In State v. Williams the Washington court articulated its reasoning as follows: "The decision of whether there is an accepted medical use for particular drugs has been vested in the Legislature by the Washington Constitution. The Legislature has determined that marijuana has no accepted medical use. Williams has no fundamental right to have marijuana as his preferred treatment over the State's objections. Further, if the debate over medical treatment belongs in the political arena, it makes no sense for the courts to fashion a defense whereby jurors weigh experts' testimony on the medical uses of a Schedule I drug. Otherwise, each trial would become a battlefield of experts. But the Legislature has designated the battlefield as the Board of Pharmacy. The Washington Constitution has not enabled each individual to be the final arbiter of the medicine he is entitled to take--it is the Legislature that has been authorized to make laws to regulate the sale of medicines and drugs. Seeley v. State,x 132 Wn.2d 776, 940 P.2d 604 (1997) by implication, overrules both Cole and Diana. Thus, our holding is that with respect to Schedule I drugs, there is not a defense of medical necessity." State v. Williams, 93 Wn. App. 340, 968 P.2d 26, 30 (1998), rev den 138 Wn.2d 1002, 984 P.2d 1034 (1999).