Yes Dominic it is not perfect and you are right generally that is not the most important thing.

But with something like this particular bill it needs to be perfect.

If this bill passes and it does not work out well (because it IS ill-conceived, not written well) it could lead to a quick repeal as well as make it even harder for other legalization efforts around the country.

Whichever big state or city leads the way, they HAVE to do it right, or it will hurt the cause more than help it.

I don't get how one ounce is too restrictive... thats a lot of damn weed! and its not like you couldn't go to the store for more, plus 24 oz for medical mj patients should hold just about anyone over, cheech and chong included, for like 6 months minimum (unless you're dealing that is)

So ride a bike instead.

What whiners ...

Will @#3,
Bicyclists are oblicated to follow all traffic laws, including those regarding intoxication ("are obligated to" != "do", of course). Your broader point about whiners is entirely correct.

In before the SensibleWashington trolls show up.
Thanks Dom. I mean, Alison laid all this out when she announced the initiative, so people could have paid some attention there, or given a reasonable response. Instead we have histrionic vitriol and "trust me I'm a lawyer" from Doug and co. Good job guys. Way to stay focused on the goal of keeping thousands of Washingtonians out of jail each year.

i'm highly skeptical of the validity of the blood test. i read a letter from a medical marijuana patient who tested @ 13 (5 is the limit) 15 hours after smoking. looks like we are giving the cops another hammer to pound us w/ whenever they feel like it. and don't give me that probably cause bullshit. this is america. cops have probable cause whenever they say to the judge that they felt they had it. the interpretations of this law that i've seen basically is that it makes it legal to be a pot smoker or be a driver. not smoke or drive. but be a smoker or be a driver. that's a bad law & a tool that we can't trust the cops w/ at all.

Here's a question: Say we legalize MJ here in Washington state. Leaving aside the conflict with the Federal laws for the moment, wouldn't MJ arrests actually go up then, because people would still be growing/selling/smoking so-called 'bootleg' MJ?

I mean, from all the MJ that's around right now, the state receives no tax dollars. But for tax revenue to start rolling into state coffers, wouldn't they have to crack down on the citizens' grow ops? Wouldn't they have to crack down on the people still buying from the black market (which is, at present, the ONLY market)?

See what I'm saying? I don't want anybody's head cracked over MJ, but my concern over legalization is that, once it's in the Hands of The Man, won't The Man really really want all that juicy tax money, at the expense of us poor punters who've been smoking the stuff right along?

This does not surprise me in this day and age of privilege .... not one bit.

It never ceases to amaze me the vehemence with which people can disagree with others who share common goals. The curse of being a "liberal" city is that the lefties are constantly at each others throats.

Well put, Dom. The important numbers are at the top of the page, ticking away; NOT the .5 nanograms or whatever bullshit. That can all be modified down the road.

@4: Nope.

I don't understand how they can see the current situation as better than the proposed situation. Because that is exactly what they are advocating for.

This sounds like a good law.

@7 You must be smoking some good shit...

Boy, when I see someone use the word "rape" to describe a political/social issue, I just drop everything I'm doing & hang on their every word. If I don't, surely, humanity will be destroyed.

New Approach Washington campaign director Alison Holcomb says: "Nobody likes people driving a two-ton piece of metal on the public highway while they are impaired and putting people at risk of death or serious injury. That is not acceptable in our society."
Can you remind us who exactly is being "histrionic" here, Dominic?

Here are two scientific studies about cannabis and automobile crashes:
"There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs - and may reduce those risks."
M. Bates et. al. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.”
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content…

"The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.
G. Chesher et. al. "Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents."
http://www.amazon.com/Cannabis-Cannabino…

You can find all this information - and more - at www.patientsagainsti502.org

Dominic - there are several doctors, lawyers and patient advocates who are willing to go on record should you decide to cover this issue in an unbiased fashion from here on out.

The feds will not go for this and will come in to stop the legal cannabis stores where people are supposed to go buy their ounces. If that happened, all we would be left with is 28 grams decriminalized, but no legal way to produce it or purchase it, and the DUI nanogram limit that is "0" for anyone under the age of 21, and "5" for anyone over the age of 21.

I have been keeping up with the Patients against New Approach Washington through their facebook paqe for several months now, and I really have not seen any patients comment that they are concerned, as this article points out, that this law only allows adults to buy and possess one ounce of pot. I haven't noticed any comments about the fact that I-502 doesn't allow people to grow pot at home, either, like this article claims. Patients know they would be unaffected by these issues, so it seems disingenuous that these items are included in the list of the patients concerns.

You are correct that Patients Against New Approach Washington are very concerned about the DUI part, and we thank you very much for the plug for our website! We are very disappointed that the writers and funders of this law have decided that patients in our state have to lose more of their rights in trade for a law that will not accurately test for impairment. What is frustrating as a patient, is being told to accept this loss of my rights when the reason I have to lose this right is a fraud, and the writers and the funders know this. There is no basis in science that can show a patient is impaired at 5 nanograms, but it was added to the law to ease voters fears, so the law can pass. Promoters of I-502 claim that law enforcement need probable cause to pull someone over, but a tail light out can get you pulled over, and patients frequently smell of cannabis, having recently picked up their medication, so the smell alone is enough to give police reason to believe the patient may be intoxicated, prompting a blood test. As the article points out, the way most of this will be handled is the same as it is now, that is not what would be changed. What would change is that the patient who would most likely test higher than 5 nanograms will no longer have a defense from being guilty of a DUI as they do currently, because currently there is no amount specified for a limit.

@15, cite all the research you want, but I can assure you that I have been stoned enough before that I was totally incapable of safely driving a vehicle. And I know lots of other people who have too. There is no way you can convince me, or the general public, that it is perfectly safe to drive while high as a kite.

As a strong supporter of full legalization, I am also realistic enough to understand that there is no way we will ever pass this in WA or any other state without some sort of DUI component. We can quibble about the details of the exact level at which this should occur, but you are living in a fantasy if you think you'll ever get legalization without a DUI provision of some sort. Historically, the level of alcohol necessary to be considered impaired has changed over time, and is different in different states. It is reasonable to expect the same with marijuana. If they set a limit that you don't like, advocate to change the limit; don't kill the law entirely.

@15, I think you bring up a very important point and it deserves serious attention. I'm very curious, however, how you respond to @12. Despite the flaws regarding DUI, is the current situation better than the situation would be if the initiative passed? If so, how?

Let's say it does pass. Wouldn't you then be able to address the problems regarding DUI and home growing restrictions?

In Cali where I live, many of the medical cannabis folks were against the legalization initiative in 2010 because it would cause the price of marijuana to drop. Perhaps similar motives here?

@18 - Many problems can be addressed (and improved) down the road. Home growing is one of those things, so is the one ounce limit. The DUI statute is a totally different story. Once a THC level is set in stone, it will only be revised downward - much like BAC has been ratcheted down from .10 to .08. Fighting to raise the THC level implemented by I-502 would be political suicide. That's why it is so important to get this particular provision right the first time.

Is the situation better now than it would be under I-502? That depends entirely on whether you use cannabis for recreational purposes, medicinal purposes or if you are under 21. If you are over 21, use cannabis for recreational purposes and don't plan on possessing more than one ounce - you might benefit from I-502. But if you are under 21 or want to grow your own or want to buy in bulk or you are a medical cannabis patient, you will be WORSE OFF under I-502 than you are today.

