KW 420, I suggest you show up at my trial on Nov. 30th at 9a.m. and learn who, what, where, why and how.. this is in Grays Harbor County DC2 in Aberdeen on summner st. THE HEAD CITY THAT DISTRIBUTES THE FEDERAL DTF GRANT FUNDS IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, REP. HARDGROVES JURISDICTION, THE GUY WHO DRIVES THE BUS THEY TOSS US MMJ PATIENTS UNDER, MY TURN TO DRIVE THE BUS...

THCF is not who they claim to be, they turn in patients for profit, don't argue, just show up !!!!!!!!! If not then shut your pie hole... I am a certified patient of dr. orvalds...

Ya got any clue why the DOH made new rules for recommendations, i.e. 1yr expiration of documentation??? Because of my case before the district court, you got a 1yr. expiration on your recommendation, CORRECT !! Well son, I don't, nor does mine have any thing that says THCF on it, yet Mr. Stanford decided he wanted to practice medicine without a VALID license to do so....Just like Leveque and Dodge in washington state, have had all of them sign my documents over the past 10 yrs...look at state v. soper, stanford has acknowledged he is THE SUPERVISOR of the DR.'s, son that is illegal here in Washington state, PERIOD !!! So you may be without any lawful document when I get done with this case... Your bad for not being up on the laws, not mine. Ignorance of the laws are no excuse!!!!!!!

By the way, it was me who forced Stanford to hire Orvald because he was frauding all us patients with the other non-licensed dr.'s in wa., he made huge amounts of money, which he laundered through THCF.. Feel covered now??

No 8th amendment or fourth amended argument that has used the latest case law has lost. They can not interefere with the medical treatment of a physician.Gonzales v. Oregon is the new argument on the block.You are stuck in the media world of Norml/Raich yada yada.

Orvald is a legal physician in Washington state.They licensed him.if he was not a legal physician then they should not have licensed him.As long as the DOH has him listed as a legal Washington State Phycisian I am safe.The same goes for Ling.Then there is the qualifying condition.Either you have one or you don't.

Gonzales v Oregon is the line of scrimmage now.the releationship with you and your doctor.It always has been the line of scrimmage since the U.S. Supreme court made that ruling.Besides Raich was never implemented.Nor did it create a precedence.The U.S. Supreme Court can only suggest that Congress can regulate interstate commerce.The same Supreme court said you can't regulate medical practice.Even in Conant v Walters the feds acknowledge they can't regulate medical practice.

The can't force regulatory schemes on states either because Congress did not pass anything specific to implement Raich and allow federal regulatory schemes,even then the anti commandeering doctrine would have to be overturned..which it wasn't.

That is why they condition federal funding to get compliance beacsue they have never and will never be able to prohibit state medical marijuana laws.Even the ACLU knows that I have their explanation behind closed doors in writing.But in public they will tell you Raich blah blah blah high court blah blah blah.

So along comes Ganzales v Oregon and an cements the line of scrimmage to states controling medical practice.WSHQAC regulates medical practice.they say medical marijuana has medical value and add qualifying conditions.Then they set the plant limit..because they can regulate medical practice..But they put a release valve that restores to decision to you and your dr.Because they have been down the road of pain management with opiates and they are still being sued for regulating opiate pain management.In the end the have to leave it up to your DR. And you have the right to refuse or accept that medical treatment. Ganzales v Oregon fucking cements it.

Time for you to put down the ACLU,and Norml cirlulars and take a good look at where the line of scrimmage is here pal. Gonzales v Oregon

I would be wasting my time siding with someone that thinks otherwise.

So lets recap.

When they made plant limits or decided not to allow the law...they fucking regulate medical practice
When they work for the federal grants and by pass the law..they fucking regulate medical practice.
When they have done that even after Raich..THEY ARE VIOLATING THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE 8TH AMENDMENT BECAUSE RAICH WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED..NOR COULD IT HAVE BEEN BY JUDICIAL DECREE.IT FUCKING HAD TO COME FROM CONGRESS.CONGRESS DID NOTHING.

