Total Legalization

Let’s make marijuana legal worldwide:)

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

capsules1

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

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.

Featured Image -- 4561

The Importance of Having Those Conversations About Cannabis

annajaya67:

The importance of having those conversations about cannabis

Originally posted on Cannabis Patients Alliance:

0725084730

Enjoying my morning coffee along the banks of the Platte River in 2011.

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…

View original 408 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

Washington State Department of Ecology Marijuana Licensing and the Environment

With the passage of I-502, businesses and communities are seeking information about what impacts recreational marijuana (cannabis) growers and processors may have on the environment and what environmental permits might be required in the state of Washington.

Licensing

General licensing questions are addressed by the state Liquor Control Board.

Permits are site specific

As with all proposed projects, I-502 licensees should start by considering local regulations and ask what approvals may be needed through their county or city permitting offices.  Permits and permissions for a project depend on zoning rules, location and operation information.

A pre-approval meeting will help determine whether to complete an environmental checklist (SEPA). This checklist provides an initial snapshot of a project’s environmental impacts. Decision-makers must consider likely environmental consequences.

As projects move forward, proponents may want to coordinate with Ecology, Liquor Control Board (LCB) and the Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA).

Possible permits and environmental considerations

This is not a comprehensive list, but designed to prompt consideration as projects evolve.

Air Quality

  • A greenhouse growing or processing operation may need an air quality permit for the heating system.  The need would be based on the size of the heating unit and amount of fuel used if the system is not electrical.
  • Odors may need to be controlled.

Water Quality

  • Growers and processors may be able to discharge wastewater to local sewage treatment plants.  Growers and product processors can contact their regional Ecology offices or local jurisdictions to be sure they can discharge to local sewers.
  • If they cannot, they can seek information from Ecology to determine if they need a water quality permit to protect surface and groundwater.

Water Resources

  • Marijuana growers may or may not need a water right permit to water plants.
  • Water availability can vary significantly from county to county or water source to water source.
  • Industrial greenhouses and outdoor growers may be able to hook up to an existing water purveyor, such as a city utility or irrigation district.
  • Growing operations and greenhouses are limited in size by the Liquor Control Board and as a small use may qualify under a permit exemption for a groundwater well.
  • There may be local rules or requirements related to a new permit exempt well or new surface water uses, depending on the watershed.
  • On May 20, 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation issued a policy statement prohibiting the use of federal water or facilities for the cultivation of marijuana.  Questions on the policy should be directed to the bureau.

Waste Management

  • Solid waste management is regulated at the local level by county health departments.  Businesses should consult with their local health department to determine the amount of solid waste oversight needed.
  • Marijuana licensing rules require that marijuana stems and organic waste from growing and processing operations be rendered unusable by mixing them with 50 percent other materials and grinding them up before disposal or composting.
  • Growers and processors should employ common recycling and e-cycling practices.
  • Growers should consider pesticide management and consult with the Washington Department of Agriculture on pesticide and fertilizer use.
  • If any dangerous wastes are generated, dangerous waste regulations need to be followed.  Some dangerous wastes to consider:
    • Any waste with 10 percent THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) or greater would designate as a dangerous waste.
    • Fluorescent bulbs or other bulbs with mercury.
    • Unused pesticides/herbicides/etc. that are to be disposed.
    • Possible waste containing solvents.http://www.ecy.wa.gov/topics/marijuana.html

EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-04 WASHINGTON STATE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION AND CLEAN ENERGY ACTION

http://www.governor.wa.gov/office/execorders/documents/14-04.pdf

WHEREAS,the University of Washington, as required by statute, recently released its summaryof existing knowledge regarding the causes, impacts, and effects of
climate change on Washington State con including
.
Human activities have increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases to levels unprecedented in at least the past 800,000 years;
Washington has experienced long-term warming, a lengthening of the frost-free season,and more frequent nighttime heat waves. Sea level is rising along most of Washington’s coast, coastal ocean acidity has increased, glacial area and spring snowpack have declined, and peak streamflows in many rivers have shifted earlierin the year

