Rant and Learn

Total Legalization

420 Leaks: Washington State I-502 MMJ Law Scandal

From Washington State activist John Novak January 9, 2015:

This article includes a large number of links to public records, news articles and other information. If this email does not contain all the hyperlinks, please go to the following links..Please be patient as the site is experiencing heavy volume of visitors and is being adjusted accordingly.

Online at: http://420leaks.com/?p=689
On Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/420leaks/i-502-opma-mmj-public-records-and-the-partnership/761929917211137

(We will follow up this email soon with our proposed solutions.)

Subject: I-502: OPMA, MMJ, Public Records and the “Partnership”

By John Worthington (background research also by Arthur West, John Novak)
(All exhibit links to box.com are from public record files in PDF format)
One of the main goals of Initiative I-502, as originally written and passed, was allegedly to create a policy change from enforcing marijuana crimes, to properly enforcing property crimes by ‘legalizing” marijuana for persons over 21.
Once the “legalization” initiative passed, the marijuana prohibition stakeholders, AKA the “partnership” went to work to reverse the policy goals outlined in I-502. (Exhibit 1 https://app.box.com/s/rmgcsqu9eknlx5zbp7o9 )
The “partnership” immediately orchestrated numerous secret meetings for I-502 implementation, to further remarket the marijuana prohibition bureaucracy and directed the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) take steps to get rid of medical marijuana.
 
Despite the best efforts to hide these meetings, enough information began to leak out to the marijuana activists, that they were able piece together how the “partnership,” influenced the WSLCB. The documents they obtained show how the “partnership” set out to increase local law enforcement funding and de-incentivize medical marijuana.
These public records obtained by various individuals and advocacy groups also show the subversion began with the secret Association of Washington Cities (AWC – a non-profit made up of corporations and government agencies) and law enforcement meetings with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
The messages and goals for this new Meta organization was clear, get rid of medical marijuana, and divert I-502 revenue to the cities and counties.
According to the notes from these secret Liquor Control Board meetings with local, state and federal agencies set up by the AWC, medical marijuana was no longer needed because the State now had a “legal” marijuana system.
The notes also described in detail how the “partnership” wanted medical marijuana to be repealed and also wanted local law enforcement budget increases. The LCB then took this agenda to the editorial boards of newspapers around the state. (Exhibit 2 https://app.box.com/s/o4cips7jho2mejgho5cs See also https://app.box.com/s/asxmcnzjp2zxj4fbksxe)
The WSLCB arranged to have the legislature “give them cover”, by creating legislation that would allow them a “place at the table,” for medical marijuana discussions. This strategy is outlined in an email from WSLCB board member Chris Marr to the agency director, Rick Garza. (Exhibit 3 https://app.box.com/s/di9dkswq8v250c5ihs8u )
The email from Marr also introduced the other players in the Meta leadership. These players, knowing or unknowing, were Senator Ann Rivers and I-502 entrepreneur Ezra Eickmeyer. (Exhibit 4 https://app.box.com/s/y90s7ff4z4sho6s8wxb0 )
 
Eickmeyer, through Senator Rivers, proceeded to draft SB 5887, which proposed to create a medical marijuana work group, however, the bill did not pass.
Senator Rivers and Eickmeyer then acted to get a medical marijuana work group passed “Amendment #224” in the state’s budget bill, SB 5034, to which Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles objected to because “too many conclusions would be drawn behind closed doors. Senator Kohl-Welles put out an email on June 2, 2014 addressing concerns about the process.

“It has also has resulted in a high level of concern on the part of many patient and other advocacy groups — including even outright opposition being expressed in rallies and demonstrations. I am concerned that we would be handing over too much of our responsibility to a regulatory agency. I also worry that too many conclusions would be drawn behind closed doors, and that the process for creating these rules would circumvent public input.

In many ways, the LCB has a vested interest in diverting business from the medical collectives now operating and into the retail stores when they open early next year. It is easy to argue the LCB also has a vested interest in wanting to add to its regulatory scope, and bring the medical cannabis industry into its system. This may turn out to be the end result down the road, or it may be determined that another state agency should have that responsibility.

For these and other reasons, I think it best to have the LCB focus on its task at hand, that given to them by the voters in approving I-502 — an initiative that specifically mentions it will have no effect on medical cannabis laws.”

Meanwhile, the rest of the “partnership” worked behind the scenes to create law enforcement funding legislation for the “partnership.” The Washington State Patrol’s Investigative Assistance Division (IAD), was tasked to help “shape” I-502 policy. (Exhibit 6 https://app.box.com/s/eepfhipts7ty6svlvxzp )
The IAD is staffed by officers considered to be loaned state employees to the federal government subject to the Westfall and Federal Tort Claims Act.
Essentially, the federal government also had a hand in I-502 secret rulemaking process through the cross designated members of the WSP and in direct meetings with the DEA and U.S. Attorney’s office.
Soon after the passage of initiative I-502, the broad and powerful “partnership” had managed to convert the policy goals of redirecting law enforcement funding to property crimes to adding local law enforcement funding and getting rid of medical marijuana.
The Washington State Liquor Control Board had arranged its “place at the table”, and the “partnership”, managed to set forth a mechanism to glean law enforcement funding increases and interfere with medical marijuana laws when I-502 appeared to advertise just the opposite. (Exhibit 7 https://app.box.com/s/uhke9k9wda5tdjsx93cs )
For its part the work group, began its job of eliminating or de-incentivizing medical marijuana under the guise of merging it with recreational marijuana. (Exhibit 8 https://app.box.com/s/rdkfowosyuwyzodgyzs4 )
The medical marijuana work group had the same open public meetings problem as the I-502 implementation process. They also did not want the public to hear who it was they were working with in private and publically show how they arrived at its decisions.
The Governor’s office, with help from the local U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan did their part by making sure the public knew that the medical marijuana situation was “untenable”. (Exhibit 9 https://app.box.com/s/c5m8ogtl8hod59lmewbr )
The urgency for a “robust” regulatory system for marijuana was further ratcheted up with the use of a document referred to as the “Cole Memorandum”, which was actually requested by the LCB, and not a mandate generated by the U.S. Attorney’s office at the request of the Governor’s office. (Exhibit 10 https://app.box.com/s/o4cips7jho2mejgho5cs )
The following legislative session in 2014, SB 5887 and a new bill from Senator Jeanne Kohl Welles SB 6178, offered two approaches on how to integrate and de-incentivize medical marijuana. Representative Eileen Cody also proposed HB 2149 that same legislative session.
 
All of the bills contained language which highlighted the recommendations of the medical marijuana working group. The battle of killing medical marijuana in the 2014 legislative session began in earnest.
The legislators had several major hurdles to clear in order to kill medical marijuana. The most formidable of which was the fiscal impacts of the “robust” regulatory system which now included more law enforcement funding not included in the I-502 earmarks.
The fiscal notes to the Ways and Means and House Finance committees, which were put forth at the last second, did not include the actual cost of implementing the ratcheted up “robust” marijuana regulatory scheme.
Furthermore, the small business impact studies were incomplete further misleading the actual financial impact of the medical marijuana killing legislation.
Some legislators refused to consider more law enforcement funding because the initiative claimed to be saving money on law enforcement funding. (Exhibit 11 https://app.box.com/s/j9aq6xp77d3ut7fdlg1v )
 
“The argument for the initiative was that it’s going to lower public safety costs, and now they’re saying it’s going to increase public safety costs with absolutely no data. (It’s) troubling,” said House Finance Committee Chairman Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle) in an interview.
Many marijuana activists claimed victory when all the medical marijuana bills failed to pass out of the 2014 legislative session.
The 2015 legislative session is underway and the legislature should be informed of what the I-502 rule making process has become so they can properly achieve policy goals set forth by the public.

Tacoma Washington Council Seeks Possible Jan 6 2015 Hearing to Rule on MMJ Shop Closures

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/12/05/4012250_tacoma-council-could-set-hearing.html?rh=1

By Kate Martin Bellingham Herald Staff writerDecember 5, 2014

Next week, the Tacoma City Council could schedule a Jan. 6 hearing for residents to talk about unlicensed marijuana businesses in the city.

The council told staff this week to prepare to shut down more than 56 unlicensed pot shops. Many of those businesses serve medical marijuana patients. Letters telling store owners they have 90 days to close could be mailed by early next year.

The businesses are not licensed by the state and are thus illegal, staffers have said.

Both patients and business owners said they were surprised by the council’s decision. Currently there are five state-licensed stores operating in Tacoma that are allowed to sell retail marijuana, but patients have said they worry the retail stores won’t carry the medical-grade cannabis that they need to ease pain or other maladies.

If the council approves the public hearing, it could be set for 5:30 p.m., Jan. 6 in the city council chambers, 747 Market St.