GONZALES CHALLENGED OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW AND GOT SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES.THE INTER STATE COMMERCE RULING DOES NOT MEAN THE FEDS CAN CONTROL MEDICAL PRACTICE.IF IT COULD GONZALES WOULD HAVE WON AND THE OREGON SUICIDE LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

IF YOU CAN'T FIND A DR TO SAY YOU COULD HAVE 61 PLANTS YOU MIGHT LOSE.IF YOU HAD A DR THAT SAID YOU COULD GROW 61 PLANTS YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IS BACKED BY GONZALES V OREGON,AND SAY IT IS BETWEEN ME AND HIM.PERHAPS THIS IS THE UNDERLYING BEEF WITH ORVALD AND THCF.

sandy, your on point with the gonz. v. or. caselaw, my point was that you may have missed the other end of the argument...

As for the orvald and 61 plants, THCF and Orvald refuses to put any plant #'s on any papers, just an end result amount, my sons was 600 grams for every 60-days, mine was 3.oz. the oregon state limit, we both have the same condition and saw him 3 months apart... not to mention it was before any limits went into effect, yes just as the guy in kitsap county case, he sealed our criminal case in that respect...in our favor we both got orvald documents to replace the fraudulent ones signed by dodge, FREE OF CHARGE AND FOR LIFE, SO SAID ORVALD AND STANFORD, TILL NOW!!!

it's a matter of time on that case of the 61 plants(they charged my son but not me for the house and plants) then a yr later charged me for possession of 9.59 grams in which I really had 35 grams, the WSP cop smoked the rest to his head. Paul said I don't have any valid documents because THCF documents only is good for 1 yr., SOOOOO, THIS GUY IS STATING HE IS A DR. UNDER 18.57-18.71, LOOK AT THE CASELAW BEHIND THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN WA....OOOPS, HE FUCKED UP BY EVEN LOOKING AT MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND SENDING THEM OUT OF STATE TO WASHINGTON FROM THE MAIN RECORDS DEPT. IN PORTLAND OREGON, not to mention I never ever saw orvald in washington, lol, I am a dual resident, and got both states covered from both dodge and orvald..... NOW WHAT??? RICO?? GENERAL WARRANTS ARE ILLEGAL IN WA. AND THE FEDERAL COURTS ALREADY RULED THEY CAN'T SUBPOENA ANY OF THCF MEDICAL RECORDS AND MUST US A DIFFERENT WAY TO GET THE INFO... CORRECT? REMEMBER, ORVALD CERTIFIED MY RECOMMENDATION....

So if ling had his license in wa. when you was associated so to speak, then why are you in fear of rico??? steve is not any place in the act, your tie is with ling... correct??

p.s. fuck the aclu and normal political crap....they are morons...

Sandy, can you please cite the 8th amend caselaw your relying on please? I only have located 1 case outside of custody of leo( city of L.A. homeless case) if no caselaw, your argument will be new then?? NICE !!

My tie is with the movement leader and cannacare/canabiogen at the time.Neither had a business license when I was with them.I have already gone over that in previous threads.

Rico still applies according to the task forces rufusing to disclose public information about a case that state statutes ran out on..except rico apparantly...which is what set me off the last time...

I acknowledge there most likely isn't going to be charges..you never know,the movement leader might piss of Gregoire's old buddy Jenny Durban or whatever. the new U.S Attorney in Seattle.or who knows the AG.


I am looking for people that were looted by TNET or West Net.Or had plant limits applied when there wasn't a plant limit law...or if anyone interfered with their medical treatment.

My arguments start at conant,then go from there I have three years of research going into this and 50 pages of public disclosure info that is going to be hard to beat..at least in Federal Court I hope.

It sounds like THCF and this yearly thing shouldbe moot if you have a permenant condition. (U.S V Correll)Permenant conditions require only a one time authorization even without a current authorization.I believe there is a state us supreme court ruling on that as well.

Newest 8TH AND 14TH amendement arguments are in PRN v Washington State.I have taken those arguments applied the medical marijuana law and led them to Gonzales v Oregon.

Pain Relief Network v Washington has the quotations you are looking for.

There are 10th amendment arguments in San Diego v Norml et al which will uphold the anti commandeering doctrine.This is what I use to make the argument that the state,county and city volenteer to uphold a federal drug control strategy.They can't be ordered to.

State,county or city cant be ordered to enforce federal regulatory schemes.
Feds can't regulate medical practice.Nothing left for the state to do except go against the will of the people...for a fee...or grant in this case.

Without Gonzales v Oregon then yes 8th and 14th arguments would fail...then feds could control medical practice and interfere with the treatment of a physician and not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment arguments made in federal prisoner case law. Raich didn't use the U.S. Prisoner case law arguments(I have the prisoner case law somewhere here)..Raich is moot now the hall of justice league just doesn't want to face fact.

That's what I was looking for sandy !!! Thank you bro. Hope I can be of help in some way to your cause of action, I have never had any contact with either dtf you mentioned, YET!! JUST THE GRAYS HARBOR TASK FORCE AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY BALL WITH ME, JUST MY SON...(RISK MANAGEMENT) NOR does clark county want to play ball, they have history with my bite
p.s. I have read many cases about the 10th, and the citizen doesn't have any standing to raise that issue, unless you found something new lately that says different? If so please reply which case that is.. thank you

City of San diego v Norml et al earlier this year.I am only using the 10th as a factual supplement that shows the state can't say the feds made us do it.

Well sandy, I just went into lexis and the cases of correll and prn are not there, do you have a cite I can load in? The vs. isn't available that I can find, correll comes up a tax case issue, and prn comes up a kansas case, none are relevant. thank you. and I get your point on the 10th, very on point bro, reverse engineering is great.

State v Hanson I believe is the one where the guy diddn't have an authorization at the time of his arrest..Think about it why would you need a DR to continually authorize a permenant condition...Like epilepsy for example.

US V Correll Cr 04 251 RSL.Correll had epilepsy the court ruled he was a legitimate patient even though he had no mmj authorization at the time.That was a plea bargain so it was never a published opinion,and perhaps may not be citeable.But the cops made the argument and Monica Benton shut it down because Correll was diagnosed with epilepsy well before he was arrested.

Hansen is relivant because I think that ruling made it so you could show your authorization at the time of trial or something like that I would read State v Hansen to see if that can help... it is citeable

PRN V Washington state et al
Call Laura and ask her to give her citiings if you can't find them.. they are filed.




PRN files State Tort Claim vs. WA State

THIS IS A MUST READ


http://doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/...laim08cert.pdf

Ah yes sandy, I am familiar with the janes case, Hanson is irrelevant to the issue of what I am going through as far as a 1yr recommendation mandate(That case was about having a recommendation prior to police questioning about the use of mmj,& State v.Adams, was the case that sealed the deal that LEO must ask and allow access to the recommendation period) But is not irrelevant to the torture issue, cause the state used 9A.36 in their brief in the Hanson case which opened the door, then transferred it to State v. Fry even further opening the door, which is what grays harbor is using against me for my case(probable cause, the same argument my son won his hearing on in Whitman county) . Go figure. Thank you for your input.

p.s. merle janes lost the case...but opened many other doors for mmj patients if used correctly by a lawyer whom represents patients and not self-serving interests like the ones we know...

James sr.

If I were you I would make the argument that marijuana is legal crops no longer subject to the controlled substances act because it no longer meets the criteria outlined in the state schedule 1 test.

Research the issue thoroughly.Hanson did not rule correctly and things have changed since Hanson. Hanson ruled that no agency had ruled that marijuana had accepted medical use..they were flat out wrong the Health and quality assurances Commission did rule marijuana had accepted medical use when they added qualifying conditions.Furthermore I have since challenged the state scheduling and instead of applying the state schedule 1 test,they applied the another test (a thru I)which is not what keeps marijuana in schedule 1(I think it is the test that puts it there originally).

Hanson acknowledges that the state schedule 1 test needs to be applied,and the board when asked to apply it refused to do so.

