sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Cops find all sorts of rationalizations to trample rights and liberties.
We had a WA supreme court ruling though if I recall that said smell wasn't enough RS or PC.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Get and Rx for marijuana lose your guns/rights.
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
Cops find all sorts of rationalizations to trample rights and liberties.
We had a WA supreme court ruling though if I recall that said smell wasn't enough RS or PC.
Tackleberry1
Regular Member
Like I said in my first post... I don't use it, so I don't care.
I just like the fact that it's odor is no longer RAS or PC.
Tackleberry1
Regular Member
I'm not familiar with it... But even so, how many kids would have know to still refuse consent before legalization?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Thats what the cops count on, ignorance and intimidation.
deanf
Regular Member
The articles are not clear. How did the police establish the applicant is a marijuana user?
Its right there in the article.
Quote, "Law enforcement agencies could just as easily use the same federal statute to completely deny the Second Amendment rights of all medical marijuana card users in Washington and Colorado, or anywhere else where these cards as distributed. All it would take is for the federal government to obtain a copy of the medical marijuana card databases in those areas that have such databases, and then start sending out federal agents to collect the guns of those who are listed. A model for this effort is California’s use of agents to confiscation guns of people identified by the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) system."
I don't know about any of the others states that allow medical (excuse) marijuana, but here in Montana the cops have access to the medical marijuana card holder database. If you get pulled over for a traffic offense the cops will know you are a card holder. Ditto for applying for a concealed carry permit. They will do a background check and the card will pop up.
deanf
Regular Member
No, it's not. Nowhere in the 2 articles is it explained how the connection was made between the applicant and her marijuana use. I'm talking about this specific case.
I don't know how the medical marijuana card system works in Washington. Is there an official government-run state database?
deanf
Regular Member
This from the Washington State Department of Health (advising heath care providers about medical marijuana recommendations):
So again i ask (in the context of the knowledge that there is no state issued card or database), how did the police in this particular case connect the applicant with her use of marijuana?
So again i ask (in the context of the knowledge that there is no state issued card or database), how did the police in this particular case connect the applicant with her use of marijuana?
Cavalryman
Campaign Veteran
You have to admit it's a quandary for the agency issuing the concealed carry permits. Anyone who uses marijuana is by definition an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance under federal law. The fact that the state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. There is no "medical exemption" in federal law for marijuana as there is for some other controlled substances. By obtaining a "medical marijuana" card, the individual is admitting that he uses marijuana, hence is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance under federal law. For a state agency to issue a firearm carry permit to someone who isn't legally allowed to own a firearm doesn't make any sense. Whether the federal law is right or wrong is not really on-point. This is one of the situations we find ourselves in when as a nation we enact laws then demand that they not be enforced.
I gave you the quote from the first article.
As for the 2nd article about the state of Washington, true the article doesn't specify, but the answer is the same.
This article will likely help:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3125746/posts
It has a copy of the actual letter the unnamed woman received from the Richland Police Department which reads in part,
"Based on information obtained by the Richland Police Department during the processing of your Concealed Pistol License application it was found that you are not eligible to receive a Concealed Pistol License in the state of Washington for the following reasons:
You hold a current medical authorization to possess cannabis for medical purposes in Washington State valid until 8/25/2014."
The cops did a background check as part of the application process and they found out about the lady's card holder status.
OF COURSE THE POLICE HAVE ACCESS TO A STATE'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA DATABASE. Otherwise how else could they verify if a person in possession was, in fact, a real card holder. A medical marijuana card could be a fake, but the database would be the preferred way for police to check.
I don't see any big quandary. The Sheriff is a state agency, not Federal. If medical marijuana is legal under the state's laws, the state agencies, including the Sheriff and all other LEOs should go with the state law.
And in Oregon both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court didn't seem to be a quandary when they ruled in favor of Cynthia Willis.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/supreme_court_oregon_marijuana_patients_can_keep_t.php
Sheriff Winters is a disgusting BOOTLICKER, in my opinion.
In looking at the state of Washington's FAQ site, it appears that they indeed don't issue ID cards, but rather all you need is a written recommendation from a physician. Which means that the cops absolutely need a database of authorized patients, as there is no card system for the patient to present to the cop if found with pot.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFam...Cannabis/GeneralFrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx
Again, I'm certain that the cops have access to a database of legitimate patients (what I called card holders in previous post). A letter of recommendation could very easily be faked. How would the cops verify it?
