Home

Analysis: partial veto worse than we imagined

2011 Medical Use of Cannabis Act

Sections signed into law:

  • 102. Intent section amended to disavow medical necessity common law defense and remove protections from parolees.
  • 103. Construction section amended to clarify that nobody is safe from prosecution.
  • 401. Arrest protection for registered patients, if the state creates a registry in the future. Law enforcement want all patients to register, and gutting our law is their attempt to force patients to accept that, even clamor for it.
  • 402. Affirmative defense severely weakened. Sixty-day supply allowance gone, 15 plant limit is the new hard law. Many new causes to be denied the defense, including outstanding warrants or committing a misdemeanor in the presence of police.
  • 403. Authorizes collective gardens of up to 45 plants.
  • 404. "One patient at any one time" language that allowed grey-market dispensaries removed. Providers must wait 15 days between patients.
  • 405. Patients exceeding the now-codified hard limits may establish an affirmative defense if they can prove their necessary use exceeds the new hard limits.
  • 406. Patients and providers who do not present their authorization to law enforcement may raise an affirmative defense at trial.
  • 408. Patients may not be denied organ transplants unless their medical cannabis uses poses "significant risk of rejection or organ failure," the reason all patients are currently denied organ transplants.
  • 409. Parental rights may not be restricted solely because of medical cannabis use. This re-codifies existing family law.
  • 413. Nothing in this chapter precludes a patient or provider from engaging in the medical use of cannabis as authorized by this chapter. Well, of course.
  • 501. Hotels and motels do not have to accommodate medical cannabis use whatsoever, even in non-smoked form. Denies the medical cannabis affirmative defense to members of our national guard. Employers do not have to accommodate the medical use of cannabis or retain employees who use medical cannabis. It is now a felony to "backdate" an authorization to use medical cannabis. Existing prohibition on driving under the influence of cannabis stricter and broader. Public view penalty lessened from a innocent-until-proven-guilty misdemeanor to a ticketable offense.
  • 1001.The Washington state institute for public policy will study the implementation of this act.
  • 1002. UW and WSU may conduct medical cannabis research.
  • 1101.The state is immune from all liability for anything it does.
  • 1102.Local authorities may adopt and enforce laws regulating or banning medical cannabis in their communities.
  • 1103.Severability clause.
  • 1105.The affirmative defense may not be claimed in any corrections-related hearing. Anyone supervised by DOC may not be licensed, if the state issues licenses in the future.
  • 1106.Changes "marijuana" to "cannabis" in the title of the law.
  • 1204.Housecleaning. Removes rulemaking language about presumptive 60-day-supply.
  • 1205.Codifies the approved sections under chapter 69.51A.

Sections vetoed:

  • 101.
  • 201.
  • 407.
  • 410.
  • 411.
  • 412.
  • 601. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 602. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 603. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 604. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 605. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 606. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 607. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 608. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 609. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 610. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 611. Licensed producers and processors.
  • 701. Licensed dispensers.
  • 702. Licensed dispensers.
  • 703. Licensed dispensers.
  • 704. Licensed dispensers.
  • 705. Licensed dispensers.
  • 801. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 802. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 803. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 804. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 805. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 806. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 807. Provisions applying to all producers, processors and dispensaries.
  • 901. State registry of patients, providers, producers, processors
  • 902. State registry records are exempt from public disclosure.
  • 1104.
  • 1201.
  • 1202.
  • 1203.
  • 1206.

Oh no! Governor sectional vetoes SB 5073

Our worst fears were realized in the past two weeks as political grandstanding took precedence over patients and providers. Our governor expressed her unwillingness to approve for-profit dispensary language passed by the legislature, and threatened to veto that language. We believed the governor when she made this threat, and pushed for a conference committee between the House and the Senate, to craft language acceptable to the governor. Our colleagues and the legislature preferred the opposite path: to pass the legislation as written and challenge the governor to stand by her words.