This time instead of failing to argue that an agency has determined marijuana has accepted medical use,and bringing up that someone has asked the board to apply the schedule 1 test...and the board refused could force the courts to apply the state schedule 1 test ,using the decision to add qualifying conditions.

I hope it is not too late for you to make those arguments.I believe the state schedule 1 test will take a ruling to be properly applied.When the courts have looked at this in Hanson they have determined that the state schedule 1 test was the proper determination to see if marijuana still belonged in schedule 1...only they erred when determining that no agency had ruled marijuana had acceptable medical use.Since the board has punted and you know the qualifying conditions had been added by a professional agency that regulates medical practice,you can make these arguments in the lower court.

Read Hanson and see if you can figure out my argument.Then read the boards decision not to apply the state schedule 1 test.It will be hard for the lower court to rule that the state schedule 1 test is not the test to keep marijuana in schedule 1,since Hanson has already reasoned that it is.

You need to re argue Hanson in the lower courts and take it to division II if you have to.Then you will have crops instead of controlled substances.

The state does not have to apply the schedule 1 test if the substance is schedule 1 federally, its the last part of the governing RCW.

You haven't been keeping up with current events.The top down system of control went by the wayside with the anti commandeering doctrine.They could no longer require state's to enforce a federal regulatory scheme.Whether it would be nuclear waste,Hand guns laws or immigration laws.There are now EPA arguments that could lead to Congress trying to restore the top down system of control.I will bet they will stick with conditioning federal funds.The problem is if they usurp the state powers then they have to pay for it all and they will never do that..that is why these high court rulings are never implemented.They just load up the federal grants on conditions to adopt a federal policy then slowly withdraw the funds,and then the state restores the funding to keep getting the smaller percentage of funding.The trick is to get the state ramped up with jobs then have the state step in the keep the jobs.This has been going on since Krakatoa exploded.
Like I said step away from the ACLU and Norml circulars..they lie like rugs they need the public to believe just as much as law enforcement does.And the 10,000 people that hold federally funded state jobs.

Next

The state schedule 1 test is required to be applied and the schedule is required to be updated periodically.Otherwise why would we have Pharmacy boards.The problem is the top down system of control was lost,and the state act was written as a mirror policy of the federal act.The bottom line here is Washington State does not want to apply the state schedule 1 test properly because marijuana has accepted medical use in the "United States"and the state agency which regulates medical practice and the same state agency that has to apply the state schedule 1 test has said marijuana has accepted medical use.Even the board admitted it has accepted medical use(they had to they added qualifying conditions)They just want to apply a different test.However the other RCW WITH a-i is not the state schedule 1 test.If it was Hanson would have ruled that marijuana did not meet the a-i RCW.Hanson didn't do that Hanson specifically said the state schedule 1 test was

RCW 69.50.203
Schedule I tests.

(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.

And they reasoned the board saw fit not to apply this test or had not been asked to.

RCW 69.50.201
Enforcement of chapter — Authority to change schedules of controlled substances.

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall enforce this chapter and may add substances to or delete or reschedule substances listed in RCW 69.50.204, 69.50.206, 69.50.208, 69.50.210, or 69.50.212 pursuant to the procedures of chapter 34.05 RCW.

(1) In making a determination regarding a substance, the board shall consider the following:

(i) the actual or relative potential for abuse;

(ii) the scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;

(iii) the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance;

(iv) the history and current pattern of abuse;

(v) the scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

(vi) the risk to the public health;

(vii) the potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability; and

(viii) whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.

(2) The board may consider findings of the federal Food and Drug Administration or the Drug Enforcement Administration as prima facie evidence relating to one or more of the determinative factors.

(b) After considering the factors enumerated in subsection (a) of this section, the board shall make findings with respect thereto and adopt and cause to be published a rule controlling the substance upon finding the substance has a potential for abuse.

(c) The board, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or RCW 69.50.203, 69.50.205, 69.50.207, 69.50.209, and 69.50.211 or the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, may place an immediate precursor in the same schedule in which the controlled substance of which it is an immediate precursor is placed or in any other schedule. If the board designates a substance as an immediate precursor, substances that are precursors of the controlled precursor are not subject to control solely because they are precursors of the controlled precursor.

