Archive for 420leaks

12 Steps to Legislative Change in Your State

Wonder how local law enforcement can selectively enforce criminal activity and bypass state drug laws to allow corrupt individuals to get what amounts to more rights than those who obey the law, without any penalty to the officer or the criminals?

For instance, in Washington State, there is no penalty for not determining whether a person is compliant with the medical use chapter, so the law enforcement officer, usually on a local state drug task force team, seizes the cannabis even though RCW 69.51A.040 requires a threshold determination on whether they are compliant or not compliant with the medical marijuana chapter (which still exists) before the plants are seized:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.040

Multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Force and local law enforcment have routinely violated this state statute because the statute contains no state penal or financial penalty provision. A Multi-jurisdictional officer is both a state and federal law enforcement officer, who has no penalty for ignoring state cannabis and other laws… https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-1997-10-08/97-26660

Their number one tool is the use of criminal informants, which can be a lucrative way for greedy individual’s to take advantage of people using a social, mild psychoactive substance. Especially disadvantaged patients, young and new consumers. You just infiltrate the consumer and grower groups online and smoke pot with them for awhile to gain your trust. Think you are immune to that kind of manipulation over time, maybe even years, especially with them using modernized surveillance technology?

Good guidance checklist for future legislative proposals if you can’t convince your state legislators to remove cannabis from your state’s controlled substances act, and you can’t raise enough funds to get an initiative to do it, or file a lawsuit:

1. Set reasonable boundaries for ultimate user possession amounts on plant counts or plant canopy for all adults, respective of established common home horticultural practices for personal use. If you don’t know what an ultimate user is, you should. See comments below. Do it openly and allow ALL stakeholders to participate in the process. Limit home production of concentrates to noncombustable methods. Patient limits should be established by their health care providers as needed to treat their own condition(s) if a minor or if adult limits are not enough.

2. Make sure your limits in the seizures and forfeiture statute are triggered when over the legal possession statute limits, for both individuals and state licensed businesses. A forfeiture limit that is less than the legal amount is a potential for law enforcement abuse with the word of a corrupt paid informant when there is no penalty for their action. Any limit that is lower risks people to losing out to police working with corrupt, paid informants. Any exemption, or promise of a hearing is easily rendered useless without hiring expensive legal help. Especially when they don’t notify you when getting a search warrant from a judge without you being able to face your accusers.

3. Do not create new seizure and forfeiture hearings specifically for cannabis. Set reasonable penalties on state law enforcement officers that are ignoring state cannabis laws instead. Don’t make it easy for prohibition minded federal and state prosecutors that work with the Multi-jurisdictional teams. It creates a mess of counties all running different precedents across the state. With all these and other law enforcement loopholes, it becomes easy to delay or set up otherwise innocent people who don’t know their rights. The main issue is the failure include the penalty on officers failing to follow state law back when the law was first created.

4. Do not create laws that criminalize someone for a good harvest, or for accidental or even intentional seeding of the crop. And don’t penalize the kids beyond confiscating it and offering treatment or education instead of incarceration!

5. De-monetize corrupt paid informants by eliminating financial rewards if amounts seized is not more than personal holding limits, with severe repercussions for targeting patients.

6. Prioritize all commercial industry access around a process similar to organic that reflects established cannabis consumer habits, employs a “get to know your grower” attitude, including opportunities to “try before you buy” quality assurance standard. No more plastic containers, please!

7. Don’t make patient access to doctors, products or plants any more complicated than it needs to be. Patients are already suffering enough. Make it tax free, easy and safely available over the counter in privacy with nothing more than a prescription like document for minors to be able to posses and use, or allow for personal adult plant and possession limits to be increased if medically necessary.

8. Be respective of the connoisseur and social and relaxation qualities for adult uses, including gifting of cannabis plants, seeds and clones in a manner that beer and wine connoisseurs, specialized crafters and home gardeners currently enjoy.

9. Allow for the population to voluntarily participate in medical and scientific study on the plant and all its uses and potential so it complies with the spirit of international drug treaties the Controlled Substances Acts were modeled on.

