As I was putting together Monday’s post on the corruption within the Department of Corrections, there were a few news items related to medical marijuana that I haven’t had a chance to discuss. First and foremost, there was a court ruling that affirmed what most patients in Washington already knew. Our medical marijuana law doesn’t protect authorized medical marijuana patients from arrest, it only allows them to present a medical defense at trial. During the attempts to update the law in 2008, this was a primary objective for patients, yet any language that explicitly protected patients from arrest was stripped from the bill before it passed. Many people laid this failure at the feet of Governor Gregoire, but it’s not clear exactly what happened or who wanted the language removed.
For those in Seattle, this isn’t much of a problem. King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg doesn’t prosecute anyone who has a medical marijuana authorization. This has been true even for more envelope-pushing patients like Mark Spohn, who openly grows for multiple patients (another aspect of the law that is unclear). The Seattle Police generally have no interest in bothering patients – in fact, it’s worth noting the disparity in professionalism that was exposed in Monday’s post. Both Parkins and Cole, despite the actions of the corrections officers, praised the professionalism of SPD on the day that Parkins was arrested. Both Satterberg and Seattle Police recognize that they have better things to do than to send sick people through our court system when all they need to do is show a judge their authorization and they’re found not guilty.
But that hasn’t been true throughout the state. The Cannabis Defense Coalition court calendar continues to track cases of authorized medical marijuana patients going through our state’s courts. After the law was revised in 2008, Governor Gregoire said that if authorized patients were still getting arrested that she’d work with the police chiefs. So far we haven’t seen any indication that she’s willing to back that statement up with action.
A second bit of news is that the State Senate passed a bill to allow medical professionals other than licensed physicians to give medical marijuana authorizations. If passed into law, it isn’t likely to change the overall number of patients in the state, but will likely make it less of a hassle for them to get authorized. The fairly restrictive list of ailments allowed by the law keeps our medical marijuana regulations from looking more like California’s, where you can get a medical marijuana authorization for anything from insomnia to depression. Even as someone who has used marijuana in the past – and has noted how it helped me sleep better and made me a happier person – I never considered myself to be using it for medical reasons. Yet much of our current pharmaceutical industry is driven by “curing” these two afflictions. That’s why discussions over what makes marijuana a medicine and what separates recreational use from medical use are often muddled. The line isn’t entirely clear.
It’s worth noting that the complainant in the recent court case referenced above was found to have an authorization that wasn’t even legal. It was for anxiety and depression, which are not covered by the law. And in going through the released documents from the DOC, it’s very easy to be skeptical about whether or not some of those who were requesting to use medical marijuana would have been found similarly outside of the law. In fact, one of the doctors who authorized several patients, Dr. Antoine Johnson, was arrested in Madagascar this past October after fleeing the country to escape fraud charges.
Parkins, on the other hand, is a legitimate patient with a legitimate need (under 69.51A.010(4)(b)), but whenever there are doctors who are giving marijuana authorizations to anyone who walks into their office, it does cast doubt on everyone. And this was the mindset that many within the DOC were working with. Throughout the internal discussions, there was a common belief that all medical marijuana authorizations were a sham, primarily because they saw many of them coming from a single doctor. But after they defined their process and began denying everyone, a pattern started to become more clear. Most of the medical marijuana requests were coming from only 2-3 doctors, but most of the requests that were clearly within the scope of the state law weren’t. They were coming from a variety of different doctors, and they were the only authorizations coming from each of those doctors. Despite what the DOC convinced themselves, a lot of very real doctors recognize the very real benefits of marijuana for certain serious medical conditions.
If the DOC were smarter about how they handled this process, they could have denied a number of requests for people to use medical marijuana on probation and not caused such a backlash – simply by enforcing the law as it’s written. Several people requested medical marijuana use for things like anxiety, which isn’t even covered. But the Attorney General’s office and the DOC went way beyond that, trying to re-define the law in a way that made it impossible for anyone on probation to qualify. The legality of what they did hasn’t been decided by a court in this state yet, but it’s pretty clear the policy caused far more problems than what would’ve happened had they just followed the voter-approved law.
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg deserves some credit, though he be a Republican, for exercising some discretion in who to charge and who to prosecute. The Snohomish County Prosecutor is new to the job, so I will withhold judgment for the moment, but, at the moment, I just don’t get what he’s doing.
I know someone who’s trying to get the Snohomish County prosecutor’s office to do something about a crazy husband before he kills his wife. Numerous wife beatings, restraining orders, and mental evaluations haven’t yet convinced the prosecutor’s underlings this guy needs to be in confinement.
