I began to draft this post several weeks ago. Originally it was going to be a plea for legal assistance. No, I’m not jammed up. I’m of the opinion the City of Vancouver has overstepped their regulatory bounds. I would like to file a preliminary injunction.
I realized, though, that of the three people whom read this blog, none are lawyers. So what would be the point in asking? I dumped the text that was previously where I’m currently typing.
Oh, crap, I suppose I should explain what I’m talking about. Uh, you got fifteen minutes to spare?
I’ve mentioned the Washington State legislative bill 5073 elsewhere in this blog. What didn’t get the sectional (36 of ’em) veto is now law. A remaining section is freaking out cities and counties. That section speaks to “collective gardens.” Some knothead got it into the politicians’ heads that collective gardens, as described in 5073, are, uh, like the “collectives” in California that operate behind store fronts.
I know, law is boring, but I must offer a copy of that section (403) for your review:
1 NEW SECTION.
Sec. 403. (1) Qualifying patients may create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis for medical use subject to the following conditions:
(a) No more than three qualifying patients may participate in a single collective garden at any time;
(b) A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen plants per patient up to a total of forty-five plants;
(c) A collective garden may contain no more than twenty-four ounces of useable cannabis per patient up to a total of seventy-two ounces of useable cannabis;
(d) A copy of each qualifying patient’s valid documentation or proof of registration with the registry established in section 901 of this act, including a copy of the patient’s proof of identity, must be available at all times on the premises of the collective garden; and
(e) No useable cannabis from the collective garden is delivered to anyone other than one of the qualifying patients participating in the collective garden.
(2) For purposes of this section, the creation of a “collective garden” means qualifying patients sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use such as, for example, a location for a collective garden; equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to plant, grow, and harvest cannabis; cannabis plants, seeds, and cuttings; and equipment, supplies, and labor necessary for proper construction, plumbing, wiring, and ventilation of a garden of cannabis plants.
(3) A person who knowingly violates a provision of subsection of this section is not entitled to the protections of this chapter.
Okay, so let me ask you, what are they freaking out about? Ten patients are allowed to pool their resources and produce/possess the same amount of plants and cannabis that is afforded any three patients, under the law. One patient is allowed 15 plants and/or 24 oz. in a personal grow.
I. Don’t. Get. It.
Now, here’s another section that made the cut. 1102 is an “orphan” section. There are several of those. The Governor removed anything that had to do with the state being involved in the production or sale of cannabis, but yet, left 1102. Yeah, more law. Try to tough it out, eh?
19 NEW SECTION.
Sec. 1102. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may adopt reasonable zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, or business taxes pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis products that are adopted pursuant to their authority and duties under chapter 36.70A RCW.
Whoa! That’s a flash! The original section 1102 as passed in E2SSB 5073.SL was 22 lines long! It’s now four? Can they DO that?! In the original it was quite obvious it was speaking to dispensaries (now illegal in Wa. State) and dispensaries only! The stench is getting pretty thick here in Washington, I’ll tell ya.
That particular manipulation of law aside, where in 403 does it state registration, licensing or an anointing by the Holy Trinity (The City, The County and the Task Force) is a requirement for a collective garden? It doesn’t. No such thing was ever intended.
Even though “someone” has taken it upon themselves to, uh, edit section 1102, still it is quite obvious to me it relates to cannabis businesses. Not a few folks pulling together to grow a few plants.
The moratoriums across this state are illegal, plain and simple. Frankly, I really haven’t a dog in this hunt. I’m a bit of a loner. I provide what I require and that’s it. My beef is the out-and-out malfeasance on the part of my elected officials. They are knee jerk reacting out of ignorance. I’d like to teach them a thing or two. Oh, and incase you’re wondering, 36.70A is all about comprehensive plans and growth management. I dunno…