Kate Martin: 253-597-8542 kate.martin@thenewstribune.com @KateReports


Another Potential Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Ban in California

 MMJ business Daily December 10, 2014

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/another-possible-outdoor-cultivation-ban-in-ca-county/

More than 300 people, mostly medical cannabis patients and growers, attended a meeting in Yuba County, California, as supervisors considered a ban on outdoor marijuana cultivation.

About 45 people spoke during the event in which supervisors considered three ordinances from other counties – Sacramento, Shasta and Fresno – that all ban outdoor grows in the wake of court rulings allowing them to impose severe restrictions on cannabis cultivation, according to the Appeal-Democrat.

Patients told county supervisors a ban on outdoor grows was a bad idea during a three-hour workshop, while others were in favor of the moratorium, saying they’ve seen their neighborhoods turned into a “war zone,” the newspaper said.

In question is a Yuba County ordinance adopted in 2012 that allows 18 outdoor plants on less than an acre, 30 on one to five acres, 60 on five to 20 acres and 99 plants on parcels bigger than 20 acres. Opponents of the ban told board they’d be increasing the burden on law enforcement and creating a new class of criminals. Proponents said Yuba County has become a haven for criminals.

After three hours of testimony, supervisors didn’t discuss any of the model ordinances or testimony, delaying further discussion until Jan. 13.


U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Japan Power Co. For Radiation Exposure During 2011 Quake, Tsunami Rescue

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/11/21/navy-sailors-report-radiation-sickness-japan-quake-tsunami-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — Rare cancers, blindness, birth defects and now, two deaths.

Hundreds of U.S. sailors who took part in rescue efforts following Japan’s earthquake and tsunami say they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Now a federal judge has ruled their class-action lawsuit against the Tokyo Electric Power Company can go forward.

It has been more than three years since U.S. Navy Lt. Steve Simmons’ ship, the USS Reagan, got the call to help survivors of a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan. Within hours there was more bad news: the quake had triggered a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Sailors were ordered to scrub decks, stop drinking ship water and seal the ventilation system when the ship sailed into the nuclear plume.

“We sat in this plume for over 5 hours,” said Simmons.

All the while his commanders insisted there was no danger.

“I’ll be honest, I hit the ‘I believe’ button,” he said.

But within months, Simmons, once an avid hiker, began feeling weak and sick with uncontrolled fevers and severe night sweats. Soon he was in a wheelchair, unable to walk. He says military doctors would never tell him what was wrong.

“Every one of them wanted to discredit radiation as a possible cause,” Simmons said.

In a final report to Congress the Department of Defense found radiation doses were less than the exposure a person would receive during an airplane flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo.

“It may not be taking in evidence that the doses that were assumed to be on board the USS Reagan may have been under-reported,” said Dr. Robert Gould, a former Kaiser pathologist who is president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

He points to transcripts of phone calls that recently came to light in which a Navy administrator on board the USS Reagan at the time of the disaster says radiation doses were “about 30 times what you would detect on a normal air sample” — much higher than the DoD estimates.

“Given that there is more information that has come out, I think you would have to re-look at the entire situation,” said Dr. Gould.

That hasn’t happened yet but hundreds of sailors, including Simmons, aren’t waiting. They have filed a billion-dollar lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power Company, the Japanese utility that ran the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

“These young sailors have come down with leukemia, ulcers, testicular cancers, brain cancers, very rare cancers,” said their attorney Charles Bonner. He’s representing 200 soldiers and their families.

Under federal law he can’t sue the U.S. government, but says the case is clear against TEPCO. “They didn’t have emergency standby vehicles, they didn’t have batteries to pump water into these reactors which at the time were melting down. This was totally inadequate,” Bonner said.

After 16 years of service, Lt. Simmons was able to retire this year with full benefits. He hopes the lawsuit will help younger sailors who have had to retire with no pension or medical coverage.

“One of the things they always taught throughout my naval career is ‘sailors first last and always,’ you always take care of your sailors no matter what. And we are not doing that right now.”

The sailors have set up a website (still under construction) at: www.fukushimaradiationvictims.com

TEPCO STATEMENT:

We are thankful to the United States for coming to the aid of the people of Japan, and appreciate the service of all the men and women of the United States military who provided the Japanese people with humanitarian and disaster relief in Operation Tomodachi.

We would refer you to the report submitted in June of this year by the Department of Defense to the Congressional Defense Committees*. In that report you will find a description of the steps taken by the US military to limit the exposure of its service members, including the use of the Reagan’s sophisticated radiation detection equipment to monitor radiation levels.

The Navy and Department of Defense also have assessed the level of radiation exposure of US service members, not only those on the Reagan but all those on or near the mainland of Japan. Radiation doses were calculated for more than 75,000 DoD-affiliated individuals.(P.2 of the report) The radiation dose estimates were peer reviewed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a non-governmental panel of radiation health experts, which “concurred with the scientific methods used to develop the dose estimates.”

The report concludes that “[t]here is no objective evidence that the RONALD REAGAN sailors experienced radiation exposures during [Operation Tomodachi] that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time.”(P.5 of the report) The report further states that “it is implausible that these low-level doses are the cause of the health effects reported by the RONALD REAGAN sailors.”(P.3 of the report). We are responding to the claims that have been made in this lawsuit in accordance with the judicial procedures of the United States.

NAVY RESPONSE:

Immediately following Operation Tomodachi, the Department of Defense established the tri-service Dose Assessment and Registry Working Group (DARWG) to study available data and develop estimates of radiation exposure received by U.S. personnel in and around the main island of Japan during Operation Tomodachi. The DARWG estimated radiation exposures for approximately 75,000 U.S. personnel on ships or at shore facilities on the main island of Japan during Operation Tomodachi.

The DARWG’s report on radiation exposure received by Fleet-based individuals, which was peer reviewed by a non-governmental council of subject matter experts, determined that the highest whole body dose to any U.S. fleet-based personnel during Operation Tomodachi is much lower than levels of radiation exposure associated with the occurrence of short or long-term health effects. For perspective, the worst-case radiation exposure for any U.S. fleet-based personnel during Operation Tomodachi is less than 25% of the average annual radiation exposure to a member of the U.S. public from natural sources of background radiation, such as the sun, rocks, and soil.

The DARWG’s report on radiation exposure received by shore-based individuals, which was peer reviewed by a non-governmental council of subject matter experts, determined that the highest whole body dose to any U.S. shore-based personnel during Operation Tomodachi is much lower than levels of radiation exposure associated with the occurrence of short or long-term health effects. For perspective, the worst-case radiation exposure for any U.S. shore-based personnel during Operation Tomodachi is less than half of the dose an average member of the U.S. population typically receives annually from natural background radiation sources, such as the sun, rocks, and soil, and less than three percent of the annual Federal limit for occupational radiation exposure.

Radiation exposure to U.S. personnel supporting Operation Tomodachi did not present any risks greater than risks normally accepted during everyday life.

http://www.marines.com/global-impact/toward-chaos/tomodachi

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a589907.pdf

The full DARWG report can be found at http://publicintelligence.net/call-tomodachi/


Earthjustice Attorneys: How We Work

http://earthjustice.org/about/how_we_work

The statue 'Contemplation of Justice', outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building.

OUR STRATEGY

As expert legal strategists, we take on the big environmental fights—high-stakes cases where we can have an enduring impact—and stick with them until we win. We don’t accept corporate money, so we can fight the most important cases and stick with them for as long as it takes.

High Stakes: Will something significant be lost or gained?

Landmark Impact: Will a positive ruling set a powerful precedent for other cases and help set national policy across the country?

Strong Partnerships: Will the lawsuit help build strong, lasting partnerships with diverse local and/or national groups?

Unique Expertise: Can Earthjustice leverage its expertise and resources to add value to a case in a unique way?

CORNERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

“I can’t imagine what our country would be like without our cornerstone environmental laws, but I know we would be less of a people and America would be less magnificent.”
– Trip Van Noppen, Earthjustice President

We rely on five cornerstone laws to achieve big wins for the environment.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

Earthjustice uses the ESA to protect imperiled species and their habitats. Retired Earthjustice attorney Mike Sherwood pioneered this important work with precedent setting efforts in the ‘70s and ‘80s to protect West Coast salmon and the palila. After decades of work, we’ve secured ESA protection for more than a thousand plants and animals—and our fights continue in defense of wolves, grizzly bears, bowhead whales, salmon and a host of other creatures.

CLEAN AIR ACT

Earthjustice wields the Clean Air Act to protect everybody’s right to breathe. Our ongoing efforts to reduce harmful air pollutants such as mercury, soot, ozone and lead have yielded clean air standards that save tens of thousands of lives annually and reduce the health care costs associated with breathing dirty air by billions of dollars. Our current efforts include desperately needed reductions in ozone and the toxic pollution burden emitted by oil refineries and other heavy industry. Our litigation also helped establish the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Earthjustice uses the Clean Water Act to ensure the nation’s waters are clean and safe for drinking, fishing, swimming, wildlife habitat and other uses. We helped establish the precedent that water is a public trust, not private property, and have achieved critical victories for waterways throughout the U.S. Current cases include ongoing efforts to save Florida’s waterways from choking due to toxic slime, replenish Hawaii stream flows, and keep fracking chemicals out of our water supplies.