The stakes were raised when the governor reacted to this political calculation by calling in the federal government. The CDC has been ringing the raid alarm for a month, and as part of that alarm, we brought out Americans for Safe Access to conduct "raid preparedness trainings" across the state. On Wednesday, a CDC board member offered the following prescient quote to the Seattle Weekly: "People think there's some 'green rush' happening and that's it's legal. Neither of those is true. It's all in people's heads and eventually it's going to come to a startling end." That "startling end" began for some in Spokane the next day, as the federal government executed raids against multiple medical cannabis dispensaries. Ironically, the raids began while the CDC was conducting raid training in Spokane.

Today, Governor Gregoire took the worst possible action and issued a sectional veto of the bill. She left in supposedly positive provisions that reiterate existing law, and she left in the language amending our existing "affirmative defense" so that it specifically will not apply to dispensary operators. Thus, as of the law's effective date, all "grey market" dispensary operators are left with no affirmative defense to cannabis distribution charges.

We are increasing the volume of our raid alarm rhetoric. We believe the possibility exists of an ongoing, large-scale federal investigation coordinated by the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington Jenny Durkan, similar to the one conducted in Montana for 18 months prior to the execution of 26 criminal search warrants last month. Be prepared.

Audio of Governor Gregoire's statement on medical cannabis bill. (Link to archive.org

Legislature passes SB 5073, sends to Governor for signature

UPDATE April 21, 2011, 3:30 p.m. -- Early this afternoon, the Washington State Senate voted 27-21 to concur, so SB 5073 as passed by the House on April 11 is now on the desk of Governor Chris Gregoire. Our only hope to secure real arrest protection for all authorized patients -- now, not later -- is for it to be included in the trailer bill legislators are preparing for introduction in the upcoming special session.

Protection from being terrorized by police should be afforded to all authorized patients, not withheld from some of them in an attempt to coerce them into registering their medical treatment decision with the state. Such manufacturing of incentive to use the future "voluntary registry" is shameful.

Voting Yea: Senators Baumgartner, Brown, Chase, Delvin, Eide, Fain, Fraser, Harper, Hatfield, Hill, Hobbs, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Litzow, McAuliffe, Murray, Nelson, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Ranker, Regala, Rockefeller, Tom, White, and Zarelli

Voting Nay: Senators Baxter, Becker, Benton, Carrell, Conway, Ericksen, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Kastama, Kilmer, King, Morton, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Shin, Stevens, and Swecker

Excused: Senator Parlette

HELP NEEDED! TAKE ACTION!

UPDATE April 21, 2011, 10:00 a.m. -- Time is short, and the stakes are high. We need as many people as possible to contact members of the Washington State Senate and urge them to oppose concurrence on SB 5073 and seek a conference committee. Please send a short email to this effect:

"Dear senators: Please vote no on concurring to the house changes for SB 5073, and seek a conference committee with the house. The current language is unacceptable and will dramatically weaken our state's medical cannabis law."

Send your email to: michael.baumgartner@leg.wa.gov, jeff.baxter@leg.wa.gov, randi.becker@leg.wa.gov, don.benton@leg.wa.gov, lisa.brown@leg.wa.gov, michael.carrell@leg.wa.gov, maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov, steve.conway@leg.wa.gov, jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov, tracey.eide@leg.wa.gov, doug.ericksen@leg.wa.gov, joe.fain@leg.wa.gov, karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov, jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov, nick.harper@leg.wa.gov, brian.hatfield@leg.wa.gov, marymargaret.haugen@leg.wa.gov, mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov, andy.hill@leg.wa.gov, steve.hobbs@leg.wa.gov, janea.holmquistnewbry@leg.wa.gov, jim.honeyford@leg.wa.gov, jim.kastama@leg.wa.gov, karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov, derek.kilmer@leg.wa.gov, curtis.king@leg.wa.gov, adam.kline@leg.wa.gov, jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov, steve.litzow@leg.wa.gov, rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov, bob.morton@leg.wa.gov, edward.murray@leg.wa.gov, sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov, linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov, cheryl.pflug@leg.wa.gov, margarita.prentice@leg.wa.gov, craig.pridemore@leg.wa.gov, kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov, debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov, pam.roach@leg.wa.gov, phil.rockefeller@leg.wa.gov, mark.schoesler@leg.wa.gov, timothy.sheldon@leg.wa.gov, paull.shin@leg.wa.gov, val.stevens@leg.wa.gov, dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov, rodney.tom@leg.wa.gov, scott.white@leg.wa.gov, joseph.zarelli@leg.wa.gov

Senate phone numbers: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rosters/Members.aspx?Chamber=S

WHY WE TAKE THIS POSITION

Our decision is based on the following logic and understandings. We have two options at this point: senate concurrence or non-concurrence. If the senate concurs, the bill goes to the governor, who can take one of four actions: veto, sectional veto, pass, or ignore (in which case it passes). If the governor chooses a sectional veto, she will likely make a small mess of the bill, which will give legislators reason to pass a correcting "trailer bill" in the special session. The same is true if she vetoes it wholly: we may have another shot in the special session. If she passes it, the current language becomes law.

If the senate does not concur, a conference committee may be called. This is not certain, but seems likely to us. At that point, six legislators have authority over the final language of the bill. The language that comes out of conference committee could actually be worse, but we can work to affect that process, to get arrest protection for unregistered patients back in. The language that comes out of the conference committee must be approved by both houses, which is also not guaranteed. After that, it goes to the governor, and we are left in the same position as if the senate had concurred: Gregoire may sectional veto or veto entirely.

The non-concurrence path poses greater risk that the bill will die before it reaches the governor. It also leaves us multiple chances to "roll the dice" and try to reach a more comfortable position before we gamble on the "big game" at the governor's desk. We believe we have a real opportunity to get our preferred language back in conference committee. If the language is even worse, we have opportunities to kill it at the house, senate or governor's desk. If the language is better, we risk the house or senate voting against it, in which case we are done for the year -- and more realistically, we are done until 2013.

The risk of a no vote in the house or senate seems acceptable to us. When presented with final, unmodifiable language, both houses will be forced to make a decision: either one supports medical cannabis, or one does not support medical cannabis. We expect the house vote to be more difficult, perhaps along party lines with a few democrats like Hurst voting no. On a side note, and not informing our decision, we like the idea of forcing legislators like Hurst to show their "true colors" on a recorded vote.

Also on the non-concurrence path, we risk the conference committee "watering down" the legislation, specifically in regard to state licensing of dispensaries, which is one of the most "powerful" parts of the bill. Having a state-licensed, legal and entrenched medical cannabis business system is a very positive development in our ultimate challenge to this federally-inspired war against our people. That said, we believe that our existing medical cannabis law is, for all of its flaws, functional. Patients can access authorizing health care professionals and they can access medical cannabis with minimal issues. There is a technical problem in that no dispensary is legal, but that is not a practical problem. Nearly all of them have an affirmative defense to cannabis charges currently, and while some of the less thoughtful or intelligent have been convicted, many more have been acquitted by juries of their peers. In short, the current affirmative defense -- gone if the senate concurs -- works to effectively allow dispensaries.

The main problem with our law, in our opinion, has always been law enforcement culture in our state. We do not think this legislation will change that. With or without this bill, we will need to battle numerous local police agencies in the future and demand their respect for patients and our voter-approved law. The fear of federal raids is similar: the feds may execute DEA raids if this bill does not pass, but in either case we fully expect and are planning for that contingency. More likely, the feds will continue to execute raids in our state through the "black hand" of the multijurisdictional drug task forces and the local law enforcement they employ. This is the reality now, and we do not see this bill changing that. That change will come, we believe, through our current tactic of engaging in battle with law enforcement agencies who go after medical cannabis patients, convincing patients and providers to refuse plea bargains, providing court support and costing local jurisdictions money and face when they engage in such behavior.

If this bill does not get to the governor's desk, we risk a public perception that the feds threatened us and we became paralyzed, refusing to do anything. This could negatively affect our future legislative prospects, and it could also negatively affect the prospects for a future cannabis initiative -- if we don't stand up to the feds now, voters may be unwilling to stand up to the feds at the ballot box. This is an acceptable risk to us, and we also think the opposite may be true: if the public perceives that our legislature caved to the federal government, voters may be willing to take matters into their own hands. Indeed this is the usual logic behind successful initiative campaigns: the people must act because the legislature failed to act. And public perception seems more malleable to us than the future codified law will be if the senate concurs on SB 5073.