Three key areas of risk, specifically changes in the natural timing of water availability, sea level rise and ocean acidity, and increased forest mortality, will likely bring significant consequences for the economy, infrastructure, natural systems, and human health of the region;and Decisions made today about greenhouse gas emissions will have a significant effect onthe amount of warming that will occur after mid-century;WHEREAS, studies conducted by the University of Oregon found that the effects of climate
change on water supplies, public health, coastal and storm damage, wildfires,and other impacts,will cost Washington almost $10 billion per year after 2020, unless we take additional actions to
mitigate these effects

Link to Washington State Jovernor Jay Inslee Executive orders:

http://www.governor.wa.gov/office/execorders/

Inslee Predicts Washington Will Adopt Controversial Fuel Standard

 

Northwest Public Radio

Fri May 9, 2014

 

For months now, Washington Republicans have been predicting that Governor Jay Inslee will use his executive powers to enact something called a low-carbon fuel standard. Inslee acknowledges he’s looking at ways to do this without legislative approval. Either way he thinks Washington is poised to move forward.

Washington will likely adopt a California-style pollution limit on gasoline and other transportation fuels.
Credit Kristen Steele / Flickr

 

 

 

 

“I think it’s a probability that we will be able to fashion a low carbon fuel standard that will be effective for the state of Washington both for carbon pollution and from a cost-containment standpoint,” Inslee said. “From what I know today, I think it’s a likelihood we will succeed in fashioning that, but I want to reiterate we’re going to have a very sophisticated, thorough evaluation of that before I make that ultimate decision.”

Inslee was speaking on Seattle Channel’s “Civic Cocktail” program. A low-carbon fuel standard is basically a requirement that vehicle fuels be blended with less carbon-intensive alternative fuels. Governor Inslee has promised a “deliberative, public process” as he pursues carbon pollution reduction measures in Washington. Legislative Republicans oppose a fuel standard and say it could drive up the cost of gasoline.

Copyright 2014 Northwest News Networkhttp://nwpr.org/post/inslee-predicts-washington-will-adopt-controversial-fuel-standard

Featured Image -- 4470

Stoner Slut Shaming – Women, Weed and the Great Divide

annajaya67:

Stoner Slut Shaming – Women, Weed and the Great Divide

Originally posted on stonergirlsguide:

By: Tracy Curley
unnamed

Photo by ARTiste 2013

    Why are we trying to control the image and perception of the female cannabis user?

Recently I had a male activist, someone I felt was a friend, hit on me in a gross and insulting way. Later that weekend

when I called him on some bad business, his response was to get angry, and call me a bitch in a room full of people.

So it got me to thinking of the role of women in the cannabis business and how we are perceived not just by men but by each other.

I’ve been reading other articles about the role of women in weed, and frankly I’m as disheartened by what we are saying about each other as I am by the words and actions of the “boys club”.

Articles asking that we stop hyper-sexualizing women and weed, piss me off, because frankly…

View original 553 more words

Medical Marijuana Regulatory System Part II Department of Public Health and Environment Department of Revenue Performance Audit June 2013

State of Colorado

http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/C9112BFFDE1559CE87257BA5007AE40F/$FILE/2194B%20MedMarijPart2%20June%202013.pdf

LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
2013 MEMBERS
Representative Angela Williams
Chair
Senator Steve King
Vice-Chair
Senator Lucia Guzman
Representative Su Ryden
Senator Owen Hill
Representative Jerry Sonnenberg
Representative Dan Nordberg Senator Lois Tochtrop
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
Dianne E. Ray
State Auditor
Monica Bowers
Deputy State Auditor
Eric Johnson
Legislative Audit Manager
Jenny Atchley
Nina Frant
Reed Larsen
Legislative Auditor
Dianne E. Ray, CPA
State Auditor
Office of the State Auditor
June 25, 2013
Members of the Legislative Audit Committee:
This report contains the results of a performance audit of Colorado’s medical marijuana
regulatory system. The audit was conducted pursuant to Section 2-3-103, C.R.S., which
authorizes the State Auditor to conduct audits of all departments, institutions, and agencies of
state government. This second of two reports presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations and the responses of the Department of Public Health and Environment and
the Department of Revenue. The first report was released in March 2013.