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA)

Earthjustice harnesses NFMA to keep the nation’s wild forests from becoming lumber and pulp. We’ve scored huge victories that safeguard wildlife habitat, waterways and recreation in our national forests—including our 13-year defense of the Roadless Rule, which protects more than 50 million acres of beautiful national forest from development. We’re now working to preserve the Tongass—the gem of the national forest system—and ensure sound management of forestlands in the Sierra Nevada and beyond.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

Earthjustice uses NEPA, the law that requires environmental impact statements for projects permitted by the federal government, in a huge range of our work. It is a thread that runs through our efforts to protect public lands and waterways, stop genetically modified food, keep oil companies from ravaging the Arctic, and defend endangered species, among many other things.

THE COURTS

The federal court system has three tiers—district court, court of appeals and the Supreme Court. Most of our national cases start in district court and are resolved in the court of appeals. In rare instances, our cases end up in the Supreme Court.

State court systems are more complicated and variable, though most follow a structure very similar to the federal system. We are engaged in a number of cases in state court systems around the country.

ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS

To truly win for the environment, Earthjustice must be effective both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Our communications team in San Francisco, CA, and Washington, D.C. builds public awareness and support for action on climate change, fracking, Arctic oil drilling and other threats to our air, water, health and vibrant ecosystems.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

Holding polluters accountable requires strong environmental laws that stay strong. Every year, anti-environmental lawmakers seek to gut environmental protections and roll back our victories. Our policy and legislation team in Washington, D.C. works with members of Congress to keep environmental laws strong and ensure that our courtroom gains aren’t overturned.

INTERNATIONAL

Environmental protection is truly a global issue. Our international team, based in San Francisco, CA, focuses on human rights, climate change and international trade.

YOU

The generous support of tens of thousands of individuals like you allows us to take on the most important cases and stick with them for as long as it takes.

Earthjustice Divests from Fossil Fuels

Earthjustice recognizes climate change as one of the greatest threats to the global environment and human well-being. We also recognize divestment from fossil fuels as one of the strategies to speed the needed transition to a low-carbon clean energy economy. Earthjustice has made a commitment to divest from fossil fuels and to self-review our progress toward divestment on an annual basis.

***Note from Anna: Fight for your right to keep your crops organic. Stay green.


U.S. Sailors Won Key Court Decision to go Forward with Class Action Lawsuit Against Tepco

http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/11/u-s-sailors-won-key-court-decision-go-forward-class-action-tepco-ge-toshiba-hitachi-etc/

U.S. Sailors won key court decision to go forward with class action against Tepco, GE, Toshiba and Hitachi etc.

 Following up this article.. The US Navy sailors’ complaint refers to Fukushima Diary [URL]

The federal judge, Janis L. Sammartino published the decision to let U.S Navy Sailors go forward with the United States District Court in San Diego against Tepco. Tepco was insisting the court should be in Japan because most of the “witnesses are in Japan”, and “the Japanese government may refuse to disclose crucial information or make witnesses available in a U.S. court”.

However the Federal judge concluded it should be in U.S court for the plaintiffs’ “radiation related injuries,” which they claim would prevent them from traveling to Japan at all.  The court also considered “The U.S. also has a strong interest in seeing that members of the Armed Forces are compensated for their service. Especially as it is the V.A. system and the U.S. taxpayers who will ultimately pay for the injuries to Plaintiffs.”

Fukushima Diary was directly informed of this by Paul C. Garner, ESQ., the attorney of the plaintiffs.

 

By having the court in U.S, the Sailors can go forward with Class Action. Up to 70,000 U.S. citizens were potentially affected by the radiation and will be able to join the class action suit. This “Class Action” is not granted in Japanese court. It can be the major reason why Tepco tried to transfer the case from U.S. to Japan so they can minimize the compensation value.

 

Additionally, the Court granted TEPCO’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ design defect claim of the nuclear plant, however the court admitted the plaintiffs to add more defendants to consist of General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba, Hitachi and the builders of Fukushima nuclear reactors.

 

In the decision, the court agreed with Plaintiffs that their Complaint is not barred by the firefighter’s rule. As alleged, the nuclear accident was independent of the earthquake that summoned the U.S. Navy. Although the Fukushima plant meltdown occurred in part due to the earthquake and tsunami, Plaintiffs allege the ultimate failure of Fukushima plant was a result of TEPCO’s inadequate preparation for a foreseeable natural disaster and negligence in designing and maintaining the Fukushima plant.

 

The amended pleading shall be filed by 11/18/2014.

Cooper-Order on Motion to Dismiss Sac102814

Cooper-second Tepco Press Release

 

_____

Français :

Les marins US gagnent une décision judiciaire clé pour avancer dans leur recours collectif contre Tepco, GE, Toshiba, Hitachi etc.

 

Article lié : La plainte des marins de l’US Navy fait référence au Fukushima Diary

Le juge fédéral Janis L. Sammartino a pris la décision de laisser avancer les marins de l’US Navy contre Tepco à la United States District Court de San Diego. Tepco insistait pour que la cour soit au Japon parce que “la plupart des témoins sont au Japon” et que “le gouvernement japonais pourrait refuser de donner des informations cruciales ou empêcher les témoins de se rendre dans une cour américaine”. Le juge fédéral a néanmoins conclu que ce serait dans une cour américaine pour les “blessures liées à la radioactivité” des plaignants qu’ils affirment pouvoir les empêcher de faire le voyage jusqu’au Japon. La cour a aussi considéré que “Les U.S. ont également fort intérêt à voir les membres des forces armées indemnisées pour avoir rempli leur mission. En particulier attendu que c’est l’administration des vétérants et les contribuables américains qui, au final, payeront les indemnisations aux plaignants”.

Le Fukushima Diary en a été directement informé par M. Paul C. Garner, ESQ., le représentant des plaignants.

Les marins peuvent aller plus loin dans leur action collective en ayant leur cour aus U.S.A. Jusqu’à 70 000 citoyens américains ont été potentiellement affectées par la radioactivité et seront en mesure de se joindre à l’action collective. Les “actions collectives” n’existent pas dans la juridiction japonaise. C’est sans doute la raison essentielle pour laquelle Tepco a tenté de déplacer le procès au Japon, pour réduire le montant des indemnisations.

En outre, la Cour a accédé à la requête de TEPCO de rejeter la demande des plaignants de défaut de conception dans la centrale, néanmoins la cour a autorisé les plaignants à ajouter d’autres inculpations de sociétés telles que General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba, Hitachi et les constructeurs des réacteurs de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima.

Dans sa décision, la cour a reconnu aux plaignants que leur plainte n’est pas interdite par la règle des pompiers. Comme présumé, l’accident nucléaire a été indépendant du séisme à l’origine de l’intervention de la marine américaine. Les plaignants prétendent que l’effondrement de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima a fondamentalement été du à la préparation inadéquate de TEPCO à une catastrophe naturelle prévisible et à leur négligence dans la conception et l’exploitation de la centrale de Fukushima même si les fusions dans la centrale de Fukushima sont en partie dues au séisme et au tsunami.

La plaidoirie amendée sera déposée vers le 18 novembre 2014.

Cooper-Instruction sur la Motion de débout Sac102814

 

 

 


No Relationship Between Moderate Adolescent Cannabis Use, Exam Results or IQ, Large UK Study Shows

Date: October 20, 2014
Source: European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP)
Summary: A large UK study has found that occasional adolescent cannabis use does not lead to poorer educational and intellectual performance, but that heavy cannabis use is associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16.

A large UK study has found that occasional adolescent cannabis use does not lead to poorer educational and intellectual performance, but that heavy cannabis use is associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16. The results come from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, also known as “Children of the 90’s”) a long-term study that follows the health of children born in the Bristol area (UK) in 1991 and 1992. The work is being presented at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) in Berlin.

The researchers analysed data from 2,612 children who had their IQ tested at the age of 8, and again at the age of 15. These children’s examination results were then factored in via the National Pupil Database. At the age of 15, each person in the study completed a survey on cannabis use. The researchers then used regression analysis to look at how cannabis use affected both intellectual and educational performance. A number of children could not be included in the final analyses (for example because they had experienced a head injury), leaving a total sample size of 2,235.

The researchers found two main points

  • Cannabis use appeared to be associated with decreased intellectual performance. Cannabis use was, however, highly correlated with other risky behaviours such as alcohol, cigarette and other drug use. When the researchers took these other behaviours into account, they found there was no relationship between cannabis use and lower IQ at age 15.
  • Heavier cannabis users (at least 50 times by age 15) however, did show marginally impaired educational abilities. These children tended to have poorer exam results (3% lower) on compulsory school exams taken at age 16, even after adjusting for childhood educational performance, as well as alcohol, cigarette and other drug use.

According to lead researcher, Claire Mokrysz (University College London):

“Our findings suggest cannabis may not have a detrimental effect on cognition, once we account for other related factors- particularly cigarette and alcohol use. This may suggest that previous research findings showing poorer cognitive performance in cannabis users may have resulted from the lifestyle, behaviour and personal history typically associated with cannabis use, rather than cannabis use itself.

People often believe that using cannabis can be very damaging to intellectual ability in the long-term, but it is extremely difficult to separate the direct effects of cannabis from other potential explanations. Adolescent cannabis use often goes hand in hand with other drug use, such as alcohol and cigarette smoking, as well as other risky lifestyle choices.

It’s hard to know what causes what- do kids do badly at school because they are smoking weed, or do they smoke weed because they’re doing badly? This study suggests it is not as simple as saying cannabis is the problem.

This is a potentially important public health message- the belief that cannabis is particularly harmful may detract focus from and awareness of other potentially harmful behaviours. However the finding that heavier cannabis use is linked to marginally worse educational performance is important to note, warranting further investigation.”

Commenting ECNP Chair, Professor Guy Goodwin (Oxford) said “This is a potentially important study because it suggests that the current focus on the alleged harms of cannabis may be obscuring the fact that its use is often correlated with that of other even more freely available drugs and possibly lifestyle factors. These may be as or more important than cannabis itself.

The researchers noted that the study has some limitations. For example, cannabis use was self-reported, and the measure of IQ taken at age 15 was an abbreviated version of the standard Wechsler IQ test.

Full details can be found in the abstract (however please note that the abstract shows a preliminary analysis; this may differ from the version which is currently being prepared for publication and which is described above).


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Cite This Page:

European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP). “No relationship between moderate adolescent cannabis use, exam results or IQ, large study shows.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 October 2014. .

High Levels of Radiation Found at Fukushima, 460,000 Bq/L; Removing fuel in Unit 1 Storage Pool to Start 2017 — NHK World

annajaya67:

  • High levels of radiation found at Fukushima, 460,000 Bq/L; Removing fuel in unit 1 storage pool to start 2017 — NHK World

***Note from Anna: Sometimes I rant,  hence the origin of my blog name. So this is for all of the scientists, farmers, educators, politicians, parents, doctors, and advocate in the United States:

1. YOU CAN’T GROW ANYTHING WITH SEVERELY RADIOACTIVE WATER. 2017 is TOO LATE FOR A CLEANUP.

2. THERE ARE FIFTY-FIVE NUCLEAR REACTORS ON A SET OF ISLANDS THAT CAN FIT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AN EARTHQUAKE SWARM WILL PUT JAPAN COMPLETELY UNDER WATER AND FILL THE WORLD WITH RADIOACTIVE CLOUDS.

3. THE MOX FUEL BEING RELEASE ***CANNOT*** BE CLEANED WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE STERILE, YOUR CROPS ARE GOING TO DIE, AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH DOCTORS WORLDWIDE TO TREAT ALL THE CANCER PATIENTS  BECAUSE THE DOCTORS WILL HAVE CANCER TOO!!!

4. THE POLITICIANS IN BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE *DELIBERATELY* FAILED US. THEIR ACTIONS  ARE ACTS OF MASS MURDER AND TREASON.

5. GENERAL ELECTRIC AND TEPCO ARE 100% CULPABLE AND NEED TO IMMEDIATE PAY FOR THE EVACUATION AND RELOCATION OF ALL JAPANESE CITIZENS TO SAFE HAVENS.

By 2015 you realize what everyone has been saying when the following things start to occur:

Widespread immune, neurological, and muscular disorders.

Soldiers from Japan being deactivated from service due to Hodgkin’s Lymphoma cancers.

Mass heart attacks.

Mass outbreaks of cancer similar to what is currently happening in Malibu, California.

Widespread crops death including vegetables, fruits, wheat, hemp, and marijuana. You can’t grow organic medications if your crops are contaminated.

Inability to create medicine to handle the creation of new medicines because the researchers and scientists will also be getting sick and dying.

Outbreaks in crimes and cultural misunderstandings as sick people from Japan come seeking safe haven, which they should ABSOLUTELY get because AMERICA was complicit in poisoning them. if the situation was reversed American citizens would want, and demand, the same kind of help.

Budgetary crashes resulting in lack of FEMA or police resources.

You’ve been warned. DO SOMETHING!

 

 

Originally posted on Japan Safety : Nuclear Energy Updates:

View original


Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required/ar-BBbbfW3?ocid=mailsignout

The New York Times SHAILA DEWAN October 26, 2014
Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. © Angela Jimenez for The New York Times Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”The federal government does.Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes.

The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.

“They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. “They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the I.R.S., said in a written statement, “This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.’s mission and key priorities.”

He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not affect seizures that have already occurred.

Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family for 27 years. © Bryan Thomas for The New York Times Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family…

The I.R.S. is one of several federal agencies that pursue such cases and then refer them to the Justice Department. The Justice Department does not track the total number of cases pursued, the amount of money seized or how many of the cases were related to other crimes, said Peter Carr, a spokesman.

But the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that is seeking to reform civil forfeiture practices, analyzed structuring data from the I.R.S., which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five were prosecuted as a criminal case.

The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going.

Her money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports, which are reviewed by over 100 multiagency task forces.

There is nothing illegal about depositing less than $10,000 unless it is done specifically to evade the reporting requirement. But often a mere bank statement is enough for investigators to obtain a seizure warrant. In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years.

There are often legitimate business reasons for keeping deposits below $10,000, said Larry Salzman, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is representing Ms. Hinders and the Long Island family pro bono. For example, he said, some grocery store owners in Fraser, Mich., had an insurance policy that covered only up to $10,000 cash. When they neared the limit, they would make a deposit.

Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor.

“My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.” Lawyers say it is not unusual for depositors to be advised by financial professionals, or even bank tellers, to keep their deposits below the reporting threshold.

In the Long Island case, the company, Bi-County Distributors, had three bank accounts closed because of the paperwork burden of its frequent cash deposits, said Jeff Hirsch, the eldest of three brothers who own the company. Their accountant then recommended staying below the limit, so the company began using the excess cash to pay vendors, and carried on for more than a decade.

More than two years ago, the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. Mr. Salzman, who has taken over legal representation of the brothers, has argued that prosecutors violated a strict timeline laid out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, passed in 2000 to curb abuses.

The office of the federal attorney for the Eastern District of New York said the law’s timeline did not apply in this case. The federal attorney’s office said that parties often voluntarily negotiated to avoid going to court, and that Joseph Potashnik, the Hirsches’ first lawyer, had been engaged in talks until just a few months ago. But Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books.

“I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”

Bi-County has survived only because longtime vendors have extended credit — one is owed almost $300,000, Mr. Hirsch said. Twice, the government has made settlement offers that would require the brothers to give up an “excessive” portion of the money, according to a new court filing.

“We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Mr. Hirsch said. “We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”

Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe deposit box. All of the money came from his paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he finally deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money a second time. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”

The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000. As a result, the eldest of his three daughters had to delay college by a year.

“Why didn’t the teller tell me that was illegal?” he said. “I would have just plopped the whole thing in the account and been done with it.”


Washington State Attorney General’s Office Prescription Drug Abuse

Prescription Drug Abuse

http://www.atg.wa.gov/prescriptiondrug.aspx#.VE57Q1dhBkg

Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic in Washington state. There are more deaths annually from prescription drug abuse than from meth, cocaine, and heroin combined.

What’s causing this epidemic? Drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, and Methadone are now commonly prescribed for pain. Painkillers offer relief to millions of Americans but present a hidden danger.

These kinds of prescription drugs are called “opiates.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “opiate” as a sedative narcotic, “[C]ontaining opium or one or more of its natural or synthetic derivatives.”  In a way, these drugs are the cousins of a better known—and more feared— drug: heroin. But unlike heroin, most people don’t know how potentially addicting and dangerous prescription opiates can be.

Some recreational users crush prescription painkillers and then ingest them in order to bypass the time-release function of the medications. This provides a somewhat immediate, and sometimes deadly, high.

When overdosed, prescription painkillers can cause a significant decrease in lung function and death. They can also be lethal when they’re combined with other prescribed or over-the-counter drugs. High-profile deaths include actor Heath Ledger, who died from a lethal combination of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine.

Teenagers are increasingly experimenting with drugs commonly found in their parents’ medicine cabinets. According to the Healthy Youth Survey, 12 percent of 12th graders used prescription pain medications to get high in the past 30 days. The same survey also shows that an alarming number of younger kids experiment with these drugs. That’s why it’s critical to learn how to properly safeguard and dispose of your medications.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that more than 47 percent of teens get prescription drugs from their friends for free. About 10 percent buy them from their friends, and another 10 percent take them from friends without asking.