Last edited:
That is the same link I gave above. No big deal. Its easy to miss stuff.
deanf
Regular Member
What State Medical Marijuana Database?
I've read the law. I've researched. Any database contemplated in the law was vetoed by the governor. All references to a database in the RCW have this proviso: "**(2) The section creating a registry, 2011 c 181 § 901, was vetoed by the governor."
So, now that I've established there is no state registry or database, I will ask again: How did the police find out this woman is a medical marijuana patient? The only possible answer I see is: she told them she is.
deanf
Regular Member
Again, there is no database. From your FAQ link: "[h=3]Do I have to register with or obtain a card from the state?[/h]No. If you are a qualifying patient with a valid written recommendation from your healthcare provider, that’s all you need. "
"How would the cops verify it?" By ******* up a rope, that's how. If they've no cause or suspicion to suspect the document is fake, that should be then end of it. If they think they can make a case against you, they can proceed to do so. Hash it out in court.
deanf,
I've been looking into this AND IT APPEARS THAT I'M COMPLETELY WRONG !!!
According to the websites I visited all you need in Washington State is to have "valid documentation" with them which consists of two items:
"Qualifying patients must carry their “valid
documentation” with them whenever they
possess or use medical marijuana. Valid
documentation consists of two items: (1)
their physician’s authorization, and (2) proof
of their identity, such as a Washington state
driver’s license or identicard. A qualifying
patient must present both of these items to
any law enforcement officer who questions
the patient regarding his or her use of medical
marijuana."
"(7) “Valid documentation” means:
(a) A statement signed and dated by a
RCW 69.51A
qualifying patient’s health care professional
written on tamper-resistant paper, which
states that, in the health care professional’s
professional opinion, the patient may benefit
from the medical use of marijuana; and
(b) Proof of identity such as a Washington
state driver’s license or identicard, as defined
in RCW 46.20.035."
http://cdc.coop/docs/primer-noprint.pdf
I'm blown away that apparently the state's Department of Health or other agency doesn't require an application process and therefore doesn't keep a database.
I suppose you could call the Sheriff on the letter.
deanf
Regular Member
The registry part of the law was vetoed by the governor, presumably after pressure from people who objected to being registered for doing absolutely nothing wrong. (Sound familiar . . ?)
I'm very concerned that the PD in this case may have illegally accessed Confidential Health Information to find out the applicant's medical marijuana status.
Yeah, I'm sorry I was wrong. In the states that I'm familiar with - Montana, Colorado, and California - there is an application system, an issued card, and a database.
But I think that there could be numerous possibilities as to how the cops knew. For example, if she had a previous run-in with the cops during which she showed them her "valid documentation", they would have made a report which the cops could have found when they did a background check for the concealed carry permit.
deanf
Regular Member
Is it legal for police to maintain records that contain confidential health information?
Yeah, I hear ya loud and clear. If that is true it reeks of a stinking police state.
Concerns over electronic medical records have been going for some time now.
It basically started with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
In February 2009, Gun Owners of America spoke out against the legislation:
“Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.
True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second. This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology –- tasked with, among other things, “providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”
It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your medical care.
But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -– including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.
Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that you are a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government. But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer’s... or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions YET.
And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form. The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.
This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy. But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government –- not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.
So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.”
(end of GOA quote)
Well, the stimulus bill passed and formalized the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and also created more financial incentives for adopting certified electronic health records. Of the nearly $900 billion stimulus package, about $20 billion went to Health and Human Services, with $6 billion going to the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Of that $6 billion, $2 billion was allocated to the Office of the National Coordinator for Information Technology.
The package authorized the Medicare Trust Fund to pay off physicians who use certified electronic health records. The incentives are in the form of a 75% increase in Medicare Part B fees. Physicians that haven’t adopted certified electronic health records by 2016, will face financial penalties starting at 1% and escalating to 3% of Medicare Part B fees. Additional bonuses for adoption and use break down to about $15,000 the first year and declining each year to about $2,000 in the fifth year, with a maximum payout of more than $40,000 per physician.
In his December 6th, 2009 radio address in which he laid out key parts of the economic recovery plan, Obama said the following:
“In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”
DOESN'T IT MAKE YOU WONDER JUST WHAT THE HELL IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS ???