About cdc

Cannabis Defense Coalition

Recent posts

• Comment on NervousNell's answer…

  0 0 Nell, you may be right, but what we listed is all that qualifies one for medical cannabis in Washington State. The law does not require a medical history to show evidence of need. It's based on someone's current condition, not his or her past condition. cdc commented about 1 year ago

• Follow Following 1

  How can we make Seattle police deprioritize marijuana arrests as required by law?

  0 0 A few responses to Tim Burgess: Initiative 75, passed by 58% of Seattle voters in 2003, deprioritizes all cannabis offenses, where the cannabis was intended for adult personal use. Mr. Burgess said "simple possession," but it is important to note that "simple cultivation" is also covered by I-75. I was treasurer for the I-75 campaign, and an observer at the Marijuana Policy Review Panel that met for three years after the initiative. I must admit that it never occurred to me that the initiative was applicable to personal cannabis cultivation. At one of the first panel meetings, when Alison Holcomb (now the head of Washington ACLU's drug policy project) brought up personal cultivation, I thought to myself, "wow, I wonder how this is going fly with the group." I braced myself for the shit that was about to hit the fan. I was flabbergasted when not a single law enforcement representative questioned that analysis. It was sort of like, "well, yes, of course," and the group moved right on. In regard to the Seattle City Attorney prosecuting cannabis cases where the cannabis is "incident to arrest," I think that is not fully correct. If an officer discovers marijuana incident to arrest, they will refer the charges to the city attorney. This is cited by police as the reason cannabis arrests actually increased after I-75. During the reign of city attorney Tom Carr many of those cases were actually prosecuted, and Carr said a bunch of stupid shit as to why his "liberal cannabis hating" policy was important to our safety and civility. A few years back Seattle gave Carr the boot -- in large part because of his refusal to implement I-75 -- and elected a new city attorney who promised to abide by the will of the people. It is my understanding that Pete Holmes has not prosecuted any cannabis charges during his tenure, not even those incident to arrest. The new policy is to prosecute the underlying crime, if one exists. Unfortunately for many people -- or young, black men to be more correct -- the cannabis is the only crime the cops have on them, so they get arrested and referred for prosecution. And city attorney Pete Holmes does not charge them. So, basically, the city attorney is not the issue, but SPD culture and the harassment of black men is still. -- Ben Livingston, CDC member cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 2 more answers »

• Follow Following 1

  Will police help keep my home safe from medical marijuana thieves?

  1 1 No. cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 2 more answers »

• Comment on Kevin's answer…

  1 0 It is true that last year's passage of SB 5798 expanded our law to allow all health care professionals with prescriptive authority to authorize the medical use of cannabis. Originally the law only allowed medical doctors and osteopathic doctors, and since last year naturopathic doctors, nurse practitioners and advanced physician's assistants can sign authorizations. See: http://cdc.coop/lobby It is also true that there are many people, and legislators in specific, that wish to put an end to these "liberal" medical marijuana clinics. Judging by the recent testimony on the senate and house floors, their major concern seems to be not that these health care professionals are authorizing medical cannabis, rather that their local Little Nickel papers are packed with front-page advertising for medical cannabis clinics. To some extent the advertising in the Stranger is also the culprit -- now with at least one of the bolder "we must one-up the competition" dispensaries listing their per-gram and per-ounce prices on a "medical clipboard" held by a large-bosomed woman in a skimpy nurse costume. That said, it is still the recommended course of action to work on educating one's doctor, as has been recommended by the bulk of the medical cannabis community since we passed I-692 in 1998, and technically, even before that. (Notes in ones medical record can be used to establish the "common law" defense of "medical necessity," which was the only way to win a medical cannabis case before 1998.) Refusing to mention medical cannabis for fear that their disapproval will cause other health care professionals to become unwilling to authorize one's legitimate medical cannabis use is effectively playing into the game plan of our enemies, as Sun Tzu would put it. The reason medical and osteopathic doctors are frequently scared shitless when it comes to medical cannabis is that most of them are licensed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in order to prescribe (certain) drugs. The DEA regularly sends communications to doctors, and those occasionally say something to the effect of "just a reminder: if you ever prescribe medical cannabis, the federal government can revoke your license and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law." This is, technically, true, but it is nothing but a sophism. The important word in their ongoing threats to federally-licensed doctors is "prescribe," which is a federally-regulated word. None of the medical cannabis states allow doctors to "prescribe" cannabis. (Arizona's 1996 initiative, repealed by the legislature and reinstated by referendum in 1998, was effectively null because it used the word "prescribe," but Arizona voters passed a new medical cannabis initiative last fall.) All of the states (and DC) only allow doctors to "recommend" or "authorize" the use of medical cannabis. This seems a silly distinction, but it is critical for complying with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Conant v. Walters, which protects a doctors right to discuss with their patients most anything under the sun. cdc commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Kevin's answer…

  1 0 If one's doctor is not willing to sign a medical cannabis authorization, and one actually has a qualifying condition, we highly recommend working to educate one's doctor. A note in your medical record will not cause a patient to be unable to get a medical cannabis authorization. If one has a qualifying condition, any number of "cannabis clinics" will authorize them without question, for a fee usually around $100. Even if one has a non-qualifying condition, questionably-qualifying condition, or no paperwork to support their claim of a qualifying condition, some clinics will still authorize their medical use of cannabis. Perhaps unfortunate, but true. Some believe, as Dennis Peron says, that "all marijuana use is medical." Give them a copy of our Medical Cannabis Primer (http://cdc.coop/primer), and any relevant condition-specific booklets from Americans for Safe Access: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/section.php?id=135 cdc commented about 1 year ago

• Follow Following 1

  why is it not legal here? they manage it in europe quite well.

  1 0 Without answering your question directly, we'll note that the United States and other signatories to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 are tightly constrained in how they may regulate cannabis, along with coca, opium, and derivatives of the three plants. cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 6 more answers »

• Follow Following 1

  How much does the war on drugs really cost?

  2 0 See the Drug War Clock from DrugSense. The short answer: approximately $40 billion -- $40,000,000,000 -- or $500 per second. In addition to these wasted tax dollars, the effects of the drug war in America this year will include approximately: * 1.6 million arrests for drug law violations -- around 13% of all arrests in the country. That's one arrest every 19 seconds. * More than 850,000 arrests for cannabis law violations, and 89% of those charged will be for possession only. That's one arrest every 30 seconds. * Approximately 25% of America's 2+ million prisoners -- which is more than any industrialized nation ever, in total or per capita -- are sentenced for drug law violations. * In some cases, an almost incalculable cost of our drug war is death by murder, as was the case in our state's first medical cannabis murder, which is still being ignored by Pierce County police, who had a history of harassing the murdered patient. cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 2 more answers »

• Follow Following 1

  Who is responsible for the state schedule designation of marijuana in Washington, what schedule is it, and what, if anything, is being done to re-sche

  1 0 Authority to add, delete, or reschedule substances in Washington State lies with the state board of pharmacy (per RCW 69.50.201, part of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act). Cannabis (marijuana) is a Schedule I controlled substance in Washington State. To our knowledge, John Worthington, Washington State Director of American Alliance for Medical Cannabis Washington, is the only person actively involved in any significant effort to have cannabis rescheduled in Washington State. The minutes of the May 7, 2009 meeting of the Washington State Board of Pharmacy state that the board considered on that date Mr. Worthington's petition for them to reschedule, then decided by a 5-0 vote to deny his petition based on the same reasons as the board's decision in response to a 2007 petition to reschedule. The minutes of the September 16-17, 2010 meeting of the Washington State Board of Pharmacy state that on July 6, 2010, the board received another petition filed by Mr. Worthington. The petition was again denied by unanimous vote. In both petitions, Mr. Worthington requested that the board apply the Schedule I test to cannabis: (a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance: (1) has high potential for abuse; (2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. (b) The board may place a substance in Schedule I without making the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or protocol Mr. Worthington is likely the only person in the state with standing to file suit against the Board of Pharmacy for its refusal to reschedule cannabis despite the clear evidence that it fails the Schedule I test and has accepted medical benefits. We understand that in order to successfully file such a suit, the plaintiff must have repeatedly petitioned the board and had those petitions refused, and it appears that Mr. Worthington is the only entity in Washington State to have done so. cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 2 more answers »