What the AGO is doing about prescription drug abuse in Washington State

The Attorney General’s Office uses funds from consumer protection settlements with drug manufacturers—including the makers of OxyContin— to provide grants to promote drug abuse prevention and prescription drug safety.  To date those grants have totaled more than $2.7 million and include:

  • $1,000,000 dollars to fund the Washington Prevention Summits and Spring Youth Forums, where kids learn to use the latest technology to create prevention programs in their schools.
  • $683,000 to the State Department of Health to create a prescription drug monitoring program to prevent the “doctor shopping” that allows addicts to get access to dangerous drugs.
  • $400,000 for the University of Washington  to educate doctors on drug marketing. The funding is a portion of the $9 million awarded in grants nationwide from a settlement with Neurontin.
  • $30,000 to The Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Network to develop the Unwanted Medicine Return Program. This program promotes drug safety and a cleaner enviornment by promoting the safe disposal of unwanted medications.
  • $15,000 for Prescriptions for Life, a local nonprofit organization working to eliminate prescription drug abuse. The money will help pay for a new educational video that will be shown to students, teachers, school counselors, law enforcement, medical professionals and civic and business leaders.
  • $400,000 for the Washington Health Foundation launch a  program  to reduce prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse among college students, creating one of the first programs in the nation to target young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 (more below).

What the AGO is doing about prescription drug abuse in Tribal Communities

According to DOH, American Indians and Alaska Natives are hardest-hit by prescription drug abuse.
amind
The AGO has addressed this issue by targeting a series of grants for programs that address substance abuse prevention programs in tribal communities:

  • $101,700 for the Boys & Girls Club of America to establish two new clubhouses on Native American lands by 2011, targeting ages 7-18. The two anticipated newly established clubs on reservation lands should see an enrollment per club in excess of 700 youth.  Boys & Girls Club substance abuse programs include SMART (Skills, Mastery And Resistance Training) Moves.
  • $198,550 to the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board to provide four “mini-grants” of $30,000 each to tribal partners for community based projects to fight prescription drug abuse, and to fund a one-day regional training conference on prescription abuse among tribal members.
  • $25,250 to Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling to help pay for a 6-day youth camp called New Directions: Tribal Youth Music Academy for Addiction Awareness & Prevention.

Prescription drug abuse on campus

The Attorney General’s Office has partnered with the Washington Health Foundation, the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and other national organizations to provide an online health community and a set of resources to help college kids confront the prescription drug epidemic.
The Washington Health Foundation asks college students to be part a part of the solution – to help address prescription and over-the-counter drug misuse and abuse. Learn more on The Washington Health Foundation’s Web site.  There, you can tell your story, share your ideas, explore innovative resources, and participate in social media discussions


University of Washington Medical and Ebola-Could an Outbreak Be On the Way?

capsules1

Good morning readers,

Very rarely do I add stories about my personal life to this blog as it is generally for the purpose ranting and sharing knowledge but I want you to ponder these two statements today in relation to the Ebola virus:

These are genuine, in-chart statements made to me by a University of Washington Medical doctor on March 17, 2014:

“…She is significantly concerned about many of her problems but does not want to follow some medical advice. Is using a significant amount of THC and marijuana. Discussed this may be causing some of her problems.

Stated that there was significant evidence and the place she does have some rigorous standards and quality. I discussed with the patient that this was not likely. ”

I got so upset that I filed a complaint with the University of Washington and the Washington State Department of Health that same week. The complaint with U of W is ongoing and will be completed hopefully in November 2014.Due to his dismissal of my symptoms five other doctors (Three of those doctors were from Highline Medical Center under advisement of U of W Medical Center)  refused to provide needed surgery (a surgery already approved by Kaiser Permanente staff from three different hospitals in California in 2011) and I had to leave the state to continue medical treatment.

The  Washington State Department of Health dismissed my complaint outright.

My mother and grandmother were nurses in big-city and low-income areas. This is one thing that is true: poor and afraid people who are sick will not come into an emergency room until it is absolutely necessary. Very often people wait until long after symptoms have become infectious,communicable, and airborne to visit the hospital fearing income loss. Poor people lack private cars so disease transmission will be airborne,rapid, and on various methods of public transit.

Rich or poor, everyone still has travel to, and sit in, a crowded waiting room with many very sick patients in order to receive any form of medical treatment.

Now I’d like to ask my readers this question: do you think you, your kids, and your elders are going to be safe this holiday season with this kind of mentality being spread about medical marijuana?

UW Medicine Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/UWMedicine

Central Washington University Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/CentralWashU

Information about University of Washington  Medical Center/Washington State Liquor Control Board/I-502 funding:

Washington State DOH FACT SHEET FOR I-502 Implementation

“In December, 2013, DOH dedicated program funding to hire one full time staff, to provide
marijuana education and manage I-502 implementation. At this time, DOH is working collaboratively with a number of the listed “key stakeholders” to identify and leverage current resources to meet the mandates of I-502.

One example of this collaboration is with the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery (DBHR), and the use of their existing state Recovery Helpline (at no cost to DOH), as the identified marijuana resource and referral line.

Once funding emerges, DOH will evaluate its effectiveness and develop a public health hotline specific to marijuana callers, if needed.

2014 2015 State Budget Tobacco and Marijuana Proviso: $1.5 million One time funding is provided for tobacco, marijuana, and e- cigarette prevention activities aimed at youth and populations with a high incidence of smoking. For activities aimed at youth, the Department of Health (DOH)must partner with the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction(OSPI) to fund effective tobacco, marijuana, and e –cigarette prevention programs at middle and
high schools.

For activities aimed at populations with a high incidence of smoking, the DOH
must contract with community based organizations that serve populations that have a high
incidence of smoking tobacco, marijuana, or e-cigarettes.

Future biennia funding of tobacco an e- cigarette prevention programs will be based on the Washington State Institute of Public Policy report on prevention activities due December 31, 2014″

Point of Contact:
Paj Nandi: 360-236- 3665 paj.nandi@doh.wa.gov
Community Based Prevention Section Manager
Paul Davis, 360-236-3642
paul.davis@doh.wa.gov
Tobacco Prevention and Control and
Marijuana Education Program Manager

http://www.washington.edu/research/

“The Office of Management and Budget released its grant reform regulations called the Uniform Grant Guidance (Omni-Circular). This guidance relates to administrative requirements, cost principles and audit requirements for federal awards.

…Environmental Health & Safety is a UW administrative department that is responsible for addressing environmental issues in order to provide a safe educational and work place on campus.”

http://theathenaforum.org/sites/default/files

/DOH%20Marijuana%20Program%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20April%202014.pdf

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019541405_potdui28m.html

Seattle Times staff reporter October 27, 2012:

“…At a recent I-502 debate at the University of Washington, medical-marijuana entrepreneur Steve Sarich warned students they could be arrested for a DUI a week after smoking a joint. “There goes your Pell Grant, there goes your college,” said Sarich, who is organizing opposition to I-502.

His prediction distorts a majority of research, which finds active THC dissipates in casual users within hours.

But it can linger in frequent users, such as medical-marijuana patients. One study of such users — smoking up to 10 big joints a day — found active THC in their blood even after six days of abstinence.

I-502 makes no exemption for heavy users, including chronic pain patients.

Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for the initiative, is sympathetic to them, but said a DUI law should not be dictated by relatively rare cases. “We don’t establish public policy based on outliers,” she said.

http://www.cwu.edu/i-502-no-effect-cwu-marijuana-policy

University of Washington School of Medicine:

“Established in 1946, the School of Medicine is the only medical school directly serving the states of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI). Located in the Warren G. Magnuson Health Sciences Center, the School operates a decentralized program of medical education (WWAMI) via a regional network of teaching affiliates.

The School’s basic-science departments provide educational opportunities for students from all schools and colleges within the University. Clinical teaching programs are conducted at the University of Washington Medical Center, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle Children’s hospital, Northwest Hospital & Medical Center, Valley Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System, as well as at other clinical affiliates in Seattle and throughout the WWAMI states.”

http://www.washington.edu/students/gencat/academic/school_medicine.html

December 4, 2012 Linda Schactler, (Executive Director, CWU Public Affairs, 509-963-1384) announced:

“…Although Washington law soon will remove state criminal and civil penalties for some use and possession of marijuana, CWU policy prohibits its use, possession, and distribution. University policy states, “Possession, use, or distribution of any controlled substance as defined by the laws of the United States or the State of Washington except as expressly permitted by law.”  The federal Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana among Schedule 1 substances, the use and distribution of which are prohibited by federal law.

Under the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, as a condition of receiving federal funds, universities must certify the adoption and implementation of programs to prevent the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees.

CWU would place at risk more than $93 million in federal funding if the university disregarded federal law and allowed the use of marijuana in university facilities, according to Dr. Sarah Swager, Dean of Student Success.