Current state law for possession is a misdemeanor for up to 40 grams. Under this bill, anything over 28 grams is a FELONY!

Why was this necessary?

What possible reason could you have for making penalties harsher than current state law?

Can you see where some may question the ethical standards of I-502's author(s) and supporters?

@21: "Can you see where some may question the ethical standards of I-502's author(s) and supporters?"

Sorry, no. What I do see is a bunch of self-interested, pull the ladder up after they've climbed it, bullshit from some in the med-MJ community.

Fifteen years ago it seemed like med MJ might serve as the camel's nose under the tent of prohibition and that med MJ might incrementally lead to other drug reforms.

Now, however, we have some in the med community who are little more than self-promoting idiots actively working to thwart serious drug policy reform under the guise of protecting patients. They're lying sacks of shit who are trying to protect their little fiefdom at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of others who suffer each and every year under prohibition. If they won't look out for the greater good, fuck 'em.

Dominic you're not quite being completely forthright with the information you're spreading (it's not entirely surprising considered you used to work for Alison Holcomb at the ACLU);

"It separates active metabolites, which indicate inebriation, from THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite that remains in the system for days or weeks. In other words, it tests to see whether people are currently stoned, not simply whether they've used marijuana in the past month."

That is completely misleading. The 5 ng limit is in no way an indicator of someone being "currently stoned", as a patient or regular smoker can stop smoking for 10, 12 hours or more and still fail the test easily (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201…).

This is not only an extremely unfair system, but this exact limit was rejected because of a lack of consensus in a working group commissioned by the Colorado Legislature specifically to cover this issue: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201…

For those under 21 it would be a complete zero tolerance policy (recklessly refusing to acknowledge that you can be a patient in this state under 21), meaning patients ages 16-20 could fail a DUI test days after smoking. This seems to be a mandate that lacks compassion. Taking away the driving privileges of smokers, even when they're not impaired, is not fair policy. Individuals can claim that if you drive fine, then you'll be fine, but that's clearly not true when you give police officers such power over cannabis consumers, who many of them harass to begin with (and with I-502's strict liability limit, if you test over the 5 ngs you're completely void of any legal defense).

For those questioning whether the situation is worse now than it would be under I-502, the answer is clearly yes. For one, the distribution system is legally void as it's instantly preemptable by the Federal Government, for a number of reasons (one of the most obvious being that it forces the state to collect taxes from an item on the Federal Controlled Substance List). So, what you're left with after an easy victory for the feds in court is a legal exception to possess an ounce and a terrible DUID statute that will prosecute a large amount of innocent drivers and patients, wherein most instances getting a DUID is far worse than getting caught with an ounce or less of cannabis.

I think people need to look deeply into this initiative and the science behind their proposed DUID statutes before putting their support behind this initiative (here's an interesting article on the subject by Seattle Weekly Columnist and Tokeofthetown.com Founder Steve Elliott; http://www.thejointblog.com/naw-dui-limi…). If I-502 is accepted as a reasonable method to reform our cannabis laws, it will set the entire movement backs years.

gnossos @22 ftw!

For once, Dom, can you just give us an accurate, factual analysis rather than pushing some fucking agenda?

Face it - the authors of I-502 fucked up by including the 5 nanogram clause. This initiative does in fact make the situation worse than it is today (at least if you live in Seattle, where we don't prosecute for simple possession, and pretty much anyone can get an MMJ card).

Bummer.

@ 25 Without that DUI provision it might not had a chance at passing. It seems simple, if you are high don't drive.

The visit was useful. Content was really very informative. visit giftwithlove dot com(Online Florists).

@26: if you are high don't drive

Wrong, the initiative says if you've smoked weed anytime in the past week, don't drive.

This law is fucking disaster. No one who supports MJ rights should vote for this.

@28 sounds like plenty of people are though

@26 you say "Without that DUI provision it might not had a chance at passing...."

That is an opinion that is being forwarded by the promoters of this initiative. In reality, that DUI provision will be the fatal flaw, and this "legalization initiative" will not pass because of it.

P.S. The newapproachwa.org web site claims that science has demonstrated that THC impairs driving skills. That's not true.

The only studies that show any THC effects are those using computer simulations. Studies involving actual drivers behind the wheels of actual cars show that while stoned drivers often self-report that their driving seems impaired, their actual performance is as good or better than "sober" drivers.

@30 - They back it up with polling, or did you miss that part?

I love how the mmj patients think they're the only people who smoke every day. There are thousands more users than just the mmj patients, and they, and the non-smokers who think Prohibition needs to end, support this initiative.

@10: That can all be modified down the road.

Once the 5 ng DUI threshold is established, there's no way in hell the limit will ever be increased, regardless of what the science says. It's just not politically feasible.

And the fact that 5 ng doesn't meet any scientific standard of impairment is legally irrelevant to anyone seeking to challenge a DUI arrest. The law is the law.

@22 - Patients Against I-502 in no way opposes legalization. In fact, many of us have personally pounded the pavement collecting signatures for legalization initiatives.

Unfortunately, I-502 is not legalization. It is an extension of prohibition. We cannot support a law that empowers police and prosecutors to harass, unnecessarily confine, wrongfully convict and brand cannabis users with a criminal record for life.

in addition to sending SOBER drivers to jail for DUI, I-502 actually requires licensed producers, processors and distributors to admit -in writing- to conspiring to break FEDERAL drug laws. It then requires state officials to cooperate with FEDERAL law enforcement.

You might as well call I-502 the "law enforcement wish list."

I haven't smoked in years, but way back when, the joke was (and it really wasn't a joke) that the police could spot us a mile away on the highway. We were the ones driving 45 mph in a 65 mph zone on the expressway.

Unlike alcohol, which impairs your ability, including your ability to assess your ability, MJ tells you your ability is impaired probably even more so than it is.

All intoxicants are not the same. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant that affects all the tissue in your body and significantly slows reflexes. MJ is a hypnotic and fucks with a different part of your brain, but doesn't have the same biochemical effect on nerves. You're much more likely to have a decent self-assessment of your capabilities on MJ.

That said, the shit you kids smoke today is probably stronger than the hashish we got back then.

@4 on roads maybe. Not on bike trails.

P.S.: As to feds showing up ...

I know exactly how many feds there are, and how many are assigned to WA, OR, and CA.

Not that many.

It's not the feds, it's the Cities, Counties, and States providing policing and court resources to them to bust people for MJ.

End that, end that overtime, zero out those budget lines, and require a 2/3 majority vote of the people to authorize overtime for helping feds bust anyone for MJ.

Problem solved. Trillions of tax dollars saved.

5 ng/ml active THC is a fairly conservative cutoff, but it could have been worse.

Based on the pharmacokinetic data I've seen, the populations that would have 5 ng/ml in their blood are 1) people who have smoked within the last 1-4 hours, 2) people who have eaten some in the past 2-8 hours, and 3) regular, fairly heavy user, pretty much all the time up until several days' abstinence.

Obviously the latter group is the most problematic (the other two are very likely impaired, and I don't really have a problem with them getting hit with a DUI if they are.) However, chronic users at that level are much less likely to be impaired at levels near the 5 ng/ml cutoff, and thus less likely to be pulled over in the first place, as Dominic points out.

The pro se DUI provision is definitely not ideal, but I wouldn't let it be a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Decriminalizing 1 ounce isn't groundbreaking (up to one ounce is a violation carrying a fine, not a crime, in Oregon).