• Follow Following 1

  Is full sun needed to grow pot?

  1 0 "Full" sun is not necessary, but twelve hours or more of sun per day will be necessary to effectively grow medical cannabis outdoors. Cannabis is almost-always a photoperiodic species -- it has distinct growth and fruiting cycles which are triggered by the length of the night, or rather the length of darkness. Traditionally, outdoor crops vegetate for many months, and switch to a "bloom" cycle in the fall when the nights reach twelve hours in length. If one does not have enough "summer" days with more than 12 hours of light, one will produce small outdoor plants, which will produce small amounts of usable cannabis. This is, to a large degree, why most outdoor growing in Washington is done east of the mountains, typically in central Washington national or state forest land. Simplified, the more lumens of light, the better for cannabis. Indoor growers -- which is likely 99% of growers west of the cascades -- use high-intensity lighting which use up to 1,000 watts of power per light bulb. (Indoor cannabis cultivation is one of the least earth-friendly industries in the nation, accounting for 1% of the nation's entire energy use, according to research published earlier this month.) When grown indoors, the photoperiod is easily changed. Most growers vegetate for 8 or more weeks under 18-24 hours of light before switching to a bloom room where the lights alternate between 12 hour light and dark cycles. The two rooms typically use different types of high-intensity lighting -- metal-halide lamps in the vegetative room, high-pressure sodium lamps in the bloom room -- but this is not critical to the cannabis plant, only to the human need to maximize output. Some growers mix outdoor and indoor by growing in a greenhouse and supporting the cold and dark days or seasons with indoor lighting. Obviously, this isn't practical for most patients, as they are concerned about neighbors and wayward police wondering why they have a greenhouse full of grow lights behind their modest home. One other important consideration for those who wish to grow outside is that it is often illegal to do so under our medical cannabis law. RCW 69.51A.060 -- the section outlining "crimes and limitations" in the law, states: "(1) It shall be a misdemeanor to use or display medical marijuana in a manner or place which is open to the view of the general public." The important question for a patient facing prosecution in such a case, and a jury of his or her peers, is what constitutes "open to the view of the general public"? If a plane overhead -- a commercial passenger airliner, let's say -- can spot those backyard plants, is that the "general public" and is the patient guilty of a misdemeanor? We are tracking a ridiculous case that is going to trial this Wednesday in Bellevue Municipal Court, Bellevue v. Rex Vongphouthone, case #BC156005, in which a patient headed to the mall was medicating inside his parked car. The patient kept his dark-tinted windows rolled up for privacy, and opened his sun roof to allow smoke to escape. Suspicious security guards from Bellevue Square Mall went up to a higher platform to peer down through the sun roof, and Mr. Vongphouthone is now being charged by Bellevue city prosecutors. So, this question of what is "open to the view of the general public" is not merely an academic one; real people face real criminal consequences over it. As with many aspects of our law, it seems Kafkaesque, but such is the current reality. See our free medical cannabis primer to get super-edified on legal intricacies. cdc answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 5 more answers »

• Comment on NervousNell's answer…

  1 0 A medical history to show evidence of need is not required by law. cdc commented about 1 year ago

• See all of my 0 Questions , 17 Answers and 6 Comments