The Importance of Having Those Conversations About Cannabis

Featured Image -- 4561

annajaya67:

The importance of having those conversations about cannabis

Originally posted on Cannabis Patients Alliance:

2011 was a life-changing year for my husband and me. After he got laid off from his job, we decided to put most of our worldly belongings into storage and take off with our 4 dogs in our 22-foot motorhome. Aside from camping and hiking, we spent most of 8 months traveling around Colorado talking to people about marijuana. We talked to patients, dispensary workers, growers, and just average citizens. We wanted to get a feel for what the state, outside of Denver, thought about medical marijuana in Colorado.

I have a lot of conversations with a lot of people, usually about marijuana. People are so curious. I never really know what impact these conversations have. I just try to open people’s minds to new possibilities.

The other day I got a surprising message from someone I met back in 2011 but haven’t talked with since. She reminded me of our…

View original 395 more words


Arizona Appeals Court Rules Medical Marijuana No Defense to DUI Charge

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/10/arizona-appeals-court-rules-medical-marijuana-no-defense-to-dui-charge.php

The Jurist

JURIST- The Arizona Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) [text] does not protect legal medical marijuana users from being charged with driving under the influence (DUI). The court reviewed the appeal submitted by Travis Darrah, a legal medical marijuana license holder, and decided the Arizona Revised Statutes allowed the court to charge Darrah with a DUI based on the presence of THC in his blood irrespective of the AMMA exception [text]. Judge Kent Cattani, in a concurring opinion, upheld the finding in this specific case because the appellant failed to provide evidence that he was unimpaired by his legal medical marijuana use, but stated that the AMMA does provide medical marijuana users a valid defense to a DUI charge:

The Arizona Supreme Court thus did not squarely address the carve-out exception for authorized users under § 36-2802(D). Under this carve-out exception, in my view, an authorized user cannot be convicted under § 28-1381(A)(3) if he or she establishes that the amount of THC or marijuana metabolite in the blood was in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.

The majority opinion relied on precedent and did not consider the language of the AMMA exception to bar Darrah’s conviction.

Evolving public sentiment against marijuana criminalization and its medical use [JURIST backgrounder] has led to more legal support [MPP website] in the US in recent months. In July US Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) [official website] introduced a bill [JURIST report] to legalize cannabidiol (CBD) oil, or marijuana extract, which has been shown to treat seizures in children suffering from epilepsy. Also in July New York Governor Andrew Cuomo [official website] signed [JURIST report] the Compassionate Care Act into law, making New York the twenty-third state to legalize medical marijuana.

Note from Anna: Arizona MMJ info and Twitter link. Check in with them from your state.

Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA)

http://arizona-marijuana.com/amma/

http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/rules/

https://twitter.com/azmarijuana


Exclusive: U.S. DEA ‘Most Interested’ in U.S. Investors in Canadian Marijuana Firms

TORONTO/ST. LOUIS Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:41am EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-canada-marijuana-investors-iduskcn0hz0zy20141010

(Reporting by John Tilak in Toronto and Brett Wolf of the Compliance Complete service of Thomson Reuters Accelus in St. Louis; Additional reporting by David Randall in New York; Editing by Amran Abocar, Douglas Royalty and Marguerita Choy)

(Reuters) – U.S. investors in Canada’s medical marijuana industry are betting they will not fall under the scrutiny of U.S. law enforcement officers – but it is a risky bet.

With marijuana still illegal on a federal level in the United States, American investors in Canadian medical marijuana can be seen as violating the Controlled Substances Act, according to some U.S experts. And the use of the banking system to transfer the proceeds of such investments could be seen as money laundering.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has already been tracking investments made in state-sanctioned marijuana business in the United States. When asked by Reuters about the DEA’s view of U.S. investments in Canadian marijuana, DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said the agency is “most interested in those types of activities.”

After the Reuters report, shares in Canadian medical marijuana companies fell sharply at the open before recovering some ground. OrganiGram Holdings Inc (OGI.V) dropped 6.9 percent in early trading, Bedrocan Cannabis Corp (BED.V) fell 4.2 percent and Tweed Marijuana Inc (TWD.V) declined 2.8 percent.

U.S. investors have been increasingly drawn to the raft of public listings by producers that has sprung up since Canada overhauled its laws this year, making it legal to buy marijuana from licensed producers with a doctor’s prescription.

Canada’s medical marijuana market, which is expected to grow more than tenfold, to C$1.3 billion, in a decade, has matured more rapidly than its peers. While U.S. investors have several European markets where medical marijuana is legal on their radar – Canada has been the biggest beneficiary of fund flows from U.S. investors.

“We really like the Canada model, which is really unlike any other in the world,” said Christian Groh, a co-founder of Seattle-based private equity firm Privateer Holdings, one of the largest players in the medical marijuana sector. “What we’re doing here does not violate local, state and federal law (in Canada).”

Privateer created a Canadian subsidiary as its foothold in the market. Other investors, however, have jumped straight in from their U.S. bases.

Timothy White, national risk specialist for Banker’s Toolbox Inc, a firm that helps banks detect and report money laundering, said U.S. investors in Canadian marijuana firms could be violating drug trafficking and money laundering laws.

“That is two violations of U.S. federal law. I don’t see there is any way around that,” White said.

A former DEA official who asked not to be named said that “at best,” the investments are “an extremely reckless thing to do.” Investors could face money laundering charges and any return on investment “would have the taint of drug proceeds,” the former official said.

“If they sought legal advice on this, they were grossly underserved,” the former official said.

There have been no prosecutions by U.S. authorities of investors in Canada, according to legal experts who have been closely following the market.

Payne, the DEA spokesman, said the U.S. agency has “limited investigatory resources” to pursue investors and is most interested in targeting those with deep pockets who pour large sums into the industry.

HIGH HOPES

It is a risk many U.S. investors, eyeing healthy returns, are willing to take. They are counting on shifting attitudes toward marijuana in the United States, and they see scant chances of prosecution under the Obama administration.

“There are so many companies investing in the Canadian side, and this (money-laundering risk) is just not something that is coming up as an issue,” said one U.S. investor in the Canadian medical marijuana market who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“You can invest in pharmaceutical companies (whose drugs are not approved) in the United States. This is just another medicine.”

Canadian producer OrganiGram has nearly doubled in value since listing on Aug. 25. Meanwhile, Bedrocan was the second-most actively traded stock on the TSX venture exchange on its market debut on the same day.

Roughly 30 percent of OrganiGram’s shares are held by U.S. investors. Other producers also reported high levels of U.S. investment in their shares and capital raising.

Toronto-based PharmaCan Capital, one of the most active investors in the Canadian market and likely to go public itself, said it raised about 35 percent of its capital outside Canada.

So far, only relatively small U.S. investors have been active in Canada’s marijuana sector. Deep-pocketed institutional investors in the United States are yet to be swayed, partly because of the legal risks and because the investments available are generally too small to interest them. Then there is the stigma associated with the industry.

Canadian and U.S. investors also have to grapple with the risk of betting in a nascent, unproven market that is still finding its way. Securities regulators on both sides of the border have warned investors to stay clear of speculators.

“The larger institutions have a lot to lose and face a lot of scrutiny because of everything else they do,” said Brian Vicente, a partner at Vicente Sederberg in Denver. “They are not interested in taking that risk at this moment, and that opens up space and opportunities for smaller firms.”

Hopes that more U.S. states will follow the lead of Washington and Colorado and approve ballot initiatives that make marijuana legal for adult use have boosted the ranks of investors looking at early stage marijuana-related companies. Twenty-three U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana.

“Some investors look at this and think, ‘I’m getting in on the ground floor. I’m going to be part of the next Facebook of marijuana, and timing is everything. … I can buy in low and eventually sell super-high when legalization hits,’ ” said Hilary Bricken, a lawyer at Seattle-based Harris Moure. “That day may never come.”

 

 

***Note from Anna: These are the strain carried by OrganiGram Holdings Inc  . Recognize them?

http://fjet.ca/products

http://fjet.ca/newsreleases

Company leadership info here:

http://fjet.ca/sites/default/files/Organigram%20Investor%20Presentation.pdf

Bedrocan Cannabis Corp info:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=261611725

https://bedrocan.ca/

https://bedrocan.ca/company-news/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bedrocan-cannabis-corp-provides-construction-progress-update-and-details-of-new-canadian-production-facility-2014-10-07

http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.bed/bedrocan-cannabis-corp?postid=23053258

Bedrocan Research collaborations:

http://www.noodls.com/view/558DFCDFE00CDF176BDDBAA8DC24732BC8A52BEB?245xxx1413408240

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bedrocan-cannabis-corp-launches-medical-110000569.html

Tweed Marijuana Inc. info:

http://www.tweed.com/pages/about-tweed

SEDAR:

http://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00029461

Remark Financial:

http://www.renmarkfinancial.com/en/Clients/Tweed-Marijuana-Inc

 

 


Washington State Legislature Chapter 42.30 RCW OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30&full=true

RCW Sections

42.30.010 Legislative declaration.
42.30.020 Definitions.
42.30.030 Meetings declared open and public.
42.30.040 Conditions to attendance not to be required.
42.30.050 Interruptions — Procedure.
42.30.060 Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited.
42.30.070 Times and places for meetings — Emergencies — Exception.
42.30.075 Schedule of regular meetings — Publication in state register — Notice of change — “Regular” meetings defined.
42.30.077 Agendas of regular meetings — Online availability.
42.30.080 Special meetings.
42.30.090 Adjournments.
42.30.100 Continuances.
42.30.110 Executive sessions.
42.30.120 Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys’ fees and costs.
42.30.130 Violations — Mandamus or injunction.
42.30.140 Chapter controlling — Application.
42.30.200 Governing body of recognized student association at college or university — Chapter applicability to.
42.30.205 Training.
42.30.210 Assistance by attorney general.
42.30.900 Short title.
42.30.910 Construction — 1971 ex.s. c 250.
42.30.920 Severability — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

Notes:

Drug reimbursement policy recommendations: RCW 74.09.653.