I think others are right that, in light of the tightening of other restrictions, the net effect of this initiative could easily be negative with respect to enforcement.

@25 - I-502's DUI provisions have nothing to do with being "high" or "stoned" (as Dominic Holden would have you believe).

I-502 makes it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your blood, even if you are not impaired in the slightest. For those under 21, I-502 implements a level of 0.00. That means an unimpaired designated driver could be convicted of DUI, simply for being in the presence of secondhand marijuana smoke.

How do you feel about having a needle stuck into your arm and your body tissue being extracted by police, after being pulled over for a brake light being out on your way home from buying your legal ounce? The moment police smell marijuana, you can guarantee they will be hauling your happy ass off to the hospital for a blood test. YES, IT HAPPENS NOW.

The key difference between the current laws and I-502 is the burden of proof required to CONVICT you of DUI. Under I-502, prosecutors will not have to prove you were impaired (as they do today). They will only have to prove that you exceeded a 5 ng/ml limit if your are 21 and over or a 0.00 limit if you are under 21. Again, you can be stone-cold sober and get a DUI, simply because of the contents of your blood.

Any money saved by I-502's exception for one ounce will be immediately depleted by blood testing and court costs associated with convicting innocent people of DUI.

The above comment was directed at 26 (Democrat1234) NOT 25 (seandr)

@19: No, there is no profit motive behind opposing I-502 on behalf of Patients Against I-502. This is strictly an ethical position to oppose re-criminalizing MMJ patients.

@3: "Whiners" - really? I happen to know patients that are alive today because they chose a medicinal herb called cannabis for their treatment. Without their medicine, some will die.

The per se statute sets automatic guilt; and 5ng/mL is too low - all the evidence confirms this. Any patient found guilty under this new statute will be deprived of their life saving medicine through mandatory drug rehabilitation, and drivers license suspension as an automatic penalty; not to mention potential finical ruin associated with fines, lawyer, and court fees.

Zero tolerance for under 21 means anyone in the vicinity of cannabis smoke could test above 0.00 - without having used at all. This is the college age set, who will be exposed to marijuana use. Aside from the hardships mentioned in the above paragraph, this segment of the population stands to lose education funding for being found guilty of traces of a federally illegal substance in their blood stream.

To say that police would need "probable cause" is also BS. To ignore that profiling occurs is to remain woefully ignorant of reality. We know that marijuana use is heaviest among whites, yet 80% of marijuana incarcerations are minorities, specifically blacks.

Why the racial disparity, if not for profiling from law enforcement?

For further proof that probable cause is a fallacy, please read: < http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime… >

I-502 is an extension of prohibition, not an answer to it. If it were to pass, we would have decrim for < 28 grams, with no legal means of obtaining marijuana. Anyone applying for a "legal" cannabis business license will be admitting that they are about to commit a federal crime. The proposed taxation levels, combined with federal preemption will only exacerbate an illegal black market, not deter it.

This creates a perfect storm to ramp up the war on marijuana in Washington State, while providing law enforcement with a tool to find "suspects". No self-respecting legalization advocate can support this bill.

@40@43@44 -- I don't buy it. There's been a lot of people smoking a lot of pot in this state for a lot of years. Where're all these supposed cases of happy asses getting hauled off to the hospital to get their blood drawn? I think you're brewing a tempest in a teapot.

@45
Somehow setting a limit higher than current law (5ng per L is more than "any") means more people will get busted, in their eyes. No mention of the current law and how many get busted for DUI in the same way as they would under 502.

@45 - Don't believe people are getting pulled over for brake lights being out and hauled off to the hospital to get their blood drawn? Here ya go:
http://www.thejointblog.com/naw-dui-limi…
See the example of the local patient who was pulled over after a day spent trimming her personal crop. Her taillight was out, the cop smelled pot and she's now getting bent over a barrel by the Skagit County courts. NOTE: The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) in this case agreed that this driver was unimpaired.

The only difference between the above scenario and what will happen once I-502 is passed is that prosecutors currently have to PROVE the above patient was impaired. Under I-502, this patient will be automatically found guilty due to her blood reading of 18.5 ng/ml.

Let's stop and think about this for a second. 18.5 ng/ml and the DRE said she was unimpaired! That's almost 4 times the limit proposed in I-502. If this THC level is truly "analogous" to BAC like I-502 supporters suggest - this patient would probably be dead, not standing on the roadside completing sobriety tests with the DRE's approval.

Still not convinced? See the independent analysis from 2 local DUI defense attorneys here:
http://www.seattlecriminallawyerblog.com…
http://www.seattlecriminallawyerblog.com…

Once again, all this information can be found at our website: www.patientsagainsti502.org

It's time that sponsors of I-502 quit pushing their junk science to throw medical cannabis patients to the wolves simply to get their idea of legalization passed by the voters

There are plenty of REAL scientific studies out their that totally contradict the idea that you can judge impairment simply by calculating the THC level in a driver's blood

The authoritative Consensus Report of NIDA’s Research Technology Branch (“Drug Concentrations and Driving Impairment (published in the Journal of American Medical Association) said:

“What is known about correlations between driving impairment and drug concentration? – Except for ethanol, determinations of drug concentrations in body fluids are at present of limited value for establishing driving impairment..."

The blood concentration of THC is meaningless as any predictor of psychomotor effect. Dr. Barry Beyerstein of Simon Frazer University said, "The relationship between THC (the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) levels in blood and impairment of eye-hand coordination, reaction time and other components of driving skill is not a straightforward one. Also, individual differences of impairment among different users are so great that it would be very difficult to set a fair legal standard of impairment that would apply to everyone." This is the same conclusion which the U.S. Department of Transportation reached.

The FDA approved package insert language for Marinol that driving and operating heavy equipment after use of synthetic Delta 9 THC is permissible. So will everyone on Marinol be guilty of DUI as well, even though the FDA believes that it's safe?

National Highway Safety Study 1993
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study titled "Marijuana and Actual Driving performance" (published November 1993), "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small" and "Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving, whereas THC encourages greater caution."

According to this study, it is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

A 1993 study of cannabis and driving (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993) which was sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Safety Traffic Administration included a review of the literature. The authors' comments in summary of their literature review and of their own results include the following:

The foremost impression one gains from reviewing the literature is that no clear relationship has ever been demonstrated between marijuana smoking and either seriously impaired driving performance or the risk of accident involvement. The epidemiological evidence, as limited as it is, shows that the combination of THC and alcohol is over- represented in injured and dead drivers, and moreso in those who actually caused the accidents to occur. Yet there is little if any evidence to indicate that drivers who have used marijuana alone are any more likely to cause serious accidents than drug-free drivers.

The U.S. Transportation study results were more than confirmed by a 1998 Australian study of 2500 injured drivers which found that drivers who use marijuana are less likely to cause road accidents than drunk drivers or even drug-free drivers. This goes even further than the Australian Government Report (1996) "There is no controlled epidemiological evidence that cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents."

A study from Tilburg, The Netherlands reported in May 2004, "Researchers at the St. Elisabeth Hospital in the Netherlands estimated the association between drug use and motor vehicle accidents by conducting a prospective observational case-controlled study. Cases were drivers involved in road crashes requiring hospitalization. Controls were drivers recruited at random while driving on public roads.

Authors found that driver's risk for road trauma significantly increased with the use of benzodiazepines and alcohol. Increased risks, although not statistically significant, were also assessed for drivers using amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates. The authors concluded that,
"No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis."