10. Run separate legislation for greater reform for the entire seizure and forfeiture process. The issue is much bigger than just cannabis. Same thing for reforming, if not completely disbanding the multi-jurisdiction drug task forces.

11. Industrial hemp should be exempted from controls so it complies with the spirit of those treaties as well.

12. NO MORE MONOPOLY SCHEMES

We should not be having to jump through hoops like this for our constitutional right to a plant! If you disagree with any point here, all I ask is tell me what part specifically, be ready to back up your objections with facts and cite your reasons clearly, please!

Why do I and others make this issue so personal? How would you feel when a so called friend was secretly setting you up for their own financial gain or personal glory?

Would you let it go, or try your hardest to make sure it doesn’t happen again when real people are forced to pay the price for bad legislation?

 

Further research:

What is an “Ultimate User” and are they required to register?

Federal law at
21 U.S. Code § 802 – Definitions

“(27) The term “ultimate user” means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/802

In WA State law:

RCW 69.50.101
Definitions.

“(uu) “Ultimate user” means an individual who lawfully possesses a controlled substance for the individual’s own use or for the use of a member of the individual’s household or for administering to an animal owned by the individual or by a member of the individual’s household.”http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.101

RCW 69.50.302
Registration requirements.

(c) The following persons need |not register and may lawfully possess controlled substances under this chapter:

(3) AN ULTIMATE USER or a person in possession of any controlled substance pursuant to a lawful order of a practitioner or in lawful possession of a substance included in Schedule V. (Caps mine for emphasis)https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.302

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/03/the-throwaways

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/25/page15.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2018/04/02/congress-killed-efforts-to-undo-sessionss-civil-forfeiture-expansion-despite-unanimous-house-votes/

https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/12/sessions-lauds-civil-forfeiture/

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/20/1682432/-Asset-Forfeiture-and-Privateering-There-s-A-Reason-You-Feel-Besieged-by-His-Majesty-s-Pirates

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/09/the-new-privateers-civil-forfeiture.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/01/11/congressman-slams-civil-forfeiture-as-a-series-of-government-shakedowns/

http://features.crosscut.com/legal-marijuana-trump-sessions-enforcement

Just Say NO to ID Scanners

The biggest threat to patient and consumer privacy at the licensed cannabis shops is actually not the patient registry, but something much simpler that targets EVERYONE that comes in to the cannabis stores, not just patients.
The ID scanners the shop uses to check your driver’s license does more than check the math for your age. It actually gathers and stores all information on the card.  That way, they get both patients and adult purchasers.  And many of the stores ask for and scan your ID twice:  once at the door and again to log in your purchase.
In Washington state, fhis is not required by law, so you can refuse if they want to push it.
This shop appears to understand, but the vast majority use the scanners…
Why do these ahops need your information?  Are they selling lists of people to marketers?
That might be the best you can hope for.
It may end up being used to prevent your 2nd amendment rights.
Worset case scenario:  There has been a cottage industry for paid police informant rings for years now, who get up to $5000 for every tip leading to a marijuana forfeiture and they get to remain anonymous!  This describes the one for Washington State…
So don’t forget…
Just say NO to ID scanners at the shops!

The Hemp Files

Recently, we at 420leaks filed requests to the Washington State Department of Agriculture over their Industrial Hemp Research Program rule making files, and just last week they gave us a bunch of redacted documents from the Attorney General as part of it.

John Worthington’s copies:
https://app.box.com/s/oj2dlcjfjm0die4vz6lyn6614f0lwy3f

My copies:
https://app.box.com/s/q3vx429e9r83ix6ur3ajrk30eznp55lz

Worthington complained back, saying you can’t redact public rule making files. Their public records officer hemmed and hawed over attorney/client privilege.

So March 28, 2017, Worthington filed a lawsuit against WSDA and had their office served at 2:00 pm.

Thirty-seven minutes later, they emailed us the files with no redactions.