Finally, there is the issue of "reigning in" on the so-called "green rush" that has sprouted in our state in the last two years. Bolder dispensary operators, bolder advertising and the "lowest common denominator" have created some degree of backlash against medical cannabis in our state. Allowing it to continue unchecked risks a much greater, more general backlash, which could dramatically affect our law in the future, as well as prospects for a future cannabis initiative. This is a concern that we share. At the same time, the "green rush" seems to be slowing somewhat -- dispensaries do sprout up, but they also routinely fail. Three years ago it was indeed easy to make a buck in the medical cannabis industry, but the same is not true today. The price of cannabis has dropped dramatically in our state and medical cannabis businesses are more and more like any other business: they must be decently-run, operate on small profit margins, and provide a level of service, products and safety that patients with plenty of options would voluntarily choose. Fools factoring robbery as a cost of doing business, lying charlatans focused on profits, and wolves looking to diversify their nefarious businesses are finding the industry less hospitable these days, and we think that will continue. The advertising concerns remain for us, and we think something will need to be done to convince dispensaries and newspapers like the Little Nickel to tone it down for the greater good.

For these reasons we are seeking a conference committee between the senate and the house, and requesting a no vote on senate concurrence with SB 5073. Our board of directors takes this position with deeply-held, humble intent. We remain in support of the bill with amendments.

Rep. Chris Hurst torpedoes SB 5073

UPDATE April 13, 2011 -- SB 5073 passed the House by a vote of 54 to 43 Monday, but not before representatives adopted an amendment from Rep. Christopher Hurst that removes arrest and search protection for authorized patients who choose not to notify the state of their medical treatment decisions and disqualifies parolees and people on probation from any medicinal use of cannabis.

Effects of Rep. Hurst's amendment:

  • Removes the protections from searches for qualifying patients registered with the Department of Health (DOH). Removes the protections from being taken into custody or booked into jail for qualifying patients with valid documentation, but who are not registered with DOH (retains the affirmative defense).
  • Requires that a qualifying patient in the DOH registry not have converted cannabis for medical use to personal, nonmedical use or benefit in order to receive arrest and prosecution protections.
  • Requires that a nonresident not have converted cannabis to personal, nonmedical use or benefit in order to assert an affirmative defense.
  • Exempts certain persons who are under the supervision of a corrections agency or department, including a local government or jail, from relying upon arrest and prosecution protections and affirmative defenses related to the medical use of cannabis in a proceeding regarding supervision revocation or violation.

Only one representative, Roger Goodman, spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Chris Hurst hates sick people (WA House debate of amendment 553 to SB 5073) on Vimeo.

The bill will now move on to concurrence, a process whereby a small group of senators and representatives attempt to reconcile the differences between the version of the bill the Senate passed and that which the House passed.

SB 5073 as passed by the House April 11, 2011

E2SSB 5073 - Concerning the medical use of cannabis - 5073-S2.E AMH ENGR H2509.E

SB 5073 Passes House Ways & Means

UPDATE April 1, 2011 -- A new version of SB 5073 was adopted by the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday afternoon, and is now headed for the Rules Committee.

The current House version of the bill would do lots of good, but not without causing some serious problems and leaving others unsolved. Of primary concern to our membership is the lack of protection from arrest and from unwarranted search for qualifying patients and designated providers (unless they register in a future Department-of-Health-run registry, which will only exist if the state allocates money for the project and DOH implements it, which is completely out of line with their track record on medical cannabis).

We analyzed the latest version and published our findings in a handy four-column chart, detailing the current and potential future conditions surrounding 28 issues of interest to medical cannabis patients and designated providers, health care professionals, cannabis researchers, growers, processors, dispensers, parolees, and military personnel. Download a PDF for printing or view it online.

SB 5073 Passes House Health Care & Wellness

UPDATE March 29, 2011 -- A new version of SB 5073 was adopted by the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness last week, and the bill was referred to the House Ways & Means Committee.

As described internally (see pages 38-39 of the striker bill), changes since the last version include:

  • States that there is no right to health care coverage of medical cannabis by an insurer or state purchased health care program.
  • Establishes arrest and search protection (but not prosecution protection) for individuals who are not registered with the Department of Health, but have valid documentation and are in compliance with other aspects of the bill.
  • Eliminates provision stating that evidence of the presence of cannabis does not constitute probable cause for a search or arrest warrant or a warrantless search or arrest unless an inquiry is made that the person is registered.
  • Eliminates the requirement that licensed dispensers be nonprofits.
  • Eliminates the prohibition on health care professionals from examining patients solely or primarily for the purpose of authorizing the use of medical cannabis.
  • Exempts law enforcement from having to pay a fee for accessing the Department of Health registry and requires that any costs for law enforcement access be paid by those registered with the registry.
  • Authorizes the Department of Health and Department of Agriculture to deny, suspend, or revoke dispenser, producer, and processor licenses based on drug-related offenses other than cannabis or marijuana.
  • Increases the number of patients that may participate in collective gardens from 3 to 10, the total number of plants from 45 to 99, and the total amount of useable cannabis from 72 ounces to 150.
  • Exempts the National Guard from the medical cannabis laws.
  • Directs the Department of Health to establish a maximum number of licenses that may be issued in each county based upon the number of qualifying patients and designated providers in the registry and to issue licenses according to a random selection process. Specifies that dispenser licenses are not transferrable.
  • Prohibits licensed dispensers from being located within 500 feet of either a public school or another dispenser.
  • Removes the requirement that dispensers be licensed by local governments.
  • Immunity from liability for governments and their employees applies when they are acting in good faith and within the scope of their duties, rather than applying in all situations except for misconduct.
  • Exempts people under the supervision of a correctional agency from provisions related to collective gardens, noncommercial growing, and the registry if it is inconsistent with the terms of their supervision. Prohibits people under the supervision of a correctional agency from being licensed as a producer, processor, or dispenser if it is inconsistent with the terms of their supervision. Prohibits the affirmative defense from applying to people under supervision of a correctional agency in a supervision revocation or violation hearing.
  • Exempts letters of intent and acknowledgement from public disclosure requirements. Delays the expiration of the letter of intent provisions from July 1, 2012, until the agencies establish the licensing programs and begin issuing licenses.

Call Health Care Committee members about 5073!

UPDATE March 7, 2011 -- Senate Bill 5073 passed the Senate last week, was introduced in the House and referred to the Health Care and Wellness Committee. The committee is expected to vote on the bill soon.

In its current state, the bill is set to gut our voter-approved medical cannabis law. If you care about this, please contact committee members by phone and urge them to do three things:

1. Provide real arrest protection -- now, not later! This bill provides arrest protection only to patients in a government database -- which is years away from completion. Ridiculous! Fix: Combine sections 401 and 402 so patients who present valid documentation to law enforcement are protected from arrest.

2. Stop attacking doctors! Section 301 of the bill places several chilling restrictions on health care professionals that authorize the medical use of cannabis. Fix: Section 301, strike everything from 2a onward.

3. Don't outlaw collective growing! Under current law, patients can grow together. Don't limit collective grows to three patients. Fix: Section 403, increase the number of patients and plants allowed in a collective grow.

Committee members:

  • Cody, Eileen (D) 360-786-7978
  • Jinkins, Laurie (D) 360-786-7930
  • Schmick, Joe (R) 360-786-7844
  • Hinkle, Bill (R) 360-786-7808
  • Bailey, Barbara (R) 360-786-7914
  • Clibborn, Judy (D) 360-786-7926
  • Green, Tami (D) 360-786-7958
  • Harris, Paul (R) 360-786-7976
  • Kelley, Troy (D) 360-786-7890
  • Moeller, Jim (D) 360-786-7872
  • Van De Wege, Kevin (D) 360-786-7916

SB 5073 passes Senate 29-20

UPDATE March 2, 2011 -- SB 5073 passed the Washington State Senate on a 29-20 vote. Several amendments were adopted. Most concerning was an amendment by the pot-doctor-fearing Senator Carrell to forbid health care professionals from having practices that appear to be primarily for the authorization of medical cannabis.