(d) If a substance is designated, rescheduled, or deleted as a controlled substance under federal law, the board shall similarly control the substance under this chapter after the expiration of thirty days from the date of publication in the federal register of a final order designating the substance as a controlled substance or rescheduling or deleting the substance or from the date of issuance of an order of temporary scheduling under Section 508 of the federal Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h), unless within that thirty-day period, the board or an interested party objects to inclusion, rescheduling, temporary scheduling, or deletion. If no objection is made, the board shall adopt and cause to be published, without the necessity of making determinations or findings as required by subsection (a) of this section or RCW 69.50.203, 69.50.205, 69.50.207, 69.50.209, and 69.50.211, a final rule, for which notice of proposed rule making is omitted, designating, rescheduling, temporarily scheduling, or deleting the substance. If an objection is made, the board shall make a determination with respect to the designation, rescheduling, or deletion of the substance as provided by subsection (a) of this section. Upon receipt of an objection to inclusion, rescheduling, or deletion under this chapter by the board, the board shall publish notice of the receipt of the objection, and control under this chapter is stayed until the board adopts a rule as provided by subsection (a) of this section.

(e) The board, by rule and without regard to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, may schedule a substance in Schedule I regardless of whether the substance is substantially similar to a controlled substance in Schedule I or II if the board finds that scheduling of the substance on an emergency basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety and the substance is not included in any other schedule or no exemption or approval is in effect for the substance under Section 505 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 355. Upon receipt of notice under RCW 69.50.214, the board shall initiate scheduling of the controlled substance analog on an emergency basis pursuant to this subsection. The scheduling of a substance under this subsection expires one year after the adoption of the scheduling rule. With respect to the finding of an imminent hazard to the public safety, the board shall consider whether the substance has been scheduled on a temporary basis under federal law or factors set forth in subsection (a)(1)(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section, and may also consider clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution, and, if available, information concerning the other factors set forth in subsection (a)(1) of this section. A rule may not be adopted under this subsection until the board initiates a rule-making proceeding under subsection (a) of this section with respect to the substance. A rule adopted under this subsection must be vacated upon the conclusion of the rule-making proceeding initiated under subsection (a) of this section with respect to the substance.

(g) [(f)] Authority to control under this section does not extend to distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco as those terms are defined or used in Titles 66 and 26 RCW.



When marijuana had been found to have acepted medical use it was required to have the state schedule 1 test to be applied to see if it could be put back into schedule 1.RCW 69.50.201 did not apply since qualifying conditions were added.They simply could not have added qualifying conditions if Marijuana did not meet the criteria in 201.

The evidence was submitted ..the agency ruled marijuana had medical value for the addded qualifying conditions.They didn't just go to the agency DOH and say please can we add qualifying conditions.They submitted everything listed in 201.Furthermore the test says medical use in the United States.So the state is screwed.They have had marijuana in schedule 1 since 2000 without marijuana meeting the criteria to be in schedule 1.


STATE v HANSON

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

No. 24778-3-III

State v. Hanson



authorized by their physician. RCW 69.51A.005; Shepherd, 110 Wn. App. at 549.



Schedule I controlled substances are designated as such because either the state



board of pharmacy has found that it "(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" or "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." RCW 69.50.203.3 Marijuana is listed as a



schedule I controlled substance in RCW 69.50.204(c)(14).



The legislature listed marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance as part of the



Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Ch. 69.50 RCW; Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776,



784, 940 P.2d 604 (1997). The Uniform Controlled Substances Act then allows the board



of pharmacy to change the designation based on a number of statutory factors:



3

(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.

RCW 69.50.203.

No one has asked the pharmacy board to revisit the classification and it has



apparently not seen fit to do so. RCW 69.50.204(c)(14); Seeley, 132 Wn.2d at 784-85.



The classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance reflects a legislative



choice. State v. Martin, 14 Wn. App. 717, 721-22, 544 P.2d 750 (1976). One that



reflects a federal classification pursuant to an international treaty. 21 U.S.C. § 801(a)(2);



RCW 69.50.203; Martin, 14 Wn. App. at 721. The decision to change the classification,



then, is hardly a judicial decision. RCW 69.50.201; Seeley, 132 Wn.2d at 814.



Nor has the classification been repealed by implication since neither of the factors



has been satisfied. First, the Medical Marijuana Act does not cover the entire scope of



schedule I controlled substance designations nor was it meant to. RCW 69.51A.005,



.020; RCW 69.50.203, .204(c)(14). It simply provides that marijuana use "may" provide



some relief for some diseases. RCW 69.51A.005. And therefore use is permitted if



9



No. 24778-3-III

State v. Hanson



specific legislative procedures are followed.



Second, the Medical Marijuana Act only provides an affirmative defense to the



drug crime. RCW 69.51A.040(1). It is not, then, inconsistent with the schedule I



classification. An affirmative defense does not negate the elements of a crime. It excuses



the conduct. State v. Ginn, 128 Wn. App. 872, 878, 117 P.3d 1155 (2005).



Finally, on this point the legislative intent is clear: "[n]othing in this chapter shall



be construed to supersede Washington state law prohibiting the acquisition, possession,



manufacture, sale or use of marijuana for non-medical purposes." RCW 69.51A.020.



We do not read the Medical Marijuana Act and the Uniform Controlled Substances



Act as inconsistent. Indeed, the Medical Marijuana Act never addresses whether



marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. It only states that some patients may

benefit from medical marijuana. RCW 69.51A.005.4 It also states that it may be



beneficial for certain conditions. Id. There has been no specific finding in the Medical



Marijuana Act that marijuana actually benefits patients who suffer from certain



conditions, or that it is now safe for use in treatment. See id.

In my petition,The board is saying marijuana is dangerous.I say if it was dangerous how could they add qualifying conditions.The Board is in the position of admitting marijuana has medical use..but saying at the same time it is too dangerous to take out of schedukle 1???

In a criminal procedure you can make an argument that Marijuana has been repealed by implication,and that it is impossible for marijuana to have accepted medical use,and add qualifying conditions based on medical science,and still be placed in schedule 1.

There are no state laws governing a one year expiration of MMJ authorization. I hear Dr Orvald is writing that on his authorizations and of course we all know why he's doing it. There's no doubt that there were some closed door deals done with the revamped MMJ laws. I still believe the easiest way to deal with that is to start another intiative before the people to straighten out the mess the Health Dept and the governor did by revamping the MMJ laws.

Sandy, please read the bold section several times.

RCW 69.50.203
Schedule I tests.

(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.

The key word there is may.This is the section that was meant to create a lock step or top down system of control.

All of this is moot.The fact is if marijuana was dangerouss why did they add qualifying conditions.

I think the confusion here is medical marijuana is a reccomendation and comes from the advice of a physician,and not a prescription.The board can not interfere with the treatment of a physician.

What has happened is that the branch of the DOH that regulates medical practice has said marijuana has accepted medical use,and the branch that regulates controlled substances refuses to apply the medical science used to add qualifying conditions to the state schedule 1 test.RCW 201 was addressed by the HQAC,but the Board refuses to acknowledge all the information that was submitted to add qualifying conditions.

One interesting thing is the board admitted marijuana has accepted medical use.If you check I think you will find that no branch of government anywhere that regulates controlled substances has admitted that.

I could not afford to litigate that yet..but I will if nobody else does.

KW420, it's not orvald whom is writing any date expirations on patients documents, it's paul stanfords policy as head chief to make a profit for thcf clinics... when I was a volunteer there, we went round and round about this very issue, just like the dr. dodge issue, he finally hired dr. orvald, guess what will happen with the 1 yr issue??

My guess is stanford is practicing medicine with-out a license to do so, and thcf clinics are engaged in corporate practicing medicine without the proper license to do so also... when the courts look at these issues, no-one will have any valid documents from thcf clinics or dr. orvald, because orvald is aidding and abetting in the illegal practice of medicine... this is how the courts have ruled in other same situations in the past...