Sent to Worthington:
https://app.box.com/s/phx9u89ocfxq9jcavlp4ktnpcculxrh8

Sent to me:
https://app.box.com/s/1hum7xwek4ggsdz3urjn8fm7dihfbcb7

I guess they figured the corruption was not worth risking their careers over this time.

Why is any of this significant?

Well, for one, it shows us the Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General Staff is not as corrupt as what happened during the I502 rule making and the WSLCB. We have also seen no hidden hand of the Governor’s office this time, unlike what we saw around I502.

However, the process revealed that our group of researchers had it right when we believed the Attorney General’s Office was at least in part responsible for running the rule making in our state. Not so much the state agency heads.

They do this under the guise of the attorney/client privilege, so they can redact it all from public view. We say the AG’s office is partly responsible because we now have two different people from their office with two very different results: one still intent on burning up taxpayer funds to keep their secrets with I502, and one that did the right thing when confronted with the evidence.

What appears to be certain is eliminating the files from the public rule making file is not legal. It completely violates what the spirit of the Public Records Acts stands for; that the people are sovereign and government does not get to decide what is good for us.

RCW 42.56.030
Construction.
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that 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 maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.”

This was why the state settled over a case to make one public records requester go away, back at the end of 2014, that made headlines for the amount of the payout: $192,000 by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. They stand to lose even more with the case filed against them by John Worthington over these same files, with the next hearing coming in early June.

But not this time. Bravo to the WSDA and AG’s office. We at 420leaks give them a gold star…on this one. For now.

Having said that, the agency gets a major reduction in gold stars for lack of privacy protections. Their Industrial Hemp program director, Emily Febles, apparently allowed a breach on at least three of their own employees, potentially exposing their social security numbers, including her own information. This story was learned about in one of our recent requests that came back around the same time as the rule making files. We asked them this question: Did you follow proper protocols and notify all the employees affected within the time required by law? It appears not.  See the email at
https://app.box.com/s/kft0eplpkz0m4v9d20mr4vm9qe8b5l21

Which leads us to the next question. Why are two well known activists in Washington State bitterly fighting to the point of threatening lawsuits against each other, all around a bill that would take industrial hemp out of the state Controlled Substances Act?
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2064&Year=2017

The infighting has led to great confusion in the cannabis community and is a question that led us to asking for communications to the WSDA, one of which revealed the privacy breach. We hope to find answers and more as we go through these files, with more coming, from the WSDA.
https://app.box.com/s/pyao3j0y88ikfw445mgv

But it looks like a battle between those who fear federal interference by removing it from the State’s Controlled Substances Act, and those who feel the plant needs to be descheduled with few regulations. View the public hearing in the Senate Law & Justice Committee back on March 9th.

The bill passed with a unanimous YES vote in both houses of the legislature in spite of efforts to kill or amend the bill by the Washington State Dept of Agriculture and a few from the cannabis community.

Department of Health Confirms it, No Privacy for Patients In State Registry

From: Weeks, Kristi (DOH) <Kristi.Weeks@DOH.WA.GOV>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:43 PM
To: John Novak
Subject: RE: Questions

The traceability system (under the authority of the LCB) lists the purchases and patient identification number. The database (under the authority of the Department of Health) lists the patient information including the patient identification number. The LCB cannot access the database. DOH could receive information from the LCB’s traceability system, and DOH employees with access to the database could connect the two dots. However, we have no reason to do so because an individual patient’s purchasing habits are of no interest to us.

From: John Novak [mailto:changingplanet@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Weeks, Kristi (DOH)
Subject: RE: Questions

Thanks for the quick reply.

One follow up revised question: Can the State determine which products an individual patient has purchased?

“Can you determine which products a patient has purchased? Can I personally? No, I cannot tell what an individual patient has purchased.”

-John

——– Original message ——–
From: “Weeks, Kristi (DOH)” <Kristi.Weeks@DOH.WA.GOV>
Date: 8/10/2016 8:58 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: John Novak <changingplanet@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Questions

See below.

From: John Novak [mailto:changingplanet@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:49 AM
To: Weeks, Kristi (DOH)
Subject: Questions

Ms. Weeks,

If you have a few moments, I have some questions and hope you can provide some clarity. Still a lot of confusion out there.