Attorney General Eric Holder to Step Down

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/eric-holder-resigning-as-attorney-general-breaking-news/article/405346

By Brett Wilkins     11 mins ago in Politics

Washington – United States Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation on Thursday, ending a tumultuous six-year tenure marked by progress as well as by heated partisan controversy and constant battles with conservatives over his policies and actions.

The nation’s first black attorney general said he will remain in office until a successor is nominated and confirmed, the New York Times reports.

The Justice Department said Holder, 63, finalized his plan to step down during an hour-long conversation with President Barack Obama. Holder is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama cabinet and the fourth-longest tenured attorney general in US history.

Holder’s legacy includes historic progress on civil rights and criminal justice reform issues. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a discriminatory federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He sued North Carolina and Texas over restrictive voter identification laws which disproportionately disenfranchised minority, student and elderly voters.

Holder also launched some 20 federal probes targeting police brutality and other misconduct, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri, where a long legacy of mistrust between the St. Louis suburb’s black residents and nearly all-white police force came to a boil following the recent police shooting of unarmed black teen Michael Brown. He also pressed for a reduction in prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and an end to mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders.

Under Holder’s tenure, the federal prison population decreased for the first time since President Ronald Reagan ramped up the ‘War on Drugs’ and ushered in the era of mass incarceration in the 1980s.

But Holder was also a tremendously controversial and polarizing figure. Some of his actions infuriated conservatives, including his initial decision to try the alleged September 11 plotters in a New York civilian court just blocks from Ground Zero, a decision that was later reversed under intense pressure. He sent the cases back to the Guantánamo Bay military commission system, which has been described as “rigged” by numerous military justice officers who have resigned their posts in protest.

As is the case with President Obama, there is a racial element to at least some of the animus against Holder. He inflamed many conservatives when he delivered a Black History Month address in which he called America a “nation of cowards” for its failure to honestly confront enduring race relation issues.

Holder’s actions often did not help him win conservative friends. His refusal to hand over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal, for example, resulted in a contempt vote by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Even among some progressives, Holder was considered a disappointment on issues including the DOJ’s targeting of state-legal medical marijuana, his 9/11 trials reversal, the government’s refusal to prosecute or even adequately investigate Bush-era torturers, its aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers and his refusal to prosecute Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud which precipitated the 2008 global financial crisis.

Holder still has work to do before stepping down. NPR reports he is expected to release long-awaited racial profiling guidelines for federal agents. He is also expected to notify federal prosecutors that the DOJ will no longer require defendants who plead guilty to waive their right to appeal due to ineffective legal counsel.

Holder has served 26 years at the DOJ, working at nearly every level. He has served as a corruption prosecutor, and was appointed US Attorney for Washington DC by President Bill Clinton. In 1997, he was named deputy attorney general.

“I hope I’ve done a good job,” Holder said in a recent ABC interview. “I’ve certainly tried to do as good a job as I can. There are sacrifices that I’ve had to make, that my family has had to make.”

President Obama is expected to make a statement about Holder’s resignation at the White House Thursday afternoon.

FBI Forces Police Departments Across The US to Keep Quiet About Cellphone Spying Gear

annajaya67:

FBI Forces Police Departments Across The US to Keep Quiet About Cellphone Spying Gear

Originally posted on Nevada State Personnel Watch:

mobile.si

Not only are local police departments across the United States increasingly relying on so-called StingRay devices to conduct surveillance on cell phone users, but cops are being forced to keep quiet about the operations, new documents reveal.

Recent reports have indicated that law enforcement agencies from coast to coast have been turning to IMSI-catcher devices, like the StingRay sold by Florida’s Harris Corporation, to trick ordinary mobile phones into communicating device-specific International Mobile Subscriber Identity information to phony cell towers — a tactic that takes the approximate geolocation data of all the devices within range and records it for investigators. Recently, the Tallahassee Police Department in the state of Florida was found to have used their own “cell site simulator” at least 200 times to collect phone data without once asking for a warrant during a three-year span, and details about the use of StingRays by other law enforcement groups…

View original 736 more words