is currently marketing a cannabis derived product (Sativex) in Canada and several European nations. This medicine is used to treat MS and severe pain. Several other pharmaceutical companies are following suit.

WSU is currently involved in a study to verify the synergistic relationship between cannabis and opiate pain relievers.

The Washington State Department of Health has approved cannabis in the treatment of several maladies, from pain to eating disorders.

Current studies are showing that cannabis may very well shrink tumors associated with breast cancer. Though the results aren’t conclusive at this point there is evidence that cannabis may even prevent some cancers.

With a 200 word limit I’m forced to keep this class session short. The bell has rung. You are dismissed.

A couple of notes: I never got a response. In all fairness to the prosecutor a response would not have been in his best interest regardless of his take.  He’s left the door open to prosecute as the situation warrants. Further, for one patient to hand another cannabis must be construed as delivery due to the federal classification of cannabis as a schedule I drug. Washington’s medical marijuana law merely allows an affirmative defense as a medical need in the event of arrest. All authorized patients in Washington are engaging in an illegal act.

Also, the dispensary (slash) co-op I mentioned has not opened as of this writing. The letter below was written last June. The last time I checked it appeared that the effort had stalled.

6-11-09                                                 

 SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Patients

 Prosecutor Curtis,

I am writing in response to a recent third-party conversation I’ve had with a Vancouver Police Officer. I had asked the legality of one qualifying patient handing another a marijuana plant and or marijuana. I understand the officer conferred with the Prosecuting Attorney’s office. The response I received was your office interprets that activity as delivery of a controlled substance. An illegal act.  I am asking that you reconsider on the following grounds.

 The Washington State medical marijuana laws have no provision on how a patient may obtain marijuana or marijuana plants. There is a provision for a Designated Provider but that merely takes us up the ladder one rung. There is no provision on how the provider obtains plants.

 (Other than my qualifying patient status the following is anecdotal. I haven’t any knowledge of times, places or the individuals that have attended.)

 I’m part of a loose knit community of qualifying patients in Clark County. I’ve heard that in the past there have been social “get-togethers.”  Only documented patients, providers and immediate family are allowed to attend.  At these gatherings it is typical for patients to bring clippings, slips, rooted plants and marijuana to be given away. Though I know “delivery” isn’t dependent upon money changing hands it’s my understanding that these were given, not sold.

 (Anecdotal paragraph ends)

 I was considering hosting such an event myself until I queried the officer. A conviction and jail time being a deterrent. I feel this deterrent is detrimental to the Clark County medical marijuana community. Allow me to explain.

 In general, the community wishes to keep the black market at arm’s length.  And, of course, purchasing marijuana or plants from the black market is illegal. There’s a feeling of isolation among us. We have only ourselves for support.

 Many people who aren’t familiar with the intricacies of medical marijuana are not aware that one plant is not necessarily like the other. Different strains and harvest times have different effects on the patient. Some plants offer relief for insomnia, others for nausea or pain, etc. Many patients have experimented for several years with different varieties until they’ve found what works best for their particular malady. These social gatherings give people the opportunity to test different plants for their effectiveness. Further, it gives them the option of obtaining the plants for their own garden.

 Newly qualified patients often find they haven’t the resources to obtain plants for themselves. They simply don’t know where to get plants, what plants and how to grow them once they do. The community is a wealth of knowledge on growing techniques and problem solving. Also, I believe obtaining plants from other patients is a safer method then whatever may be available “on the street.”

 A catastrophic event can easily wipe out an individual’s grow. If we are allowed to support one another we would be able to replace the loss without venturing outside the community and at no cost to the fellow patient.

I’m not asking for an increase in the existing limits under the law. I’m not asking your office to condone a free for all.  I’m asking for compassion. If we are allowed to, we can support ourselves.

 I don’t wish to appear argumentative, however the following has me curious. I understand that Clark County law enforcement has given the go-ahead to a business that plans to open a dispensary or co-op. On the face of it I find that encouraging.  It leads me to believe Clark County has become aware of the usefulness of marijuana as a medicine. Though most of us are self-sufficient I’m sure this business will provide a service for many.

What I’m curious about is how this business has managed to sway law enforcement when it is blatantly illegal. More so, in my opinion, than patients helping patients. We aren’t interested in helping one another for money. We want to help one another simply because we care.

I don’t understand how this business can have a store front but we would put ourselves at risk of prosecution for handing one another a plant. To me the business appears  more  a violation of the patient\caregiver law then what it is I’m asking you to allow.