42.30.010
Legislative declaration.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

Notes:

     Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.


42.30.020
Definitions.

As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:

(1) “Public agency” means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;

(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;

(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;

(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.

(2) “Governing body” means the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

(3) “Action” means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. “Final action” means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

(4) “Meeting” means meetings at which action is taken.

[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]

Notes:

     Severability — Savings — 1982 1st ex.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.52.374.


42.30.030
Meetings declared open and public.

All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 3.]


42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.

A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.

[2012 c 117 § 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]


42.30.050
Interruptions — Procedure.

In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 5.]


42.30.060
Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited.

(1) No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to the public and then only at a meeting, the date of which is fixed by law or rule, or at a meeting of which notice has been given according to the provisions of this chapter. Any action taken at meetings failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be null and void.

(2) No governing body of a public agency at any meeting required to be open to the public shall vote by secret ballot. Any vote taken in violation of this subsection shall be null and void, and shall be considered an “action” under this chapter.

[1989 c 42 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 6.]


42.30.070
Times and places for meetings — Emergencies — Exception.

The governing body of a public agency shall provide the time for holding regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body. Unless otherwise provided for in the act under which the public agency was formed, meetings of the governing body need not be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the public agency exercises jurisdiction. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the next business day. If, by reason of fire, flood, earthquake, or other emergency, there is a need for expedited action by a governing body to meet the emergency, the presiding officer of the governing body may provide for a meeting site other than the regular meeting site and the notice requirements of this chapter shall be suspended during such emergency. It shall not be a violation of the requirements of this chapter for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter.

[1983 c 155 § 2; 1973 c 66 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 7.]


42.30.075
Schedule of regular meetings — Publication in state register — Notice of change — “Regular” meetings defined.

State agencies which hold regular meetings shall file with the code reviser a schedule of the time and place of such meetings on or before January of each year for publication in the Washington state register. Notice of any change from such meeting schedule shall be published in the state register for distribution at least twenty days prior to the rescheduled meeting date.

For the purposes of this section “regular” meetings shall mean recurring meetings held in accordance with a periodic schedule declared by statute or rule.

[1977 ex.s. c 240 § 12.]

Notes:

     Effective date — Severability — 1977 ex.s. c 240: See RCW 34.08.905 and 34.08.910.Public meeting notices in state register: RCW 34.08.020.


42.30.077
Agendas of regular meetings — Online availability.

Public agencies with governing bodies must make the agenda of each regular meeting of the governing body available online no later than twenty-four hours in advance of the published start time of the meeting. An agency subject to provisions of this section is not required to post an agenda if it does not have a web site or if it employs fewer than ten full-time equivalent employees. Nothing in this section prohibits subsequent modifications to agendas nor invalidates any otherwise legal action taken at a meeting where the agenda was not posted in accordance with this section. Nothing in this section modifies notice requirements or shall be construed as establishing that a public body or agency’s online posting of an agenda as required by this section is sufficient notice to satisfy public notice requirements established under other laws. Failure to post an agenda in accordance with this section shall not provide a basis for awarding attorney fees under RCW 42.30.120 or commencing an action for mandamus or injunction under RCW 42.30.130.

[2014 c 61 § 2.]

Notes:

     Intent — Finding — 2014 c 61: “The legislature intends to promote transparency in government and strengthen the Washington’s open public meetings act. The legislature finds that it is in the best interest of citizens for public agencies with governing bodies to post meeting agendas on web sites before meetings. Full public review and inspection of meeting agendas will promote a greater exchange of information so the public can provide meaningful input related to government decisions.” [2014 c 61 § 1.]

42.30.080
Special meetings.

(1) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the governing body of a public agency or by a majority of the members of the governing body by delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax, or by electronic mail to each member of the governing body. Written notice shall be deemed waived in the following circumstances:

(a) A member submits a written waiver of notice with the clerk or secretary of the governing body at or prior to the time the meeting convenes. A written waiver may be given by telegram, fax, or electronic mail; or

(b) A member is actually present at the time the meeting convenes.

(2) Notice of a special meeting called under subsection (1) of this section shall be:

(a) Delivered to each local newspaper of general circulation and local radio or television station that has on file with the governing body a written request to be notified of such special meeting or of all special meetings;

(b) Posted on the agency’s web site. An agency is not required to post a special meeting notice on its web site if it (i) does not have a web site; (ii) employs fewer than ten full-time equivalent employees; or (iii) does not employ personnel whose duty, as defined by a job description or existing contract, is to maintain or update the web site; and

(c) Prominently displayed at the main entrance of the agency’s principal location and the meeting site if it is not held at the agency’s principal location.

Such notice must be delivered or posted, as applicable, at least twenty-four hours before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice.

(3) The call and notices required under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. Final disposition shall not be taken on any other matter at such meetings by the governing body.

(4) The notices provided in this section may be dispensed with in the event a special meeting is called to deal with an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time requirements of such notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or damage.

[2012 c 188 § 1; 2005 c 273 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 8.]


42.30.090
Adjournments.

The governing body of a public agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting the clerk or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. He or she shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in RCW 42.30.080 for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. Whenever any meeting is adjourned a copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted immediately after the time of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting was held. When a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaw, or other rule.

[2012 c 117 § 125; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 9.]


42.30.100
Continuances.

Any hearing being held, noticed, or ordered to be held by a governing body at any meeting may by order or notice of continuance be continued or recontinued to any subsequent meeting of the governing body in the same manner and to the same extent set forth in RCW 42.30.090 for the adjournment of meetings.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 10.]


42.30.110
Executive sessions.

(1) Nothing contained in this chapter may be construed to prevent a governing body from holding an executive session during a regular or special meeting:

(a) To consider matters affecting national security;

(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price;

(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs;

(e) To consider, in the case of an export trading company, financial and commercial information supplied by private persons to the export trading company;

(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge;

(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public;

(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.

This subsection (1)(i) does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), “potential litigation” means matters protected by RPC 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:

(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party;

(ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity; or

(iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency;

(j) To consider, in the case of the state library commission or its advisory bodies, western library network prices, products, equipment, and services, when such discussion would be likely to adversely affect the network’s ability to conduct business in a competitive economic climate. However, final action on these matters shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(k) To consider, in the case of the state investment board, financial and commercial information when the information relates to the investment of public trust or retirement funds and when public knowledge regarding the discussion would result in loss to such funds or in private loss to the providers of this information;

(l) To consider proprietary or confidential nonpublished information related to the development, acquisition, or implementation of state purchased health care services as provided in RCW 41.05.026;

(m) To consider in the case of the life sciences discovery fund authority, the substance of grant applications and grant awards when public knowledge regarding the discussion would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information;

(n) To consider in the case of a health sciences and services authority, the substance of grant applications and grant awards when public knowledge regarding the discussion would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information.

(2) Before convening in executive session, the presiding officer of a governing body shall publicly announce the purpose for excluding the public from the meeting place, and the time when the executive session will be concluded. The executive session may be extended to a stated later time by announcement of the presiding officer.

[2014 c 174 § 4; 2011 1st sp.s. c 14 § 14; 2010 1st sp.s. c 33 § 5; 2005 c 424 § 13; 2003 c 277 § 1; 2001 c 216 § 1; 1989 c 238 § 2; 1987 c 389 § 3; 1986 c 276 § 8; 1985 c 366 § 2; 1983 c 155 § 3; 1979 c 42 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 2; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 11.]

Notes:

     Intent — 2014 c 174: See note following RCW 43.333.011.     Captions not law — Liberal construction — Severability — Effective dates — 2005 c 424: See RCW 43.350.900 through 43.350.903.Severability — Effective date — 1987 c 389: See notes following RCW 41.06.070.Severability — 1986 c 276: See RCW 53.31.901.

42.30.120
Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys’ fees and costs.

(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.

[2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]


42.30.130
Violations — Mandamus or injunction.

Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 13.]


