Archive for Medical Proof

Just Say No to Drug War Bribes!


Volume 73 | Number 3 Article 5
Myth of Dual Sovereignty: Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement and Double Jeopardy – Sandra Guerra

Read/Download the entire document with references on our 420leaks database at


“B. Encouraging States to Adopt Specific Laws and Policies Using Financial Carrots and Sticks

Because states and localities have not always shown an eagerness to submit to the control of federal agencies, the federal government has found it necessary to entice their cooperation. The drug task forces encourage participation in two ways. First, they offer state and local agents the opportunity to work with federal agents on equal terms, thereby elevating the status of state and local agents. Thus, state and local criminal justice personnel are less likely to resent the federal presence. Second, the federal government recognizes that generous remuneration decreases power struggles. The federal anti-drug effort makes substantial sums available to state and local governments following the federal plan. If the President’s 1995 budget request is fully funded, state and local governments will receive roughly $811million. The timing of the drive for federalization has coincided with a period of economic hardship in most states. By offering financial incentives, the federal government has effectively dismantled potential political opposition to its growing influence over state and local policy making. To the contrary, state and local agencies consider themselves the beneficiaries of federal largess. To maximize their intake of federal dollars, state and local agencies seek ways to become involved in federal investigations.
The expansion of federal influence also coincides with a self-perpetuating cycle of political rhetoric that has fed a public frenzy over drug crimes. In turn, public opinion has justified even stronger rhetoric and broader policies. In this environment, any dissent from proposals for broader law enforcement efforts and more severe penalties is widely viewed as political suicide. Neither state nor federal leaders dare come forward with objections, even if the objections are based on federalism concerns rather than substantive policy concerns. Issues of federalism give way under the weight of public fear of crime and the states’ needs for economic aid.”


Still influencing policy to this day.  Here are links to the current version of the WA state bill, HB 1095 that would allow sick kids to use nonsmokable cannabis medication in schools.  It was first introduced in 2017.

As of this post, they haven’t passed it yet because of fears over losing federal grants. They even have language to end the program if the feds even hint at withholding those grants. It’s sad…

Spelled out in the fiscal note. No threat to health or public safety, just the fear of loosing up to nearly a BILLION just in federal education grants because of schedule 1 language..

This in a state that has clearly stated medical use since 1980 in the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act, that was quickly defunded.

The Legislators openly declares medical evidence exists at RCW 69.51A.005
Purpose and intent.
(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) There is medical evidence…

Money over real people, in this case it is sick, disabled and terminally ill children’s education.  The leadership in these parties need to go back to basics…

Washington State Constitution

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights…


It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

Is Legal Marijuana Safe? Independent study says no.

April 6, 2015
For immediate release

Is Legal Marijuana Safe? Independent study says no.

Recreational users and medical patients to picket recreational outlet store in Seattle

Along with the legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington came reassurances that the products offered to the public for consumption would be lab tested for safety and consistency.

A recent study by a Washington state physician that is documented by Seattle Times reporter Evan Bush shows this is far from the case. The doctor says, “The public is being lied to about the state marijuana being properly tested for safety. It is not!”

Two weeks ago emergency trauma physician Gil Mobley, MD, purchased seven various marijuana products from two different stores in the Seattle area licensed by the state to sell recreational marijuana. The samples were delivered to five different Seattle area marijuana testing labs and one in Portland to undergo an extensive battery of tests.

“I was shocked at the results as every citizen from the state should be, especially those who have been misled into believing that they are consuming safe and quality tested cannabis products. Anything coming out of these stores should be considered unsafe until proven otherwise, and industry is years away from that goal.”

Specifically, the study showed an alarming fivefold variance in the amount of psychoactive THC between the state approved labs performing the testing on the same product. That is a 500% difference.

Additionally, four labs found four different retained solvents in concentrates that none of the other 5 labs found: methanol, isopropanol, acetone and alkane, all classified as poisons.

Mobley said that equally as disturbing is the fact of 248 pesticides are approved to use on cannabis plants in the state yet there is not one lab in Washington capable of testing for these poisons. He was astonished that this was “news” to the state’s marijuana examiner, Tim Gates, only two weeks ago. (The samples had to be transported illegally to a neighboring state for pesticide testing.)

Steve Sarich, long time patient advocate, agreed, criticizing the agency in charge of regulating the recreational drug.  “The Liquor Control Board is telling the legislature that patients ‘will be safer’ if they are forced into the recreational system because their products are being ‘tested’. In fact, not one of these products has ever been tested for dangerous pesticides.  The reality is that patients’ lives could very well be put in danger by using these any of these products.  It’s time for the LCB to start telling the truth to the press and to the legislature about their total lack of pesticide testing.”