I care for an 18 year old patient with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). Under this law, with a zero percent tolerance, he would have to stop using his medication or stop driving himself to the doctor.

The truth here is that thousands of medical marijuana patients across the state will be criminalized the day this legislation is passed. Few patients will ever have less than 5 ng/ml in their systems. They will have no defense in court. They will have to stop medicating, stop driving, or risk jail. On average, a DUI costs a driver around $10,000.

With thousands of medical marijuana patients on the roads here in Washington every day, where are all of the traffic accidents being caused by their 5 ng/ml impairment? Are we passing this new DUI limit to solve a public safety problem that simply doesn't exist?

It's time that Dominic and Holcomb started telling the public the truth about their intentions. They are happy to throw medical cannabis patients under the bus if they think it will get them the votes they need to pass their seriously flawed legislation. Where's the compassion for patients in this law?

Steve Sarich
CannaCare
steve@cannacare.org

@47 -- So why is that patient getting bent over a barrel under the CURRENT law? She should walk, right? The prosecutor never should have even charged her with DUI in the first place, right? Especially with the DRE saying she was unimpaired and such.

Sorry, not seeing how this helps your argument.

I wish I could post Figure 1 from this paper here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20112…

Because it really illustrates how quickly plasma THC (not metabolites) levels peak and recede after smoking. The legend may be somewhat helpful:

"Fig. 1 Plasma levels of total
Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC;
N=12) after smoking a cannabis
cigarette standardized to 7%
THC. Peak plasma concentrations
(Cmax) of 4.2–59.1 ng/mL
(20.9±16.9 ng/mL) occurred at
tmax of 5 min. Minimum detectable
amounts (greater than or
equal to the limit of detection,
LOD) were measured at 10–
360 min."

The mean in this group was well below 5 ng/ml 20 minutes after smoking. (This was a group or people with a negative urine test before the study, but included causal cannabis users. )

Even though the baseline and peak are going to be different in different individuals, and with varying strengths of cannabis consumed, the general shape of the curve is going to be the same for almost everyone. Fast peak, relatively rapid falloff due (primarily) to metabolism.

Steve @48 is absolutely correct that it is very difficult to establish strong correlation between plasma THC and subjective impairment. (Especially compared to alcohol, where the correlation is supported by mountains of data and is really quite predictable.) In large part, this is because of a relative lack of studies actually having been performed.

But it does not follow from that that people are not acutely impaired by consuming sufficient amounts of cannabis. Anyone who has smoked more than a few good puffs *knows* that this is the case. (Just because you have successfully driven stoned doesn't mean you weren't impaired. Just lucky that nothing requiring rapid decision making happened.)

There has to be *some* provision to deal with potential/likely impaired driving. I'm not arguing that the 5 ng/ml cutoff is ideal. But I don't think it rises to the level of forestalling an otherwise excellent step in the right direction.

@48 -- Did you not read the post? The DUI provision is there SO THE INITIATIVE WILL PASS. You know, so we can finally get around to legalizing marijuana so all those people on the tickers can stop being arrested and so -- oh, I don't know -- people can stop dying in Mexico? Don't you think 40,000 is enough? Or have you been too self-absorbed to notice that the War on Drugs is about more than you and your convenience?

Oh, wait -- you're Cannacare. Just answered my own question. My bad.

But if we legalized drugs like marijuana and cocaine, or even de-criminalized them, then Wall-Street banks like Wachovia and Wells Fargo couldn't launder the $700 billion annually in liquid cash to pad their balance sheets.

I-502 is another of Allisons ill conceived ideas attempting to give herself some credibility amongst the real cannabis activists in our state. Just because your an attorney, doesn't mean that your smart. I would never support anything that is not based on sound science. Isn't that a no brainer for most people? KMJ.

A felony for carrying over an ounce of pot? Are you kidding me? I love it that you didn't even mention that here. 8th amendment of the US Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any other place subject to adjudication." SO - If I am convicted of any felony - I loose my right to participate in any political process, local or national. I can't get a job or buy a house. You think this is just? Receiving a FELONY charge for carrying an 1 ounce and 1 gram of marijuana? Who are you working for? The Feds? S

Really?? Do none of you get it?

If I-502 passes it will result in a States Rights lawsuit which will go all the way to the Supreme Court and, in all likelyhood, get the Fed's jurisdiction over MJ regulation, sale & distribution thrown out completely!

You who keep talking about how "it'll still be a federal crime" are obviously way too stoned to be paying attention to the long game at work here.

(Pro-tip: Politics is chess not checkers. Pay attention to what's going on three or four moves out, kids!))

I still think that this is not a good idea! The laws should be backed by good science, not reefer madness myths and blood testing people kills it for me.

What about patients like myself who have not only been through the court system, but have had their names published in newspapers? I did not intend to go public with my case until the "police report" was published about my case by the Omak Chronicle! So now all the cops know my family. Also, in my case 4 other families names were included by the jerk who turned us in for a cash reward. None of them are criminals, yet will be forever linked to my case now. Okanogan county has less than 50,000 people in the entire county. Now that they know we are medical cannabis patients, what's to stop them from pulling us over?

"I saw you weaving in traffic..." will be all the probable cause needed, even if we weren't weaving.

I stand behind our nation's police forces, but I would be a fool to say that all or even most police obey all the rules when it comes to arresting cannabis users. In fact, EVERY single cop I've talked to out there is against prohibition, especially for medical use. However, they are still just following orders from their superiors. Even the lead detective on my case said he "has to follow the rules as issued by the county prosecutors"!

And there is a difference between how the medical cannabis laws are enforced in Eastern WA as opposed to Western WA. This sounds like a good deal for Seattle, not the entire state.

Seriously...what incentive is there for our legislature to pass this? Our governor already told the world that she won't put state workers at risk, even for medical uses! And she's a democrat. If we elect a republican, do you honestly think this will even see the light of day?

I think you are dreaming If you think that this initiative will end the drug war and stop arrests on non-violent cannabis users and end the violence in Mexico.

It is illegal now to drive while high. This wouldn't change that. Would it?

@57 - it is currently illegal to drive while impaired. I-502 would make it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your system, even if you are not impaired in any way. For those under 21, merely being in the presence of marijuana smoke could get you a DUI.

@58: It is very unlikely that secondhand smoke will produce a detectable level of THC in the blood. Even if the legal threshold is 0, the detection limit of most assays is 0.1-0.5 ng/ml.

it is currently illegal to drive while impaired. I-502 would make it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your system, even if you are not impaired in any way

No, you are completely wrong. They still need to show impairment in order to call for a blood test in the first place. (And to not have the case thrown out of court as well) So quit lying.

Better yet, Patients Against, show me one case where a person has been arrested in WA state for a MJ DUI, scored 5 ng/ml or higher in a blood test AND still got off without being charged.

One single legal case, that's all I ask.

Cuz if you can't provide ANY actual real-world evidence that the current practice of law is LESS restrictive than that proposed, then... well, you're a clueless ass, Patients Against, simple as that.

And you need to STFU already.

@Tim Crowley - the statement you quoted is 100% accurate. Even Alison Holcomb concedes that patients concerns are "understandable" and Dominic Holden admits that patients are "right." That is why there are literally HUNDREDS of us standing united in opposition to I-502. We have doctors, lawyers, respected activists and well known patient advocates in our ranks. How can you say we are lying when we provide 8-10 times the scientific, legal and real world references than NAW gives? THEY'RE the ones who need to convince people to vote 'yes' - yet our opposition campaign is spending all the time educating voters.

(PRO TIP: Dismissing us as "clueless asses" isn't going to make us any less educated on this topic. It just makes you look like, well, a clueless ass.)

Are we seeing a problem with stoned driving currently? If not, then what is the need for more regulation? Cannabis is way different than alcohol in the way it affects our behavior and decision making skills. Alcohol tends to cause people to make bad decisions regarding personal safety. Someone who just smoked a fat jay may feel more inclined to stay put until they feel ok to drive. I think this is one reason why we don't see a problem currently. Some people have argued that setting a limit actually suggests that it is ok to drive under the influence. That was one of the points of contention in Colorado when they tried to pass this same thing there. Also, there is another initiative gathering signatures as well. I hope all the people who are signing 502 are signing 505 as well.

The question you have to ask yourself is: will this law put more people in jail, create more felony records for more otherwise law-abiding citizens, and exacerbate racial and class enforcement disparities (Dominic, come on, "probable cause" for law enforcement often means (a) the racial profile of its occupants and (b) what kind of shape the care is in, so economic class), or will it do the opposite? To me, it looks like the former, and no amount of long term "chess strategy" can excuse putting more folks in the penal-industrial complex. No one should be sacrificed because market testing indicates that the average voter is desperately in need of more and better information. How is it okay to justify a law that caters to ignorance and fear? The answer is more and better organizing and education, not pushing a horrendous law in the name of grand strategy.

"it is currently illegal to drive while impaired. I-502 would make it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your system, even if you are not impaired in any way"

"No, you are completely wrong. They still need to show impairment in order to call for a blood test in the first place. (And to not have the case thrown out of court as well) So quit lying.

Better yet, Patients Against, show me one case where a person has been arrested in WA state for a MJ DUI, scored 5 ng/ml or higher in a blood test AND still got off without being charged.

One single legal case, that's all I ask.

Cuz if you can't provide ANY actual real-world evidence that the current practice of law is LESS restrictive than that proposed, then... well, you're a clueless ass, Patients Against, simple as that.

And you need to STFU already."

Damn, put your money where your ignorant mouth is and I'll be happy to take make the bet. Anyone with any decent attorney can beat these cases, and have regularly. Would you wager $100 per case for every case I can present you with? Put up or shut up. The ball is in your court now. Will you take the bet or crawl back under your rock.

Put your money up and I'm there! Ignorance, posted publicly, should have a cost. Are you willing to pay it? You must be a cop....only a cop would make a statement THAT stupid.

The bet is there.....take is or shut up.

Steve Sarich

@49 Ye Doth Protest Too Much: The point of #47 is that people can already be charged under current law, so the per se DUIC statute did not need to be included in I-502. NAW could have simply addressed this concern through educating the public. See RCW 46.61.502: < http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?… >

@51 - Yes, the death toll in Mexico is tragic. That won't change until drug policy changes at a national, and even international level. Yes, it will require the states to legalize first, in order to pressure the feds to change their position. But, this is not our current topic of discussion, so can we stay on topic?

@51 (Ye Doth Protest Too Much) & 55 (Timrrr): The attitude of these two posts suggest that the flaws of I-502 should be overlooked for a "perceived" greater good. In other words, you are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of fellow Americans as collateral damage, for political gain.

You both also seem to buy into the belief that I-502 is the "only" chance, and this simply is not true. You could just as easily support I-505 or help Sensible Washington swell their volunteer ranks and their bank account for an initiative run in 2012.

I don't like your chess board Timrr, and I certainly don't want to be your pawn.

@62 - good point, and it is interesting how the DUI subject was pretty much a non-issue over all the years we have had legal MMJ (since 1998)

@63 - Right on! You are singing my song. In fact I have even written the same message directly to Alison Holcomb (of course, she doesn't listen to me).

This is one of the first legalize/tax/regulate initiatives ever. As such, it is extremely important that it be written correctly the first time. This bill could set a precedent for other states to follow. Do Washington voters really want to be the ones that screwed it up for everybody else?

The flaws of this initiative are too significant to be considered "negligible". Re-criminalizing MMJ patients is deplorable. A felony charge for > 28 grams is unwarranted. The best way to deter an illegal black market is to deflate the price of cannabis, allowing home grows would help with this, but the taxation levels proposed in I-502 keep prices artificially high at the final point of purchase, cannabis will remain a lucrative crop for illegal sales.

The duty of all cannabis activists is to educate the general public. I concur with your assessment that I-502 was written to kowtow to a fearful and misinformed voting public. We all have to face the reality that we simply "aren't there yet", and subverting the mission of ending prohibition by adding more prohibition is the wrong approach.

We'd be lucky for any legalization bill to pass in 2012, if one does, it will be by a slim margin. The only way to ensure the success of legalization is to continue educating, friends, neighbors, family members. We have to reach a boiling point on prohibition to the point that we are much like the Occupy movement is now: "Free The Leaf!".

One more consideration to ad to this discussion... So far, most of the talk has been about smoking marijuana, as is often the case with almost all media portrayals concerning pot.

The reality is that THC and CBD concentration levels can be substantially higher through ingesting the raw plant by eating, juicing, tinctures, or medibles; all without the effect of a "high" or impairment associated with smoking.

I contacted NAW as soon as I found out about the DUI provision, and showed them the flaws and requested they change that portion of their initiative. They refused and deleted my comments.

For those of you who think anyone is high after a few hits off a joint, let me educate you about something called "titration of medication". It's a term that means you start off with a small amount of medication and slowly build up the dose as you build up a "tolerance". This works with cannabis, as is noted in a number of studies pointed out in this comment section as well as when NAW first announced their intent. When you develop a tolerance to a medication, it means you can take a higher dose without a lot of those impairing effects.

When a cannabis patient builds a tolerance, they have much higher active levels of THC in the bloodstream, for much longer periods of time (can you say constant?), especially when they ingest it instead of smoking. None of the studies that NAW uses have identified patients who ingest cannabis AT MUCH HIGHER DOSES than one would ever get by smoking.

It's no wonder patients are so concerned! They would literally never be legal to drive in the state again, as long as they continued with edibles, and probably not even if they only smoked. How can criminalizing driving for the sick, dying and disabled be a good thing? Who needs to get to the doctor the most? We don't all live in the city, and some of us are too weak for the bus.

I served my country, so did my children. I worked in medicine until I was too disabled to do so. All my adult life has been spent serving others, and this is how I get treated in the end? You really think it's okay to make me a criminal cuz I want to drive while NOT impaired, cuz I take my meds just like the guy who just pulled out of the Rite-Aid, but it's okay for him cuz it's from big pharma? Who's the idiot whiners here?

@61* & 64:
Still waiting to see that one example provided from the case law. If you've got it, flaunt it! I'd love to be proven wrong.

@63:
You really think there would be more arrests if MJ were legal??? Cuz that's what you just said. (You must be even higher than me--and I smoke a gang of weed every day!)

(*And sorry, Patients-etc: last name's not "Crowley" -- not even close!)

72 must work for NAW. The principle is very simple. Currently if you are arrested for DUI because a cop "thinks" you are impaired, he actually has to somehow present evidence of the impairment. They are already charging patients with increasing numbers of DUI's. Typically it's because many cops refuse to believe that there actually is a medical cannabis law and if they catch a patient with medicine, they'll throw any violation they can at them. But, unless a patient doesn't get any legal help, or the patient is naive enough to take a plea bargain, these case are thrown out or never make it to court.