It’s an irrational world, Lee, but look at the bright side. At least medical marijuana patients aren’t being burned at the stake as witches at this time. However, further human progress isn’t assured, nor can it be taken for granted that civilization won’t go backward.
Roger @ 2
Precisely. I don’t generally do criminal cases, but am doing one now because of reasons I can’t quite clear even with myself. In any event, the supposed victim wanted help some time ago. (No violence, no threats, nothing like that.) Snohomish County ignored all pleas. Sometime later, after the crisis had passed and everything was all better, the prosecutor comes on, full bore. “Victim” says fuck off to the prosecutor, but, prosecutor tells “victim” to fuck off. Strange world, criminal law. The prosecutors hold all the cards, and they don’t deal them fairly.
@4 Prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion. They also have tort immunity. This is what health care would look like if patients couldn’t sue careless doctors.
Proud Goatist@1
Perfect Proud Goatist…
You don’t take your own commentary to heart do you?
Lee, Puddy has to give you credit. Two well written blog articles. As Puddy told SeattleJew, if you think Marijane can help you through your pain and suffering Puddy isn’t going to say you can’t have it. Look at the doctors today who prescribe “addictive medicines” and then claim it’s not their fault when someone becomes addicted. Hmmm… Michael Jackson comes to mind. Physical pain and suffering is a bad thing. If something alleviates it and it can be called medicinal, go for it.
Herr Goebbels Himmler Dumb Bunny
How bout some roasted “wabbit” on the barbie?
re 6: Stuff a sock in it, asswipe.
Why look; it’s headless lucy@7 appearing out of the garbage. Puddy has a sock… you “man” enough?
Roger
As for the medical MJ issue, the whole argument is worthy of a Church lawyer! The prohibition against THC is not based in any science. But many laws we have are not based in science. MJ is banned because of a taboo … along with polygamy, incest (with birth control), sodomy (until recently), public exposure, using the N word, burning a cross, and dozens of other things our society has created as taboos.
Which is more harmful to you … sex for pay or inhaling MJ? Maybe we need to legalize medical prostitution? I am certain there as many “patients” who would benefit from a good fuck as would benefit from smoking weed.
So, my question for Roger Rabbit, NP, JD (Nobelist of Pookahs and Divinity of Jurisprudence) is this:
10 Puddy
So, I assume you support legalizing Pot, Sodomy, public exposure and prostitution .. if only for medical purposes?
There you go again SeattleJew twisting what Puddy said above.
Where did Puddy ever advocate legalizing Pot, Sodomy, public exposure and prostitution? Even if the question is rhetorical, it’s still a stupid one.
Puddy will wait. You can ask the arschloch to help you in your search. Go ahead SeattleJew. Puddy knows how much you ignore his posts.
Puddy
I suspect SJ and my other followers would get more out of your posts on my blog if you did not conceal your good intent behind rippling flows of detritus, diatribe, and drama.
I know your intent is good but SJ, is .. as you well know .. merely human.
Puddy ..
You and God maybe ought to get together and decide which taboos should be enforced.
Given you own minority status, I would be careful not to encourage use of taboos about miscegenation, observance of the sabbath, and taking the name of the Deity in vain.
Shabbat shalom!
SJ writes: “Are there ANY limitations on prosecutorial justice? Could a prosecutor, in effect, legalize prostitution?”
Sure SJ why not. Is it really any of your business what people do for sex as long as it is between consenting adults?
BTW I have talked to a few friends who are some what active in the Democratic Party and they are not happy with the recent state Supreme Court ruling and the lack of action by the House on this issue and may not vote or they will support some other party next time around.
@15
This is a message that both the Governor and Frank Chopp have not been getting. Promoting cynical anti-drug nonsense is very bad politically for Democrats.
The Being who Claims to be god@12:
Good try. Claiming SJ the atheist is a follower discounts your argument.
SJ,
How can Puddy get with someone who claims to be someone he isn’t?
@14 Blue Collar …
Hunh??
OF course I believe people have a right to be paid for having sex. I just do not think any individual, prosecutors included, should decide what is and isn’t the law.
Puddy
Thank you for honoring me as the Being.
As for SJ or you, you would belittle Me by thinking I need your or his belief. Mere belief in my being or not being will get you nothing. Good and bad, both claim me as their Deity.
Isn’t there a child’s rhyme about sticks and stones? My name is not, I am that I am. Be good, that is My wish for you, that is My law.
@19 Cops do it all the time. If they charge and what they charge someone with is a decision cops get to make.