Dr. Mobley adds, “Until the state institutes a quality assurance plan for these labs and begins proficiency testing for accuracy, my advice for the recreational consumers and medical cannabis patients alike is to stay away from the stores and don’t use any cannabis products unless you know exactly who grew or produced them.”

“That’s the epitome of hypocrisy; the legislature should be ashamed of themselves for not protecting the public! This is all about money and it is reprehensible for public health to take a back seat to state profits,” Mobley concluded.

The pot protest will take place on Tuesday morning April 7, 2015, at 11 AM in front of Uncle Ike’s recreational marijuana store at 2310 East Union Street in downtown Seattle. The event has been timed it to coincide with proposed legislation in Olympia sharply restricting the current provisions for medical marijuana patients.

For additional information please contact Dr. Gil Mobley, MD on cell 417-848-6100 or at

What is a 60 day supply? 6 plants is not even close

There are 3 main bills in front of the Washington State Legislature:  5887, 6178 and 2149.

All of these have one thing in common:  they reduce possession amounts and plant limits.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is the State went through a very exhaustive process to determine what a 60 day supply in in 2008.  The original I-692 initiative was in 1998 and lacked clarity on this issue.

Here’s the files on this 2008 process, showing that even the 15 plants patients have now is really not enough.

So who is coming up with these plant count numbers that are restrictive and arbitrary?

Why, law enforcement, of course!

This first file is a draft press release letter.  The best of the other files is installment #3.

DOH 6032 Limits Draft by 420leaks



Segment 001 of DIRM Search_158745_pdf-r by 420leaks

Segment 002 of DIRM Search_158745_pdf-r by 420leaks

Segment 003 of DIRM Search_158745_pdf-r by 420leaks

Segment 004 of DIRM Search_158745_pdf-r by 420leaks

ESSB 5034 SR_2013-60925 SEGMENT 5 NMR by 420leaks

State of Washington vs William Kurtz: Huge Win for Medical Cannabis in Washington State

By John Novak

The Washington State Supreme Court announced on Thursday, September 19th, 2013 of it’s 5-4 decision to allow people that choose cannabis to present a common law medical necessity defense along with the protections of the medical cannabis act.

This means that a new trial will have to begin if prosecutors on the case want any chance of a conviction on William Kurtz, a wheelchair bound medical cannabis patient with multiple sclerosis.  This was a huge win for the defense as it is extremely unlikely any jury would convict him at this point under the terms of this ruling.

He was originally found guilty in the 2010 trial, but only because the court stripped him of his right to assert medical defenses to the jury.

The decision was a huge win for patients in many ways and here is my opinion of it.  Read it for yourself and tell me if you disagree.

  • It was recognized that medical patients and their providers under the Medical Cannabis Act (RCW 69.51a) who are in compliance with the regulations have full criminal arrest, prosecution and asset forfeiture protection.
  • A state search warrant can not be issued based on cannabis without evidence that the person is outside of the regulations of the Medical Cannabis Act.
  • Patients with a legitimate medical condition can assert a Common Law Medical Necessity defense if they have a legitimate medical condition and are outside of the regulations of the Medical Cannabis Act, similar to how patients under the Medical Cannabis Act were for years only protected by a very weak affirmative defense, meaning you will have to prove it in court.
  • The Common Law Medical Necessity defense is found to be consistent with constitutional, federal and state laws.
  • The State of Washington by vote of the people, by statutes passed by our state Legislators and by the Courts all find that cannabis does, in fact, have medical value, and it’s continued placement as a Schedule One Controlled Substance is only to satisfy politics, not reality.
  • That the benefits of personal cannabis cultivation for its legitimate medical use of cannabis outweighs all perceived harms to society.
  • The Common Law Medical Defense can be used for a much larger variety of medical uses than the small number protected under the Medical Cannabis Act. PTSD is the first that comes to mind.
  • That ANY attempt to remove these rights from patients or placing financial barriers on access by Legislators and Law Enforcement will now be easily seen as purely political and financially motivated, not based in Humanitarian Compassion, a principle foundation upon which these laws exist.

In theory, this makes Washington State the world leader in medical cannabis laws designed to protect patients from arrest and prosecution without forcing people into a registered database, treating us like sex offenders.  Every state with a patient registry has been compromised and used to target individuals, even those in compliance with state laws.

Thank you, William Kurtz and his legal representatives. And most especially, thank you, Washington State Supreme Court for your historic 5-4 decision.  It is a big step in the right direction.

We as patients must not let the state take us back in time and force large numbers of people or their providers to be dragged though the court system for growing their own medicine as nature intended.

State vs Kurtz Appeal 09192013 by 420leaks

United States Patent #6,630,507 – Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

United States Patent #6,630,507
October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants


Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##