Under I-502, the cop doesn't need to prove impairment. He simply pulls you over, says you "smell like pot", arrests you, impounds your vehicle, takes you to the nearest hospital and takes your blood. If you are a patient you will test at over 5 ng/ml. That's all the proof they will need to show impairment. A patient may not have smoked for two days, but will still automatically be convicted of a DUI based on this heinous new legislation.

So the answer to your question is.....yes, there WILL be more arrests if MJ is "legal". Most of them will be patients, but anyone under 21 better never smoke. ANY THC in their system will land them a DUI. They don't have to be impaired in the slightest, they are automatically guilty under I-502. Is that really anyone's idea of "legalization"?

So it's a slap on the hand if you're caught with a joint right now and you're not a patient. Not too many people getting arrested for that in Seattle. But pass this bill, and get caught with THC in your system and you WILL be going down on a DUI....which will cost you a lot more grief than getting caught with that joint.

Holcomb was a defense attorney. She knows this. This is why their site FAQ's that talks about how the law will effect MMJ patients conveniently forgets to mention the DUI section of the bill and how it will negatively effect patients....especially those under 21. They have no exemption from the 0 ng/ml limit. Under this law, if you're a medical cannabis patient you'll only have two options to stay out of jail. You can quit driving or quit using your medication.

Anyone who thinks this law is going to make them safer MUST be smoking "a gang of weed every day".

There are too many variables to consider, as all the science has shown, for NAW to have included a DUIC standard in this bill. An initiative written devoid of science has no legitimate excuse to be written into law.

The general public does not know all the little nuances behind the discrepancies we allude to in this thread. They are in a "Legalization?, Yes/No" mind set. It is the duty of both the press and activists to continue educational efforts and recruit people to fight against prohibition.

Political hit pieces, such as what Dominic Holden has written here, is derelict of duty of 1st Amendment obligations for honest reporting, this can only be considered an opinion piece, and his personal bias is clear.

If I-502 actually makes the ballot, we risk setting the entire legalization movement back by at least a couple years. This is why it has to be defeated before collecting enough signatures.

The general public does not understand the nuance of our argument. I-502 will not win in 2012 without the support of the entire cannabis community. For this reason, NAW should scrap their admittedly flawed bill and start over.

NAW should reach out to opposing viewpoints within the legalization community and be prepared to make concessions. This movement is bigger than any one of us. This should never be about egos, and should always serve the greater good.

I think we all agree (on this thread anyway) that prohibition on cannabis needs to end. Regardless of what side any of us are on in this particular debate, we need to recognize the progress we have already made: the fact that we are talking about "how to legalize", is evidence of forward progress from "should we legalize?"

@5 - You may consider me a "Sensible Washington Troll", but let me say this - what NAW is attempting to do has never been done before. Federal preemption/interference will happen, then what?

The SW approach is modeled after I-61, which Washington voters approved to repeal prohibition on alcohol in 1932, one year prior to the ratification of the 21st Amendment. SW follows a model that has been historically proven to work.

Depending on how NAW plays their cards, Sensible Washington may become the only saving grace.

JUST THE FACTS MAAM. JUST THE FACTS.

“Scientific evidence on cannabis and driving is not yet sufficient to permit the selection of a numerical enforceable THC limit with the same level of confidence as for alcohol.” Grotenherman et. al. “Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits For Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis”

“Substantial whole blood THC concentrations persist multiple days after drug discontinuation in heavy chronic cannabis users.”
Karschner et. al. “Do Delta-9 THC Concentrations Indicate Recent Use in Chronic Cannabis Users?”

“It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations.” U.S. Department of Transportation “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance: Effects of THC on Driving Perfomance”

JUST THE FACTS MAAM. JUST THE FACTS.

@ 73: (sigh) You tire me, Troy. You have some wonderful theories conjured up in your head, but can't seem to come up with any actual... you know, facts to back them up. So here's a couple for you:

1) No, I don't work for NAW. I haven't even given them any money or support yet. (Your assumptions here, unsurprisingly, lack any & all evidence it would seem.) But on a brighter note: thank you, Troy! You've shown me that I really should be supporting them--just to counteract the effects of any foolish people out there like you!

2) Since math & command of the facts seem to not be the stoner strong suit here (said the one stoner, it seems, who can still do the math) I'll provide a little case in point. You wrote:

So the answer to your question is.....yes, there WILL be more arrests if MJ is "legal". Most of them will be patients, but anyone under 21 better never smoke. ANY THC in their system will land them a DUI.

Here are the actual facts:

In 2007 there were 16,473 MJ arrests in Washington State, 14,766 of which were for possession alone. In the same year there was a grand total of 41,413 DUI arrests in the state.*

That means there would need to be a 40% increase in the number of DUI arrests in Washington state--and all of them MJ only DUIs--before it even came close to equaling the number of people who are ALREADY going to jail for MJ prohibition. Got that?

And, lest you forget, in 2010 because of budget cutbacks the WA State Patrol--who account for 49% of the current DUI arrests in this state--had their traffic patrol staffing reduced by 37 cops as well. (Yes, 37 less cops to make almost double the arrests. Boy! they're really going to have to work hard to get those numbers you're predicting, Troy!)

So if you still maintain that "there WILL be more arrests if MJ is legal" in the light of those numbers, I will continue to maintain that you are an idiot, dreaming your stoner dreams of how the world "must work", but without a shred of evidence about how it actually does.

*and see what I did there, Troy: I cited a fact AND referenced it to its source (http://www.drugscience.org) so you could look it up yourself and make sure I'm not just talking out my stoned ass. Citing facts--it's a lot of fun! All the kids are doing it! You should try it some time!!!

And I still wait for that one example from case law:

show me one case where a person has been arrested in WA state for a MJ DUI, scored 5 ng/ml or higher in a blood test AND still got off without being charged.

(And I expect I will be for quite a while)

@78 - you will never find "case law" involving a person getting charges dismissed. By default, that means there is no "case" and therefore, no "case law."

Now that we've shown that 502 would be a disaster from a patient/DUI standpoint. Let's poke a pin in their biggest lie. They are selling this as a bill that will deflate the market for black market marijuana. They have stated that prices will be high enough to not encourage more use, but low enough to discourage competition from the black market. This is NAW magic solution to ending the war on drugs by making it no longer profitable for the drug dealers.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the licensed producer of the cannabis is charging the processor or distributor $150 per ounce ($2400 per pound)

This certainly seems within reason once you start calculating in the additional licensing fees, security expenses, and in sundry expenses that are still to be worked out.

Wholesale price of cannabis to the processor/distributor $150.00
25% state liquor tax $ 37.50
Total cost to the processor/distributor $187.50

25% state liquor tax from processor to retailer $46.88
Total cost to the retailer $234.38

25% state liquor tax from retailer to customer $58.59
Subtotal to customer $292.96
9.5% state & local sales tax $27.83
Total price of one ounce to customer $320.79

OOOOOOOOPS! ALMOST FORGOT!....the processor/distributor and the retailer all need to pay their bills too. Let's pick a reasonable mark-up.....not too high, but hopefully enough to keep them in business. Let's plug in a 40% margin for the processor/distributor and 40% for the retailer and then re-run these numbers.