In closing, once again I’ll ask that you reconsider your stance in this matter.

2-6-10

RE: Cannabis

Good day Senator Pridemore.

Yes, cannabis is a hot topic these days. State’s rights as well, and with good reason. In my opinion the citizens of these United States have had enough of the strong arming from the federal government. They question the validity of a variety of federal laws. The particular law I care to address at this time is the prohibition and classification of cannabis as a schedule I drug.

I won’t waste your time with prison statistics. I won’t bore you with the death statistics from the overdose, or as a “side effect” of FDA approved drugs. I’ll not go into a tirade about how the argument of protecting the children is a red herring. Any individual that has done cursory research on the subject of cannabis is already aware of the facts.

I would like to lobby for state’s rights and a state’s responsibility to its citizens. Two prominent figures in our history are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Perhaps you are familiar with what became known as the “principles of ‘98”? In these gentlemen’s opinion it was a state’s responsibility to challenge unjust federal law. It’s part of the checks and balances.

I wasn’t in favor of the recent HB 2401. It was detrimental to the authorized patients of Washington State. What took me aback  though was Committee Chairman Hurst’s statement that he had taken an oath to uphold both Washington law and federal. If a legislator’s oath of office does include such fealty then I would posit that is a conflict of interest.

Certainly you’ve heard of nullification. When a federal law is outlandish on the face of it the states have the right, the responsibility, to say no. I think it’s time to say no. No- the state of Washington will not tip-toe around federal law with decriminalization.  No longer will the state of Washington follow in step with the large lobbying organizations that manipulate Congress.

No.

Nullification.

The pharmaceutical companies and agricultural chemical companies be damned.

I think it’s high time the state’s legislators listened to their constituents.  The rumble across the nation is evident. I’m proud to be a Washingtonian. My pride would swell if Washington State had the lead in a movement that is certain to gain momentum. The war on marijuana? Please, just say “No.”

Thank you,

1-24-10

RE: Cannabis

Good day Senator Cantwell. Hopefully this letter finds you well.

As I’m sure you are aware a bill was recently introduced with the attempt at legalizing cannabis in Washington State. HB2401 didn’t make it out of committee. The committee chairman cited the federal classification of cannabis as a barrier. Isn’t it time this was changed?

Many states have “decriminalized” marijuana as a work-around to cannabis’ DEA scheduling. Fourteen states allow the medicinal use of cannabis as an affirmative defense in the event of an arrest. I would think at this point such state legislation would send a message to the federal government.

It has been postulated that Harry Anslinger’s scare tactics of the thirties were not truly about marijuana. It was a move to prevent industrial hemp from being a viable agricultural commodity. His interest was in the boardroom of large corporations. Not the citizens of the United States.

It is my belief that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, promoted by President Nixon, and the placement of marijuana as a schedule I drug was another effort on big business’ behalf. In this instance possibly with the pharmaceutical industry as a benefactor, rather than synthetics manufacturers.

Human beings have been using hemp for a variety of purposes for over 3,000 years. I defy you to find a documented death caused by the overdose of cannabis or as a side effect.  Why then is marijuana a schedule I drug? It’s senseless on the face of it. Obviously it’s scheduling is not as a result of the risk to any one individual’s well being. Why then?

An argument has been made that the scheduling can’t be changed because of a lack of serious scientific investigation. The federal government has ensured that the availability of cannabis for this research has been next to impossible. However, the current studies being performed are proving cannabis to have a variety of therapeutic uses. Washington State University is in the process of examining the possible synergic relationship between cannabis and narcotics.

Now and again I’ll catch a pharmaceutical advertisement on television for one or another FDA approved medicine. I can’t help but shake my head when the announcer advises of the possible side effects. For some medicines it’s death. Quite the side effect for a FDA approved pharmaceutical.

In my opinion the citizens of the United States have had enough of the war on marijuana (notice I didn’t write “drugs”). The latest polls would agree with me. It appears the majority of people are no longer buying into reefer madness. They are discovering that some very respected, productive people are also recreational users. It has been noted in a book about Carl Sagan’s life that he was an avid marijuana smoker.

The jig is up Senator.

The people are speaking. Individual states are rebelling against marijuana prohibition. A responsible Congress would not ignore the plain truth. A responsible Congress would not allow the citizens of this country to be federally prosecuted for marijuana possession any longer.

Please Senator Cantwell, I ask you to lobby on behalf of the people of Washington State to remove marijuana from a schedule I classification.

Thank you for your consideration,