Do you have a way to track each patient’s purchases? When a patient with a recognition card makes a purchase, the identification number on the card (but no other patient information) is entered into the traceability system in order to audit purchases that are made without sales tax. In other words, for the store to later prove (if requested by the Department of Revenue) that the sale was appropriately sales tax free.

Which information about the transaction does the system provide about the patients’s purchases? The items purchased and the patient’s recognition card number.

Can you determine which products a patient has purchased? Can I personally? No, I cannot tell what an individual patient has purchased.

Are patients in the registry able to get a sales tax discount on all products in any i502 shop, or just the endorsed shops? Just endorsed shops although some stores without an operational endorsement are offering patients a 10% discount in lieu of the sales tax relief.

If just the endorsed shops, then is that only on “medical” products, or any product in the shop? Any product in the shop.

Thank you again for your time. It is most appreciated.

-John Novak

206-915-3450

Court witnesses requested for Worthington VS WSLCB August 17th

In late 2014, a Thurston County Superior court judge ruled that the WSLCB violated the Washingtin State Open Public Meetings Act at least 17 different times by holding secret meetings with law enforcement and the substance abuse community.

 Shortly after, John Worthington and others with the 420leaks project filed public records requests asking for the complete i502 rule making files.  These files must be mainatined by law.  See RCW 34.05.370
By their own words, they no longer have the original file, have deleted and altered files in what Worthington believes is a clear case of the agency once again running roughshod over the Sunshine laws in our state.
He tried to get a resolution by filing an administrative appeal directly to the WSLCB, but they dismissed his claims out of hand.
Thurston County Superior Court ruled that decision was “arbitrary and caprecious” and ordered the WSLCB to hear the case again.
With no legal rule making file to work with, Worthington is asking the court to make a desicion instead.
If there is no valid rule making file for I-502, then it follows that the rules are also invalid.
The court has an overhead projector that will be used. The court of public opinion must be there to witness the fact that Worthington did challenge the rules for I-502, so the Court of Appeals cannot bury the rules validity challenge.
The oral arguments in this case will be heard
at the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II on August 17th.
Washington State Court of Appeals
Division II at 9:00 AM950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402

More information is available here:
Read John Worthington’s motions here:
*****

RCW 34.05.370

Rule-making file.

(1) Each agency shall maintain an official rule-making file for each rule that it (a) proposes by publication in the state register, or (b) adopts. The file and materials incorporated by reference shall be available for public inspection.
(2) The agency rule-making file shall contain all of the following:
(a) A list of citations to all notices in the state register with respect to the rule or the proceeding upon which the rule is based;
(b) Copies of any portions of the agency’s public rule-making docket containing entries relating to the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(c) All written petitions, requests, submissions, and comments received by the agency and all other written material regarded by the agency as important to adoption of the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(d) Any official transcript of oral presentations made in the proceeding on which the rule is based or, if not transcribed, any tape recording or stenographic record of them, and any memorandum prepared by a presiding official summarizing the contents of those presentations;
(e) All petitions for exceptions to, amendment of, or repeal or suspension of, the rule;
(f) Citations to data, factual information, studies, or reports on which the agency relies in the adoption of the rule, indicating where such data, factual information, studies, or reports are available for review by the public, but this subsection (2)(f) does not require the agency to include in the rule-making file any data, factual information, studies, or reports gathered pursuant to chapter 19.85 RCW or RCW34.05.328 that can be identified to a particular business;
(g) The concise explanatory statement required by RCW 34.05.325(6); and
(h) Any other material placed in the file by the agency.
(3) Internal agency documents are exempt from inclusion in the rule-making file under subsection (2) of this section to the extent they constitute preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, except that a specific document is not exempt from inclusion when it is publicly cited by an agency in connection with its decision.
(4) Upon judicial review, the file required by this section constitutes the official agency rule-making file with respect to that rule. Unless otherwise required by another provision of law, the official agency rule-making file need not be the exclusive basis for agency action on that rule.