Wholesale price of cannabis to the processor/distributor $150.00
25% state liquor tax $ 37.50
Total cost to the processor/distributor $187.50

40% mark-up for the processor/distributor 75.00

25% state liquor tax from processor to retailer $65.63

Total cost to the retailer $328.13

40% mark-up for the retailer $131.25
__________________________________________________________________
$459.38

25% state liquor tax from retailer to customer $114.85
Subtotal to customer $574.22
9.5% state & local sales tax $54.55

Total price of one ounce to customer $628.77

The taxes listed are all quoted in the law. You can argue about the $150 cost from the grower, but I don't see it dripping much below that with all the regulatory costs involved, as well as having to have all medication, tested and graded by a licensed state lab. Growers may actually have to sell at a higher price.

You can argue that the 40% margin is too high, but I can't see anyone opening a new business, especially one that is so heavily taxed and regulated, just to make less money on selling it than the state is making by taxing it. Even Walmart takes more than a 40% margin. And remember, these are not patient Collectives....these are retail pot dealers.

All the other figures are theirs.

I can see every street dealer in town immediately going out gathering signatures for I-502 once they find out what the state stores will be charging! Who in their right mind is going to buy marijuana at over $600 per ounce? This would be the greatest present that street dealers could ever get from the state government. They can easily up their prices by more than 50% and still totally undercut the licensed state stores...and likely provide better quality cannabis.

Is this really what we want? The state won't collect their outrageous taxes because no one will pay the ridiculous prices. The black market will look like Chicago during prohibition, and law enforcement will have to "crack down" on the "rampant illegal sale of marijuana".

Maybe someone from NAW would like to explain where I'm wrong here. I don't think the numbers lie. Everyone still excited about NAW's plan for "legalization"? How about if the legislature decides they need to up the taxes in year two? Naw, Gregoire would never up taxes on small business, right?

So if you don't buy the $600 bag, you'll be back to dealing with felons, but will only be spending $400 an ounce. Sounds like a real bargain! (If you're a patient you'll just be out of luck, but the people at NAW are apparently not too interested in how badly this bill will effect us anyway.)

Did anyone at NAW ever bother to run the numbers on this business model? If so, let's see them post'em up here! Show me where I'm wrong. I think you owe the public the truth about this initiative. It looks like it will result in exactly the opposite outcome they're looking to achieve.

Steve Sarich
steve@cannacare.org

I think the hall of legalization league..with Alison Holcomb..John McKay..Rick Steves..Pete Holmes.et al with Wendy and Marvin and wonderdog.. had better take another look at what they'd be pushin. Not everyone gets their paycheck from the blue pages or pot criminal cases and keeps their brain in the trunk.

This tax and spend model just doesn't pencil out. What we need is a tea party model that recognizes that profitability for investors and good deals for consumers is required to actually allow the golden goose to lay a golden egg.

What they want is Comrade Santa to start growing out of the goodness of his heart or have some fool run on a hamster wheel until he ruins his credit.Something has to drive a profitable economic formua, or else the growers will have to move to red states like all the other manufacturers in Washington State.

This is the price we pay for having no real tea party base in the legislature.The model is not wanted at all let alone be protected.Then again the pitiful republicans in this state haven't been able to protect any other business concepts with their pitiful limited tent relegated to gathering signatures for initiatives that make the R's go ahhh.

We should be selling whatever we can as much as we can. This liberal area should be thriving with that kind of model. Unfortunately this is where the liberal base gets fucked because the Union backed police and criminal justice system has a hold on Olympia.

The fact is the liberal mecca is being fucked with the union's dicks and they have either accepted that and reached for the KY or they have trouble concentrating on reality.

The fact may also be that there really isn't a liberal base in Seattle after all and there is only a union grabass base,with a smattering of gays and hippies looking for free coffee and bagels and holding a sign wearing a tarp is better than punchin a clock for the establishment.

Hey hippies. Get yer brains outta the trunk and accept the fact that only the gays can get govement jobs in the blue pages,cuz yons can't pass a whiz test.

The sooner yons can do that and link with the tea partyers the better off Washington State will be, and the less KY yon's will havta purchase and the fewer union dick's you'l have penetratin.

I think the hall of legalization league..with Alison Holcomb..John McKay..Rick Steves..Pete Holmes.et al with Wendy and Marvin and wonderdog.. had better take another look at what they'd be pushin. Not everyone gets their paycheck from the blue pages or pot criminal cases and keeps their brain in the trunk.

This tax and spend model just doesn't pencil out. What we need is a tea party model that recognizes that profitability for investors and good deals for consumers is required to actually allow the golden goose to lay a golden egg.

What they want is Comrade Santa to start growing out of the goodness of his heart or have some fool run on a hamster wheel until he ruins his credit. Something has to drive a profitable economic formula, or else the growers will have to move to red states like all the other manufacturers in Washington State.

This is the price we pay for having no real tea party base in the legislature. The model is not wanted at all let alone be protected. Then again the pitiful republicans in this state haven't been able to protect any other business concepts with their pitiful limited tent relegated to gathering signatures for initiatives that make the R's go ahhh.

We should be selling whatever we can as much as we can. This liberal area should be thriving with that kind of model. Unfortunately this is where the liberal base gets fucked because the Union backed police and criminal justice system has a hold on Olympia.

The fact is the liberal Mecca is being fucked with the union's dicks and they have either accepted that and reached for the KY or they have trouble concentrating on reality.

The fact may also be that there really isn't a liberal base in Seattle after all and there is only a union grabass base, with a smattering of gays and hippies looking for free coffee and bagels and holding a sign wearing a tarp is better than punchin a clock for the establishment.

Hey hippies. Get yer brains outta the trunk and accept the fact that only the gays can get govement jobs in the blue pages,cuz yons can't pass a whiz test.

The sooner yons can do that and link with the tea partyers the better off Washington State will be, and the less KY yon's will havta purchase and the fewer union dick's you'll have a penetratin.

@77 Timrrr: What facts would you like from me to support my comments?

You seem to be writing to me, but responding to Steve Sarich's comments. Would you call that stoner error?

This thread has already cost me valuable time, that I should be spending doing more important things. If you would like me to back any of my comments, please specify.

Others have provided facts, that you seem to ignore. Why should I waste more time trying to convince you of anything?

You cite me a "fool", yet you are foolish enough to admit in writing (#72) to a federally illegal crime: "and I smoke a gang of weed every day"...

For the record, I am not a stoner, but feel free to berate others to stroke your own ego. There is no prohibition on mental masturbation that I'm aware of. If being a troll is what gets you off, more power to ya - I'm done wasting my time on you.

Eve Lentz
Here are my comments to a conversation on the Patients Against New Approach Washington FB page!

Anthony Martinelli
Some of you may want to get in on this: http://www.facebook.com/acluwa/posts/221…

How can they( NAW) state, on their fact sheet, that ""Science supports a 5ng/ml THC limit? I did not see the evidence of that science! What I saw, that they were using , came out in 2005. SIX YEARS AGO! Oh, I forgot, ONE STUDY to base it on! I have never been a name caller, but I sure wish I could be, right now! Why do you keep throwing up your smoke and mirrors tactics and think people will be stupid enough to follow like sheep! Some will, but the more intelligent of us will fight this initiative until the age and DUIC limits are removed or the initiative dies. You should wait until proper studies are done if you still want to shove that crap down our throats, just and stop calling it a legalization initiative, when it criminalizes more than it legalizes.

After spending several hours reading the 49 pages of Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) (2005) that we were directed to: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICr… I found several interesting facts.

The first, the authors of the study, met and talked to each other in 2004, although the study didn't come out until 2005.

