I disagree with this 100% and to support your statement, can you please post what part of the bill you got this impression from? In surveying the bill that was passed I am finding that the same rules apply for future approvals of MMJ as they do now & did prior. I also find that it's clearly outlined in writing that doctors may not face legal or criminal penalties for consulting with patients on the benefits and (or) drawbacks of cannabis consumption. The bill is heavily steeped with legalities on dispensaries and co-ops which has been a top issue for a while now. They have even written in legalities for people from other states with MMJ cards (for example Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana etc) legally being able to poses cannabis in Washington so long as they comply with the 24 ounce and 15 plant limit. The official regulators on dispensaries will of course be The Department of Agriculture pending the bill is put into law & the will review applications & heavily regulate permits to be granted to open up a dispensary. It will be a lot of tape to get through. Another cool thing I see is that in regard to a co-op you can have 1 person posses the maximum amount of plants for up to 6 patients, that is 90 plants!!! This is only possible to do providing that all documentation is onsite to justify the possession of that amount of cannabis though. This is a very interesting bill & so far I'm not finding any drawbacks.From what I can tell, there is quite a bit of this bill that will set back MMJ in Washington. A huge percent of the state's MMJ patients will lose their recommendations and finding a doctor who will grant you a new one is about to get a lot more difficult. It essentially threatens doctors with professional penalties for granting too many recommendations, a limit which is to be determined by the Department of Health. It seems like there are a lot of people building the foundation for an amazing MMJ program in Washington, but this bill could end those efforts rapidly if we aren't careful of its implications.
This is a very interesting bill & so far I'm not finding any drawbacks.
The bill: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5073.pdf
(b) A health care professional shall not:
.....
(v) Have a business or practice which consists primarily of
examining patients for the purpose of authorizing the medical use of
cannabis;
(vi) Include any statement or reference, visual or otherwise, on
the medical use of cannabis in any advertisement for his or her
business or practice;
For all info regarding 5073. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5073(2)(a) A health care professional may only provide a patient with
valid documentation authorizing the medical use of cannabis or register
the patient with the registry established in section 901 of this act if
he or she has a documented relationship with the patient relating to
the diagnosis and ongoing treatment or monitoring of the patient's
terminal or debilitating medical condition
So a physician is going to need to see patients outside of primarily prescribing Marijuana? The doctor is able to be a primary care provider providing assistance with pain management ie doctor gives recommendation for MMJ & sends a patient home with general recommendations for patient to treat illness.(b) A health care professional shall not:
.....
(v) Have a business or practice which consists primarily of
examining patients for the purpose of authorizing the medical use of
cannabis;
(vi) Include any statement or reference, visual or otherwise, on
the medical use of cannabis in any advertisement for his or her
business or practice;
Basically there will be an enactment of a registry comparable to what Oregon is doing already? With this comes the ability for law enforcement to better track & access who has MMJ recommendations prior to carrying out drug busts & moving forward with search warrants because they don't currently have the ability to instantly access who is an MMJ patient & who isn't. Again, this is bad because why?(2)(a) A health care professional may only provide a patient with
valid documentation authorizing the medical use of cannabis or register
the patient with the registry established in section 901 of this act if
he or she has a documented relationship with the patient relating to
the diagnosis and ongoing treatment or monitoring of the patient's
terminal or debilitating medical condition
This is an offense to the first amendment of the US constitution. The state will be sued and the people will foot the bill.(vi) Include any statement or reference, visual or otherwise, on
the medical use of cannabis in any advertisement for his or her
business or practice;
My health care organization will not allow its doctors to recommend medical cannabis and I'm not capable of paying for out of pocket health care. I'd be very surprised if I'm the only one in this situation.he or she has a documented relationship with the patient relating to
the diagnosis and ongoing treatment or monitoring of the patient's
terminal or debilitating medical condition
No one is having their rights to a freedom of speech impeded upon. The state will be outlawing profiteering by businesses attempting to make financial gains by overly prescribing patients a federal schedule 1 drug. An offense to the 1st amendment would be to prohibit a doctor from speaking candidly to a patient about the benefits and non-benefits to cannabis consumption.This is an offense to the first amendment of the US constitution. The state will be sued and the people will foot the bill.
Hey, my health care organization already does this to me for doctors that make recommendations for me to obtain insulin to treat my Type I diabetes. Either the doctor I see is "in network" or is "out of network" which is how most insurance companies are run all the way from HMO's to PPO's. You see all of the health care providers I have been with (diagnosed with Type I Diabetes Mellitus 1982) have had in-network providers and out of network providers. If I want to see an in-network provider (like you already have setup) then it will be covered & vice versa if I go out of network.My health care organization will not allow its doctors to recommend medical cannabis and I'm not capable of paying for out of pocket health care. I'd be very surprised if I'm the only one in this situation.
Thanks so much for the links to the updated draft...I couldn't find it. The rumors I have been hearing are not good...and I see from your post that they aren't all rumors.For all info regarding 5073. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5073
This is the most up to date version. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5073-S2.E.pdf
An offense to the 1st amendment would be to prohibit a doctor from speaking candidly to a patient about the benefits and non-benefits to cannabis consumption.
-Stewart Jay, a UW professor of lawFor the purposes of this subsection, displaying cannabis,
including artistic depictions of cannabis, is considered to promote or
to tend to promote the use or abuse of cannabis.
"If a court views medical marijuana as akin to tobacco or alcohol, this law is clearly an unconstitutional regulation of commercial speech under several Supreme Court decisions," he writes. "Or, more specifically, it would be unconstitutional as applied to many ads for medical marijuana. (The ban on "artistic depictions of cannabis" is especially suspect.) It is a lawful product, even if for a restricted group. The same is true for tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs. It would be possible to regulate ads for medical marijuana along the lines of those products, but to be constitutional the statute needs to be much more limited."
Dude, they can't advertise for a specific thing to get people to come into their clinic. Thats a form of profiteering i believe, advertising something or other. Thats like saying, "Hey come to me and ill prescribe you some pain pills" of COURSE people re going to go to that doc then. I think having that in this bill will prevent alot of problems man. To advertise that they give out Rx's for marijuana would be a line out the door to china. Possibly even put the doctor at risk with going out to his car after work. It's just trying to keep order dude and i agree with that.page 26 of 5073-s2.e
-Stewart Jay, a UW professor of law
is this the bill to put it in liquer stores? if so at least its a start.