Other amendments include:

  • Requiring DOH to define the amount of medical cannabis and number of plants a dispenser can have on hand (Honeyford)
  • Requiring dispensers to obtain local licenses before operation (Sheldon)
  • Requiring dispensers be nonprofit (Sheldon)
  • Moving the grower database from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health (Parlette and Kohl-Welles)
  • Applying the ban on medical cannabis advertising to print media (Kohl-Welles)

Senate Ways and Means Committee hears SB 5073

UPDATE February 21, 2011 -- The medical cannabis bill -- in its current ghastly form -- is set for a hearing this Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. It is critical that interested and affected parties contact members of the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee to ask for amendments to the bill.

Ways and Means Committee Members

Talking points and amendment requests

  1. Arrest protection must be provided to all patients, not just those who register in a future government database.
  2. Stop attacking doctors! Remove language that places additional burdens on health care professionals who recommend medical cannabis.
  3. Patients have a right to grow together under current law. Don't limit collectives to three patients.
  4. Cannabis should be taxed like other medicines. Don't force patients to pay retail sales tax on medical cannabis.

SB 5073 amendments stir massive concern

UPDATE February 9, 2011 -- The medical cannabis bill was introduced as SB 5073. On February 9, the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee adopted several amendments to the bill, most of them bad.

The amendments can be found here. Once the PDF loads, scroll down on the left to SB 5073. You'll see the "striker" which replaces the bill entirely, and seven adopted amendments. The striker, proposed by committee chair Senator Karen Keiser (360-786-7664, keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov), includes many changes:

  • Unlicensed collective grows would be limited to 3 participating patients, down from 25.
  • Removes section relating to employment protection.
  • Modifies housing protections to allow prohibitions against *smoking* of cannabis.
  • Department of Agriculture's role in testing and inspection is limited and private laboratory testing is authorized.
  • Requires patients to pay retail sales tax on medical cannabis, in addition to the B&O taxes dispensers and producers would pay.
  • Requires license suspension if licensee is in default of a federally- or state-guaranteed student loan.
  • Removes civil penalties for law enforcement who illegally access and distribute information from the state-run patient registry.
  • Modifies the state preemption to allow local governments to adopt licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis.
  • Modifies the "interim protections" section to apply to dispensaries that have incorporated by May 1, 2011.

Senator Mike Carrell (360-786-7654, carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov) offered several amendments which were adopted:

  • Housing protections don't apply if the housing program contains a component prohibiting the use of drugs or alcohol.
  • Tested samples of cannabis that are under .3% THC must be destroyed or sold to hemp product manufacturers.
  • Health care professionals may only authorize the use of medical cannabis if they have completed a physical examination of the patient, informed the patient of other options, and first attempted measures to treat the terminal or debilitating condition that do not involve the medical use of cannabis. 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 "innappropriate." Such a determination would constitute a finding of unprofessional conduct against a health care professional.

Senator Randi Becker (360-786-7602, becker.randi@leg.wa.gov) gutted the arrest protection provision of the bill:

  • Arrest protection is provided only for patients who have "voluntarily" registered with the state.

Senator Conway (360-786-7656, steve.conway@leg.wa.gov) removed state preemption from the bill

  • Removes state preemption in the field of medical cannabis law. Specifically authorizes local governments to adopt zoning requirements, licensing requirements and taxes on medical cannabis businesses.

Though the amended version hasn't made it online yet, the bill may be seen here.

Draft 9 markup

UPDATE January 3, 2011 -- The CDC has released its bill markup and comments relating to the draft medical cannabis legislation planned for the 2011 Washington State legislative session. This product is a result of our December 22 bill review night, which was attended by twenty-one CDC members and community activists.

Draft 9 released

UPDATE December 20, 2010 -- Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles has released draft nine of her proposed medical cannabis bill. She is seeking community feedback.

Color-coded markup of draft 8

UPDATE October 27, 2010 -- To help our membership and the entire cannabis community make sense of the draft legislation proposed by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, we have created a color-coded guide to the bill. We have tried to pull out details of note or of concern to us or other community members.

Text highlighted in red is of particular concern. Yellow highlight indicates things worth noting or discussing. Green highlights are good or acceptable language. This color-coding is a judgment call, and may not represent everyone's opinion on the language, but we have tried to do a thoughtful job pulling out all points worthy of discussion, debate and further understanding.

Draft medical cannabis legislation released

Friday, October 16, 2010 -- Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles has released the latest draft of her 2011 medical cannabis bill. Below are the documents. More info to come.