The second, the dates of the references cited in the report were for years: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977,1981,1982,1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, respectively. The majority of the studies were for before 2000. Two of the references, the dates of the study were from 1979-2003 and one from 1977-2001. Almost all were foreign studies.

The Third, advice and conclusions of the DUIC Report, dated Sept. 2005, said: "Unfortunately, the evidence from epidemiological studies on cannabis and accident risk is still much less conclusive than for alcohol and, alone, is insufficient for adopting a Science-based legal limit for THC in the blood." (Page 16)

The fourth,in the study to compare the incidences of traffic injury-related hospitalization among THC users and non-drug users "All cohort members completed baseline questionnaires about traffic injury-related hospitilization and health-relavant habits, including cannabis use, between 1979 to 1985. (page 18, DUIC Report (2005)

The fifth, "In conclusion, the results of culpability studies are still inconsistent and statistically too weak to justify selection of a numerical THC limit. (page 20)

The sixth, "on road" studies were performed between 1969 and 2000. (page 21, DUIC report (2005) )

The seventh, the studies researching "Emergency Response" of persons thought to be "impaired" were conducted in 1971, 1973 and 1981, Respectively! (Page 23, DUIC Report (2005) )

The eighth, in Appendix A, which is the Overview of State DUIC Laws in the U.S., Washington State is not even included, and was last updated in March 2005. (Appendix A, DUIC report, (2005) )

Those are the facts that I read and quoted from the study that NAW is basing their THC driving limits on. One study, they show figures of how many traffic deaths, per year, alcohol causes. My question is, where is the study of how many traffic deaths, per year, THC intoxication causes? The second question is, why would anyone base information that is important to the voters that will be voting in 2012, on information from one report that was created in 2004, using data mostly from 1969 to 2000? Only a few were after 2000. 1969 is 42 years ago! Why are they using such dated material? Surely, after all of these years, and with all of the controls and laws in place to catch impaired drivers, where is all of the real evidence that we need a THC limit?

http://www.facebook.com/PatientsAgainstN…

Hi Eve,

You might want to go to the NAW website. They have an FAQ for medical marijuana patients explaining how they will be "protected" under 502. I guess someone forgot to put in the "WARNING" about the DUI sections of the initiative and how they can all be charged under 502. OOOOPS....must have slipped their minds. I'm sure they wouldn't have left that out on purpose, right?

Sorta like Dominic Holden's ethical lapse in failing to disclose to readers that he used to for Alison Holcomb at the ACLU when he wrote this puff piece supporting her legislation. Sorry, but not disclosing his relationship with Holcomb is shady, at best.

Wow! The backers and supporter's of "New Approach Washington" have gotten really quiet all of a sudden. If you think for a moment that patients will just go away, let alone support your attack on us, GOOD FRIGGIN LUCK! You just awakened this community. These questions won't be going away in the press and you'd better have some real answers.

Using your little "tool", Dominic, will not help you. He may represent the Stranger, but they have no clout in real scheme of things. Like the "big names" they have supporting NAW, the Stranger is just one more "tool" that will discredit themselves on this issue that will eventually go down in flames.

Try to throw us patients under the bus to get your legislation passed and see how far that gets you.

I haven't noticed any new organizations popping up like "Patients in Support of 502". Get the message...we DON'T support 502 and we'll work actively against it. Whether patients support legalization or not, they will NOT support YOUR version of "legalization" that criminalizes the patients of this state.

Every set-back we've had on medical marijuana legislation in this state has come from the Washington ACLU and Alison Holcomb. Quit "helping" us....NOW! We will fight back to protect our rights, even if it's the ACLU that is the organization trying to take them from us.

Every patient should be contacting the national ACLU and be asking them why they are leading the fight to take away the rights of patients in this state.

I'll post a of list of their management and suporters on this site as well as our site. The patients organization opposing 502 should do the same. The ACLU has built their reputation, and contributions, based on supporting civil rights in this country. The ACLU of Washington has done nothing but try to deny our rights in this state.

Steve

Steve @ 85 - You're a blowhard. And no one is talking here anymore because Tim won with @77 All the reasonable people left so you, the Tea Party douche, Eve and Troy can be histrionic at each other.

@88 NaFun - No, people aren't using this thread anymore because the conversation has moved < http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/high_… >

People......we just privatized our Alcohol in Wa state. Why would we want to let the state have another monopoly. Not logical. I have been wanting marijuana legalized for years but this is not the way to do it. Somebody said it perfect...This bill isn't "legalizing" marijuana but changing its prohibition. Also I have always worried about our government fabricating our Mary Jane. Will they put chemicals in it like they do tobacco products????

Right now in this state marijuana is not even an issue. Its cheap, high quality, safe, and usually organic. Seattle police have been looking the other way for the most part.

Also people can make beer, wine, and liquor. What is different about pot???

I am sorry but as much as I would like to vote yes, I will vote no. I don't trust government grown pot and I sure as hell do not need any police officers arresting people for being stoned yesterday. That dumb meter at the top will continue to roll as the police will go buck wild arresting people for dui. The above poster is right, the cops can make up any bullshit to pull you over. They pulled over my x wife the other day because they thought she littered out of her car. Total bullshit.

This bill IS NOT about "legalizing" marijuana. I also think it pretty perfect timing for our state to lose the alcohol profits and all of a sudden marijuana isn't the devil anymore. Transparent in my eyes.

Re: Washington State's I-502
I am disappointed that some people are supporting this bill, knowing it's a bad law, or they don't realize what this initiative entails. That's selling out. We aren't desperate here in Washington, that we'll take anything we can get. It's more difficult changing something that already exists, than just doing it right in the first place.
After reading through I-502 and listening to the marijuana community not wanti
ng this to pass, I am going to vote NO. We have waited this long for marijuana to become legal, what is one more year to get the right initiative written up and passed??? I-502 is a wolf in sheep's clothing!
This is ridiculous to punish anyone for possession of any amount of marijuana above the proposed allowed amounts, of only 1oz pot or 1pound of an edible. That’s like saying you can’t have more than 1 bottle of wine in your house, or no more than a six pack of beer!
You could get a DUI, when you know that pot stays in your system for weeks.
I-502 is pushing to have an unrealistic sales tax of 25%, which is additional to the 8.9% sales tax we already have. That is close to a 34% tax!! That's crazy and SO unfair to the citizens of this state.
I'm for the legalization of Marijuana, but not the way this present initiative is written up!

Re: Washington State's I-502
I am disappointed that some people are supporting this bill, knowing it's a bad law, or they don't realize what this initiative entails. That's selling out. We aren't desperate here in Washington, that we'll take anything we can get. It's more difficult changing something that already exists, than just doing it right in the first place.
After reading through I-502 and listening to the marijuana community not wanti
ng this to pass, I am going to vote NO. We have waited this long for marijuana to become legal, what is one more year to get the right initiative written up and passed??? I-502 is a wolf in sheep's clothing!
This is ridiculous to punish anyone for possession of any amount of marijuana above the proposed allowed amounts, of only 1oz pot or 1pound of an edible. That’s like saying you can’t have more than 1 bottle of wine in your house, or no more than a six pack of beer!
You could get a DUI, when you know that pot stays in your system for weeks.
I-502 is pushing to have an unrealistic sales tax of 25%, which is additional to the 8.9% sales tax we already have. That is close to a 34% tax!! That's crazy and SO unfair to the citizens of this state.
I'm for the legalization of Marijuana, but not the way this present initiative is written up!