42.30.140
Chapter controlling — Application.

If any provision of this chapter conflicts with the provisions of any other statute, the provisions of this chapter shall control: PROVIDED, That this chapter shall not apply to:

(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending, revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business, occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is necessary; or

(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public or on a class or group; or

(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or

(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while in progress.

[1990 c 98 § 1; 1989 c 175 § 94; 1973 c 66 § 4; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 14.]

Notes:

     Effective date — 1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.Drug reimbursement policy recommendations: RCW 74.09.653.Mediation testimony competency: RCW 5.60.070 and 5.60.072.

42.30.200
Governing body of recognized student association at college or university — Chapter applicability to.

The multimember student board which is the governing body of the recognized student association at a given campus of a public institution of higher education is hereby declared to be subject to the provisions of the open public meetings act as contained in this chapter, as now or hereafter amended. For the purposes of this section, “recognized student association” shall mean any body at any of the state’s colleges and universities which selects officers through a process approved by the student body and which represents the interests of students. Any such body so selected shall be recognized by and registered with the respective boards of trustees and regents of the state’s colleges and universities: PROVIDED, That there be no more than one such association representing undergraduate students, no more than one such association representing graduate students, and no more than one such association representing each group of professional students so recognized and registered at any of the state’s colleges or universities.

[1980 c 49 § 1.]


42.30.205
Training.

(1) Every member of the governing body of a public agency must complete training on the requirements of this chapter no later than ninety days after the date the member either:

(a) Takes the oath of office, if the member is required to take an oath of office to assume his or her duties as a public official; or

(b) Otherwise assumes his or her duties as a public official.

(2) In addition to the training required under subsection (1) of this section, every member of the governing body of a public agency must complete training at intervals of no more than four years as long as the individual is a member of the governing body or public agency.

(3) Training may be completed remotely with technology including but not limited to internet-based training.

[2014 c 66 § 2.]

Notes:

     Findings — Short title — Effective date — 2014 c 66: See notes following RCW 42.56.150.


42.30.210
Assistance by attorney general.

The attorney general’s office may provide information, technical assistance, and training on the provisions of this chapter.

[2001 c 216 § 2.]


42.30.900
Short title.

This chapter may be cited as the “Open Public Meetings Act of 1971″.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 16.]


42.30.910
Construction — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

The purposes of this chapter are hereby declared remedial and shall be liberally construed.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 18.]


42.30.920
Severability — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 19.]


Washington State Legislature 2014 RCW 42.30.120 Violations

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30.120

1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with such legal action.

Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.

[

2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]


WSLCB List of Acceptable Pesticides for Growing Marijuana under I-502

From the Washington Cannabis Institute Administrator November 18, 2013:

http://washingtoncannabisinstitute.com/list-of-acceptable-pesticides-for-growing-marijuana-under-i-502/

The rules governing the implementation of I-502 limit pesticides that may be used to produce recreational marijuana. The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) recently produced the list of acceptable pesticide products.

Only authorized pesticide products may be used. Using an unauthorized pesticide is a public safety license violation and can result in the cancellation of a producer’s license (see WAC 314-55-520).

WAC 314-55-010(13) defines a pesticide as meaning, but is not limited to: (a) Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, control, repel, or mitigate any insect, rodent, snail, slug, fungus, weed, and any other form of plant or animal life or virus, except virus on or in a living person or other animal which is normally considered to be a pest; (b) any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; and (c) any spray adjuvant. Pesticides include substances commonly referred to as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Licensed producers can use pesticides registered by WSDA under chapter 15.58 RCW that are allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of marijuana.

If a particular pesticide is not consistent with the allowable pesticide criteria WSDA uses for marijuana production, the applicator could unknowingly be in violation of Washington pesticide laws (RCW 15.58.150(2)(c) and WAC 16-228-1500(1)(b)).
 
We recommend that pesticides from the OMRI list be cross-checked with the list of over 200 pesticides registered by WSDA that are allowable for use in marijuana production in PICOL. 
WSU’s Database
A preliminary list of over 200 pesticides registered by WSDA under chapter 15.58 RCW that are allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of marijuana can be found at Washington State University’s (WSU) PICOL (Pesticide Information Center Online) database at:

Under the “crop” drop-down menu choose: “I-502/I-692 (WA Only).”

PICOL lists the regulatory status of pesticides, as determined by WSDA. Updates can be made on a daily basis as pesticides are registered (and cancelled) by WSDA.

Using the PICOL Database
WSU has prepared tutorials as a starting point for prospective marijuana producer applicants in using the PICOL database.

Contact
If you have any questions, please contact the WSLCB Marijuana Licensing Unit at mjlicensing@liq.wa.gov

WAC 16-228-1500

Agency filings affecting this section

When can a pesticide license be denied, revoked or suspended?

(1) The director may deny, suspend, or revoke any provision of a license, registration, permit or certification issued under chapters 17.21 and 15.58 RCW if it is found that the applicant or the holder of the license, permit, or certification has committed any of the following acts each of which is declared to be a violation:

 


State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Guidance–BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses

Canna Law Blog™ They Said it On Marijuana, Quotable Saturday, Part XXXIII

http://www.cannalawblog.com/

Posted in General

One of the things that has always fascinated us since we started our cannabis business law practice back in 2010, is how incredibly few lawyers have ever voiced any opposition — virtually zero. Lawyers are lawyers and that means we are legalistic and logical and lawyers usually give us the following four, eminently practical, logical and legalistic reasons for believing in legalization:

  • There’s no reason to treat alcohol and pot differently under the law.
  • Our pot laws are not fairly applied and they never will be. Wealthy White kids get off easy, poor African-American kids don’t. This sort of inequality of enforcement and punishment weakens our laws and weakens our legal system, and that is not a good thing. Without support by the people and legitimacy, law means little.
  • We spend money on pot prohibition that would be better spent elsewhere.
  • Much illegal pot money goes to funding gangs. We need to cut that off.
  • It’s not working.

Uber-scientist Albert Einstein apparently thinks like a lawyer in that during prohibition he talked about how the flouting of some laws leading to the flouting of others:

The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.”

The same is true of pot.

As lawyers wanting rule by law, we support legalization.


SOI Tax Stats – SOI Bulletin: Winter 2014 Internal Revenue Service

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-SOI-Bulletin:-Winter-2014

Statistics of Income (SOI) Bulletin – Winter 2014 (entire publication in PDF)

Featured Articles

Individual Income Tax Returns, Preliminary Data, 2012
by Michael Parisi

For Tax Year 2012, taxpayers filed 144.9 million U.S. individual income tax returns, a decrease of 0.4 percent from the 145.6 million returns filed for Tax Year 2011. This decrease occurred because of the large decline in returns filed by taxpayers in the smaller adjusted gross income (AGI) classifications. The largest decrease (3.9 percent) was a 1.5 million change in the number of returns with an AGI of under $15,000.

Excel Tables: 1

Related Link: Individual Income Tax Returns

Sales of Capital Assets Panel Data Reported on Individual Tax Returns, 2004–2007
by Janette Wilson and Pearson Liddell

The IRS Statistics of Income (SOI) Division collects data on the sales of capital assets to identify trends in the capital gains and losses reported on individual tax returns. In 1999, SOI began a panel study of individual taxpayers to measure the trends in taxes and income, including capital gains and losses, at different points in time. SOI designed the panel sample to represent all Tax Year 1999 returns, including late returns.

Excel Tables: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Related Link: 

Split-Interest Trusts, Filing Year 2012
by Lisa Schreiber Rosenmerkel

The number of Forms 5227 filed with the IRS has consistently declined in recent years. Preparers filed 113,688 Forms 5227 with the IRS in Filing Year 2012, a 3.4-percent decline from Filing Year 2011.

Excel Tables:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Related Link: Split-Interest Trust Statistics

Nonprofit Charitable Organizations, 2010
by Paul Arnsberger

Nonprofit charitable organizations exempt from income tax under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3) filed 269,474 Forms 990 and 990-EZ and reported $2.9 trillion in assets for Tax Year 2010, an increase of 9 percent from the previous year.

Excel Tables:  1, 2, 3, 4

Related Link: Charities and Other Tax-Exempt Organizations Statistics

Departments

  • SOI Sampling Methodology and Data Limitations
  • SOI Projects, Contacts, and Public Release Information
  • SOI Products and Services

In the Next Issue

The following articles are tentatively planned for inclusion in the spring 2014 issue of the Statistics of Income Bulletin, scheduled to be published in May 2014:

  • Individual income tax rates and tax shares, 2011;
  • High-income tax returns, 2011;
  • Individual foreign-earned income and foreign tax credit, 2011;
  • Exempt organizations unrelated business income taxes, 2010;
  • Municipal bonds, 2011; and
  • Large nonoperating foundations panel, Tax Year 1998–2010

Historical Tables and Appendix

Return to Tax Stats home page

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 19-Jun-2014