State House OKs medical-marijuana overhaul
A comprehensive overhaul of the state's medical-marijuana law passed the state House on Monday afternoon, making it increasingly likely that the state would for the first time legalize dispensaries and growers while providing patients with new protections from arrest and prosecution.
The state House passed a sweeping expansion of the state's medical-marijuana law Monday, making it increasingly likely that Washington soon will legalize dispensaries and commercial pot growers while shielding patients from arrest and prosecution.
The bill now bounces back to the Senate, which passed a slightly different version in March. Gov. Chris Gregoire said she still was considering the issue. "At this point, I have concerns about it," she said.
Police, municipal governments and patient advocates have pressed the Legislature to fix vague elements in the 1998 citizens initiative that legalized medical marijuana. In the absence of clarity, more than 100 dispensaries have opened statewide under questionable legal status, concerning police.
The resulting bill, SB 5073, is the biggest overhaul since 1998. During debate on the House floor Monday, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, recalled a relative whose end-of-life suffering was eased by medical marijuana. "We owe it to this state to be compassionate in these times," she said.
A parade of Republican lawmakers spoke in opposition, many saying the bill would expand marijuana access to children. The GOP failed with amendments that would have required dispensaries to keep 1,000 feet from schools and to ban qualified patients from growing marijuana themselves.
"It's sad we're moving in this direction," said Rep. Jim McCune, R-Graham. "I think of the safety of citizens of the state of Washington as we are moving another mind-altering drug into the system."
The House passed several changes sought by law enforcement, which firmly opposes legalized dispensaries.
Rep. Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw, said the changes — which restored some police authority stripped out in earlier versions — convinced him to support the bill. "I think this is a better system than we have now," said Hurst, a former narcotics detective.
Under the new licensing scheme, dispensaries, growers and processors of cannabis-infused foods would pay sales and business taxes, producing an estimated $920,000 in state and local revenues in 2012, and $6 million by 2017.
A fiscal analysis of the bill by the Department of Revenue estimates that 8,660 medical-marijuana users currently spend $87 million on cannabis. But if the number of patients rises as it did in Colorado after dispensaries were legalized, the medical-marijuana market in Washington is potentially worth $1.2 billion — second only to apples as an agricultural product.
The Department of Revenue analysis assumes that, because of compliance issues, only a small portion of sales taxes — 13 percent in the first year — would be collected if dispensaries become legal. If all the taxes were collected, total revenue eventually could top $100 million, said Mike Gowrylow, a department spokesman.
"We really honestly don't know how much is going on in Washington," he said. "It's basically extrapolating from other states."
Key provisions of the complex bill remain unclear, including how new licenses for dispensaries, growers and food processors would be allocated.
The Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture would have until January 2013 to define those details. Until then, currently operating dispensaries would have an affirmative defense if prosecuted.
Medical-marijuana entrepreneurs, however, already are looking forward. The Department of Health has received 11 "letters of intent" from people interested in dispensary licenses, spokesman Donn Moyer said. The Department of Agriculture has received at least three letters inquiring about grower permits.
And medical-marijuana companies are rushing to incorporate with the secretary of state, seeking to beat the May 1 deadline by which future license-holders must be registered as an entity. At least two dozen nonprofit and for-profit groups have incorporated recently with "marijuana" or "cannabis" in their titles, including "Cannabis Oasis" and "Pappy's Medical Marijuana LLC."
"I'm nervously optimistic," said Philip Dawdy, spokesman for the Washington Cannabis Association, a newly formed medical-marijuana trade group, which hired a lobbyist this year.
Senate lawmakers will have to work through several changes. The House version, for example, sets a quota of one dispensary per 20,000 residents, resulting in at least 93 storefronts in King County. The two versions also differ on the allowable size of gardens for patients who band together to grow pot collectively.
Both versions seek tighter regulation of medical clinics that specialize in authorizing medical marijuana for patients. Under the House bill, clinics would be prohibited from a practice that focused solely on marijuana authorizations, and banned payments to or from dispensaries or growers.
The bill's champion, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, said it would expand access for patients while providing a "bright line" for law enforcement.
If differences can be worked out with the Senate, "It'll be the strongest medical-marijuana protection in the country," she said.
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter
Originally published Monday, April 11, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.
Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 or email@example.com
captaintripps added 53 Minutes and 23 Seconds later...
The two houses will reach a bill they both can agree on. They are not that far apart anyway. It is not all that bold to endorse these bills. The basic concept of medical marijuana has strong public support in Washington State. The governor will have her "concerns" and will make a show of wringing her hands over the issue. But in the end she will sign a bill on the basis of compasion and clarity. Mainly the later.
The poor wording of the the current law allowed for a loophole that had been interpreted to suggest that dispenseries were allowed as long as they served only one custormer at a time. They could be the caregiver of one patient at noon and a different patient at 12:15. It is pretty clear that this is not what was meant by one caregiver for one patient. But there is very little political support for going after sick people. Some jurisdictions went after the dispenseries and others basically left them alone. While the new law will certainly be more clear and more liberal on paper, it will also be more conservative than the way the dispenseries have been allowed to operate in the more liberal jurisdictions. With a clear line between legal and illegal, you can bet that law enforcement will make these dispenseries follow the letter of the law. The clarification will give them confidence to invest the time, money and take the political "risk" of going after rouge operations. They will not be cruel bad guys going after sick people and those that help them, they will be going after the "rule breakers".
This will be a good law for those whom the law was originally intended. In Washington State that was for people who had serious health conditions. This will be a bad law for those who wanted to use medical marijuana as a way of quasi legitimizing recreational use. This is why this reform will become law.
If people want recreational use legalized, which apparently a bare majority support, they will have to do it at the polls. The legislature simply does not have the balls for it. Unfortunatly, the sponsors of Washington's inititive to legalize marijuana seem to have sat back and waited for the gutless legistature to take action and the bill will probably not make the ballot for the next election. What they should have done is come on full steam with a very liberal law. That way they could have given members of the legislature "cover" to support a more restrictive bill and therefore take away support from a more "dangerous" law written by a bunch of anarchist pot smokers.
Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.